You don't listen to something like this for "enjoyment"
His performance was fine
This is an opinion piece that is well reasoned by King. That I don't agree is beside the point. I have waited for 35 years for something as shocking as Newtown to cause us to react by abridging the rights of the law abiding. I would have thought that Columbine would have done it- or Virginia Tech- or myriad others. Apparently it took the deaths of little kids. I suspect that a number of less high volume weapons would cause about the same damage. Will this have any effect? It will not and at least King is intellectually honest enough to admit that.
Just prepare for the infringement of something else that the elites in Washington don't approve of. The left thinks of this as a moral question. So it goes.
Yes. I think that it portrays ideas that we should all consider.
I think everyone trying to discuss gun control should read/listen to this. It was very well written.
Notably Steven King wrote an early novel 'Rage' that was found to be on the personal reading list of two American Shooters.
The overall pull no punches attitude / writing style of Steven King is read well by Christian Rummel. Overall the points made are hard set in American culture, which I find disturbing to think about. He argues that there is no culture of violence in the media, which he backs up with popular media examples (video/written most strongly). But King ignores a couple of elements: 1) the American polarized psyche 2) the facts about anti psychotic drugs involved in the shooter incidents. I live just across the border. And when all is said and done, gun crime in Canada, even in the largest metro areas is very low compared to the US. The reason, guns are hard to get. There are a lot of things I don't like about Canada, the liberal attitudes, the lack of government accountability, the stuffy attitudes, the limited press, and these may under foreign lens seem juxtaposed to the gun control laws, but facts are facts the gun crime in Canada is minute in comparison to the gun crime in the US. I am not in favor of even changing the gun laws in the US, for the same reason as anyone there who isn't. It is a slippery slope. And as border nation I recognize the destabalizing potential of radical constitutional amendment. Over all this article was certainly worth the few cents it cost.
Hi, I work in I.T. and am a freelance photographer. Just love this site, and always happy to discuss books, photography or just plain life. Feel free to drop me a line, I'm always looking to meet interesting people.
Absoloutly, as an Australian I value our gun ownership laws, King has a balanced view.
The intelligent thoughtful commentry.
Its really more factual commentry.
No, I found it to intense for one session.
This is a well balanced and researched opinion.
I'm a voracious reader who unfortunately spends a lot of time on the road. Audiobooks make my life a lot better.
I'm not sure what my expectations were. I'm a huge second amendment supporter and certainly right of center politically and I agree with the sentiment that guns don't kill anyone at all. I also think that I've never seen a murder on TV (except I guess I did see Jack Ruby shoot Oswald, come to think of it). There are no murders on TV or in the movies, of course. All that said, I guess I expected a more reasoned approach from Stephen King. Some of his novels get a bit preachy (usually on the lefty side of the aisle) but never enough to bother me much, and I was actually surprised to hear he was a gun owner. His arguments are pretty familiar and lame, however. I am still and will always be a fan, however. As he said in the introduction, I'm one of those who thinks he should stick to writing books. In this essay, he's either preaching to the (gun-control) choir, or whatever the opposite metaphor would be (can't think of one offhand).
My title says it all. I really enjoy most of Steven King's books, but not this one. I thought I was listening to a pretty unbiased review up until about the last 10 minutes. I really disagree with the views and how they were presented at the end of this book. I have listened to every book I've purchased except this one, at 4 or 5 min left I just stopped listening.
An essay both reasonable and passionate on gun violence. This piece illustrates the kind of conversation I WISH I could have with my friends on the Left AND Right. I write this the day after a news reporter, cameraman, and interviewee were shot on live television in Virginia. Two died at the scene - the audience witnessed their last moments on earth, could hear their screams. The camera caught the shooter as he walked towards his victims to finish the job. My friends on the Right call for yet more guns & liberties, my friends on the Left call for no guns at all. This impasse and inertia will allow more massacres like the one we experienced yesterday to occur, like those that have occurred nearly every day this year. Every. Day. Sometimes more than one. So common, in fact, that most don't make national news. There is a great swathe of ground in the middle of this issue that simply isn't being explored and it MUST BE. Because until we all meet in this centrist no-man's land, the killings will continue to become more horrifying and more frequent.
I was surprised to hear of Stephen Kings publication of "Rage" and then to find that it had some influence in multiple shootings afterward. I applaud him for pulling it from publication because of this.
First, I should say I am a centrist, one of the meager minority in our country according to King, and I would advocate for some forms of gun control myself, though King doesn't include many ideas that might actually help our gun problems, with the exception of background checks. In summary, he advocates limiting magazine capacity to 10, banning assault weapons, and comprehensive background checks. The background check is a no brainer, and no thoughtful person can make a case against that one. However, the term 'assault weapon' doesn't have a specific meaning. People include such things as flash suppressors and barrel shrouds, pistol grips, collapsable stocks, etc. None of these will have any effect on casualties in a mass shooting situation. The Clinton gun ban was also vague in it's definition, stating: "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Before we proclaim that we should 'ban assault weapons' we need to clearly define what that means. For most people it is a catchy term and sounds like something that should be banned, and it seems King is in that group. Next, limiting magazine capacities to 10. He presents no evidence at all that this ban will be effective. What is the point of banning something (relinquishing our freedom) if it won't have any effect. First, there are literally millions upon millions of magazines already existing in the US. Is the government going to grandfather them, or confiscate them? If they confiscate them, do we actually think the criminals will hand theirs over? Or that they won't be able to smuggle new ones in? Outlawing drugs has been real effective at keeping those off the streets... Also, in the age of 3D printers, a magazine is simply a piece of plastic and a spring that holds bullets. You could very easily print your own. Finally, he claims that the australia gun laws have been a success. In fact, the conclusions drawn by the vast majority of people looking at the issue, including snopes and factcheck, 15+ years after the ban went into effect, that there is no measurable difference in murders or gun violence. Great Britain's statistics after it's gun ban are similar. Oh, and one more thing, if you'll pardon the rant. He asserts that nobody wants to take your revolver, your hunting rifle, your sporting guns, etc, and seems to think that anybody who thinks otherwise is a crazy, paranoid idiot. I beg to differ. They tried to ban guns in Chicago and Washington DC, and that included all of them. When it finally went to the Supreme court, in spite of the fact that we have a second amendment and the court is supposed to uphold the constitution, these banning laws were voted unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4. That's right, if one of those 5 justices had voted the other way, then guns would be banned in 2 cities, and the precedent would have been set that politicians had the power to ban guns in defined areas. Are we honestly to believe that it would have remained only in Chicago and DC? No, I assert very strongly that we, pardon the pun, dodged a bullet on that supreme court decision, and that there are plenty of people out there who would love to take away our guns...and will continue to try.
If you are looking for the next thriller from probably the most prodigious and skilled master of the creeps, then this isn't it! This isn't a story, but an essay; a well-thought out and insightful discourse on the plague of mass murder by gun violence in America, and the inadequate way that American society deals with it.
Narrator Rummel keeps the listener riveted as he brings King's words to life. And King's common sense and incising words cut through the usual crap one reads on the subject.
Download and listen if you want a fresh perspective on this issue, but don't expect a horror story; THIS horror is for real!