(no subject)
Feb. 22nd, 2018 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. 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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 03:42 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-24 06:40 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-24 01:50 pm (UTC)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.