A theory of zombies

[Seth]

That is quite correct, Mr. Jonno.

That is why I think the popularity of zombie crap is to feed the nasty fantasies of all those wannabe violent criminals.

Bread and circuses.

If the lumpen proletariat can sublimate its completely understandable rage towards the malfeasance of government, especially the Obama administration, by redirecting that rage at zombies and sublimating it into imaginary violence, they will be less likely to direct their rage against the actual authors of their misery: the government and Obama.

"By damn I'm sure sick of Obama and his lies and how he....ZOMBIE!"

WTF do you think Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Ukraine and China are all about?

Bread and circuses.

[Seth]

What the hell is a wannabe violent criminal?

One who has the urge to engage in violent crime but has been deterred by fear from doing so because his potential victims might be armed and might kill him if he tries.

[pErvinalia]

I really doubt most zombie movie aficionados want to kill Obama and his peoples.

[Svartalf]

The one zombie aficionado I know doesn't have a murderous bone in his body... except when it comes to imaginary monsters

[JimC]

The one zombie aficionado I know doesn't have a murderous bone in his body... except when it comes to imaginary monsters

Ah, but if there were no imaginary monsters for him to slake his lust for violence, how many dead Parisians would then result?

[tattuchu]

What the hell is a wannabe violent criminal?

One who has the urge to engage in violent crime but has been deterred by fear from doing so because his potential victims might be armed and might kill him if he tries.

In my darker times, I've fantasized about killing people. To be honest, though, the thought of them possibly carrying a gun and trying to kill me back never occurred to me. It was never a concern at all. My only concerns were: 1) How to get away with it and 2) Who to kill. See, I would only want to kill people who I thought deserved it. They'd have to be real assholes that I'd be doing the world a favor by killing. I would never kill innocent people.
My other concern would be the purchasing of a gun. I've never done it, nor tried to do it, because I don't trust myself with a gun (see above for obvious reason why). I have a temper, and sometimes dark thoughts, but I also have enough self-awareness to realize that I'm precisely the sort of person who should never own a gun.

[Seth]

What the hell is a wannabe violent criminal?

One who has the urge to engage in violent crime but has been deterred by fear from doing so because his potential victims might be armed and might kill him if he tries.

In my darker times, I've fantasized about killing people. To be honest, though, the thought of them possibly carrying a gun and trying to kill me back never occurred to me. It was never a concern at all. My only concerns were: 1) How to get away with it and 2) Who to kill. See, I would only want to kill people who I thought deserved it. They'd have to be real assholes that I'd be doing the world a favor by killing. I would never kill innocent people.
My other concern would be the purchasing of a gun. I've never done it, nor tried to do it, because I don't trust myself with a gun (see above for obvious reason why). I have a temper, and sometimes dark thoughts, but I also have enough self-awareness to realize that I'm precisely the sort of person who should never own a gun.

Well, that's a very good thing. However, I don't see such self-awareness as any sort of excuse for assuming that others should be denied their rights. That sort of prior restraint is traditionally grossly misused in every aspect of life where it comes up. This is a lowest-common-denominator habit of those who are unable to trust their fellow citizens to act rationally and therefore (as in MrJonno's case) view absolutely everyone else as a legitimate potential threat who must be closely monitored and controlled for the safety of all.

Traditionally, we rely first upon self-awareness such as yours to guide a person's moral and ethical conduct and second we respect the right of the individual to his own thoughts and emotions while at the same time holding him fully liable for his actions. We do not assume that you will misuse a firearm if you decide to own one, we respect your liberty and your rights by avoiding prior restraint and allowing you to live your life as you like so long as, and until you demonstrate that you cannot do so in a socially acceptable manner. At that point, we take action to amend your behavior and/or remove you as a threat to others.

The problem with gun-banners like MrJonno and BG is that they refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of citizens are in fact sane, law-abiding, rational and careful people who can in fact be trusted to possess and operate dangerous equipment of many different kinds, including automobiles and firearms. It is less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of people in the US who demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to abide by the proper rules of firearms ownership and social behavior. That doesn't translate into a threat to public safety that justifies infringing on the rights of the other 99.9999 percent of the population.

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that you made this claim, I'm just expanding on your thought.

I respect you for your self-awareness and your decision, although I would prefer to see you learn to control your temper rather than allowing your temper to control you. If I may say so, carrying a gun is an awesome and serious responsibility that causes one to carefully audit one's public and private behavior so as to avoid situations that might lead to having to, or being tempted to use one's weapon.

For example, I stay out of bars generally, and I never, ever drink alcohol when I'm carrying, even if I'm at a bar with friends, so I never have to worry about getting into a bar fight.

Having a powerful reason NOT to get angry and let your temper get the best of you is actually a good thing. For some people it's simply the fear of getting the crap beat out of them by someone with superior fighting skills. For others it's a more rational approach to civil behavior that pays less attention to one's own ego and more attention to civil behavior.

[Blind groper]

In order to avoid hypocrisy, let me admit that I feel the same violent urges inside myself as I believe are released by those who love zombie movies and fantasize about killing them.

However, I suppress those urges and do not allow them to affect my behaviour, which is the right and proper thing for all of us to do.

The same applies to guns. I feel the same attraction for guns and killing with guns that the gun nutters of the world feel. I have used guns. I have hunted with guns. I have handled hand guns. I know what it feels like. I also hate the urges that rise in myself from that, and avoid situations now where that might happen.

I understand the attraction of guns and killing, and I oppose situations where that can take over.

Even though Seth claims most gun owners are responsible, he still lives in a country where the murder rate is 5 times as high per capita as it is in my country, and half of all those murders are done with guns.

Of course, the non gun murders in the USA are still much greater than all murders per capita in my country. My reading suggests that is due to a very unhealthy hero worship for the vigilante in the USA. Since I first read that idea, I have taken note of how much the vigilante hero is idolised in American films and TV shows, and compared that to British films and TV shows. There is definitely a pathological fascination with the vigilante hero in the USA. In Britain, such a character is more likely to be satirised than idolised.

[pErvinalia]

In order to avoid hypocrisy, let me admit that I feel the same violent urges inside myself as I believe are released by those who love zombie movies and fantasize about killing them.

However, I suppress those urges and do not allow them to affect my behaviour, which is the right and proper thing for all of us to do.

And Zombie movie watchers don't suppress that behaviour?

[piscator]

I think BG wants to shoot someone, and tries to exorcise his demons by quoting pseudo stats on the internet.

[pErvinalia]

It sounds like it. I'm all for violent revolution to oust the evil elites, but not even I have fantasies of killing people.

[Seth]

In order to avoid hypocrisy, let me admit that I feel the same violent urges inside myself as I believe are released by those who love zombie movies and fantasize about killing them.

Wow! Admitting that you are a human being after all, what a surprise.

However, I suppress those urges and do not allow them to affect my behaviour, which is the right and proper thing for all of us to do.

Indeed.

The same applies to guns. I feel the same attraction for guns and killing with guns that the gun nutters of the world feel. I have used guns. I have hunted with guns. I have handled hand guns. I know what it feels like. I also hate the urges that rise in myself from that, and avoid situations now where that might happen. I understand the attraction of guns and killing, and I oppose situations where that can take over.

Then clearly you should not own a gun. However, in the case of the vast majority of people who own guns, they understand the difference between fiction and imagination and reality and they are fully capable of controlling their actions even when they feel violent urges and are therefore no risk to the general public by virtue of the fact that they own a gun. In other words, most people are sane. It's good that you recognize that you are not sane enough to own a gun. Congratulations on your self awareness. But quit trying to project your faults on everyone else. We're not all like you. Most of us are in fact completely different from you.

Even though Seth claims most gun owners are responsible, he still lives in a country where the murder rate is 5 times as high per capita as it is in my country, and half of all those murders are done with guns.

Which is exactly why I carry a gun. If some nutbar like you loses control and gets a gun, which is entirely possible and factually true even where you live, I want to be prepared at all times to take appropriate defensive action to put an end to the threat.

Of course, the non gun murders in the USA are still much greater than all murders per capita in my country. My reading suggests that is due to a very unhealthy hero worship for the vigilante in the USA. Since I first read that idea, I have taken note of how much the vigilante hero is idolised in American films and TV shows, and compared that to British films and TV shows. There is definitely a pathological fascination with the vigilante hero in the USA. In Britain, such a character is more likely to be satirised than idolised.

You're still unable to distinguish between "vigilantism" and "self defense" I see. Oh well, I don't really expect an insane person such as yourself to be able to properly distinguish between fantasy and reality, which is why I'm glad you don't have a gun.

[Blind groper]

Seth

When vigilantism results in a massive rise in the murder rate, it is wrong, wrong, wrong! And that is exactly what happens in the USA.

As for my own urges, I have no desire to own a gun, but if I did, I would not use it against other people, because I have sufficient discipline.

Seth, you keep claiming that guns are owned by people who are sane and responsible, and yet the statistics of gun deaths in your country show how wrong you are. If there are 100 million gun owners in the USA, and 1 million end up using their guns against other people (which would be approximately true in today's world), then there are 100 million too many gun owners. It does not matter if 99% never attack another human with their gun. That 1 in 100 is enough to make it seriously unwise to permit gun ownership. This is particularly true for hand guns, which are used in something like 80% of all gun murders in the USA.

[klr]

I have a much simpler theory about this zombie craze. It's the flavour of the month. Come back in a while, and it will be something different.

The repressed males in question can better service their needs by playing violent video games, in which they are active, rather than passive participants. Much more rewarding, if you're into that sort of thing.

[Seth]

Seth

When vigilantism results in a massive rise in the murder rate, it is wrong, wrong, wrong! And that is exactly what happens in the USA.

Once again, go look up the definitions of "vigilantism" and "self-defense" and try to figure out the distinction between the two. It's significant and important and your inability to do so makes you look incredibly stupid.

As for my own urges, I have no desire to own a gun, but if I did, I would not use it against other people, because I have sufficient discipline.

I bet you would if they were fucking your daughter in the ass while they sliced open your wife's throat. Are you saying you wouldn't?

Seth, you keep claiming that guns are owned by people who are sane and responsible, and yet the statistics of gun deaths in your country show how wrong you are. If there are 100 million gun owners in the USA, and 1 million end up using their guns against other people (which would be approximately true in today's world), then there are 100 million too many gun owners. It does not matter if 99% never attack another human with their gun. That 1 in 100 is enough to make it seriously unwise to permit gun ownership. This is particularly true for hand guns, which are used in something like 80% of all gun murders in the USA.

Mmmm'kay... You have outdone your own stupidity. I didn't believe it was possible, but I was wrong. You are officially the most stupid, most brain-dead, most paranoid, most biased and most evil anti-gun zealot on the face of the earth.

Congratulations!