![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 22nd, 2018 09:38 pm1. 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?