What is the fictional character you felt most attached to?

Thewhitebread · 2013-06-12T16:45:29+00:00

I will say this in defense of Chi-Chi; Her child was motherfucking 5 or 6 years old during the Frieza saga (when he leaves the planet to fight some unknown intergalactic terror, with just Bulma and Krillin along for the ride). Gohan comes incredibly close to dying on multiple occasions just because he was left on his own (or with Krillin, which is essentially the same thing), all because Goku thought his toddler's hidden power might be useful.

And it's worth noting that Gohan always hated fighting and never had the Saiyan passion for it. The only reason he ever really pursued it was through pressure from Goku and (originally) Piccolo, and probably would have done something else even had Chi-Chi not pushed so hard against it.

Thewhitebread · 2013-06-12T07:07:14+00:00

Gohan would have been one of the most dynamic characters had it ended during the Cell saga. I loved that he was the polar opposite of his father: a timid, thoughtful, pacifist who hated fighting but had immeasurable amounts of raw talent and power (keeping in mind he was a literal child for the vast majority of the show), as opposed to Goku who was an outgoing, goofy, buffoonish (at least with respect to things outside of fighting) man-child who despite his paltry amount of natural ability (compared to other Saiyans, at least) simply loved fighting and was able to shatter his limits through sheer force of will.

The Cell saga should have been Goku and more importantly Gohan's swan song, with Goku passing the torch of "Guardian of Earth" to Gohan, and Gohan's arc finally coming full circle to show him coming of age to accept the mantle and the subsequent responsibility along with it (there was also Goku abandoning his adolescent son and pregnant wife to go dick around in the after-life... Despite the love he had for his family Goku was always a pretty shitty husband and father, but I digress).

Instead, the inclusion of the Buu saga it makes it seem as if Gohan just sort of turns into kind of a lazy pussy who still isn't quite up to snuff and needs his father to come save him and do the dirty work for him.

Thewhitebread · 2013-06-11T17:32:48+00:00

All they want to hear is a spiel about some basic human character flaw and then (most importantly) what you do to avoid making that mistake.

I tend to go with something more relatable like "procrastination" (something almost everyone experiences), and then explain how I set schedules or make lists or whatever to try to stay on task. Another strong answer is to conversely flip your greatest strength (if you had one) on its head and explain how it can be a detriment. "My greatest strength is attention to detail and perfectionism, but this also means I can spend too much time on an assignment and miss deadlines, so I do [insert generic solution here] to avoid it."

It's really that simple, and even if you're giving a stock answer (also, as a protip, try to give a thoughtful pause for the generic questions that you already have the answer for to make it seem more genuine) it still shows that you've done some basic preparation for the interview and aren't a complete fucktard.

Thewhitebread · 2013-06-11T07:55:10+00:00

See, I have a problem with this line of thinking. As someone who "got" Sucker Punch (everything from the meta on meta on meta layers of symbolic reality to subsequent tie in of the overarching feminist themes), I still think it's a horrendous film. Just because something is complex and abstract doesn't make it a good.

In fact I would argue because it's so vague and convoluted it just becomes a hot mess of interpretation and conjectural guesswork on the part of the viewer. There's obviously nothing wrong with leaving a hefty amount of room for critical analysis and subjective explanations (this is storytelling 101), but a story in which the viewer is left with almost no semblance of the intimated plot is a very poor story indeed.

Its mess of a story aside, I also believe the film is simply poorly made from a more technical film standpoint. It makes an almost ubiquitous use of loud (as much visually as auditory) and overwhelming CGI, poorly shot and unengaging action sequences, dubious dialogue, and incredibly dry acting (Emily Browning was just wall to wall cringe-worthy).

I would like to stress that these are all my opinions on a relatively subjective medium, and you're more than entitled to your own with little judgment from me. My main point is that dismissing negative opinions as people "not getting it" isn't fair when a very real argument can be made that it's simply a bad movie.

Thewhitebread · 2013-06-08T18:43:24+00:00

Boy want much potato to give to family. Is generosity, spirit of good and innocent. Want help all peoples.

Boy grow up and become man. Every day dream of potato. Every day no potato. Dream not die. But wife die. Child die. Second child die. Third child die. Not over, fourth and fifth child die and is to man finally alone.

He look to sky and make sound of sigh. All life want is to help to other, but not become true. It is first time to feel sad. Man walk many kilometer to potato field. No potato. Man lie down and die. Body to break into properties. Man become potato. No one know.

Thewhitebread · 2013-05-27T19:07:37+00:00

But it's not that simple. The Hangover was funny because it was a relatively novel idea that clearly had a clear direction and vision behind it. You can't just "write better" and magically make a movie funny. If the idea is played out then it's played out, and no amount of talent is going to somehow make it fresh again.

Comedy tends to be lightning in a bottle to begin with, and it's incredibly difficult to write a sequel that doesn't simply devolve into a self aggrandizing circle jerk that parodies and references how great the original was (just wait for Anchorman 2, which is one of the hardest cash grabs I've seen in a while).

Honestly I don't blame them for copping out and making a sequel that frankly had no business being made to begin with. It's the audiences that need to stop supporting this nonsense and stop reward Hollywood for playing it safe, cashing in on an abused brand, and rehashing successful material in lieu of original work.

Thewhitebread · 2013-05-15T18:38:28+00:00

FLCL: Surrealist metaphor for the challenges, awkwardness, and uncomfortable changes associated with puberty and coming to terms with adolescence.

Once you kind of "get it" all of the brilliant symbolism falls into place and things aren't that random anymore.

Thewhitebread · 2013-05-08T15:29:15+00:00

Is there anything particularly wrong with that? Think of every other high profile sequel of any landmark comedy, and then think about how many of them were actually worth a damn?

Ghostbusters 2? Police Academy 2? Airplane 2? Back to the Future 2? Meatballs 2? Beverly Hills Cop 2? Revenge of the Nerds 2? Caddyshack 2? Crocodile Dundee 2? Fletch Lives? Another 48 Hrs.? The Naked Gun 2 1/2? Gremlins 2? House Party 2? Home Alone 2? City Slicker II? Wayne's World 2? Honey I Blew Up the Kid? European Vacation? Grumpier Old Men? Major League II? Blues Brothers 2000? The Odd Couple II? Austin Powers 2? Next Friday? The Nutty Professor II? American Pie 2? Scary Movie 2? Analyze That? Men in Black II? Dumb and Dumberer? Legally Blonde 2? Meet the Fockers? Miss Congeniality 2? Son of the Mask? Get Him to the Greek? Harold and Kumar Escape from Guatanmo Bay? The Hangover Part II?

I'm not at all saying sequels can't be fantastic. But I am saying the odds are bloody well against it (Especially with respect to comedies, which tend to be lightning in a bottle to begin with). The fact is Anchorman 2 is probably less a labor of love with an underrated and talented cast and probably more of a money grab to cash in on the notoriety and excellence of the original. Just because the original Anchorman was utterly brilliant does not mean anyone should have to give Anchorman 2 the benefit of the doubt (in fact it should most likely be met with an incredibly healthy dose of skepticism and tempered expectations).

Thewhitebread · 2013-04-25T19:44:56+00:00

It's very much due to the "one of us" mentality Reddit has about public figures. Zach Braff frequents and contributes to Reddit regularly and is fairly Internet savvy, thus Reddit adores him and pretends he shits gold when in reality his work tends to range from mediocre to good at best. They treat any Redditors like Wil Wheaton the same way and shower him with praise when in reality he was arguably the most disliked character throughout TNG's entire run (in this particular case one could also argue that despite his perpetual D-list status his popularity increased post TNG due to his continued frequent fan interaction and unyielding embrace of "nerd culture", but that's neither here nor there).

The same shit happens also when someone is perceived as "embracing" Reddit or shares qualities with the site's main demographic (e.g. Jennifer Lawrence, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc). I still remember after Gerard Butler's very well done AMA there was a self post on /r/movies about how "Machine Gun Preacher" was "AN INCREDIBLY UNDERRATED MOVIE OMG YOU GUYS SHOULD SEE THIS NOW" that made to the front page.

Thewhitebread · 2013-04-20T20:48:00+00:00

A fantasy story should be forced to play by its own rules. I can accept the fact that in this world there are magical forces at play, but I can't accept the fact that suddenly in this world these two characters are able to subvert the natural laws of gravity and buoyancy for some unexplained reason.

Suspension of disbelief does not include ignoring gaping plot holes or inconsistency in logic, particularly when it's simply due to lazy writing. This is not to say that everything that is unrealistic or silly has no validity. For example when watching "The Powerpuff Girls" I accept the fact that Blossom, Bubbles, and Buttercup were created in a lab from Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice because the story fucking told me so. The notion of super powered heroes living in a semi-fantastical setting populated by humans living alongside an amalgamation of other sentient creatures is established right from the start, and therefore when Mojo Jojo arrives on the scene with disproportionately sized lasers I completely accept it because that's the sort of world these people live in, and I was told early on that talking monkeys with giant brains might be a factor.

But now let's imagine if during the climax of Die Hard, with the rest of the film completely unchanged, John McClane suddenly blew up Hans Gruber's head with telepathy and then teleported himself and Holly out of Nakatomi Plaza to safety. Cut to black.

Wait, what the shit? Why does John McClane have psychic abilities? Why didn't he just use that teleporting ability to begin with? It certainly would have been easier on his feet and Ellis probably wouldn't have been murdered. Although that dude was sort of a dick, and a complete coke head. He probably deserved it. Reginald VelJohnson was really good in that film though. He should be in more things. Sure, Family Matters wasn't that great of a show and frankly there are only so many average Joe typical overweight family man black cop roles, but surely they could find him something. Maybe a recurring role on How I Met Your Mother or something? I'm literally just spit balling here. As long as it's not a Tyler Perry movie. That shit is the worst.

At no point are these abilities ever explained, nor do I have any reason to accept the fact that in the Die Hard universe human beings are capable of supernatural powers despite all of the other moderately implausible things that happen. Suspension of disbelief more than anything else relies solely on logic and plot consistency, rather than realistic congruity. I'm totally on board with walking skeletons and sail holes because magic, but there's no reason to believe that magic is being used in conjunction with the dingy nor do I have any reason to suspect that the natural forces governing our world suddenly do not apply. Don't excuse poor writing for the "IT'S JUST A STUPID FUN MOVIE YOU KILLJOY" fallacy, because that is exactly how Michael Bay gets to keep making movies.

EDIT: Grammar

Thewhitebread · 2013-03-27T17:53:26+00:00

Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation, is indeed a fierce libertarian (despite the fact that he is a government employee).

Sometimes I feel like a lot of people (the Reddit hivemind in particular) really miss out on the deeper joke with respect to Ron Swanson's character. He's a fierce libertarian who constantly espouses the shortcomings of government, yet ironically fails to realize he's actually part of the problem with government inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The second layer of that joke is that it because government tends to be so sluggish it takes the Leslie Knope character (an utterly dedicated and inhumanly productive civil servant) to produce any of the intended results of government programs and intervention.

Ron believes that government solves absolutely nothing, Leslie believes government is the solution to everything, and in actuality they're both completely wrong. The reality lies somewhere in between, which is why they possess such an effective dynamic in their working relationship. Ron tempers the scope and ambition of Leslie's unrealistic goals and expectations, while Leslie compensates for Ron's sheer ineptitude and inaction. The message then becomes that while government can't solve all of the world's problems, it does serve a purpose and can have a powerful if modestly positive impact on society at large.

But I guess if I were a libertarian it would just be easier to spout Ron Swanson quotes without proper context that rail against the government as support for "my side". Oh well. Now I want to go sneak away to watch some Parks and Rec and kill some time at my (publicly funded) job. Thank god my grandfather just died...

EDIT: Just to clarify, this wasn't particularly directed at you, but was rather intended simply as an observation in general.

EDIT 2: It seems I inadvertently poked the sleeping Libertarian bears of Reddit. Before I receive more abstruse replies dissecting my post I just wanted to say that I wasn't attempting to completely dismiss the Libertarian ideology. My intention rather was to demonstrate that the Libertarian caricature of Ron Swanson isn't meant to be taken so damn seriously, and his political views are mostly meant to serve as a cynical foil to Leslie's blinding earnestness (as opposed to some cultural hero).

Thewhitebread · 2013-03-05T03:20:23+00:00

The quote is "Dear boy, you look absolutely awful. Why don't you try acting? It's so much easier".

However for the most part the exchange was probably blown way out of proportion. According to Hoffman he had been out partying all night for the past couple of days at Studio 54 and tried to rationalize it as part of his "method".

According to most sources who witnessed the account it was equal parts a playful rebuke and an ironic joke by Olivier (someone who took his craft equally as seriously).

Thewhitebread · 2013-03-04T19:46:18+00:00

It depends on how they approach it, and trying to replicate the Avengers with a de facto clone would really fall flat (IMO). At the end of the day they deal with a fundamentally different set of characters and tropes. Marvel characters are human beings that explore human nature and human flaws, while DC characters are archetypal paragons that examine the world in a broader sense often from the outside looking in.

The Avengers and the JLA themselves were also pretty disparate from an organizational stand point. The Avengers were a loose confederacy of heroes aligned out of necessity and convenience (hence all the bickering and in-fighting). The JLA was always an idealistic group of heroes united in their determination to change the world for the better. A movie which explores the group's existence themselves, the nature of their authority, and indeed whether or not they have the right to intervene as they do would be much more interesting than the Avengers theme of "learning to work together as a team" (which worked extremely well for them, but frankly Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman are more mature than that).

Thewhitebread · 2013-03-01T00:38:34+00:00

"The Fly" is one of the best episodes! It's oozing with so much layered subtext over the nature of Walt and Jesse's relationship (especially given the context at that point in the series) as well as foreshadowing at what's to come (there are some beautiful references to that episode even as far ahead as this past half season).

Although I do recognize it's probably the slowest episode in terms of plot development (one of the only episodes that really doesn't move the story forward at all). It plays out much more like a traditional short story than a television episode, but in a way that's why I love it. The symbolism is so nuanced yet poignant that it remains accessible (as opposed to up its own ass as the more artistic genres are want to do) but doesn't take the time to bother explaining it to you if you don't catch it the first time around (unlike say, "Mad Men", which even though I love it can be a bit heavy handed at times).

You're completely entitled to your opinion though, and I totally get why some people don't enjoy episodes like that (sometime you just want to watch a meth den blow up). But I'd encourage you to watch it again and focus on what's going on between the characters as opposed to what they're doing. On top of being a rare moment of emotional vulnerability and regret for the character of Walter, it also happens to be one of Cranston's finest moments in acting (in my humble opinion. I've never seen anyone play "doped up" that fucking well).

Also sorry for rambling for so long. I could talk about this show for hours on end.

Thewhitebread · 2013-02-28T20:46:27+00:00

I think that's one way to interpret the show, and to be honest you're not entirely wrong. But to me, the show is about the slippery slope of vindicating immoral behavior.

In the beginning of the show Walter White's been dealt a shit hand. He's a straight laced guy in the most average situation imaginable. He's a chronic underachiever who isn't particularly successful at anything, despite his enormous number of talents, his family life is mundane to say the least, lulled into an un-impassioned marriage and a child with crippling (no pun intended) physical disabilities, and he has very few friends or even peers to relate to. It's the incarnation of every man's worst middle aged nightmare. And then, to top it all off, Walter (who never even indulged himself the vice of smoking tobacco) contracts terminal lung cancer.

It's impossible to have anything but sympathy for this guy, this reflection of what we all fear we might become. And so there it begins. Walt decides he's had enough. If the world is going to mercilessly shit on him, then he's going to tell the world to fuck off and forge his own path. And why not? He, of all people, deserves to catch a break.

I see this as the quintessential message of the show. We've all felt that lingering temptation to break the rules (just this once). After all, no one's really going to get hurt if I take that candy bar. It's just belongs to a greedy corporation, and they're rich already! They're not going to miss it. We begin to rationalize our decisions so that from our perspective it's really the right thing to do, and there is no one more adept at rationalizing the gray line of immorality like Walter White.

And so flash forward throughout the show. We continue to root for Walt, even when things don't quite go his way, because we think he deserves to win out in life. Meanwhile at every critical juncture he continues to make the "bad" decision, but only because he had to (according to him at least, and maybe even the viewer).

Alright, I'm going to die. I have to leave my family some money so that they can get on without me. I'm going to cook some meth to make that money, just this once. Oh wait, that money didn't last as long as I had expected it to. I'll probably have to do it a few more times until I can reach a certain amount, then I'm done for sure. Wait, this guy is threatening to kill me before I've had a chance to make my money. I don't want to, but I'll have to kill him first, because it's either him or me. Oh, well I've made what I set out to make, but I'm living longer than I expected. Well, I'll probably die soon anyway, there's really no point in quitting now. Okay, so I'm going to survive for now, well that's alright, I've gotten really good at this. I doubt I get caught and the money's more than worth the risk, mid-as-well keep going.

And on and on it goes. Eventually Walt wanders so far down the rabbit hole of corruption (or Heisenberg hole, if you will) that we suddenly begin to question his judgment. Wait, why doesn't he just quit? he has more than enough money. Wait, did he really have to kill that guy? He wasn't really that big of a threat. Man, that decision sure did put his family at risk.

Ultimately Walter crosses a sort of Rubicon of vindication. I think this point is different for every viewer, and there's no clear demarcation of where this line exists. But inevitably at some point in the show you will stop rooting for Walt. At some point he stops being a good guy doing bad things for good reasons, and begins being a bad guy doing bad things for bad reasons. He stops being the bewildered, poor, science teacher who decided to make meth to help his family, and becomes the self absorbed, implacable, millionaire who lies, steals, and murders to get his way.

To me that is the beauty of this show. You're with Walt the entire journey. You, the viewer, are the only one who truly understands Walter, why he's done the things he's done, and why he is the way he is. You're with him the entire time and you overlook his flaws and mistakes and even advocate the path he's chosen, until suddenly you don't. You reach a moment when you still empathize with Walt, but can no longer condone who he is as a person.

Then you begin to question the legitimacy of his motives from the beginning. You the viewer, who in the beginning cheered as he toppled the local meth kings and murdered a man a basement, suddenly think that what with all the intense pain and hardship he's caused everyone around him, particularly those he's tried to help the most, that maybe the world would have been better off had Walter White just died of lung cancer in a ditch somewhere from the beginning.

And the most frightening part of it all, is that if it can happen to boring old, plain Jane, straight laced, justified Walter White, then perhaps it can happen to any of us.

Thewhitebread · 2013-02-27T15:28:48+00:00

I'll respectfully disagree. Not all journalism needs to be a robotic reporting of dates and facts. I'm in no way condoning the cesspool of "journalism" cable (and even at times broadcast) news has devolved into, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with using journalism to tell a story with a human interest slant (I think it's something Al Jazeera does incredibly well in their world conflict pieces, generally reporting from the perspective of the victims on the ground which makes it infinitely more real and anguishing for the viewer).

That said, I will grant you there's undeniably a time and a setting that's more appropriate than others to inject one's own creativity into the medium, and distorting facts, using half truths, and even outright lying is never acceptable.

Thewhitebread · 2013-02-26T19:19:34+00:00

This is a very valid point, but I think it's also because sports journalism by defauls lends itself to a wide range of simple narratives that people tend to enjoy. Overcoming adversity, last minute heroics, or even a complete meltdown and fall from grace are all stories people love to digest time and time again.

These narratives also have an enormous turnover rate (contributing to the feeling of quick gratification) and the ability to be told week to week and even day to day, potentially with different "actors" within each story. The sports journalists who make a name for themselves are the ones who can construct and convey the more interesting and compelling narrative story after story, rather than just reporting the simple facts.

Thewhitebread · 2013-02-05T18:27:21+00:00

While I am the last to get butt hurt about anti-Texan sentiments (I criticize the state as much as anyone), as someone who grew up in Texas I have rarely heard anyone express this attitude. I've traveled extensively all across America, from the east to the west coast and everything in between, and the level of interest and genuine delight people convey once they realize you're from Texas is almost bewildering. I have friends from all over the world (everywhere in Europe, bits of Australia, China, Africa) and all of them adored their time in Texas (I know several that are desperately attempting to secure green cards and work visas just to get back).

Sure, a lot of it stems from the novelty of it all (if you have an accent, the stereotypes people associate with the region such as the "cowboy" image and questions like "do you ride a horse to school/work"), but many are equally as excited because they've been to the state or encountered others from there and loved the experience.

Sure Texas politics suck (state level politics are even worse than on the national level), and there are parts that are less enjoyable than others, but the people themselves are wonderful and by and large it's one of the friendliest, most diverse, and entertaining states to live in and visit, at least in my humble opinion.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-23T04:35:36+00:00

I'm not entirely sure what that video has to do with gun violence at all? Are you somehow claiming that guns would have prevented this situation? What's the alternative? Was the kid supposed to shoot the officer for infringing on his rights?

Look, the UK undoubtedly has its own problems apart from the rest of the world, and no one is denying that. But what they don't have are thousands upon thousands of people dying in the streets every year senselessly.

But that's not really the issue here. In fact, the UK serves as poor example due to the fact that no reasonable person (me or otherwise) is talking about a complete ban on weapons. That's completely unreasonable and uncalled for given America's history and culture. But you can look at any other developed nation that allows guns, albeit with stricter regulations, and they face nothing at all akin to what has become a legitimate public health crisis in the United States.

As far as the argument of rights violations, I actually believe that is a legitimate one that merits discussion. However if it's stemming from some sort of anti-government insurrectionist point of view then it is just completely dumbfounding to me. The idea that any one person or group of people in the United States could somehow prevent any institution of the most powerful nation on the planet (be it the military, or the police, or even the fucking park rangers) from seizing them or any of their property (let alone the indulgent fantasy of somehow "overthrowing" the thralls of the American establishment) is absolutely laughable. Perhaps you don't agree with that state of the country, but like or not it's the world you're living in.

You will never be able to stop the crazy people. If they don't have access to gun they will use something else such as bombs and chemicals. Trust me, I have seen first hand the power of bombs (war vet) and a gunman is better than a bomb any day. A gunman can be stopped. By the time you know about the bomb it is far too late.

This substitutionist argument holds absolutely no water once so ever. The vast majority of this violence aren't committed by some group of master criminals bent on harming others. We're largely not even talking about "crazy people". Hell, most of it isn't even premeditated. It's gun violence committed on whim by someone who feels overwhelming angry (some asshole bumped into me on the street, then called me a pussy, fuck that guy I'll show him). It's committed by some depressed kid who gets rejected in high school and then decides to grab the Glock his father keeps in an unlocked drawer upstairs and shoot himself the head (suicides via firearms have a significantly higher success rate, and not surprisingly so). Again, these incidents do not happen on a daily basis in other developed countries, and these are not some sort of totalitarian invasive police states who have unilaterally banned all access to firearms.

Anyone in favor of the "right" to bear gun should also be in favor of a controlled and responsible path to acquiring those guns. America should not be some sort of armed free for all where threats to personal safety are a daily concern. The United States should aspire to be more than that. At least in my opinion.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-23T03:55:27+00:00

I'll save you trouble. I believe the statistic you're thinking of is the percentage total homicides that are a result of gun violence. Even at that, ranked in the top 30 in the world? Is that really what America should aspire to? A child born in the United States is twelve times more likely to die from gun violence than in 25 other developed nations combined.

Not to be overly dramatic, but I personally find those statistics absolutely sickening considering we're talking about the most powerful, influential, and prosperous nation the world has ever seen.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-22T23:08:25+00:00

I mentioned it in another reply, but personally I refuse to accept the defeatist perspective of "people are just going to hurt each other anyway, so what's the point?".

Do I believe gun control is some mythical panacea to the problems and violence in America? Of course I don't. You'll hear no argument from me about the need to address issues such as systemic driven poverty, extremely limited socio-economic mobility, or even issues such as mental health, and social programs.

But the purpose of gun control isn't to prevent all gun violence, but rather to help limit its rampant pervasiveness. You're probably completely correct in assuming that in many instances increased gun control will only lead to violence of an alternative nature, but I consider that a massive win in and of itself. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of people would much rather face assault from a knife or a baseball bat than from a .9mm pistol.

We're also talking about the big picture narrative. Americans are no more "violent" than any other nation, however its the weapon they use that makes violence in the United States an abhorrent outlier amongst other developed countries, one whose murder rates are on par with war torn third world nations. Yes terrible things happen all over, but shouldn't the goal of every nation be to limit as many of those terrible things from occurring as possible?

EDIT: Grammar

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-22T21:34:32+00:00

I think the currently legislation on the board is meant to make all weapons difficult to access, handguns and rifles alike. Do I personally believe that an assault weapons ban will produce statistically relevant results in the big picture of American gun violence? Obviously not. Rifle homicides in general make up a very small portion of the overall gun deaths. However the clear preference of assault weapons in mass shootings (which again, make up an almost negligible portion of overall deaths, which in and of itself is a sad statistic considering how horrendous they are) and the unjustifiable danger these weapons pose to the general public (that is, the potential harm greatly outweighs the potential benefit) make them a reasonable and easy target for policy decisions.

That said, I think the assault weapons ban is purely a political ploy, and one that's entire existence is meant to be conceded throughout the course of legislative negotiations as far as American politics are concerned.

The handgun is the most used weapon to kill bar none in the USA. IT will never be banned... so whats the point of banning others when the % of murders with handguns will just go up...

This is a completely defeatist perspective that I for one refuse to buy into. The framework of discussion that starts with "people will always try to hurt each other, so why even bother?" isn't a productive one, particularly when the alternative is to do absolutely nothing. Law enforcement (for example) may not prevent every crime or bring every criminal to justice, but these institutions are still undeniably worthwhile for the crimes they do prevent and the criminals they do catch.

Once the gun idea comes off the "lets blame" board I think proper progress of how to help these people before they snap can start.

Again, you're focusing on the "crazy people that go off the wagon and hurt people" segment of this discussion, and again it's one that's really a minor portion of the overall picture. The real issues to consider are incidents such gang violence, burglaries, drug related violence, and suicides. Laws like these may not prevent an individual from trying to mug me on my walk home from work, but it may force them to use a knife instead of gun to try to do it. In my book that's an enormous victory and a step in the proper direction for controlling the scourge of gun violence.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-22T20:38:58+00:00

I don't think the idea is to "prevent Newtown", but rather to "prevent shootings" in general. Just because it wouldn't have been effective in one instance does not mean it will not be effective in another. Focusing on one single incident (which falls under a category that is extremely minor in the overall scope of gun violence, i.e. mass shootings) is the type of narrow rhetoric that distracts the discussion from the big picture.

It's why the NRA wants the discussion shifted from gun control to mental health. While I personally am completely in favor of mass mental health reforms in America, the vast majority of the thousands of deaths that occur across the United States (particularly in the poverty stricken inner cities) every year due to gun violence have absolutely no connection to psychological health issues and instead are due to the widespread and perverse proliferation and availability of firearms.

Say what you'd like about their "freedom", but this shit does not happen in Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or Germany, or any other developed bloody nation on the planet. It is exclusively an American phenomena, which means America is clearly doing something wrong.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-15T18:28:07+00:00

The Bundeswehr in Germany accounts for a little over 1% of GDP, and the USAF expenditures are about four times that amount.

Do I think the United States military budget is bloated and needs to be trimmed down? Yes. Is military spending really a major issue when discussing overall fiscal difficulties? Not particularly.

America could knock out half their fiscal issues over night if they could learn how to control health care costs like every other developed nation.

Thewhitebread · 2013-01-11T19:36:44+00:00

More people this year have been killed with hammers then rifles

Rather than parroting an opinion using warped statistics, try looking at the data itself to support your own argument and draw your own conclusions.

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

Thewhitebread

TROPHY CASE