darthrush

Catbus, I wanted to say that I appreciate your gun breakdown there. Helps clear up the confusion with “assault” weapons.

Frank your Majesty said:

Collipso said:

darthrush said:

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

There is no short term solution. Gun activists and some republicans keep claiming that if we restrict gun access it won’t solve anything right now and that is true. Because of how easily accessible weapons are nowadays it’s going to be hard to take it out of both illegal and legal market in the near future. but you have to start somewhere. If we don’t restrict/regulate guns now, a problem that could be solved in the next 5-10 years will only be solved in the next 20-25 years because of pure inaction.

There’s also the side that Ash pointed out: why the heck have laws in the first place? If the criminals are going to break them anyway. That for me is the ultimate argument against the argument you’re pointing out and there’s no way to counter it.

---

We have to start somewhere though. I don’t think most mass shooters would go completely out of their ways to acquire guns. I think some of them just did it because of how easy it is to acquire such guns and the amount of exposition they probably had to weapons in general at an early age.

Think of the John Lennon murderer. He basically was so obsessed with him that he decided to kill him. If he had no gun that wouldn’t have happened, for example. And I’m pretty sure he legally acquired that gun.

I’d like to get back at this. Legal guns turn into illegal guns through various channels and the more legal guns there are, the more of them flow through these channels and turn illegal. Illegal guns are cheap and easy to aquire because legal guns are cheap and easy to aquire. If the number of legal guns is reduced, the number of illegal guns will go down over time, too and prices will go up. Take for example the last mass shooting in Germany, two years ago. The shooter killed five people with a glock handgun, which he bought on the darknet for more than 5000 dollars (he was presumably scammed a few times, which would drive the overall cost further up). What kind of gun could he have bought in the US with that much money and how many people would he have killed?

Also some great points here. Thank you for all the thoughts. The comment on how legal guns get channeled into the illegal market is something I never considered.

DuracellEnergizer said:

In light of the universe as it is, it’s impossible for God to be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Thus I choose to believe God is the former, not the latter.

It’s nice to hear this since there are many who think that it is possible for God to be both of those things at once with the evil in our world.

OutboundFlight said:

You could keep the whole “destroy the orbiting station by taking out the shield” from the movie, only replace the death star with some random imperial space station. This station could be a factory and/or have the Emperor onboard.

If you’re cutting too much maybe add scenes from Rogue One, such as clips of Saw’s rebels for the ending montage or Vader’s castle.

I don’t think that would be smart. To maintain technical quality, it’s probably best to keep the look of the entire film intact.

Collipso said:

darthrush said:

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

There is no short term solution. Gun activists and some republicans keep claiming that if we restrict gun access it won’t solve anything right now and that is true. Because of how easily accessible weapons are nowadays it’s going to be hard to take it out of both illegal and legal market in the near future. but you have to start somewhere. If we don’t restrict/regulate guns now, a problem that could be solved in the next 5-10 years will only be solved in the next 20-25 years because of pure inaction.

There’s also the side that Ash pointed out: why the heck have laws in the first place? If the criminals are going to break them anyway. That for me is the ultimate argument against the argument you’re pointing out and there’s no way to counter it.

---

We have to start somewhere though. I don’t think most mass shooters would go completely out of their ways to acquire guns. I think some of them just did it because of how easy it is to acquire such guns and the amount of exposition they probably had to weapons in general at an early age.

Think of the John Lennon murderer. He basically was so obsessed with him that he decided to kill him. If he had no gun that wouldn’t have happened, for example. And I’m pretty sure he legally acquired that gun.

Good points all around from everyone. And yes, regulating the guns is where we must start. To your last point, it would be interesting to see what percentage of mass shootings are done with legally acquired guns. Not that it makes a difference about whether we should regulate guns and harden our restrictions.

ChainsawAsh said:

It’s not a good point at all. That’s like saying “Well, criminals will rob banks anyway, so why bother making bank robbery illegal?”

It’s not a good point against banning guns from civilians. But to me, it makes me question how we can make it harder for criminals to get guns since they can attain them so easily in an illegal manner despite any gun laws. It just seems like an element of our system that is leading to more violence and death and I wonder if there’s a way to help fix that within our legislation capabilities.

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

Dancing is glorious.

Collipso said:

did batman kill in JL?

Haven’t seen it yet so idk. I don’t even think I will watch it anytime soon. Doesn’t seem interesting enough to do so.

Collipso said:

ChainsawAsh said:

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

DominicCobb said:

Man of Steel isn’t that bad. It’s not great, but it does have good aspects.

I’m surprised you liked BvS more than Justice League though. BvS was simply one of the worst films I’ve seen in recent memory. JL ain’t great either, but at least I didn’t want to kill myself while watching it.

It might have helped that I’ve only seen the director’s cut, I dunno. From what I’ve seen of the differences between that and the theatrical, I don’t understand how the theatrical was comprehensible in any way.

It wasn’t.

Personally, I can’t imagine how making an already interminable film longer would make me enjoy it any more, so I haven’t seen the director’s cut and can’t really compare.

Well, from what I’ve read, the theatrical cut removed large chunks of plot, especially surrounding the Africa stuff, Lois’ investigation of Lex, and Clark’s investigation of Batman. So it’s longer, yes, but the short version seems to have sacrificed narrative coherence for a shorter runtime, crippling an already flawed film.

director’s cut is watchable. theatrical is absolute shit. i watched it 2 years ago (and i feel like i’m much more mature and i comprehend “things in general” a lot more now) and i couldn’t understand a thing. then there was the wonder woman mess. oh god…

nothing made sense. the prison section in the theatrical made no sense. 0 sense, i’m not even kidding. lois’ investigation was basically bs too, and i don’t even remember what africa part you’re talking about. i might rewatch the movie in a near future.

As I watched the theatrical cut I was amazed at how awful it was. I barely knew what was going on and everything felt just incomplete and scattered. The Ultimate cut though is actually a fine movie. Like no joke, the improvements feel huge. Everything is fleshed out and much more understandable. It still has an awful villain with no motivation, a poor portrayal of Superman (coming from a guy who liked Superman in MoS), and a overly complicated plot with an CGI crap fest at the end.

I usually just remember the Ultimate cut so don’t connect with much of the hate that I see, but just taking a look at the theatrical cut reminds me again of how just terribly awful that version is.

But I will say that the one thing BvS absolutely nailed (besides him killing people) was Batman. Purely glorious content there. I just wish we can still get a solo film with Matt Reeves directing and a studio that doesn’t boss him around.

EDIT: And this reminds that everyone should take a look at samspider’s edit of MoS that incorporates stuff from BvS. Shaping up to be one killer fan edit.

I just want as much deleted material of Rey and Luke as possible. I’m unsure about the deleted third lesson though. Apart of me actually understands why they cut it.

DominicCobb said:

Target exclusive all the way. It’s actually really convenient - best artwork, packaging, and bonus extras.

It’s actually surprising how perfect this release is. TFA target release was cool but had awful artwork.

I really like Rogue’s ideas. And in all honesty, a simple ending that is in your spirit with your edit would just be Luke burning Vader’s body. It’s very personal, bittersweet, and probably more emotional and fitting than an VO narration from Ackbar. That’s just me though.

ChainsawAsh said:

Tried watching Justice League tonight.

Tried. Holy shit is it bad.

And this is coming from someone who genuinely liked Man of Steel and didn’t think BvS was quite the abomination many saw it as (though it’s not exactly good).

I’m going to try to finish it someday, but I’ll need lots more booze first, if only to be able to see past the mustache removal (which isn’t even the worst of the CGI I’ve seen so far).

Yay, someone else who also feels Man of Steel is a good film!

I really love the idea that Outbound flight had. I think that it’d be better to simplify things. The main mission is to kill the Emperor. The shield on Endor could be shielding the Emperor so then everything makes sense from that point of view. Then the space battle happens and the Rebellion could be crippled but Luke is the person who still could technically complete the mission and kill the Emperor.

Collipso said:

sorry for any inconveniences, i didn’t take it in a mean way whatsoever. i guess star wars is a delicate topic for all of us 😃

We need more Collipso’s in this world.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to take most of the Crawl establishing the imperial capitol and why the rebellion might destroy it and give more information on that end of the story? Considering you probably will be lacking for elaboration upon their attack in the regular film. Which kind of brings me to a question, what do you plan to do with the briefing scene? That could be a place to help lay out some expositon.

Beautiful work there Ridley!

ChainsawAsh said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

Collipso said:

You guys can’t even read how am I supposed to fight? It’s the green robot madness all over again.

I said: I felt like Daisy’s performance was weak compared to her performance in other movies.

Yeah, this site gets pretty confusing where people state a perfectly reasonable opinion and all you get as a response is “what?”.

Reasonable?

Whether you agree or not, saying that you feel an actor turned in a weaker performance is a perfectly reasonable opinion, yes.

This.

I disagree entirely with Collipso and think Daisy did a really good job but if you are confused why he thought the way he did then maybe something like “why did you find it weak?” would be a little more worthwhile.

Collipso said:

You guys can’t even read how am I supposed to fight? It’s the green robot madness all over again.

I said: I felt like Daisy’s performance was weak compared to her performance in other movies.

Yeah, this site gets pretty confusing where people state a perfectly reasonable opinion and all you get as a response is “what?”.

The trailer is simply wonderful!

I find the editing of the third act to be very poor. The emotions and direction that each battle takes does not line up well at all. We should feel like everything is failing up until Luke defys the Emperor and Vader overthrows him. Then that should serve as a turning point where things start to look up. This is a main reason for releasing a v3 of my rotj edit and it was to restructure the scene order of the final act.

This edit sounds really bold and incredible! I will be following your progress closely.

Collipso said:

Eleanor Rigby stereo is atrocious.

Edit: unfortunately I’ve been having to turn the “mono” audio option on my phone on to listen to the pre-Sgt. Peppers albums in mono, since Spotify doesn’t have that version.

Also I love the 50th anniversary remix for Sgt. Peppers and it’s my go-to version for every song except for “She’s Leaving Home”. They sped that one up for some odd reason and it sounds very strange to me.

I also much prefer Let It Be… Naked over the Phil Spector version. I can’t even listen to the original album’s “The Long and Winding Road” anymore.

You can buy the 2014 vinyl mono box set if you really want to. It has all of the original mono mixes fully restored. Downmixing on your phone gets the job done but isn’t the same as listening to the original mono mix that was supervised by the Beatles themselves.

And I’m partial to Let It Be… Naked. I prefer the title track on the original and a few others that I can’t recall but love the inclusion of “Don’t Let Me Down” on Naked among the superior mixing on some other tracks.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yes to the Anthology DVD and Sgt. Pepper 50th recommendations.

I really want a Revolver stereo remix now that takes its cues from the mono mix (which is the only proper way to listen to the album at the moment).

I usually listen to every album up until and including Revolver in Mono. After that I’ll go with Stereo usually since that is around the time that the Beatles actually participated in the mixing for such a release.

The best example of the superiority of the mono mix for Revolver can be found just by comparing it to the lackluster stereo version of Eleanor Rigby.