(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 05:22 pm (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.