Well written and spoken. 'Love the narrator. The bad reviews are those who passionately disagree with the conclusion that semi-automatic guns should be banned.
The round up of incidents where a guy goes out and kills people =seemingly randomly= is pretty shocking even though I know all of them. The writing is very witty and in the moment. Well worth the listen.
The passion and performance. Nice to hear a centrist opinion
The personal story behind King pulling the Rage story.
No, this is the 1st time I've listened to him
Yes. That was the point of a 99 cent listen
While I don't agree with King's opinion that "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines should be banned he is at least man enough to admit he's a gun owner and sees some value in the 2nd amendment. However, I'm concerned about celebrity figures clouding the truth about semi-automatic firearms. They simply aren't all that bad. Banning one will likely mean a short road to banning them all. When hunting squirrels it actually is beneficial to have a semi-auto 22 because if they are in trees you might need to take a few shots in quick sequence to hit such a small target. Also, when hunting ducks and geese it's extremely helpful to have a semi-auto shotgun. The birds simply don't want to wait around for you to pump and no animal will wait for you to reload a single shot breech load.People forget that hunters actually perform a ecological benefit by reducing animal populations where few predators exits now days. Living in northern IL the geese have really taken over with the expansion of water retention ponds on corporate lands. Recently, coyotes have made themselves known in N IL. With this animal you actually do need more than a few rounds ready because if you stop to reload you'll take your eyes off them and they are gone.King also says semi-autos are only best for the shooting range where you can rapidly get off 10 shots without reloading and practice your shot control better. I disagree. Sure it's fun to shoot endlessly at the range but it's really like wasting money on fireworks. However, there are other active shooting sports that are much more challenging and rewarding with an AR platform rifle. These courses are outdoor ranges and require you to run and engage targets, stop, control your adrenaline/breathing, acquire target and shoot again. There is nothing criminal about these sports and the basic concepts of such sports have been a part of the Olympic games for years.I also think King would have been better off as a centrist reminding gun owners that safety begins with them. Safes, trigger locks, ammo storage, etc would have been a better argument than a ban. I respect the opinions of others and King's writing is passionate. As for pulling Rage, I think many of us look back at our high school classmates and think about that one odd guy who once made an off color comment or perhaps a sketch in a notebook that made us wonder.I think in any gun free zone, security needs to be regulated and mandated. Every school should have a shooter incident plan and every movie theater should have a security plan where exit doors are secured and not propped open. If not to prevent another Aurora, CO event but simply to deter theft of a movie seat. Even King admits these shooters are singling these places out for the impact they will net.As a centrist I think the worst enemy of the 2nd amendment is the rogue shooter or criminal use of a firearm. I only wish persons convicted of weapons violations were held more accountable. In Chicago, they give gangbangers 60 days probation and GPS monitoring sometimes even if they've had multiple violations. That element is the enemy of the 2nd amendment.
I'm a corporate training consultant and adjunct professor who loves to read! I'm always looking for the next big thing.
I think that Stephen King should become president of the NRA. This essay provides personal insight into King's beliefs about guns and violence. He wrote the essay shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting in response to some of the craziness that is coming out of the mouths of people on both sides of the gun-control argument. I believe that King has been able to find some good middle ground--and I agree with the majority of his beliefs.
To those who know me, it is surely no surprise that I am a strong supporter of the second amendment. I regularly carry a concealed weapon, and I am completely opposed to having the second amendment repealed--or even tampered with. I am even a life member in the NRA. Even so, I am not one of those extremists who believes that there is no room for rational discussion. Even King himself is a gun owner and doesn't want his rights taken away; however, he understands the need for both sides of the argument to come together to find a solution to the problem of gun violence.
Let me be clear, I do not agree with everything that King wrote. He has some strong opinions that I think are a bit of stretch. Even so, this essay is one of the most reasonable views that I have recently heard. If you are on either extreme of the gun-control argument, you might struggle with the ideas in this essay. Nevertheless, you should think about some of King's suggestions. If you're not really on either side of the argument, this essay might help you form your own opinion.
I will listen to NO boring book. Old Fav's,Card, King , Hobb. New Fav's, Hill, Scalzi, Sawyer, Interested in Lansdale, Crouch, Konrath
King uses his talents at storytelling and facts to make his suggestions. He makes some good points, all of which you have heard before, only he does use several facts that back up his statements. King is a liberal and a gun owner. I am a conservative and not a gun owner for those who like to paint everyone with a wide brush.
Chances are he is not going to change anybody's mind in this divided country, but I appreciate the try and it was entertaining on top of everything else.
The narrator was excellent and added to the understanding of the essay.
King writes a very persuasive argument that doesn't really steer to either the left or the right. A lot of factual information and hard common sense. He doesn't propose a simple solution, but does put forth realistic steps that could be taken. I can't say I disagree with his ideas or conclusion as it's presented, either. I'm not sure all of his figures are accurate (I'm referring to the Australian solution; not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to see more data studies to prove the correlation), but surely something to this effect needs to be done.
I think this is just one issue that needs to be addressed, however. This might very well help limit the lone crazed gunman scenarios we've been having, and we definitely do need to do something there. And I know it's another subject, but we also need to do something about the gun-based gang violence in this country, which accounts for a lot of the homicides going on. And none of these proposed solutions are going to affect that problem, unfortunately. We cannot just accept that those are part of our society any more than the lone gunman scenarios are.
Stephen King brings his prodigious intelligence to a difficult task--addressing the growing gun violence in this country. He comes from a place in the middle of a mind-boggling controversy and presents a well thought out solution to this conundrum. It is a must read for anyone who agonizes over protecting our second amendment rights while controlling the proliferation of death-dealing firearms.
Stephen King is imaginative but he babbled on about gun control in an illogical manner.
I think Christian Rummel was set up for failure having to narrate this dribble. Mr. Rummel added fiery disdain that was enjoyable but the 'script' doomed his performance. I would read something else he narrated.
No. The narration was good...Mr. Rummel could read a gothic novel or thriller and be amazing. I think Mr. King should have had his "editorial" reviewed prior to publishing. It was not organized and fluid and more of a soap box forum that a critic of gun control and legislation.
I buy a ton of books on Audible, but this one can be read in five minutes on the internet. Don't waste your money :(
While he started with some wonderfully logical points, the writer broke down and relied only upon some misinformation, miscategorizations, and inaccuracies at the end. Had he stayed the course he could have made a compelling argument for his viewpoints.
The descent into typical talking points and arguments against the 2nd amendment instead of the same analysis he brought to the first few paragraphs.
In the beginning there was a coherent and emotionless argument analysed. In the end, an emotional rant without any supporting facts, all opinion.
The Author should differentiate between facts and fictions and opinions. "Assault Rifle" is a term coined by the media, not an actual description of the weapons used in recent shootings. Also, no "Automatic" weapons were used, nor are any weapons used in these actually military weapons- rather they are simply hunting caliber semi automatic weapons that are modified to LOOK like a military weapon.
If proponents of gun control would simply admit this portion of the debate ahead of time and stop using inflammatory and pejorative sentences and words designed to frighten readers/listeners genuinely honest debate can ensue about reasonable measures being taken to better equip society in limiting access by the mentally ill to weapons that can be used to harm multiple people in short time frames- which would include chemicals, explosives, and arson tools as well I would imagine, if the debate is to be genuine.
Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, and I immensely enjoyed this essay. His candor throughout was refreshing, and the narrator did a wonderful job of conveying King's signature delivery. Overall, it's a worthwhile listen on a very important subject. But only open-minded people need apply.