Shooting at new Star Wars movie

Yes. It's a black fetus so....

Well, it was an honest mistake.

It was a joke

I'm not a fan of star wars.

Another person who saw one of the prequels.

I seriously feel bad for subjecting my mom to the first two prequel movies when I was a kid. Forty dollars' worth of tickets and four hours I can never get back.

I've seen all of them. Just didn't get excited as you guys have. Also, star wars isn't famous around here.

To be fair, this board is an offshoot from a Star Trek message board, so most of us are very much into nerd culture here.

I didn't have that exposure.

What made Star Wars famous is that nobody had ever heard a movie like that before.

Star Wars and the explosion of Dolby stereo.

Prior to Star Wars, most theaters will still running movies in mono with a speaker behind the screen. The movie was also in 70mm widescreen, so it was a vastly better experience than audiences were used to. They kept lining up to see it, perhaps thinking that the story, special effects, and acting were something for the ages. Actually those weren't all that good, but the high-quality sound and video with immersive 6-track audio effects as tremendously new to them.

Don't worry, you'll learn from being exposed to our common everyday posts here

Yeah I'm doing that everyday.

Unrelated: I totally forgot that Jake Lloyd (young Anakin) was in Jingle All the Way. I also forgot how much Jingle All the Way sucks more than Phantom Menace.

It's still mind blowing that there was no other kid that could've been cast as Anakin Skywalker.

On the other hand, it hastened the end of an acting career that wold have lasted till the kid's balls dropped at the lastest. I've heard he was recently diagosed with bipolar disorder after another stint in jail, and that genuinely sucks.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci.../2015/12/15-guns-race-different-worlds-reeves

Really good info on gun violence in the US broken down by race. Black men are 4.5 times more likely to be involved in gun violence than white males while females, both black and white, have roughly equal likelihoods. 80% of gun deaths for white males are due to suicide while 85% of black male gun deaths are due to homocide.

Lots more at the link.

I brought this up before. Then some astute and savvy WordForge members brought up the fact that blacks mainly kill other blacks, so I have nothing to worry about!
BTW the comments for the article are typical idiocy. Someone said blacks have easier access to guns due to pawnshops all over. Really? Funny for me to go to the hood to buy a gun (where apparently they don't run background checks?) I have to drive past several Walmarts and Academy Sports on the way there, and they all sell guns too.
Bottom line though when foreigners talk about the US "gun problem" they apparently don't realize (or ignore the fact) that we are not one monolithic behavioral block. Take out white suicides and black homicide and by golly maybe the US is more like their country. Okay, start foaming at the mouth and telling me I'm a big old white meany now folks! Take your best shot (no pun intended).

By any measure you want to cherrypick today, America still leads with the most death by guns of any nation not consistently engaged in civil war.

For me, it's the number of absolute careless cases that's boggling. That idiot woman that got blown to bots by her toddler that was digging in her purse last year comes to mind.

And also the most freedoms to decide for oneself.

It's not cherry-picking, it's a huge factor. I'm just saying do foreigners realize our complicated demographics or just see the number? I am not by brother's keeper (no pun intended).
But I agree anyone mixing small kids and guns has Darwin potential. Toddlers And Tiaras was a weird show, but Toddlers And Trauma Centers is too much.
Now, "careless cases" is inevitable with any potentially dangerous situation. Does anyone drive carelessly with deadly results? Shoot off fireworks with deadly results? Take prescription medications with proper doses? In all these cases deadly mishaps are relatively rare - that's why they are in the news. So with 300,000,000 guns in circulation in the US some will be mishandled.
Stupid human tricks are widespread across the board - guns are just a more interesting talking point.

Hey,I advocate more stringent testing for driving too.

When I was a kid, anyone who turned 16 could get a license the next week. Then, they told us drivers ed was mandatory, along with a log of 1500 hours of driving that I'm sure was mostly forged. Now, kids under 18 have to do all that AND wait six months before taking the practical exam. We saw an area to improve safety and we took it.

We need more of that for guns.

My son just squeezed in under the wire for being the last group of HS age drivers who could let their parents/adults teach them to drive, take and pass the road test, then be able to drive. These days kids must be taught by a professional driving school in addition to parent instruction. BTW there is no HS Drivers Education in my county. They do not offer Driver's Ed. Thus it's get your parents (used to be) or these days your parents shell out money to a driving school. That said there is also a "window of opportunity". If your child doesn't get a license within the ages of 16 to 17 (maybe they aren't quite ready yet) they have to wait until they graduate high school. They cannot wait until they are 17 years 1 month - they will never drive until they graduate. Depending on when you start school because of your birthday, many kids don't graduate HS until they are 18. If they were held back, it's 19 or even 20. But if they drop out at age 18 they can get a driver's license, because they are not in high school. On the other side of the tracks in another county? They have their own rules.

Mandatory driver ed. probably has had no significant improvement in teen driving safety.

The lie is that it was for safety, the truth more prosaic - we need more jobs in a post-manufacturing dominated now mainly services economy, and government snapped it up as a function of "education." Ever more government like education bureaucracy will invariably grow. Sometimes the growth is marketed better so the taxpayers don't scream so much (unlike say the "bear" tax).

Nope. That change happened in CA in the early 2000s, well ahead of the economy crash.

Well, given that the US manufacturing economy peaked before 1980, and manufacturing as a share of US economic output has declined pretty steadily every year since, your point doesn't refute my comment, it supports it.

America tries to reposition itself into a services-based economy and we are becoming a nation of 'nail-polishers.' Drivers Ed teachers are just another example of nail buffers.

But like I said here in Georgia driver education is mandatory but the school doesn't provide it. You the parent have to pay for private driver training, or they don't get a license while they are in HS. The day after they graduate though they can take the written test, then the road after you have trained them without needing the services of a professional instructor. So the taxpayer comes out ahead because the HS doesn't employ a driver's ed instructor. Private driving instructors love it because it's money in their pocket.

My point is that new DE requirements for teens was purportedly done for safety, but has had little actual effect on teen driving safety. But since only a villain would be against new regs that nominally improve safety conditions, so such new mandates get a pass - like drunk driving penalties, or anti-smoking laws, or ever-more OSHA regs, they are easy targets for additional regulations, and we end up with ever increasing bloat.
On the bright side, it adds a few yobs. But I mock the claim that it's a boon to safety.

Soon regulatory bloat in the name of safety will encroach into the gun-safety arena, but not for a while yet, given our culture.

Everything I saw show it had a huge improvement in public safety after teens, the most accident prone of all driving g groups, could no longer drive with other teens in the car to after dark. So your claim, that there was no effect, looks like your usual horse shit.

There is safety training with guns - in order to hunt you have to take the Hunter Safety Course. No certificate of completion, no license. Since the NRA started (or sponsors) Hunter Safety it wouldn't hurt to need that training
to purchase a gun. That way nobody is tracking gun registration or ownership or anything like that. All it would track is who has had the training. Some people who take the training will never even buy a gun - they use other people's guns to hunt or target shoot. I can't see how the NRA could possibly oppose this training since they designed it!