As this was an essay, I cannot rate it in the same manner that I would grade a "story".
While most opinions regarding gun control are stridently one-sided and make no effort to consider opposing view, Mr. King does attempt to be fair-minded. However, it is clear where his sympathies lie.
Well written and cogent, the essay provides reasoned food for thought on a subject that stirs great debate.
Point of view from a gun owner, I.e. Mr. King.
I liked being made to remember all the recent incidents, where innocents were struck down for NO reason. I think if every gun owner who actually took the time to read this - with an open mind - might come away from it without the fear that every gun in America should be taken out of homes.
This should be required reading for all gun owners, as well those in the opposite camp. This essay gives some perspective on the use and misuse of guns and reasons why certain types of guns and ammunition should be illegal and unavailable for public use. Before reading this essay, I was in the camp of no guns allowed. Now, at least, while I don't think I will ever have a reason to own a gun, I believe in the right to own a "readonable" gun(s). I am more firmly than ever on the side of background checks - people who have nothing to hide don't need to worry that they will be denied the right to purchase a gun - it will just take a little time. What is the hurry, anyway?
Big Stephen King fan.
Yes and No, It tends to reiterate many of the tired old arguments from both sides, bringing both sides towards the middle but not introducing anything new to the debate which is very useful for those of us not paying attention, but for those of us who do, not very stimulating.
The performance of the narrator was very passionate which kept your ear and made the listen very enjoyable.
The short nature of it made it a good listen while I did some quick house chores.
The author does a good job of bringing the far right/left wings more towards the center, and surprisingly I agree with many of his statements. One thing I was disappointed to see was the failure to address one critical problem with gun laws and the 2nd amendment. The primary reason it was put in place was in reaction to the dismal prospects at the start of the revolutionary war. i.e. a public with inferior weaponry subject to rule by the government because they had no realistic prospects of taking on such a well armed government. How they pulled it off was a miracle really. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure the government fears the people, not the other way around.The authors proposal only makes rational sense if you are willing to forgo that position. If you are willing to subject yourself to a law enforcement that can out-gun you any day of the week. Not a problem when everything works right (which for the most part it does and has but there are notable exceptions) but the alternative, I believe, is the exact reason it was put in the constitution.
This reminds me of the Paul Wellstone funeral back in 2002 which started out as a memorial and turned into a Democratic National Convention. The sound bite you get for free is luring but it quickly turns into a hatchet job on the NRA and freedom loving Americans. I should have known to expect this since it was so prominently advertised. I could have turned on MSNBC and heard Chris Matthews spout this same tired drivel.
Someone who knows less about gun laws.
It did give some good information.
It was interesting that you mentioned all the murders in Chicago but neglected to mention the gun ban there.
I really enjoyed the first 3/4 of this essay -- a sober and cogent look
and gun violence and the media's love affair with it.
Mr. King's thoughts are particularly interesting given his own "connection" to gun violence with young people and his book Rage.
Just as I was beginning to think that I was going to continue to receive a thoughtful and balanced conclusion to this essay Mr. King takes a decided left turn and suggests that the answer to this societal ill is to ban the ownership of certain forms of firearms and high capacity magazines.
How disappointing that this entire essay, which offers such a brilliant personal reflection on the subject of gun violence, ends with the parroting of the standard liberal mantra of banning guns. I was hoping for more.
I don't write book reports.
For anyone that knows me, they know that Stephen King is my favorite writer and I've read all of his books, but "Guns" is just another rant from a celebrity. There is no breakthrough new ideas on the gun issue that other pundits voice their opinion before. Just because it's Stephen King, this essay is getting good reviews. It's too bad that Audible is trying to make a buck out of 49 minutes from one author opinion on guns. Audible could had given this one away, but they didn't, even though its an Audible, Inc. production. Shame on Audible.
The truth with facts would have made this book better.
Been honest and factual and not misleading.
Narrator was decent.
There was nothing good about this book but the narrator.
The book is written by another famous person who has limited knowledge about what he is talking about. He is misleading and not factual. He can not be this stupid so I'm assuming that he is misleading on purpose. He really needs to review what the second admendment is really about. Also he keeps saying the are trying to ban auto and semi auto guns. This not true at all. Automatic firearms have been banned since the mid 80's. Also he states that the teacher in her reference could have possible not been shot if the shooter would have had a 10 round magazine instead of a 30 round because it would have taken some time to reload, this is misleading. You can drop empty mag and pop new one in, in less than 3 seconds. He also speaks of how great Australia is since they have banned guns. What he forgets to tell you how violent crimes have dramatically risen. Also he states that these guns are not used to hunt. This also is not true. Seven of the 10 guys I hunt with use AR's to hunt with. You don't unload a full mag on a deer. I was very disappointed with his ingnorance because I do enjoy his books. Just another liberal agenda.
The writing is superb, as one would expect. No matter your viewpoint, he will anger you, mainly by his insightful description of your self-contradictory opinions. He lambastes each side's wrong headed assertions and assumptions, then encourages individuals to rethink their own views and engage in rational discussion, rather than parroting a party line.
Though I would add, some of this own assertions need a tad rethinking themselves.