That's actually relevant comment.
Spoilers Supergirl - Season 3
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
- Status
We have schoolchildren laying in their own blood, while gun manufacturers and the NRA reap the rewards. It is bad.
but lets face it - Branie was full of himself (or at least of his IQ)
Again, you're looking at data after a ban, but only on some of the territory where that ban was in effect. I'm sure you can find some square mileage in the US as well where no shootings happened at all and pretend everything is just great there...
But by all means, if you think that this is a really important or relevant question, go right ahead and investigate it. Because we're talking about ~50 cases a year, it shouldn't be too difficult to investigate each and every one of those individually to see if there's some common conclusions to be reached.
While you do that, the UK 's next target is reducing the number of gun homicides into single digits.
Meanwhile, the US is still in the five digit range...
So, has there been any word or rumor, or talk about if the series is set in the Krypton universe? I wonder with all these Earths in the DC-TV-U that exist and cross over from time to time, but IDK. Supergirl feels more like the comics. Krypton feels more like a movie production. I think if Krypton is in the same universe overall that the rest of the DC-TV-U are in, then it kinda looses it's luster for some reason. IDK.. but I have to say, I was always a Legion of Superheroes fan, and superboy comics. Mon-El was always a fav of mine. Brainiac 5, Chameleon Boy, Invisible Kid, Colossal Boy, Star Boy, Brainiac 5, Triplicate Girl, Shrinking Violet, Sun Boy, Bouncing Boy, Phantom Girl, and Ultra Boy. Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl were my personal favs, but I always loved Mon-El as a character. I am glad to see him in the series. Seems pretty cool. However I am still way behind where you guys are so, I generally ignore most of the convos on here that I think are spoilers.. I get to reading for a bit, then I'm like, "oh, okay.. need to find a different topic in the thread to focus on. Don't want to know that." LOL
Greg Berlanti Inks Mega $300+ Million New Overall Deal To Stay At Warner Bros. TV Through 2024
by Nellie Andreeva
On the heels of Greg Berlanti setting a new record for a producer with 14 live-action scripted series on the air, he has re-upped his overall deal with the studio behind all of his shows. Berlanti has signed a giant extension of his exclusive overall development and production deal with Warner Bros. Television Group that would keep him at the studio through 2024. No financial terms are being disclosed but sources peg the pact at more than $300 million over the next six years. (It includes the studio buying Berlanti’s back-end, a common practice in the biggest overall pacts for the top TV showrunners.)
https://deadline.com/2018/06/greg-b...-deal-warner-bros-tv-through-2024-1202405581/
by Nellie Andreeva
On the heels of Greg Berlanti setting a new record for a producer with 14 live-action scripted series on the air, he has re-upped his overall deal with the studio behind all of his shows. Berlanti has signed a giant extension of his exclusive overall development and production deal with Warner Bros. Television Group that would keep him at the studio through 2024. No financial terms are being disclosed but sources peg the pact at more than $300 million over the next six years. (It includes the studio buying Berlanti’s back-end, a common practice in the biggest overall pacts for the top TV showrunners.)
https://deadline.com/2018/06/greg-b...-deal-warner-bros-tv-through-2024-1202405581/
No. This is a very different Krypton in said show based more closely on the MoS version as both were developed by Goyer.
^ The planet of Krypton as depicted in Krypton the series draws on multiple sources from across the 80 years of the Superman property's history, so to say that it is "based more closely on the MoS version" isn't really accurate.
So, I liked "Not Kansas" a great deal.
Would it have been a better episode, if J'onn's announcement to the team had included a demonstration of one or more of Winn's nonlethal weapons? Definitely.
But what we got represented a bold step for the show nonetheless.
This wasn't about gun control. Gun control is about regulating gun manufacture, sale, possession, etc. in the public at large. The new DEO policy only concerns how this particular government agency intends to arm itself. It's a unilateral self-imposed decision. This is about protecting the public without participating in the market for lethal arms.
Assuming Winn comes through with his inventions, which he's sure he can do, no capability will be lost.
It's true that the DEO has had to resort to lethal force in the past. Alex's defeat of Astra with the Kryptonite sword is a prime, dramatic example that was necessary under the circumstances. I don't expect that this new program will preclude all use of lethal force in the future. Drama will occur when they have to make choices. They will be trying to solve things without lethal force, but perhaps sometime in the future they will have no choice. I expect that often it will seem like they have no choice, but then nonlethal solutions will present themselves. How well it works dramatically will depend upon the particulars of the situations. This is also about phasing in nonlethal solutions, which implies that they don't expect to be able to solve all problems nonlethally, at least for the time being. That's been mentioned upthread. It's also been mentioned upthread that this is aspirational, which it totally is, but that's hardly out of place in a superhero story.
It was nice to see Lena and James on opposite sides of the issue of gun ownership.
Was this ham-fisted? I didn't think it was any more ham-fisted than what the show typically is to begin with.
The Argo sequences were also interesting, and I'm looking forward to finding out what Lena has discovered in the Black rock.
Would it have been a better episode, if J'onn's announcement to the team had included a demonstration of one or more of Winn's nonlethal weapons? Definitely.
But what we got represented a bold step for the show nonetheless.
This wasn't about gun control. Gun control is about regulating gun manufacture, sale, possession, etc. in the public at large. The new DEO policy only concerns how this particular government agency intends to arm itself. It's a unilateral self-imposed decision. This is about protecting the public without participating in the market for lethal arms.
Assuming Winn comes through with his inventions, which he's sure he can do, no capability will be lost.
It's true that the DEO has had to resort to lethal force in the past. Alex's defeat of Astra with the Kryptonite sword is a prime, dramatic example that was necessary under the circumstances. I don't expect that this new program will preclude all use of lethal force in the future. Drama will occur when they have to make choices. They will be trying to solve things without lethal force, but perhaps sometime in the future they will have no choice. I expect that often it will seem like they have no choice, but then nonlethal solutions will present themselves. How well it works dramatically will depend upon the particulars of the situations. This is also about phasing in nonlethal solutions, which implies that they don't expect to be able to solve all problems nonlethally, at least for the time being. That's been mentioned upthread. It's also been mentioned upthread that this is aspirational, which it totally is, but that's hardly out of place in a superhero story.
It was nice to see Lena and James on opposite sides of the issue of gun ownership.
Was this ham-fisted? I didn't think it was any more ham-fisted than what the show typically is to begin with.
The Argo sequences were also interesting, and I'm looking forward to finding out what Lena has discovered in the Black rock.
Except your link doesn't demonstrate what you have said at all, in fact it shows exactly the opposite.
1) "England and Wales" aren't a political entity, they are past of the UK, here is the real story, a consistent downward trend. At it's very highest point it comes in nowhere near the annual norm for the US. Per capita the "spike" you refer to came in at 0.12, compared to 4.11 the same year for the US, or 3.37 as the lowest US figure recorded.
What is more, that "spike" came in 2002 where we had 33 gun homicides, compared to 28 in 1997.
I'm not sure how good your statistics are but I'm sure you're at least aware that smaller sample sizes require proportionately greater differences between smaller groups to establish significance. When your much vaunted "spike" refers to a grand total of five murders and brings the per capita figure nowhere near the lowest figure recorded for the US with it's permissive gun laws your case starts to look truly silly.
2) We never had laws remotely comparable to those in the US anyway. Prior to the ban we did not have concealed carry laws at all, whilst home defence was a more more tightly regulated proposition. Apples and pears.
Basically your argument the UK gun ban was linked to an increase in gun homicides is so poor it goes beyond laughable.
It just isn't true, gun homicides have progressively come down since, according to you own website
Not even remotely bearing an equivalence. One is a weapon designed to take a life. That's it's purpose. Even if you stretch that definition to "defend a life", it's failing. The mass shootings could be justified as a necessary evil if your murder rates were lower, they aren't, they're much higher.
Note in that link who your peers are in this, they aren't France, or Germany. Kenya, Cuba, Sudan and Zambia all have you beat, whilst you don't actually outdo Bolivia or Afghanistan by all that much. The UK, the rest of the G7 and most of Europe aren't even in sight, much less being countries you can seriously talk about competing with.
Quite justifiably really. We've all managed to make inroads on a problem you can't or won't. Per capita the US does extremely poorly on gun murders, hanging out essentially with what used to be known as third world nations.
No, it really is. Check the PER CAPITA figures in the link above, you are an order of magnitude worse than any other G7 nation.
The story is so blindingly simple it's almost painful to have to explain it. Countries without guns and those which have instituted bans have lower murder rates than their socio economic peers and the margins aren't even remotely close.
@Christopher, we are discussing Supergirl, or at least this episode. The question of US gun laws is the whole point of the episode, it's mission statement so to speak. You can keep to the more superficial elements if you like, who said what to whom and when and what it means for the plot, but the real meat of the discussion is the fact it raised a political issue and did so forcefully. Good on everyone involved for doing so and setting out to stimulate exactly the sort of discussions we are having.
You can no more ignore that element than you could discuss "A Private Little War" without reference to Vietnam.
Last edited:
Why does it matter if your pro-gun or anti-gun control? Isn't the issue about how well they told the story that the earth based stuff was about which was the issue of gun control. What stand they take doesn't matter. It's how you tell the story that matters more than the premise.
DId they make their anti-gun stance interesting and thought provoking and did it make sense for the characters? Did it make sense within the universe? Me I thought it was preachy and it comes down to same problem that TNG always had. It's hard explore a issue when all your characters agree on the issue except for the bad guys of course and Lena who is a Luthor and someone that nobody will ever fully trust. If J'onn is going to be for stopping guns then why not make Alex be against the idea so you have some legit debate and character drama? Imagine how boring "TOS" would have been if Spock and McCoy were always in agreement with each other. Were is the internal conflict on this show? I've been saying this for years but this show needs at least one more cynical character or asshole character to mix things up because everyone right now is always written to be either way to nice or caught up in melodrama like Supergirl has been this entire year. To much mooning over the hunky ex-boyfriend and not enough character exploration.
Jason
DId they make their anti-gun stance interesting and thought provoking and did it make sense for the characters? Did it make sense within the universe? Me I thought it was preachy and it comes down to same problem that TNG always had. It's hard explore a issue when all your characters agree on the issue except for the bad guys of course and Lena who is a Luthor and someone that nobody will ever fully trust. If J'onn is going to be for stopping guns then why not make Alex be against the idea so you have some legit debate and character drama? Imagine how boring "TOS" would have been if Spock and McCoy were always in agreement with each other. Were is the internal conflict on this show? I've been saying this for years but this show needs at least one more cynical character or asshole character to mix things up because everyone right now is always written to be either way to nice or caught up in melodrama like Supergirl has been this entire year. To much mooning over the hunky ex-boyfriend and not enough character exploration.
Jason
We saw some recently between James and Supergirl, when James lied to Supergirl about snooping in Lena's lab and then fessed up to Lena about it. I know you disqualified it since Lena is a Luthor, but there is also conflict between Lena and Supergirl regarding general trust issues, with James in the middle siding with Lena more and more.
That's true but it does seem kind of sparse. I really wish this show though had a Spike from "Buffy" or Janye from "Firefly" type as a counterbalance to everything Supergirl is usually for but is also part of the team. Monal though can't leave fast enough. He has really de-evolved as a character from a interesting but imature cad to boring love interest. They should do the whole next season without her having a love interest at all. Let Lena and James be the main romantic couple next year.
Jason
Awww, I keep liking Mon-El more and more!
I just wish they'd fix his costume so it doesn't look like it's missing a pentagonal crest. There should be nothing on the chest!
I just wish they'd fix his costume so it doesn't look like it's missing a pentagonal crest. There should be nothing on the chest!
Well, technically it is, since "more closely" is a relative term. If Krypton's version is based even slightly on the MoS version and Supergirl's not at all, then Krypton's is more closely based on it, even if it's not exclusively based on it. Relative measures and absolute measures are two very different things. 0.2 is not a large number, but it's definitely larger than 0.0.
You are misreading the point of the chart: you seem to think its demonstrating cause and effect regarding the use of guns and gun homicides throughout some extended period of time. The chart clearly illustrates a spike in gun homicides in the short period after the ban was instituted--a spike greater than the highest point in the closest period pre-ban. There's no way to spin this, or attempt to eliminate the need to question WHY it happened.
As pointed out yesterday, death is death, unless it falls into the "acceptable risk" or "out of sight, out of mind" category and frankly, that's where some place murder if it does not fit their political agenda.
Fine, but the gun-ban advocates pushed the conversation in that general direction by comparing the U.S. to countries where gun bans had been instituted. Since Supergirl--the episode which sparked this discussion is set in America, the gun conversation would be best served concentrating on the negative and positive effect of guns in America alone.
On the subject of home defense, I've noticed not one gun ban advocate offer a viable alternative to the potential victim defending himself from home invasion, street attacks, or anything else. Its rather easy for some to plant buttocks on the Ivory Throne of Fantasy and speak of some gun-free happyland, yet the answers do not come easy when pressed to present the aforementioned viable alternatives for individuals to protect themselves. Its just about banning guns, which is a--frankly--unrealistic and immature notion.
So...what are the alternatives, because last time anyone checked, people are still violent, still break into homes to rob, rape and kill, still attack the innocent on the street or anywhere else, and that's not going to change with the absence of guns. If the gun-ban advocates care about protecting life, then they should be just as interested in providing true solutions for those who seek to defend...their lives.
Good point.
Last edited:
What I wish the show would figure out, if Mon-El is going to stick around, is that the character works best as a comic sidekick. (Comic as in comedic, not as in comicbook.) His best scenes have been those where he overemphatically introduces himself as "Mike" when he's playing undercover, or when he says things like, "We're madly monotheistic" to correct a cultural fumble. Wood has a knack for comic delivery, and playing to that strength would make him a more appealing supporting character to Kara, rather than his present positioning as a virtual co-lead in a rather bland romantic role.
No, it doesn't.
It shows a year with five murders more than the year prior to the ban. That's statistical fluctuation.
5 shootings, in a year when the US had 11,829, clocking in per per capita at forty times the UK rate during your "spike"
No, not at all. America can learn from those other countries.
Why would America be any different to all those other countries? This argument keeps coming back, "Yeah it's worked everywhere else it's been tried, but the US would be different because......?"
I don't have to place buttocks on any ivory throne, I live in a country which has attempted exactly the experiment, it works. It worked in Australia, it's worked pretty consistently around the world, typically because the intruder is also less likely to have a weapon. It isn't a binary thing either, the stricter the gun controls, the safer the country.
That's true. That was why when he was kind of self-involved when we first see him he doesn't come off as a real asshole for the most part. It's because he knows how to kind of do that kind of role in a funny way. I'm watching the show "Episodes" right now and Matt LeBlanc is doing a great job as well in that same kind of role. Only in this case the guy just happened to be a alien with superpowers.
Jason
- Status