Sign In

Tyrphanax

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Nov-2010
Last activity
15-Nov-2018
Posts
9411

Post History

Post
#1237428
Topic
Preserving the...*cringe*...Star Wars Holiday Special
Time

Tobar said:

Stumbled upon a treasure trove of high res promotional stills from the Special:

https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459462
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459456
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459448
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459450
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459636
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459466
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459654
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459464
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459650
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459656
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459634
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459626
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459618
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459620
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459632
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459662
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459660
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459630
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459658
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459624
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459592
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/476459478

Incredible find!

Post
#1237330
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

I’m all for unique and different and subversive, but not at the complete disregard of established character.

It’s not so much that Luke changed: change is obviously part of character development and characters can grow and evolve; it’s kind of the point of any story, really. It’s that it was such a dichotomic(lol) change to the very fundamental core of the character brought on by something offscreen, seen only in flashback in a weird almost downplayed way that we have no emotional connection to.

Luke is the guy who reached into the darkness to pull out the Dark Lord of the Sith despite more powerful and knowledgeable people telling him that it was impossible (that is why they failed), so I just don’t buy that he’d abandon the galaxy to burn while he went off to die alone.

I don’t want him to be the “perfect old Jedi who exiled himself to learn the bestest powers" either; I didn’t really want him to be wearing prequel robes sitting at the head of the New Jedi Order like in the books or something. I was hyped to learn that he was in exile and that he wanted the Jedi to end (why? what happened? what could cause this? Luke wanted to be a Jedi like his father more than anything!), and I didn’t need him to be off learning “Force Nuclear Bomb” or something to defeat the enemy. I was even mostly down with his overall reasons for abandoning the ideals of the Jedi Order! Aside from the hopeless nihilistic angle, I felt like it totally fit my feeling that Luke had transcended the failings of the old Jedi Order.

I would have been content with a simple “I realized I was unable to stop the First Order by myself and I would have been hunted and killed had I remained in the galaxy, so I came out here to wait for someone worthy who could take on the task.” That feels like Luke to me, not “my apprentice went bad and even though I’ve personally dealt with almost that exact situation before and prevailed, I decided to give up on everything and run off to die.” Even Obi-Wan didn’t give up hope when literally everything he had ever known was destroyed by his brother in arms and closest friend; he went off and bode his time until he could send Luke out into the galaxy, and through Luke’s redemption of Vader we know that Obi-Wan wasn’t half the Jedi Luke was.

You could even do it the way it was in the film but actually make us care about the Luke/Ben relationship and actually show us why Ben’s fall shook Luke effing Skywalker so hard that he was willing to abandon the galaxy to burn. The way it is presented to us is just… prequel-level garbage. Did Luke even ever like Ben? What was the nature of their relationship? Was Ben a good likeable kid? Who knows. If Adam Driver wasn’t so great in the role, the character would just be Anakin Skywalker 2.

I didn’t feel cheated, I just felt like I wasn’t watching Star Wars or the character I love. I think that’s the biggest crime of TLJ. It’s so damn frustrating because I went in wanting to love the movie, I wasn’t sitting around for months before release analyzing all the trailers and all the lines and coming up with theories; I went in clean with only what I knew of what came before before and an open mind and left wondering if I had even seen a Star Wars film.

Post
#1237279
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

Luke being reluctant is fine and I was okay with the hermit in exile thing, but never to completely give up hope and go off to die alone on an island. TFA felt like it was pointing in a definite direction, and TLJ felt like it was acknowledging that direction and purposefully going the other way (Johnson says as much in pretty much every interview about it: “subverting expectations”) while staring you dead in the eye like a cat pushing a priceless Ming vase off of a high shelf.

I legitimately don’t know how you can think that TFA was “pushing Luke in a definite direction” that somehow excluded his interpretation in TLJ. Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this, as I truly can’t think of anything in TFA that contradicts his portrayal in TLJ or suggests it would have been something else.

As for “subverting expectations,” I think people read to much into that to mean Johnson was trying to annoy fans at every turn or something. I think what he actually means is more in the minutiae of the telling of his film itself, feinting one way and going another - not to annoy fans but to thrill them with a story that keeps you guessing.

My impression of Luke’s mindset from watching only TFA was that he became discouraged with his effectiveness as a teacher and went in search of something that would make him better able to pass on what he had learned. Since he was the last of the Jedi, the only thing remaining would apparently be these texts on a half-mystical island. Keep in mind that he gave the coordinates to R2 before he left, so it’s not like he went there to hide, at least not in the beginning. There’s also the fact that JJ wanted Luke to be practicing Force techniques when Rey found him.

So the idea of Luke in TFA was that of Rocky having lost a fight and needing to train harder for the next one.

Luke in TLJ has lost all hope.

It’s a not insignificant difference.

That’s about the sense I got from the way Luke is built up in TFA.

Post
#1237267
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Not pointing Luke specifically, just the story. I guess you could argue that the final scene in TFA has the weight of the Luke we know from the OT, but you could argue just as easily that it leads just as well into TLJ’s version of Luke so it’s a wash, really.

Luke we already know as an established character by the end of ROTJ. The Luke we see in TLJ just plainly isn’t the same character. You can classify it as “growth” or “character development” or whatever, but it’s not really an expansion of the Luke character we’ve seen before as it is a complete alteration of the core character. It was like a “what if” version of Luke where maybe he failed to defeat the Emperor and redeem his father and fell into despair or something. The whole movie kinda felt like a “what if” thing.

Post
#1237248
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Tobar said:

Continuing discussion from this thread.

DominicCobb said:

As to [Hux’s] seriousness, I’d say it’s about the same in both. He’s not making jokes in TLJ, he’s the butt of them.

Every moment he has in the film is undercut with him being made a joke. The only actual serious moment he has is when he almost shoots Ren and that was an improvised moment from Gleeson.

Snoke has a far bigger role with much greater relevance to the plot at hand in TLJ than TFA. Just because you expected him to survive TLJ because of his role in the lore pre-TFA doesn’t mean his death undermines TFA. In any way.

I don’t care at all that he died in TLJ. It was a good moment of character growth for Ben. What is inexcusable is that Snoke was not expounded upon AT ALL before his death.

Are we talking about the same character who crawls across a crowded table to stare at Finn in TFA?

Come on. You very well know there’s a galaxy of difference between crawling across a table and literally flying around like a video game character taking out hordes of off-screen enemies.

TFA was the film that sent [Luke] into hiding in the first goddamn place. I’m honestly baffled that anyone expected anything else of his character other than reluctance.

The very nature of his originally intended introduction says otherwise. Here are just a few alternative explanations for why he disappeared:

  • As explained in TFA he went off looking for the first Jedi temple. Why? Perhaps in hopes of learning how to defeat Snoke. Why? What if Snoke was an ancient evil of some kind that Luke was unprepared to deal with.
  • After finding the temple he crashes and is stranded. Perhaps the nature of the planet is such that it blocks anyone from reaching out or being reached out to in the Force. Which is why the temple was built there in the first place.
  • Perhaps there were other survivors from his original academy that he secreted away to continue teaching. Hiding so that they can continue in peace without fear of Kylo returning to finish what he started.
  • Perhaps Luke knew he wasn’t meant to be the one to stop Snoke and so he shuts himself off and devotes himself to preparing to train the one who is. Waiting for the Force to bring them to him.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. TLJ didn’t contradict TFA at all.

TFA ends with a clear setup for the sequel that TLJ completely ignores. “Leave the base at once and come to me with Kylo Ren. It is time to complete his training.”

The start of TLJ should have been the mirroring of Rey and Ben through their simultaneous training. You can even keep the “Forcetime” plot device so that they can communicate with each other throughout this time.

The Kylo training segments would also be an opportunity to expound on Snoke.

Mostly with you on these points:

Poe’s whole “prank call” bit was just maximum cringe in which Hux (and by extension the entire First Order [with the exception of Captain Canady]) becomes a complete joke with absolutely no menace whatsoever.

I have to say don’t care that Snoke died in TLJ at all and without much backstory (in fact, I thought it was pretty interesting that he did, it’s one of the few things that actually got me to sit up in the theater). It would have been nice to know where he came from and how he became so powerful right under Palpatine’s nose, but eh. Maybe it’s just an overall apathy towards the ST that has made Snoke’s backstory a low priority.

Maz was okay in TFA, but her inclusion in TLJ came off as pretty pointless to me… She has nothing to do, so they just throw her into a weird off-screen hologram fight. It just feels so shoehorned in.

Luke being reluctant is fine and I was okay with the hermit in exile thing, but never to completely give up hope and go off to die alone on an island. TFA felt like it was pointing in a definite direction, and TLJ felt like it was acknowledging that direction and purposefully going the other way (Johnson says as much in pretty much every interview about it: “subverting expectations”) while staring you dead in the eye like a cat pushing a priceless Ming vase off of a high shelf.

I like Rian Johnson and I think he’s a cool, genuine dude and a good director (some of the performances in TLJ are fantastic), but he just didn’t write a very good sequel to TFA. Interesting? Sure. Just not very good.

Post
#1226540
Topic
Has Star Wars finally &quot;jumped the shark&quot;?
Time

For me, no. I’m not happy about where it is now, but I’m sure it’ll bounce back. I wasn’t happy where it was with the PT either.

For the general public? Maybe. It gets “meme-y” to hate on things because everyone else is. It’s just the popular thing to do right now; plus it was probably more popular than it has been in a long time with TFA and Rogue One coming out, and we’re just going to see a drop off as the general public stops paying attention again and it goes back to the nerds.

Post
#1226304
Topic
Is Star Wars &quot;Better Than It's Ever Been&quot;?
Time

I dunno.

I’ve been pretty unimpressed with the ST overall, but the Anthology films and Rebels have been pretty good overall. I’m interested in seeing Favreau’s show and Johnson and Benioff/Weiss’ take on the universe, so I’d honestly be in the “better than ever” camp right now if it it wasn’t for the spectre of The Last Jedi. That movie and the absolutely insane fissure it’s put in the community really has sapped my enjoyment of the franchise of late, I’ll be frank (your majesty). The state of the fanbase is the worst it’s ever been and it sucks.

But, regardless of how anyone feels about the ST so far, Episode IX is arguably the most important film in the franchise at this point in time. So that’s something to look forward to.

Post
#1210465
Topic
<em>Solo: A Star Wars Story</em> — Official Review and Opinions Thread — <strong>SPOILERS</strong>
Time

Fantastic movie. Tonally perfect. Everyone delivered a great performance. Legacy characters felt right, new characters fit right in. References didn’t make me roll my eyes. Humor was great. Loved every minute. Left the theater feeling like a kid.

Perfect? No. Insanely fun? Very yes. Really needed this after TLJ.

So tired now, though. Maybe more detail later.

Post
#1208449
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

I think that mischaracterization comes from timing. Those in favor of gun regulation (or gun bans, etc) are always in favor of them. Those against them are always against them. But there’s this mass of people in the middle who could potentially be convinced. So every time there’s a massacre, people on both sides try to convince the people in the middle that their policies are best.

The pro-gun side sees this surge of effort from the anti-gun side after every massacre and thinks that the massacre caused the policy view, and it’s a gut response, but of course it’s not. The same thing could easily be said for the pro-gun side, who (usually much more successfully) relaxes gun laws every time there’s a massacre. You could say that’s a gut response too, but it’s not. It’s just pushing policies they’ve always believed, using timing for political leverage, that’s all.

Very much agreed. I can 100% attest to going right into defensive lockdown when something like this happens because I can feel the tide of “ban all guns” coming, and I’m sure it’s the same (but opposite) on the other end.

As a result, nothing conducive happens.

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I’m sorry, but this is a massive mischaracterization of my argument. Guns are inherently disgusting. That isn’t my subjective opinion, that’s my objective observation. They’re killing machines. That’s literally what they are, no nuance necessary.

If I was speaking purely emotionally, I would say that guns are fucking cool as hell. I went to a gun range once and it was super fun. But I don’t think I should be making political arguments based on emotionally-driven reactions, so I put my enjoyment aside, and look at it logically. And the truth is that the entertainment is not worth it. At all.

Thanks for clarifying that, because I see what you’re saying now and you’re right. You kinda addressed this already with Jay, but I feel like “disgusting” is at its core a pretty charged word when describing almost anything. I guess that was my issue with what you said.

I also feel that guns are fucking cool as hell, but setting that emotional bias aside and looking at the issue logically, I still feel the truth is that, even disregarding the Bill of Rights, guns have a great many practical civilian applications that should not be infringed (by and large).

Post
#1208074
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

I think there’s something about a document or something that guarantees rights like that. I dunno. It’s pretty obscure.

You know very well that lots of people talk about their God given right to have a gun, which is utter nonsense.

The Constitution is a different story, but you also know very well that there’s two arguments to what that actually means, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren’t referring to guns that can kill 100 people in a minute or two, which didn’t exist at the time.

I don’t subscribe to the “god-given” notion (the language is “endowed by our creator,” be that nature or evolution or god or whatever), but I do agree that the right to defense of self and property if threatened is important. Rights are an intangible notion we’ve made tangible in words in order to guarantee that they are not infringed by the government or other parties. The right to speak freely is very important, the right to be able to worship whatever deity you want is very important, the right to defend yourself and your country is very important. It’s all very important.

I know there are many ways people have interpreted the second amendment, but to me the language is clear and and any other interpretation has been foisted upon it in order to justify certain agendas. Of course, I’m also aware that the exact same argument is applied to my interpretation, so it ultimately all cancels out. That’s why moderation is important.

You say certainly, but the only certainty is its vague language, and that’s the beauty of the amendment in my opinion: It’s future proofed. It doesn’t give specifics. It doesn’t say “a man shall be allowed one (1) .50 caliber ball musket with a maximum of fifty (50) loads and one (1) cannon with a maximum of ten (10) but no less than five (5) round shot,” it just says arms, be they what they are at the time of reading.

Of course, you will patently and fiercely disagree with this, and that’s fine. The middle ground is where we need to be here, between you and me. Or really, I’m pretty middle ground I guess so between you and the NRA.

Post
#1208071
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

Let’s be honest here: your mind is made up on the issue (and mine for that matter), so nothing I say matters. I can say that entertainment is valid for both. I can say that hunting is a pastime for many people. I can say that defense of self and property is important. I can say the right is guaranteed. I can say that guns (and military-grade guns for that matter) in the hands of the everyman has been an incredibly crucial part of American history. But it’s kinda wasted breath because we just talk in circles every time.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I think what annoys me the most, and I’m super guilty of this as well, is how we just entrench in our sides harder and harder in response to any debate or discussion regarding the issue and every debate or discussion just devolves into screaming “you want people to be able to kill children” versus “you want to infringe my rights” at each other and no minds are ever changed and nobody is enlightened.

Post
#1208052
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Post
#1208049
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

Nobody I ever talk to is interested in this. It’s just about putting band-aids on the issue or slowly making things harder and harder to get while side-stepping any actual causes.

Post
#1207823
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many. The UK politicians, police etc are all working together to reduce it again by further restricting access to knives. That’s how you tackle a problem caused by dangerous weapons. Action, not inaction and prayer.

But what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death? I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

Post
#1207794
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The lack of gun control is the only reason that these school shootings happen so often in America.

Or society is sick. Machine guns were readily available many years ago — actual machine guns, not black plastic rifles that look like something out of a movie, but are functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Where were all the mass shootings back then?

Banning scary-looking rifles won’t solve the problem. I went shooting with family and friends a few weeks back for my dad’s birthday. I can tell you that someone packing a couple semi-automatic handguns and a few magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a short period of time.

Background checks and mental health checks would probably help. There’s something going on out there that goes beyond availability of firearms.

There were more people incarcerated in mental institutions decades ago, which is why I think there were less shootings then.

We still put many people with mental issues in jail. In fact, I’d guess we put more mentally ill people in jail today than we did back then. It’s easier to throw them away in prison than to tackle something as complex as mental illness.

Also, who said anything about rifles? I don’t even know if this shooter used rifles. I want almost all guns to be nearly inaccessible.

Never happen.

Well said.

For the record, what I’ve seen is that it was a shotgun and a .38 revolver.