> Schools really don't handle sexual assaults well.

Truth. I'm so sorry she went through that.

If there's some legal reason they can't expel them, at least separate them or put them in remote learning.

Then I succeeded what I was going for.

Thanks!

I knew what it was the second I picked it up. I know that sounds bonkers, but I did. I didn't know anything about archery, but I don't think there was any way to mistake an arrow with red and pink fletching and with a heart shaped glass arrowhead for anything other than what it could be: one of Cupid's arrows.

Furthermore, it pulsed in my hand. It was active, alive even! This was an authentic dose of true love in projectile form.

I felt it from toes to nose. It made sense; Valentine's Day was over less than 48 hours ago. It couldn't be anything else.

I knew what I had to do. I bought a bow.

Like I said, I didn't know anything about archery. I got a target, set it up in my back yard, and started practicing. I wanted to make sure I wouldn't miss. I weighed the arrow, got regular arrows that matched that and went to it. I trained for sometimes three hours a day. My first intentional bullseye came after a month. The next a week later. I could put three out of four in the red by six months.

Every time, I thought of her eyes. I thought about how they used to sparkle and how now they just... didn't. I thought about all the quiet breakfasts and how the things that used to make her laugh or smile fell flat.

This had to work. It just had to.

Still, I waited. I took my time. I practiced through the fall and through the winter. I knew that it had to be Valentine's Day or not at all.

I sent a delivery to the house. I made sure the gate was unlocked and I specified that the package be dropped off on the back porch. I got there at six in the morning. The package was delivered at 3:15. She came out right after.

I had one moment of doubt. Just the one. What if I was really bonkers? What if this wasn't full of love? What if I hurt her?

I took a breath and cleared the doubts from my mind. I inhaled. I let it out. I inhaled again.

Draw, sight, release. Bullseye.

I had no surprise when it struck her chest and sank in, disappearing a shower of pink sparks. She stumbled for a second. Then she brushed her skirt and stood back up straight. There was something there, but I had to wait. I had to make sure it worked before I left my perch.

That was when dad came out.

"Did you open it?" he asked.

My mom turned around and saw him.

I heard her say, "Not yet, handsome."

I smiled.

Dad had been skeptical when I asked that he let me send her the box of candy, but I'm so glad he did. Now, maybe they'd get the second chance I knew they deserved.

Somebody I'm sure wants to try playing the alignment Lawful Dickhead, though.

They want more? I say we give them what they want. I don't think they'd like who I suggest we give them to, though.

Black Americans are one of the fastest rising groups for gun ownership in the US, have been for a while now, and I haven't heard about any RWNJ's changing their stance.

The truck attack that killed over 80 people, iirc. There were more deaths and injuries than the Vegas shooting.

No, you found the diabetic.

EDIT: It's me. I'm the diabetic.

Conversely, I got more excited.

You've got the brawn.

> How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?

Going for the "low hanging fruit" got us the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.

Look up the Virginia Tech shooting.

> Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns?

Not of which I'm aware, though I imagine that handguns are still number one.

> Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.

Okay, so how do you intend to do that?

This isn't 1994. The proposed AWB's I've seen are the same "by feature" drivel that was passed then to dubious results. Between the millions in circulation, the advent of 3d printing, and the existence of things like 80% lowers, not to mention the extreme politicization and divide on the issue, I don't think you're going to see many benefits.

And again, even if you do ban scary black rifles (though assault weapons were by the 1994 definition rifles, pistols, and shotguns with certain features) then people simply turn to other firearms or other weapons (remember the earlier statement about handguns?).

Addressing the fewer than 400 homicides by rifle a year seems a terrible way to address the overall problem of violence or even the the problem of mass murder.

EDIT: And such bans would, in fact, disarm more people than you realize if it includes any sort of mandatory buyback/confiscation.

> Instead, you talked about individual instances of knife and vehicle violence as if that somehow proved something.

Because I was responding to particular statements you made.

> Here are two statements I hope we can both agree on although I won’t be surprised if you find some way to argue

I think any objection I'd have would be nitpicking.

No, kind of my whole damn point.

The goal is to save lives, yes? On this we can agree, I hope.

The effort to implement restrictive gun control I think has cost the left more political capitol than it's been worth. I think it's helped the right and also given some very terrible people a symbol (along with the mythologizing of certain weapons).

Furthermore, I didn't pick domestic abuse haphazardly. There's a big correlation between abuse and mass murder. Even in the narrow window of violence we're talking about, I think you'd see better results trying to undercut motive rather than restrict means.

I'm not deflecting. I'm just not putting on blinders to the larger issues at hand.

> Again, the people to whom it matters most, the mass-murdering fuckheads, nearly always choose a gun when they can.

Mass murder is horrific. It is also the least of the violence in the US.

I think if you put the effort in to helping victims of abuse relocate and become financially independant, just for example, you'd save far more lives than if you melted all the guns in the US to scrap, much less any actually feasible gun control measure.

> The gun will be more deadly the vast majority of the time.

"Vast" I think is an overstatement.

And again, this is centering the conversation on one means of violence in the US which I think is myopic.

I can only read what you wrote.

I've also had this conversation enough to know that when people make such statements it's less implied "most often" and more implied "in so many that any others are statistically insignificant".

> Congrats

Did you limber up before you made that stretch?

> (semi-auto long guns)

You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?

> ...there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).

Maybe. See, guns are not just one sided. There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US. Some of those likely are inconsequential, some may be a life saved, and some may be many lives saved. Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious, so it will likely impact defensive use as much if not more than illicit misuse.

Then it becomes a bet. I've never thought it was a very good one.

"Usually" or "most often" seems accurate. Even "the majority of the time".

> Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?

People choose the most effective means at their disposal. My point is not that other means are always as effective as firearms. My point is that absent firearms, people are still going to kill each other. The guns didn't cause the incident and absent them such incidents would still occur.

Which is one factor in a much larger puzzle.

> Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.

Most of those "every day" incidents have no fatalities. I'm not saying that makes them okay or better, but it does deserve attention.

The reason is those are not murders, they're aggravated assault. When you look at the number of aggravated assaults in the US by weapon, you find that firearms are involved in a minority of them. They are, yes, involved in a majority of homicides.

There are lots of homicides you never hear about because they don't involve guns and aren't particularly newsworthy. In fact, 1/3 of the homicides in the US are committed with something other than a firearm. (EDIT: I went back and checked the CDC's numbers and my statement was incorrect. It's closer to 1/4, not 1/3)

That's still a hell of a lot of homicides, objectively and in comparison to other countries.

Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.

> I said a lot fewer people die when other weapons are used, and your response was, “Really?” Followed by examples attempting to refute my statement.

You stated an absolute that should have been a conditional. I backed my refutation with examples. If you'd bothered to read all the words, you'd have seen this too:

> In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct.

> If your point isn’t that other weapons are just as effective as guns, then what is your point exactly?

That guns don't cause crime any more than matches cause housefires. What causes it are people deciding they're going to go kill some other people. They then avail themselves of whatever means they have at their disposal that are likely to do the job. If they don't have any one particular means, they have options, and will likely adapt their approach to accommodate for any deficiencies.

The hope is that if we ban this one way to hurt people or even severely limit access to it, stories like this one will be sad history, not daily events. I think that's naive; a LOT has to change before that becomes true and there are no, and I do mean no, quick solutions. I think it would be best that we look at things from a holistic perspective and address the more essential causes of violence.

Otherwise, what you have is a bet: The number of lives saved by limited access to guns will outnumber the lives that would be saved by defensive uses that are hindered by the same restrictions.

I just have never thought that was a good bet.

Need any clarification?

> And yet, there are still vastly more gun attacks, and vastly more victims of those attacks, than with trucks or knives.

Yep. And yet, you are still missing the point.

> If they’re just as effective...

Show me where I claimed they were and I'll tell you.

> Can you find me an instance where someone stabbed over 50 people to death?

One individual, no. Highest I know of there is 19.

However, the Nice Truck attack killed 87. Wounded more than Vegas, too.

Arguing. Tactics.

> There’s a reason the Army sends soldiers into battle with guns, not just knives.

Yes, guns are effective weapons. The Army generally isn't trying to indiscriminately kill unarmed people, though, which does change the equation a lot.

Really?

A guy a couple of days ago killed two people in a school. He had 600 rounds of ammo.

Back a number of years ago, a guy shot up a Waffle House with a similar rifle; they still put the incident in infographics. He killed four.

A few weeks back, a guy killed 10 in Canada in a stabbing spree.

In 2016, a guy stabbed 19 seniors to death with a pocket knife and injured over 20 more.

In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct. But again, tactics. Not absolutes.