shadowkat | (no subject)

(no subject)

1. Finally got the chance to discuss "The Black Panther" so I can obsessing about it. Oh, another good review can be found HERE by cjlasky.

I'd like to point out the things I saw in reference to the vast amount of superhero flicks and action flicks that I've seen over the years. And why I got so excited.

* The Black Panther is the only superhero film to feature almost an entirely black cast.
* The Black Panther is the only superhero film to feature five strong black female characters, who save the hero and their country from the men.
* The Black Panther is the only superhero film to feature the lead and the villain as Africans or African-Americans
* The Black Panther is the only superhero film to have only two white speaking roles in minor parts, that are almost unnecessary. Token roles that in all the other superhero films (I'm looking at you Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Antman, Captain America...) that were black roles. Seriously, in all the other movies the Martin Freeman role is played by a black man and the heroes and villians by white males.
* The Black Panther has the most developed, relatable, and sympathetic villain.
* The Black Panther is the only superhero film to feature the superhero representing a country outside of the US.
* The Black Panther is the only superhero film where it's not about the superhero, but about his world around him and those around him and his community -- it's anti-individualism and anti=egoism.
*The Black Panther is the only superhero film to provide a wide-range of powerful female roles.

It's also weirdly more feminist than Wonder Woman.

2. Got back involved with the damn Gun Debate. I asked a question on my cousin's FB page, which is why do people want to own guns. The responses I got ranged from "Well, I like them," to "Well, skeet shooting and target practice".

The defenses, boggled my mind and logic:

* Well guns are no worse than cars. Cars can be used to kill. First of all the analogy falls apart on its face, because guns and cars don't have anything in common. When someone dies in a car accident -- it is 100% of the time, an accident. A murderer doesn't get in a car to go kill someone -- I mean they can, but it's a bit difficult. Also, there's an outside chance he'll die too. Also, cars are created to transport people place to place. Sort of like saying horses are as dangerous as bears, because they both can kill people.

Or spiders and mosquitos are the same because they both drink blood. Uhm.

No.

You have to go further than that. Guns are designed as a weapon to kill, destroy, demolish. There is no other purpose. Sorry. They don't magically transport you from place A to B. They don't cut food.
They don't cut down bushes, demolish maybe.

* Well guns are like archery.

No. Archery requires skills that shooting a gun does not require. In fact the guy I was discussing it with made my argument for me, which I loved. Also arrows don't kill like guns do.

* Guns are as dangerous as drugs. Outlawing drugs didn't work, it wouldn't work to outlaw guns.

Not true. And they aren't the same. Again drugs aren't designed to kill people, at least not for the most part. Also outlawing cocaine has markedly reduced deaths, as has outlawing heroine.

Guns aren't alcohol. You can drink alcohol and survive. It doesn't kill you. It may even be good for some people's health. Guns? You can't shoot and hit them, without hurting them. In many cases killing them. And states and countries that have outlawed or reduced gun ownership have actually resulted in less deaths, and it has worked.

So, neither argument holds water.

* Guns equal freedom.

Actually they were used to prevent people from having freedom. In most cases -- it is freedom at the cost of another's freedom. In no way does guns give you freedom -- because you are at the mercy of the gun, and it's consequences.

In short, I can't see a moral argument that justifies owning a gun. So, the question remains, why can't Americans give up their guns? How many innocent people need to die before they do?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Also, drugs are addictive. Guns are not.

Which would make one think it would be easier to give up guns, right? (SMH)

Exactly. One reason prohibition is less effective with drugs is that people can't kick an addiction very easily. That doesn't apply to guns.

Except, people can't seem to give them up. It's as if we are taking away their security blankee or something. It's insane. How dare you even suggest a ban on guns? Really? Guns? No one needs a gun. They aren't necessary in any way.

Actually they were used to prevent people from having freedom.

I think we all know that some people don't quite count as much as other people for these purposes. i.e. the gun gives me the feeling of freedom. It doesn't matter how my gun makes you feel...

How many innocent people need to die before they do?

Pretty much an infinite number. A lot of Americans really love guns. They think guns are cool. They represent freedom and power. And they are represented in government by politicians that understand that, and who are kept in office by a campaign finance and media infrastructure that is funded by gun manufacturers. It's the price of 'freedom' in America. I accept that it's not going to change. I just want my Conservative friends to be honest about it - that people (many of them cute kids with heart-rending stories) are going to get killed without gun control, and that they have made peace with that.

Agreed.

Except, I'm not sure I can accept that it's not going to change quite yet. I keep thinking maybe something I can do. Have yet to figure it out. Marching and protesting isn't going to change things. And it's impossible to change people's minds. It's so frustrating.

I had long discussion with my mother about it, and she said sort of the same thing you did. That in their perspective, guns = freedom. And if you take away their guns, you take away their rights. It's gut level. They don't see how evil and selfish and wrong that view is. And I'm never going to get them to see it.
Part of me wishes I could just magically snap my fingers and guns would cease and they'd all get an instant lobotomy removing the part of their brain that needs guns. But alas, that removes free will, and would be playing god and is all sorts of wrong...

It's just so frustrating.

Sadly, I think that if the psychology involved is to ever change, it will be a long, laborious process, analogous to the example of cigarettes.

Common sense might have told people that inhaling smoke and the chemicals it contains into your lungs on a regular basis might not be a good idea. But, for many decades, smoking was "cool", and the tobacco companies made plenty of profit from encouraging the habit, so it was intensely pervasive.

Then even when it became evident just how dangerous it was, people persisted, and the tobacco companies launched one campaign after another to lie about the facts.

The gun thing, in my observation, is several factors that play on people's vulnerabilities. One, I would disagree with the comment above that "drugs are addictive, guns are not". Guns are extremely addictive-- not so much chemically, like cigarettes, but psychologically. There is no question that firing them-- or even handling them-- can provide am endorphin rush not far different than sexual arousal.

Two, they provide a sense of security, which is the commonest "rational" reason people cite for owning them. This sense is largely false. Granted, if I lived in a very dangerous neighborhood, where break-ins, assaults, etc. were common, then I might have good cause to own a gun. Otherwise, to say, carry one with you wherever you go? Utter foolishness-- you're inviting more trouble than you would ever prevent.

Three, the desire to own multiple guns is very fetishistic. I have no particular problems with most fetishes, but for example, in my own case, I have rarely heard of someone attacking a school with speakers and a large amplifier. Cars are often fetishized products, but as you and others have pointed out, the primary design purpose of a car is to provide transportation-- not to kill or injure living things.

We insist on training people to drive, require them to pass an exam, purchase a license, have the vehicle inspected yearly, purchase insurance for it... etc. etc. To not do this for deadly weapons? Insanity.

I'm beginning to think you are correct, that guns are addictive and actually you're analogy to cigarettes and smoking is a good one. Like tobacco and cigarettes, guns have been portrayed as cool and in some respects sexualized in our media. What, in part, turned the tide in regards to smoking -- was advertising, the media reacting to smoking in a "negative" way (no one smokes on television any longer and if they do -- it is because they aren't a good person or portrayed as a villain, having major issues, gross, someone you do not want to emulate), and restrictive smoking laws. People are not permitted to smoke in restaurants, bars, apartments, hotels, workplaces, airlines, trains, public places, train platforms, etc. Restricting where they can smoke helps persuade them to give it up. Along with thrusting the consequences in their faces constantly.

Perhaps there needs to be a media advertising campaign that shows the gun to be nasty with nasty consequences. And makes those who own multiple guns look like nut-jobs that should be locked up. Movies and television series need to do to the gun what they did to the cigarette. Kill its a appeal, no pun intended.

Yes, the freedom argument...

Somewhere I have already discussed that the second amendment was worded specifically for reasons that applied in the 18th century, but no longer apply now. Too many can't see past the last four words of the amendment "shall not be abridged," and don't want to see that the whole amendment deals with being prepared to defend the country (albeit in 18th century fashion) not about an underlying right to have and carry firearms for personal reasons.

The biggest problem with those who are most vocal in favor of 'gun rights' is pure paranoia. How else could an adult think the idea of arming 20% of teachers would be a great idea. Have these people never heard of accidental shootings? Have these people never heard of cross fire? Have these people never heard of a teacher accused of murder? In Arizona not so many years ago, some clowns suggested it be mandatory for all college students to carry a gun on campus. People with that kind of thinking need to be prohibited from owning any kind of fire arm or even bows.

Edited 2018-02-23 15:20 (UTC)

Agreed. The arguments and defenses that I've heard to date, defy logic. "If a gun's sole purpose were as a weapon, then millions would be dead from it." But millions are, where have they been? This is the 18th school shooting since January 2018. And seriously, what other purpose does something that was engineered to fire bullets at maximum range supposed to accomplish? "Oh, we need it for hunting." Really? You need an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon for hunting? You need a 35 millimeter hand gun for hunting? "I need to protect my house and kids!" From what exactly? Are aliens invading (if so, have news for you, gun's probably won't help that much)? Is there a zombie apocalypse you are preparing for? (Apparently.) If someone robs your house, you won't be there. Also you're more likely to accidentally shoot your foot off.

In Japan, a co-worker told me that they require you to:

"If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too - and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That's not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan's 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit.

Police must be notified where the gun and the ammunition are stored - and they must be stored separately under lock and key. Police will also inspect guns once a year. And after three years your licence runs out, at which point you have to attend the course and pass the tests again."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

That's smart. We're idiots.

Linking the two topics, Black Panther and gun control:

If Killmonger had succeeded in arming black radicals with Wakandan weapons--maybe disguised as common American ordinance--how fast do you think we'd have gun control?

Well, what I noticed was the Wakandans didn't use guns, but Killmonger did in the US. Another statement about US view of guns vs. other nations, which was interesting. Not sure -- they might use what you suggest to push against gun control.

The latest gun nut job argument against gun control? Outlawing guns just takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. The idiots don't realize anyone in this country can buy a gun. I researched it a while back and it doesn't appear to have changed any. Some states are more restrictive, ie, NY. And those oddly have less gun deaths per capita. NYC is actually safer to live in at the moment than Columbia South Carolina and Florida.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only