New King essay "Guns" available as Kindle Single

[Bev Vincent]

King has written an essay discussing his thoughts on the gun control/gun rights issue facing the U.S., available now as a Kindle Single through Amazon.com.

“I think the issue of an America awash in guns is one every citizen has to think about,” said King. “If this helps provoke constructive debate, I’ve done my job. Once I finished writing ‘Guns’ I wanted it published quickly, and Kindle Singles provided an excellent fit.”

From Amazon: In a pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion, Stephen King sets down his thoughts about gun violence in America. Anger and grief in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are palpable in this urgent piece of writing, but no less remarkable are King’s keen thoughtfulness and composure as he explores the contours of the gun-control issue and constructs his argument for what can and should be done.

READ THE AMAZON PRESS RELEASE (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1778043&highlight) | ORDER GUNS ON AMAZON.COM (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B53IW9W/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B00B53IW9W&link_code=as3&tag=theroadtothed-20)

[mae]

Just got it for the Kindle on my iPad. Not a short article, but a longish essay with about ten mini-chapters. Wonder if he'll collect this one like "Head Down", another non-fiction piece.

[Shannon]

"... and Kindle Singles provided an excellent fit."

Hmmm, endorsement much?

[Bev Vincent]

For those without Kindle: Kindle cloud reader (https://read.amazon.com/about)

[you ever seen a ghost?]

anyone able to "crack" the file or send it to me so that i can do the same?

my wife has a Kindle Fire and i have Kindle on my smartphone, but i'd like to print this out for my files.

thanks!

-justin

[Bev Vincent]

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims of gun violence. "

[jon10g]

Thanks Bev.
Jon

[you ever seen a ghost?]

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims of gun violence. "

did i say i was going to steal it? it's only a dollar. like i said, we have a Kindle in the household and i have the app on my phone, but i want to be able to print it too.

[Bev Vincent]

That wasn't a response to you. That was something Ms. Mod posted on the SKMB after people complained that King was apparently profiting from these shootings.

[Shannon]

I might be mistaken, but I think Mr. Vincent was just adding extra info to the thread. ... Maybe! lol

[Shannon]

Jinx!

[WeDealInLead]

"... and Kindle Singles provided an excellent fit."

Hmmm, endorsement much?

Oh man, did you read UR?

I'll read the article sometime this weekend. I hope it sees print in a magazine.

[you ever seen a ghost?]

That wasn't a response to you. That was something Ms. Mod posted on the SKMB after people complained that King was apparently profiting from these shootings.

my apologies. it looked like a direct response!

eta: anyone willing to e-mail me the file and i'll take a crack at it and e-mail you a printable version if you want?

-justin

[Dan]

My first thought, having only read a short bit so far

King mentions that Adam Lanza carried a Glock 10 which he says is so large it is used to kill polar bears. Unless I am missing something, the 10mm is actually about the same size as a .45. Yes it is larger than a 9mm or 40ACP, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to kill a polar bear. Not a big deal, just an observation. As a gun enthusiast, but not a anti gun control guy, I will have more observations, I'm sure.

[Brice]

My first thought, having only read a short bit so far

King mentions that Adam Lanza carried a Glock 10 which he says is so large it is used to kill polar bears. Unless I am missing something, the 10mm is actually about the same size as a .45. Yes it is larger than a 9mm or 40ACP, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to kill a polar bear. Not a big deal, just an observation. As a gun enthusiast, but not a anti gun control guy, I will have more observations, I'm sure.

Anyone who has read King's stories knows he isn't exactly an expert on guns. LOL This doesn't invalidate or even minimalize his opinion. It's just how it is.

[Dan]

My first thought, having only read a short bit so far

King mentions that Adam Lanza carried a Glock 10 which he says is so large it is used to kill polar bears. Unless I am missing something, the 10mm is actually about the same size as a .45. Yes it is larger than a 9mm or 40ACP, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to kill a polar bear. Not a big deal, just an observation. As a gun enthusiast, but not a anti gun control guy, I will have more observations, I'm sure.

Anyone who has read King's stories knows he isn't exactly an expert on guns. LOL This doesn't invalidate or even minimalize his opinion. It's just how it is.

I understand and was not in any way inflamed by it, just an observation. The article is not bad. I agree with some/most of his points. Without this being a gun thread, let's just say that, as always, King wrote an excellent article that makes you think.

If you have Amazon Prime, you can "rent" the article for free, but I could not figure out how to do that, so I accidentally bought it for $.99. Still, as Bev pointed out, the money goes towards victims of gun violence so not a loss.

[Bev Vincent]

Denmark's Arctic Assets and Canada's Response – Sovereignty and Strategic Resources of the High Arctic (http://www.casr.ca/id-arcticviking4sb-1.htm)

The choice of a Sirius Patrol pistol was also determined by concerns about encounters with aggressive polar bears. Most Danish units use 9mm automatics like the CF but the Sirius Patrol learned through hard experience that 9mms had insufficient 'stopping power' to deal with angry adult polar bears. As a result, Sirius Patrol members carry a more powerful 10mm pistols for self-defence, employing the 10mm Glock 20 automatic.

[Dan]

Thanks Bev, I'm not arguing that you can't or shouldn't use a 10mm, just that it isn't the massive gun that is portrayed. Personally, If I were to be required to shoot a polar bear, which I wouldn't do unless my life depended on it, I would have a large caliber rifle. I don't think the 10mm would drop a polar bear, even if you shot it directly in the heart.

Again, sorry. I really am not trying to argue any gun agenda.

[Brice]

I don't think the 10mm would drop a polar bear, even if you shot it directly in the heart.



Oh, it might. You'd have just been mostly digested by the time it dropped him. LOL

[mae]

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims of gun violence. "

Yes, good cause. Says so right here: http://www.stephenking.com/promo/guns/

[mae]

Clueless news organizations run with 17-year old news that King pulled "Rage" from sale:

http://ktla.com/2013/01/25/stephen-king-pulls-first-novel-from-bookshelves/
http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/boston-north/Horror-writer-Stephen-King-pulls-school-shooting-book-from-sale/-/11984708/18296896/-/kduvdn/-/index.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/stephen-king-pulls-rage-bookshelves-citing-possible-accelerant-school-shooters-1039912


The 25-page essay, published as part of Amazon’s Kindle Singles collection, includes possible solutions to the mass shooting epidemic that’s plagued the nation, but also announces King’s decision to remove his first novel from bookshelves.

[Dan]

They read the parts they wanted to read. The article states that he requested it not be published, but that was a long time ago.

[Sir_Boomme]

Thanks Bev, I'm not arguing that you can't or shouldn't use a 10mm, just that it isn't the massive gun that is portrayed. Personally, If I were to be required to shoot a polar bear, which I wouldn't do unless my life depended on it, I would have a large caliber rifle. I don't think the 10mm would drop a polar bear, even if you shot it directly in the heart.

Again, sorry. I really am not trying to argue any gun agenda.

why not argue... I'm sure King is arguing his viewpoint....
I've chosen not to support King's anti-gun views.
and I have a glock .45 and I sure as hell wouldn't take on a polar bear with it...

[Sir_Boomme]

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims of gun violence. "

Yes, good cause. Says so right here: http://www.stephenking.com/promo/guns/

gotta LOVE this Stephen king site page though...

especially this part:

" ORDER GUNS ON AMAZON.COM
(All profits will benefit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)"

so... I'm headed over to amazon to see if there are any good deals on assault rifles. I'm always ready to help out a good cause.

[pathoftheturtle]

... If I were to be required to shoot a polar bear, which I wouldn't do unless my life depended on it. ...That's good. Nothing too "culture of violence" about so well-defined a hypothesis.

[jhanic]

I bought it, but have yet to read it.

John

[biomieg]

I think/hope you will be pleasantly surprised. Granted, I'm not a US citizen so my perception will probably be different, but I thought it was sensible. It's not a rabid anti-gun essay (which many people probably expected). I was surprised to read that King owns three firearms himself.

[Kevbot]

What I found most interesting was that King clearly wasn't taking sides. His offhand remark about him owning 3 guns himself hopefully wins over people thinking he's staunchly anti-gun.

PS - I wrote a review of the piece over at FEARnet.com. Check it out, if you'd like! http://www.fearnet.com/news/review/review-stephen-kings-latest-kindle-single-%E2%80%9Cguns%E2%80%9D

[pathoftheturtle]

Many people apparently expect all kinds of things to be rabidly anti-gun. Black & white mentality is just an obstacle in any kind of social challenge, but King is a pretty smart guy.

[mtdman]

Don't really care what King thinks about gun control. Especially coming from someone who wrote an 8 volume series based on a man who kills with guns, and who has written piles of books based on horror and violence.

[pathoftheturtle]

Like he wrote them hoping to increase horror and violence. :rolleyes: Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thinks so much about mortality and human vulnerabilities because he actually cares?

You might as well proclaim that the guy who wrote The Green Mile would have no right to comment on death penalties.

[mae]

An excerpt from "Guns": http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/01/stephen-king-pulled-book-gun-controls

[gsvec]

anyone able to "crack" the file or send it to me so that i can do the same?

my wife has a Kindle Fire and i have Kindle on my smartphone, but i'd like to print this out for my files.

thanks!

-justin

Justin - There are apps available that will allow you to print to a wireless printer from the Kindle Fire.

[jon10g]

The edited version of Guns is also in the physical paper copy of today's Guardian (2nd Feb 2013, page 17).
Jon

[Ari_Racing]

Any website where a physical copy can be purchased?

[JackTheLad]

I read the essay last week. Those saying it's an "anti-gun" essay have clearly not read it.

[John Blaze]

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims of gun violence. "

Yes, good cause. Says so right here: http://www.stephenking.com/promo/guns/

gotta LOVE this Stephen king site page though...

especially this part:

" ORDER GUNS ON AMAZON.COM
(All profits will benefit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)"

so... I'm headed over to amazon to see if there are any good deals on assault rifles. I'm always ready to help out a good cause.
That's what I thought too! I was like, "Amazon sells guns now? hell yeah, 2 day shipping!"

and then goose eggs. :(

[jon10g]

Any website where a physical copy can be purchased?

I don't know of any I'm afraid.
Jon

[herbertwest]

Any website where a physical copy can be purchased?


You can always make your own via lulu.com for instance ;-)
I think that if there was a transcript for AFTERLIFE, i'll make my own copy as i truely loved that story.

[Ari_Racing]

Anyone saw this?

http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-King-Dont-Know-ebook/dp/B00B6QBCXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359751340&sr=8-1&keywords=Stephen+king+don%27t+know+shit

[jhanic]

Anyone saw this?

http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-King-Dont-Know-ebook/dp/B00B6QBCXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359751340&sr=8-1&keywords=Stephen+king+don%27t+know+shit

That's one of the results of the US's First Amendment for free speech. Anyone can publish whatever they want. I won't waste my $1 on this.

John

[Bev Vincent]

The author must have had someone help him clean up the product description, because when it was first released, the cover had "Steven King" on it and there were several typos in the description. Even so, I note this in the first review: "Although it in the end has no bearing on the essay's message, it is worth noting that the writing comes across as amateurish, with poor spelling and punctuation. It looks like it could have been put together by a junior high school student."

[mae]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/02/3213930/fact-checking-stephen-king-on.html

Author Stephen King once asked his publisher to pull one of his novels off the shelves.

Six people had died — in real life.

Four boys in 10 years brought guns to school. One killed a teacher and two students. Another shot five members of a prayer group, killing three. All four teenagers had read Rage, a book King wrote when he was a teen himself and published under another name.

King, in a blunt, impassioned essay, wrote that when he learned of the copycat crimes, he wanted the book off the market. He argues the United States should do the same for assault weapons.

“You don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it,” he said in the 25-page piece, published last week for Amazon Kindle readers.

King, a Democrat who says he owns three handguns and supports the Second Amendment, argues stricter gun control “would save thousands of lives.” (His earnings from the sale of the essay will go the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.) He says Australia shows it’s possible.

In 1996, 28-year-old Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people near Australia’s Port Arthur historic site, a popular tourist destination. After the shootings, the country banned and bought up automatic and semi-automatic long guns, destroying at least 600,000 in 12 months — ultimately about a third of its privately owned guns.

It worked, King argues.

“Since the Bryant killings and the resulting tough gun laws, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60 percent in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it’s not opinion. It’s arithmetic, honey.”

We wanted to know: Have homicides by firearm in Australia dropped almost 60 percent? And did those “tough gun laws” do it?

We asked King and Australian and American experts in gun violence for evidence.

By a few different measures, the arithmetic works. Homicides by firearm did decline after 1996 — in fact, had already been in decline.

One path to “almost 60 percent” comes from statistics compiled in part by Philip Alpers, a public health professor at the University of Sydney. The number of gun homicides fell from 69 in 1996 (excluding the 35 victims of the mass shooting prompting the laws) to 30 in 2012.

That’s a decrease of 56.5 percent.

(And, yes, you read those numbers right. The United States has about the same number of gun homicides every day as happened in Australia last year.)

Then there’s King’s source, an item from Slate.com, he told us. It was a blog post citing a blog post citing a study — a reputable peer-reviewed piece in the American Law and Economics Review.

The researchers, Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University, found that in the decade after the gun laws, firearm homicides dropped 59 percent.

So, on the numbers, King has strong support.

But did the 1996 laws drive the numbers? That’s more vexing.

“He could be right. Or he could be wrong,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, who wrote a helpful 2011 summary of the evidence. “The true answer is, we really don’t know.”

Leigh and Neill designed their study to test for the law’s effect. They asked whether death rates dropped more in states that destroyed relatively more banned weapons through gun buybacks.

They found the buyback program drove down firearm suicides by almost 80 percent, with no significant change in suicides that didn’t use guns. But the effect on homicides, while of “similar magnitude,” was less precise, they wrote — perhaps between 35 and 50 percent.

Two other studies, which Hemenway described as flawed, found the laws made little difference. But their design made it nearly impossible to find an effect, he argues.

The first, authored by members of the Australian gun lobby, highlighted the fact that before the law passed, the firearm homicide rate was already dropping. If it had continued on that track, they found, that would explain the entire change — showing the law made no difference.

The second study was more sophisticated. Authors searched for a shift in deaths in a single year that might be attributed to the law, and found their tests suggested the law didn’t “have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” Hemenway answers that the buyback occurred over two calendar years, in 1996 and 1997 — and the two-year drop was substantial. Gun homicides fell 46 percent.

Australian experts told us the science leans King’s way. But it’s not yet definitive.

“The truth is that gun homicide did decline substantially after the toughening of Australia’s gun laws and the massive gun buyback,” said Don Weatherburn, director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. “The complication is that gun homicide was coming down before any of this. The academic debate is about whether the downward trend accelerated.”

His own view? That there’s some evidence that tougher gun laws reduced the homicide rate, but it is “far from conclusive.”

Paul Mazerolle, director of the Violence Research and Prevention Program at Griffith University in Brisbane, echoed that “more definitive work is required."

Some feel more certain the laws did their job.

An even messier question is whether similar laws would work in the United States. Australia doesn’t have domestic gun manufacturers — and has the benefit of being, you know, an island. Guns destroyed aren’t so easily replaced.

Our ruling:

King, urging his readers to support an American assault weapons ban, said that since Australia passed tough gun laws, “homicides by firearm have declined almost 60 percent.” The raw numbers back him up — but cause and effect are much peskier questions. Scholars we spoke with say the evidence leans King’s way, but is less than conclusive. That’s an important clarification. We rate King’s claim Mostly True.

[Bev Vincent]

@skdotcom_news: GUNS has been released as a 99 cent Audio Edition (Read by Christian Rummel) from http://Audible.com. http://tiny.cc/2icesw

[mtdman]

Like he wrote them hoping to increase horror and violence. :rolleyes: Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thinks so much about mortality and human vulnerabilities because he actually cares?

You might as well proclaim that the guy who wrote The Green Mile would have no right to comment on death penalties.

Actually, the argument would be the opposite on the green mile. King writes books about fictional horror and death. He writes books about a fictional gunslinger that kills with guns, and has to repeat his life over and over again because he doesn't value the people in his life, he uses people. He writes books about people getting killed and dying horrible deaths. He's good at that. But frankly it eliminates his credibility about real life death and killings. All the creepy crazy shit that comes out of his head, and I'm supposed to follow what he believes about owning guns? If he wanted to decrease gun violence and death he wouldn't be creating grand epic heroes out of people who kill with guns. If he was serious, he'd immediately pull his gunslinger series and come out and denounce the violence and death he wrote about in those books. But apparently it's okay to keep selling those books just as long as we make laws to restrict the rights of responsible people who won guns and DO NOT kill anyone. Yep, that makes sense. Restrict the rights of people who own guns, follow the laws, don't harm anyone and ignore the bad guys who break the laws. It's only okay to own a gun if you're a fictional character in a book that Stephen King makes royalties off of.

I don't give a crap what he thinks and just because he's Stephen King doesn't mean his opinions weigh more or mean more than anyone else. In fact, it's mostly the opposite imo.

[biomieg]

It's kind of funny to see how many people have preconceptions about King's attitude towards guns (assuming that he's anti-gun because he's a liberal or whatever), yet none of them actually reads the essay to verify if they're right.

[jhanic]

Well said, Michaël.

John

[pathoftheturtle]

I do not for one second believe that making gun violence a taboo subject would decrease it in the slightest.

[mae]

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2013/02/why-stephen-king-was-wrong-to-publish-guns-as-a-kindle-single

Stephen King wants to talk about gun control, but he's just preaching to the choir

Last month, King published “Guns,” an e-book available exclusively on Amazon Kindle for 99 cents. Written in response to the horrific school shootings across the country, “Guns” is billed as a "pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion."

And in Tuesday's press release announcing the release of the audiobook edition, King is quoted as saying, "The overwhelming response from readers of the Kindle Single edition of 'Guns' underscores the great need for thoughtful discourse on the issue of guns."

As one of the country's most famous authors, King doesn't have trouble finding an audience. And looking at the figures, this latest release is also his latest success. Ranked first in the Kindle Singles' bestseller category and as the fifth-highest-selling nonfiction title for the Kindle, “Guns” has inarguably received the overwhelming response King was looking for. But a closer look suggests that the eBook hasn't engendered the rational discussion he was looking for.

Although Amazon reviews are far from the ideal forum for thoughtful discourse, the numbers have a lot to say. Of the 100 most helpful 5-star reviews, 75% are marked "Amazon Verified Purchase" (meaning the customer at least bought the eBook). Of the 98 total 1-star reviews, that percentage drops to 22.

Since the title isn't available on other platforms (Nook, iBooks and Kobo), we can assume that 88% of the 1-star reviewers, the people who claim to disagree with King's views, likely haven't even read the book. They are simply responding to the notion of an anti-gun book, rather than the contents of that book. In other instances, such as with a recent Michael Jackson biography, similar tactics have been used as an attempt to bury a book. This reactionary and reflexively suspicious group, however, is the audience King needs to reach: Those who are so virulently against tighter gun laws that they'll condemn an argument without actually hearing it.

Amazon has virtual dominion over the e-book marketplace, and publishing to Kindle gives King access to the biggest e-reader audience around. But because the Kindle Singles program requires books be sold for some amount, and not available for free anywhere else, King immediately discouraged people from taking a risk and engaging with ideas that might challenge — or align — with their own. Because, as any writer, editor, or publisher will tell you, the only thing harder than getting people to read is getting them to actually buy your book.

Recommended Reading, a fiction magazine I co-edit, is distributed for free every week via Tumblr. We removed barriers in order to bring extraordinary fiction to the widest, most diverse audience possible. As a small independent publisher, we've attracted tens of thousands of readers in only a few months. Just imagine if someone with King's reach used a similar approach.

It's not about the money; King is donating the earnings to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. King said he wanted “Guns” to be "published quickly, and Kindle Singles provided an excellent fit."

I don't believe books should be free; nor do I believe people won't pay for good ideas. We also publish to Amazon, including Kindle Singles, and are grateful for the sales and the wider audience it offers. But if your primary intention is to start an open dialogue, there are better, cheaper and more accessible ways to do it. It's difficult to readers willing to pay to have anyone, even Stephen King, tell them that their beliefs, values, and behaviors are wrong. But, then again, there was “Carrie.”

[mae]

The audiobook will be released on CD on April 23: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1480522821/

[Coulrophobia]

The audiobook will be released on CD on April 23: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1480522821/

I am surprised he is not reading it.

[mae]

King has a sort of addendum to "Guns" over at The Bangor Daily News:

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/20/opinion/stephen-king-speaks-out-on-gun-violence/

Like most of the bloodthirsty dodo-birds who feel an urge to take out as many people as possible before killing themselves, James Seevakumaran had a simple plan: pull a fire alarm in his University of Central Florida dormitory on Monday, and, when the students ran out, he’d kill as many as possible. He had a bunch of explosives that probably wouldn’t have worked — they weren’t fully wired — but he also had guns that would have: a .45 Hi-Point semi-automatic pistol and another of those damned assault rifles, in this case an American Tech .22 with a 28-cartridge clip, small enough to fit into a gym bag.

This time it didn’t happen, because one of Seevakumaran’s roommates became suspicious, locked himself in the bathroom and dialed 911. When Seevakumaran saw the police arriving, he killed himself and no one else. A happy ending of sorts, if you consider the possible alternatives.

At UCF, luck was with the good guys. At Sandy Hook Elementary School, not so much. In that case a lot of good guys and girls — little good guys and girls — were senselessly slaughtered before they could even finish collecting from the Tooth Fairy on their baby teeth. Not fair. Not fair at all.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, I wrote an essay called “Guns,” and published it as a Kindle Single — an e-book, in other words — because I wanted to be a part of the discussion before the whole subject slipped from the consciousness (and consciences) of the American people. It has a way of doing that, you know; the National Rifle Association counts on it.

What I asked for in that piece — what I almost begged for — was that we Americans find some middle ground on the subject of heavy-duty firearms. Just a small median strip of rationality between the honking freeway lanes jammed with those on the political right and the political left. According to polls, the majority of Americans would really like a place like that, where a rational discussion could be held without raised voices.

I pointed out that I’m dead against repeal of the Second Amendment, since I’m a gun owner myself. I also pointed out that a deer hunter who feels it necessary to go into the woods armed with a 30-round AR-15 must either have poor aim or is afraid the deer are going to fight back. I refused to go on any of the cable news programs — both those on the right that would have been happy to attack me or the ones on the left that would have been delighted to praise me.

The response to that essay has been strong but, in many ways, depressing. There have been more than 1,300 capsule reviews on the Amazon website. A thousand have been favorable (834 five-star reviews, 205 four-star reviews). More than 200 have been unfavorable (160 one-star reviews, 49 two-star reviews). In the middle, the place I really wanted to reach, less than 90. If you need a statistical example of how polarized the country is, there it is.

We’ve got two vocal political blocs in the United States right now, and all they do is yell at each other. Not only about guns, either. It’s the debt, it’s abortion, it’s immigration reform, it’s entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, it’s foreign policy, it’s Obama (the bum) and John Boehner (the bum). My God, we’ve got people still arguing over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and whether or not the president is an American citizen. Sometimes I wish they’d all just grow up, shut up and go about the business of helping their fellow men and women.

Here’s another depressing factoid: Most of the five-star reviews of “Guns” are marked “Amazon Verified Purchase,” which means the reviewer actually bought the download and (presumably) read it. That’s the case with very few of the one-star reviews, suggesting that the reviewers either read excerpts in a newspaper article or didn’t read it at all. There are assertions that my facts are wrong but little in the way of backing evidence.

What there seems to be in the one-stars is an all-encompassing anger and the irrational belief that I want Americans stripped of their guns. That is simply not true (nor would it be feasible). I argued for three things: universal background checks, a ban on the retail sale of semi-auto assault rifles geared to fire large magazines of ammunition and a ban on mags holding more than 10 rounds. Everyone else keeps their deer rifles, shotguns, revolvers and automatic pistols. All I want is to make it a little more difficult for the Adam Lanzas and James Seevakumarans to kill unarmed civilians and innocent children. Why in the name of God should that be controversial?

Many of my anti-fans are also mad about where my share of the proceeds from “Guns” is going. One of them, a Mr. or Ms. C. Henderson, writes, “All of this is a way for Stephen King to … give money to an organization … whose avowed purpose is to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.”

Mr. or Ms. Henderson seems to have missed the fact that the organization in question is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, not the Brady Campaign to Repeal the Second Amendment. Stop with the paranoia, please. The BC’s mission statement simply says, “We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at work, and in our communities.” That’s a lot different from saying, “We are devoted to creating an America free from guns.”

Look, most Americans want these simple laws, so let’s make them. If they run counter to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court will eventually overturn them. If they stand (they probably will), the hunters can still hunt, the target shooters can still shoot, and homeowners can still have a weapon or two at hand for defense and protection. The rest of us will be a little safer.

There are no guarantees in life; nothing’s a lock. I think we all understand that. You can outlaw AR-15s, but you can’t outlaw crazy. The next Adam Lanza is out there somewhere, the next Seung-Hui Cho, the next James Holmes. The job we all have, as responsible Americans, is to make it as hard for these loonies as possible.

Can we at least find a middle ground on that?

[jhanic]

Very, very interesting!

John

[mae]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/apr/24/stephen-king-donation-maine-gun-control



Stephen King, who made his views about gun control clear earlier this year in a passionate essay describing automatic and semi-automatic firearms as "weapons of mass destruction", has made a "substantial" donation to a Maine group advocating limitations on gun ownership.

The Coalition for a Safer Maine supports legislation calling for greater background checks on gun owners, a ban on the size of magazines that can be sold and a strengthening of the prohibition of the sale of guns to those judged to be mentally ill. It said in a statement on its website that it had received a "substantial donation" from King and his wife (and fellow author) Tabitha King, and that the couple backed its support of gun control legislation.

"We are grateful for the generous support of Mr and Mrs King at this pivotal moment in our efforts to establish common-sense gun regulations in Maine," said Larry Gilbert, former mayor of Lewiston, former federal marshal and co-chair of the Coalition for a Safer Maine.

"Mr King strongly defends the Second Amendment and acts accordingly – he owns three handguns. And as a gun owner, he believes the right is also a responsibility that should be safeguarded by sensible laws, such as expanding background checks and banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines," added Paula Silsby, former US attorney and co-chair of the Coalition.

King himself told the Associated Press that the gift was "five figures", but wouldn't comment further because "charity's supposed to be a private thing".

In his February essay, Guns, King wrote that "political discourse as it once existed in America has given way to useless screaming".

"Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use," he wrote. "I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters or hunters, but semi-automatic weapons have only two purposes. One is so that owners can take them to the shooting range once in a while, yell yeehaw and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapour spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use – their only other use – is to kill people."

[Isamu Dyson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGVuD5oskPg

I've seen videos like these on Youtube quite a few times before. The comments they tend to generate are often disparaging towards Stephen King either because his real-life stance on gun ownership veers towards tight restriction or because the man doesn't have a perfect grasp of firearm-related terminology (magazine versus clip, for instance).

Then there are the gun forums. Hoo boy. If a discussion comes up in regards to the sandalwood revolvers (mostly to inquire about their true caliber) or pretty much anything firearm related (like the "docker's clutch" in The Drawing of the Three), eventually someone will bring up the fact that Mr. King's views don't align with theirs and suddenly everyone starts badmouthing the guy in various hideous ways.

What I want to know, then, is this: has he had this rep among gun owners for a long while, or is this a (relatively) recent phenomenon?

[Merlin1958]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGVuD5oskPg

I've seen videos like these on Youtube quite a few times before. The comments they tend to generate are often disparaging towards Stephen King either because his real-life stance on gun ownership veers towards tight restriction or because the man doesn't have a perfect grasp of firearm-related terminology (magazine versus clip, for instance).

Then there are the gun forums. Hoo boy. If a discussion comes up in regards to the sandalwood revolvers (mostly to inquire about their true caliber) or pretty much anything firearm related (like the "docker's clutch" in The Drawing of the Three), eventually someone will bring up the fact that Mr. King's views don't align with theirs and suddenly everyone starts badmouthing the guy in various hideous ways.

What I want to know, then, is this: has he had this rep among gun owners for a long while, or is this a (relatively) recent phenomenon?

He has for quite some time now IMHO and to my knowledge. Let me also state that I am not a gun advocate.

[CyberGhostface]

That video is both sad and hilarious.

[Randall Flagg]

It certainly goes back as far as the info in this thread (which this new thread is likely to be merged into):
New King essay "Guns" available as Kindle Single (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17040-New-King-essay-quot-Guns-quot-available-as-Kindle-Single&highlight=Stephen+King)

[Br!an]

$.99

[Isamu Dyson]

It certainly goes back as far as the info in this thread (which this new thread is likely to be merged into):
New King essay "Guns" available as Kindle Single (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17040-New-King-essay-quot-Guns-quot-available-as-Kindle-Single&highlight=Stephen+King)

I didn't notice the "master" thread before. Whoops! Kudos for the merge.


That video is both sad and hilarious.

My assessment leans more towards the former. The shooter apparently substituted part of his own ego for that of an inanimate object.

Also, there is something darkly symbolic about a tool of destruction being used to obliterate knowledge.