Chicago Has Strict Gun Control. Hows That Working Out For Them?
Chicago has strict gun control. How’s that working out for them?
good god, i make one post about my liberal views and i'm suddenly getting conservative anons about how guns are good and how guns totally aren't the problem.
chicago has a gun issue, but most of the guns from chicago are from ghost guns that are made without registry, and other contraband methods. also, chicago may have once had strict gun control, but most of that is has been overturned in state and federal courts. while they have stricter laws than say, Texas, it's still not that strict.
-
nillawafez liked this · 1 year ago
More Posts from Asocial-skye
i know anidala isn't that type of couple, but if george lucas gave us a single scene of anakin and padme doing her taxes, i would have been ready to burn for their love. i already do that, but it would have been been better.
most of this, i sort of agree with even though i absolutely loathe ep 8 with every fiber of my being, and i basically don't hold the sequel trilogy canon.
but i have to disagree with 'luke never saw vader's atrocities! he was protected!' to which i say, who the fuck cares? remember what happened to luke the last time he and his dad squared up?
i'm just saying, the guy was fully aware that this was his son, and blatantly chopped off his hand to prove a point. you literally cannot be more evil than this. just a few minutes earlier, he also froze luke's friend, and kidnapped his other friend. the guy also blew up his sister's planet, which luke ran into the rubble of. i'm pretty sure that there is more that vader has done that i can't think at the moment, but even just a couple of these actions individually would be enough to convince anyone that this person was bad news.
i don't mean to be callous, but does finding out or seeing that his dad-notorious mass murderer- surprise, killed a bunch of other people really change much? it was probably filed away under more people for whom my dad made life a nightmare box in his brain. luke not knowing exactly what kind of person his dad was takes away from his staunch belief that he could be redeemed, and paints him as more naive rather than compassionate.
other than that, i do agree with most of what this essay posits-especially the fact that the dark side is a constant battle, and not a big decision. it's small, but it really emphasizes how good choices have to keep being made, and that bad choices do not cancel out your good choices. your bad choices will yield bad consequences, and your good choices yield good outcomes. it's very hindu in a way.
however, i don't know where the idea that obi-wan wanted to redeem vader came from, because he did not. it was kind of an important plot point that obi-wan didn't believe that vader could be redeemed, and nowhere in the OT or PT does it state implicitly or explicitly that he believed Anakin to be redeemable- it was so bad that he literally disassociated the two because he couldn't reconcile them together. no one but luke believed that vader could be redeemed, which is why it is so satisfying that luke is proven right, and vader chucks palpatine down the elevator shaft.
Luke Skywalker in 'The Last Jedi' (1/2)
Luke in The Last Jedi... love it or hate it, it's a difficult subject.
I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I don't think Luke was "ruined"... I'd argue that, from a purely in-universe perspective, his subplot actually tracks with what was previously established in the original films.
There are issues, but I think they are mainly found on an out-of-universe/structural level (which I'll get into in post 2/2). For now, let's take a deep dive and unpack why this portrayal isn't all that problematic.
The most commonly-heard argument is that:
"They ruined Luke's character! He would never go into exile or abandon his sister and friends!"
Simply put, Luke used to be:
an optimist
so brave he'd risk his life to save his friends,
aspired to become a Jedi.
Whereas, in The Last Jedi, he's:
jaded and depressed,
hides/abandons his sister and friends, like a coward,
says the Jedi need to die?!
Now the fact is... Luke is 24 years older when he goes into exile, 30 years older in The Last Jedi. People change, with age.
In Luke's case, he matured from an impatient kid who'd rashly run to save his friends, like in Empire Strikes Back, to a grown-up who makes hard choices and restrains himself from doing that, even though he desperately wants to.
Luke tells himself this is a self-sacrifice this for the greater good.
"Because he’s the last Jedi and a symbol of that it then becomes this self-sacrifice, he has take himself out of it, when he knows his friends are dying, when the thing he’d most like to do is get back in the fight." - Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018
And Rian Johnson didn't want Luke to come across as a coward, so he also gave Luke an argument that initially seems to make sense:
The Jedi way is flawed and inevitably leads to arrogance. Proof: the Sith originally came from Jedi. His own new order is no exception to that rule, even if he thought it was (in his arrogance, he believed his own legend).
So if he leaves and stays in exile? No more Jedi, no more Jedi-turned-darksiders that can mess up the galaxy.
The Force will keep trying to balance itself and a new, worthier source will appear (in the form of Rey).
But while his reasoning that "the Jedi are inevitably arrogant" seems sound and reasonable... it's wrong.
Just like Dooku's reasoning that "the Jedi are corrupt" seems sound, but is ultimately wrong.
Just like Anakin's rationalization that "the Jedi are evil" seems sound nope, that one doesn't even seem sound, it's just plain wrong.
Where is it wrong, in Luke's case?
Well, he's rationalizing his actions by blaming the Jedi religion, instead of admitting his own failure.
"The notion of, 'Nope, toss this all away and find something new,' is not really a valid choice, I think. Ultimately, Luke's exile and his justifications for it are all covering over his guilt over Kylo." - Rian Johnson, The Art of The Last Jedi, 2017
"In his own way, [Luke is] trying to disconnect, he’s trying to throw away the past, he’s saying 'Let’s kill [the Jedi] religion. It’s the thing that’s messing us up, thing thing right here, let’s kill it.’ And the truth is, it’s a personal failure. It’s not religion, it’s his own human nature that’s betrayed him." - Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018
He fucked up, plain and simple.
But it's not because “he’s a Jedi and that made him arrogant and the Jedi mentality is flawed”, as he claims early on in the movie.
He failed because he's flawed. Luke is human and had a moment of weakness where he was scared shitless and acted on instinct.
Yoda's spirit helps him realize this, and he fixes his mistake by allowing Leia and the resistance to save themselves. And as he does it, he acknowledges the importance of the Jedi and their teachings.
And it's also why, in The Rise of Skywalker, he has the maturity to admit that he wasn't staying on the island out of some self-sacrificial gesture, as he kept telling himself. Truth is, he was afraid. Afraid he'd screw up again.
Do the movies go about this in an emotionally-satisfying way? That's debatable. But, on paper, I don't think Luke's behavior in The Last Jedi is too much of a shark-jump considering how
THE ORIGINAL IDEA CAME FROM GEORGE LUCAS!
In the couple of months after the Disney sale, Lucas developed the Sequels with Michael Arndt in late 2012/early 2013, and concept art was made by artists like Christian Alzmann.
Note: the image on the left got a “Fabouloso” stamp of approval from Lucas!
Lucas’ sequels would feature a Luke Skywalker who was a figure like the jaded, reclusive Colonel Kurtz in the movie Apocalypse Now (which, fun fact, Lucas helped write and was originally set to direct).
The reason why Luke was in self-imposed exile wasn’t specified, all we know is that he was:
hiding from the world in a cave,
haunted by the betrayal of one of his students,
and spiritually in a dark place.
Other concept artists, like James Clyne, tried to illustrate the First Jedi Temple and some of the designs were approved by Lucas, such as the one below.
Eventually, Kira the female Jedi-wannabe protagonist (who eventually became Rey) would seek him out so he can train her.
This Luke would be a much more prominent part of Episode VII (instead of only appearing at the end) but still died at the end of Episode VIII.
For sources and more information about George Lucas’ plans for the Sequel Trilogy, read this post.
The only part that wasn't detailed by Lucas were the specifics of why he went into exile. But all in all, this sounds pretty similar to what we got in The Last Jedi.
"Luke would never try to kill Ben!”
I agree. And he didn’t try to kill Ben. He stopped himself.
And this version of the event?
This didn’t happen.
What Kylo tells Rey is his version of the story. And he thinks he’s telling the truth... but his recollection of the event is warped as this was obviously a very traumatic event for him.
"I don't think he's lying actually. In my mind, that was his experience. [...] I think that it's probably twisted a little bit by Kylo's own anger and his own prejudices against Luke, but I feel like he's actually telling her the truth of his experience." - Rian Johnson, Star Wars: The Last Jedi commentary, 2017
The narrative frames the third version of the story as the one that’s objectively how events went down. Because Rey believes him, and Rey is both the protagonist and a stand-in for the audience.
Now, if you think Luke’s word is unreliable and you have an easier time trusting Kylo’s version of the story, go to town.
But I think that if you actually believe would Luke would never try to kill Ben, you’d take Luke's second retelling of the story at face value.
I know I do.
“Okay, but he would never consider killing a child, like Ben. He saw the good in Darth Vader!”
First off, Luke refers to Ben as "a scared boy" because, he's a middle-aged man. But objectively, Ben was 23 years old.
But also, I mean... with Vader, Luke actually had the luxury ignorance.
Do you think would have truly gone on that Second Death Star if he had actually witnessed Vader:
choke his Padmé,
kill Obi-Wan,
actively try to kill Ahsoka,
murder Jedi younglings,
betray and hunt down his other Jedi brothers and sisters,
and cold-bloodedly kill countless innocents, one by one?
There’s a difference between watching him kill Ben Kenobi (who still ‘lived’ as a ghost and talked to him seconds later) and hearing a couple of rebel pilots get blasted in the trench run, and actually seeing all the horrors he’s committed.
Don't get me wrong, Luke knows Vader is evil, absolutely. But if he had seen this side of Vader, the needlessly cruel side...
... I'm not sure he'd have been as compassionate.
Proof: Obi-Wan, someone who deeply loved Anakin (to the point where he could never bring himself to kill him), someone that genuinely wishes that Luke can redeem him... also feels that, realistically, attempting to do so would be pointless.
And hell, even without really seeing all the massacres Vader committed, the second the latter threatened his sister, Luke went berserk and almost killed him!
So the question becomes:
“What could make Luke - trained Jedi Master, long-time optimist and overall compassionate to a fault - consider killing Ben?”
All we’re told is that he looked into Ben’s mind and saw darkness and the destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything he loves.
The specifics are left to our imagination. They could include:
the sight of Kylo slaughtering his parents and Chewie with a smile on his blood-smeared face,
the smell of Han's burning flesh in the air,
the wails of Chewbacca as he's run through by Kylo,
the faint sound of Leia's tears hitting the ground,
the destruction of the New Republic's citizens and planets.
Whatever it may have been, it was intense. Because Force-induced visions are vivid as hell, as has been shown throughout the franchise.
It's not like watching something on a TV, you're there, all your senses are affected in an extremely powerful way.
And the vision Luke experienced scared him so much that even shortly after it, when looking at a sleeping young man, all he sees is that evil monster from the vision. So he tremblingly draws his saber.
But it's evident that Luke wasn't thinking clearly or rationally.
His base emotions had taken the wheel, he was being tempted by the Dark Side.
"He doesn’t give in to the Dark Side, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side. It reminds me very much of when Vader is tempting Luke, when Luke is underneath the stairs in [Return of the] Jedi, lit with that very beautiful half-and-half, the duality of these two sides of him being pulled. And that’s really what that moment is for me, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side for Luke." - Rian Johnson, IGN, 2017
And yet despite seeing all that... Luke catches himself.
It's not the first time that Luke almost does something horrible to a family member and catches himself. Again, 24 years prior, he almost murdered his own father in a fit of rage.
The scene in Ben's hut intentionally parallels that outburst he has in Return of the Jedi.
A terrible future is presented before Luke.
He reacts instinctively, is tempted by the Dark Side.
He snaps out of it.
The only real difference is that, in Return of the Jedi, Luke only comes to his senses after a frenzied onslaught during which he actively tried to kill his own Dad.
24 years later, despite having witnessed that terrible future even more vividly than he did on the Second Death Star, he catches himself merely seconds later. Instead of going on a whole rampage, he stops the moment the lightsaber turns on.
I'd call that "progress".
"But Luke should've learned his lesson and known better than to give in to the Dark Side!"
Resisting the temptation of the Dark Side is by no means a one-and-done thing. It's not a power-up that you get, it's a constant struggle.
"I think it disrespects the character of Luke by treating him not as a true mythic hero overcoming recurring wounds & flaws, but as a video game character who has achieved a binary, permanent power-up." - Rian Johnson, Twitter, 2019
Dave Filoni says so too.
"In the end, it’s about fundamentally becoming selfless, moreso than selfish. It seems so simple, but it’s so hard to do. And when you’re tempted by the dark side, you don’t overcome it once in life and then you’re good. It’s a constant." - Dave Filoni, Rebels Remembered, 2019
Hell, even George Lucas stated something along those lines:
"The Sith practice the dark side and are way out of balance. The Jedi aren’t as much out of balance because they’re the light side of the Force. They still have the bad side of the Force in them, but they keep it in check. It’s always there, so it can always erupt if you let your guard down." - George Lucas, The Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005, 2020
Learning the lesson once doesn't mean you've learned it forever. Especially with the Dark Side, which poses a never-ending battle.
In-universe examples: Anakin learned to let go of his attachments during the “Padawan Lost” arc of TCW.
A year and a half later, he’s butchering kids because he can’t let go of his attachments.
And during wartime, Yoda found himself repressing his darker instincts and ignoring their existence. Thus, when he had to face them, he struggled to acknowledge and control them.
So considering Luke didn't go "rampage mode" with Ben, as he did when he tried to kill Vader, I think he deserves some credit.
Finally, I've heard this insane argument many times, as a response to the above points:
"Yeah but Luke wasn't actually trying to kill Vader! He was holding back, he was trying to keep him alive!"
And, uh... no. He wasn't.
He lost his shit, folks. And almost killed Vader.
Like, right here?
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t moved his saber to intercept Luke’s blade, Luke would’ve stabbed Vader in the face.
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t held his sword up in time, SWISH, there goes the top of his helmet AT LEAST, if not the rest of his head.
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t dodged he’d be chopped in two.
⬆️ If Vader’s arm gave out slightly sooner, if his blade faltered just a little lower, if he loosened his grip on his saber a bit, Vader would be cleaved in two.
My point is that if you swing at someone with a lightsaber? They’ll get chopped. And if you aim for the head or the chest? You’re trying to kill them.
Before Luke got a grip, throughout that whole rampage, the only thing that kept Vader alive was his own skill.
Otherwise, Luke would’ve murdered him in a fit of rage.
If Luke was holding back, then the theme of "resisting the Dark Side" completely falls apart.
There's no indication that he was restraining himself, in he script.
And just look at the imagery.
Luke is surrounded by darkness, symbolizing how he's being seduced by the Dark Side, he's being tempted to give in to his anger towards the man who hurt his friends and took his hand.
Then Vader threatens Leia.
And the next time we see Luke, he's silhouetted, his face is all black.
Luke was originally trying to hold back and talk Vader down, but fails to control his instincts and gives in to fear, to anger, to the Dark Side... and goes all out.
He swings at his father furiously and keeps swinging, until he cuts off Vader's hand... and he is about to deliver the final blow…
… when he sees Vader’s mechanical hand and realizes that by giving in to his anger, that path will inevitably lead him to become exactly like this half-machine half-man laying at his feet. That’s where the path to power leads.
And so he makes a decision:
He’s a Jedi. Like his father before him. His compassion for Anakin is stronger than his hate for Vader.
That's the narrative intent.
It has to be.
Because if he had been "holding back" throughout that entire bit, then the stakes are lowered immeasurably, John Williams' saddening score is misplaced, the lightsaber choreography is misleading, etc.
For the above-listed reasons, I think Luke's portrayal in The Last Jedi doesn't really contradict anything in the previously-established lore. It works, it's the typical "old cowboy needs to get back in the saddle" trope. Frankly, I can defend this subject all day long... so where's the problem?
The problem comes in at an out-of-universe level. While it's not inconsistent... it's also not satisfying.
The thing is, if you...
... take one of the most brave and optimistic characters in the franchise, then open the film saying "well, now he's jaded and in hiding", without giving us context on how he became that way...
... take a character whose arc was specifically about controlling his emotions, then show him be ruled by those emotions without providing context for what made him do that...
... then that kills the suspension of disbelief, for a lot of fans.
And, as such, they'll have a much harder time going along with what you're saying.
Because "show, don't tell" is one of the most basic principles in visual storytelling. And we weren't shown:
"Ben being increasingly violent during training",
"Luke sitting Ben down and having a talk with him, only to be ignored" or
"the horrors Luke saw in Ben's head".
I have no doubt that those things happened, in-universe.
But if we're talking about a movie-going experience, many were left emotionally-unsatisfied.
Because all that stuff was in there... but only subtextually. It was up to the fans to imagine on the details. Normally, I'd argue that's what Star Wars is all about: allowing fans to dream and think outside the box. But in this specific case, I think many fans would've rather had a more complete and explicit story. Because it's Luke Skywalker.
And yet... even these structural and writing issues had a logic behind them, and if you ask me... there was no other direction that this story could be taken in.
We'll explore this in more detail in part 2/2.
i need to do homework but realizing why i am simultaneously drawn to the clone wars (2008-2020) and the star trek reboot movies is that they are having parallel conversations in that the star trek reboot movies says, “no matter how much tragedy the world throws you, you will ultimately wind up in the place that you need to be (happy)”, while the clone wars animated series says, “no matter how much happiness the world throws you, you will still ultimately wind up in the place that you need to be (sad)”.
i dunno but something about how jim kirk in the original timeline credited his father as inspiration for joining starfleet, and in the original timeline, jim kirk was still on good terms with his brother—but in the alternate timeline, jim kirk has no father and no brother and no mother and an abusive uncle, and yet even despite all those odds, he winds up being a captain anyways, because the world said even if you are born into tragedy, you will still always wind up doing the thing you were born to do. contrast that to anakin skywalker forever being doomed to being darth vader, and how it doesn’t matter if we get snippets of him having friendly banter with obi-wan or having sweeter moments with padme or having trust with rex or even taking on a sweet, bright-eyed kid like ahsoka—he will always wind up being the one who brings the galaxy an immense measure of pain. something about how both stories seem to discuss fates or whatever!
Ik in canon Rex was endlessly loyal to Anakin and the same was with Cody and Obiwan, but I have the hc that Rex was loyal in a hesitant way. That he has more critiques about Anakin and that he kept pushing down his frustration because it was his duty to serve and follow anakin.
my hc that Rex has a lot of critiques about anakin that he keeps quiet about also extends to ahsoka. Ahsoka is learning most from anakin--and in the beginning, she's a wreck bc she's inexperienced but the toll her inexperience is taking on the 501st is something rex hates. anakins recklessness and impulsivity comes with at least a few more years' life experience. his daring battle plans come with more thought. ahsoka's insecure and trying to be like him, so she mimics him a lot (we see this in canon). but she keeps getting soldiers killed and rex doesn't feel like anakins "be patient please think" or her Temple punishments for disobeying orders are enough to really drive home the fact that people are dying.
this doesn't mean he's hard on her, he's conflicted bc of rank and what would potentially be crossing the line regarding trying to help her himself without stunting the necessary growth she needs to become a better war leader
this quiz sorts through characters from like dozens of fandoms and finds the one you’re most like. I’m not even a little bit surprised by my result