I really want to read "Guns" is it seriously being held hostage to Kindle???
I really want to read "Guns" is it seriously being held hostage to Kindle???
It is only available through Amazon's Kindle Singles at this time but you do not have to have a Kindle to order and read it.
I'm only about halfway through, but before the board closes for the weekend, I just wanted to say to Mr. King (I'm using the formal address because right now, I'm feeling a lot of respect for the man): thank you for writing this. Especially thank you for writing what I'm reading right now, about the polarization of American politics.
For those of you who aren't reading it because you think that while you enjoy his books, politically he is The Other and you are just not interested in what some do-gooder liberal has to say, stop. Go read it. It's 99 cents, a buck that will go to a good cause, and it's worth much more. He's talking to you too.
I am extremely dissapointed Stephen. As a life long reader and fellow Mainer I cringed when I saw that you had written this essay. I know you support Obama, and I have not let that bother me untilgg now. What I find most perplexing is how you can write about this tragedy when we dont even know what really happened. The media bungled this story so badly that they have no credibilty. The inconsistencies are too much to ignore. Sure, go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist, or whatever makes you feel better. I dont care anymore. I, and many other Americans want simple answers to simple questions. Thats all. And we arent getting any. I mean, it was widely reported reported by every major network that handguns were used. This was the offical story even 24 hours after the event! Two 9mm guns, then it was four 9mm guns, then it was an ar15? What? Obviously, in the wake of the current gun grab it makes ALL the difference. Would we be having these discussions over "assault rifles" if a 9mm glock was used? There are many other things that simply dont add up. At all. And those of us who want our media to do their job are marginalized as "conpsiracy theorists" or worse----for asking simple questions..Unbelievable. In addition, i find it disingenuous and very hypocritical to express ouotrage over "assault rifles" while we have a Presidetn who drops drone bombs on innocent women and chidlren at will! Sickening.Why not demand Obama go to yemen, iraq, afghanistan, etc., and help clean up the "collateral damage" from his drones? Come on!! We just look the other way when we have the blood of thousands of little children on our hands..Sorry, that doesnt fly with me. Or how about the myriad other blatant lies and even more blatant hypocrisy from this administration? Ndaa? fast and furious? Wiretapping? Brad Manning? transparency? Whistelbowers (just prosecuted another! after singing their praises four years ago, disgusting) it goes on and on with Obama. So, sorry Stephen, this maks me sick, really. I see this as a fault of the farce that is two party politics. Imagine, how the "liberals" would feign outrage if a republican was dropping drone bombs? Am I right? yes.....So, in the wake of rampant hypocrisy and lies from this current administration , I simply cant agree Stephen. And, whats more, youve lost a reader. I wish you wouldve waited. Do you mean to tell me you have no problems with the mainstream media accoun t of what happened at Sandy Hook? I find that hard to believe,a nd I question your intergity, and your motive.....I am truly saddened. Ive just lost a best friend Stepehen, you...
In my opinion it doesn't really matter what is discussed or posted about this issue.....bottom line, guns aren't going away and neither is madness or atrocity. Harnessing certain weaponry andthe mentally ill would certainly help, but won't curtail an individual from doing something horrendous if they are bent on doing it.
Thank you for the essay and the guts to say what you think about the issue. The research, in the essay, on automatic weapon usage demonstrates the need to curb the availability of this type of gun.
My husband and I discussed the issue (he prefers one channel and I prefer another, we meet in the middle). Here's an analogy to throw out for discussion.
Do you believe everyone has the right/privilege to gain a drivers license, after a brief background check and a passing a test showing adequate driving skill? If so, don't you also believe a speed limit, due to road condition, is reasonable and enforceable?
I'd say the same, about a ban on automatic weapons. The right to bear arms doesn't equal the right to be excessive.
The other thought, discussed, was Campaign Finance Reform. The original lobbying laws were enacted to avoid "Back Room" political connections and contributions. The irony is the goal was transparency of a transaction, between a politician and any "person" with an interest in having the politician elected. Now, the original goal is murky. It's business as usual to receive lobby donations.
Today, Pac groups that can advertise, without "connection" to a candidate. Financial contributions equal freedom of speech. I don't disagree with the fact that contributions are freedom of expression: however, legislation can be introduced to make the contributions transparent to the public. However, given the general power of the lobby, it's difficult to move effective legislation through Congress.
In our system, we have "term limits" it's called "the right to vote." So, I don't believe term limits are the answer. In my opinion, it will take true campaign finance reform, to change the law and effectuate change in the system.
I have not downloaded the article yet and will do this when time allows, however at first glance I do have to disagree with the premise of the 'Kardiashan culture' being the sole or main definition of current American culture. If you look at most recent shootings e.g. Columbine, you would see that a pattern emerges where the shooters were youthful males. An item often brought up in post-high school psychology courses is that late-teen males typically have brains that are still physically developing on a large scale, and completion of this development usually occurs by the mid-twenties. The profile of these shooters does point to frequent aggressive behavior or abnormal amounts of times with violent games, so one item of what the NRA (for all its bluster) says may be close to being correct as can be without this theory being thoroughly vetted in peer-study papers. If what I observe on the internet is of any indication, those meeting these profiles usually are quite distant from the 'Kardiashan culture.' There are quite a number of subcultures that fit neither this profile nor the Kardiashans and would feel insulted to be identified with either. Otherwise, I do agree that 'Kardiashan culture' people often do not meet the usually violent profile.
In any case, I have to admire Mr. King for having the courage to state his views on such a polarizing subject. Nobody wants to see the 'gun nuts' deprived of their Second Amendment rights, but the need for a compromise is too evident, and they should work on this so that laws reducing rights are not passed. It is dismaying to not only see the NRA fighting any reasonable changes to increase Public Safety e.g. a 10-round cap on magazines, but also dismaying to see politicans immediately working on more draconian modifications to existing laws to the point that rights are affected and more government interaction occurs in the public's life. Well, we will see what happens, anyway.
I am a longtime lurker of these boards and a fan of Mr. King's writing, but I thought I would break out of my shell because I want to contribute to the discussion, as Mr. King asks for us to do in his essay. Unlike Mr. King - and I believe many on the boards - I am right-of-center in my politics. In other words, I am neither a right-wing extremist, nor a libertarian, nor a complete centrist either. So I guess I could be labeled a "conservative" typically, but it really depends on the issue. I am not a gun owner nor do I belong to any gun organization. On gun control laws, I agree with much of what Mr. King has to say. Even where I ultimately disagreed with some of his conclusions, he offered good points. I appreciated his analysis and liked his take on America's so-called "culture of violence." I was in complete agreement with him about how something like violent video games (just as an example) do not cause the snap to occur in a person, but instead could act as acceleration. His balanced approach was welcoming, and the constitutionalist in me was pleased with what I viewed as a strong defense for the Second Amendment. I also said a loud "AMEN" to his call for open dialogue and discussion. It is in the spirit of the attempt for open dialogue that I offer what I would like to see happen in gun control laws and the areas where I would not be supportive. My basic desire is for practical means to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, without adversely restricting firearms from law-abiding citizens.
First, gun control measures I would support. Some of my conservative friends would be shocked at this, but I support mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales. This should also close the loopholes that allow private sales without a check being made (note, I am not opposed to private sells). Mr. King was so right on this point. I desire to see gun trafficking made a federal crime. Under the current law, a trafficker can be convicted only if proven to have transferred a gun to a felon; this weakness needs fixing and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often. I also support a complete review of the mental health system to consider whether it needs to be reformed for a better system that can identify and deal with these ticking time bombs before they go off. One thing I can think of off the top of my head that needs reforming is that under current law, it is very difficult to get someone committed to a mental health facility against their will. I think we need to address the increased prevalence of graphic violence in popular entertainment and video games. Again, I don't think these things cause people to go and kill other people, but we are starting to see a pattern that could point to some sort of influence or accelerant. I believe the desensitization to violence, especially in youth, wrought by on-screen violence can help breed minds prone toward violence. I think it is a discussion worth having at the least. Now, my more liberal friends may not be pleased with what I say next. I think it needs to be left up to the individual states to decide whether to implement any restrictions the President may choose to enforce and to be able to enact their own restrictions based on the needs of their own citizens. This takes into consideration the regional differences regarding guns, and I think to apply the same restrictions across every state is unworkable and will likely be offensive to many on both sides. One area where I differ with Mr. King (he called it "ridiculous" in his essay) is I would support the presence of trained armed security and/or well trained teachers who underwent safety instruction and requisite gun instruction in schools. Just like I have no problems with pilots having guns in airplanes as a last defense against hijacking. Gun-free zones are a fantasy and are an invitation to criminals. They assume murderers and criminals are going to obey the law. Well, they are not going to obey the law. Law-abiding citizens who are armed are the best last ditch defense against the kind of horror we have seen again and again. If there had been security or teachers who had been trained and knew how to use their weapons, they could have saved many lives.
And finally, things I'm not in support of. I realize the majority of people on this board will probably not agree with most of what I say here (Mr. King himself disagrees with me on two points here), but again, in the hopes of dialogue, I'll present it. I oppose knee-jerk responses that infringe on the Second Amendment and leave law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to gun-carrying criminals. I personally do not care if the assault weapons ban goes back into effect, but I can't say that I support it doing so. For the ten years it was in effect it had no influence on homicides at all. It would (as it did before) leave in circulation all of the material that had been manufactured before the ban. So essentially, I have a hard time seeing how the ban is not pointless to begin with. Also, I don't want our nation restricted to target pistols and shotguns. We live in an age of worldwide terror. By the time the police get to a scene, it's often too late. That is also why I do not support a 10 round limit on magazines.
There is my thoughts on Mr. King's essay and this whole issue, and I'm thankful Mr. King has provoked discussion. Let's make it beneficial and productive!
...well now, a well-reasoned piece at last, and I'm not saying that to boot-lick King...I fully agree that my NRA is coming off like a bag of wing-nuts....I've stated before and will again-that I'm a life member of said organization, but the leadership has been coming off like they've been snorting Drano...I have lost most all respect for them, but STILL believe in what started the organization in the first place...well reasoned defense of and education about the Second Amendment, plus their preservation of firearms history, education of gunowners and product reviews etc. King speaks harsh truth when he says they need to be at the site of one of these killings-mucking about in the blod and gore...I've seen humans die, and it's not pretty...the essay is a must read piece I firmly believe, and my only real quibble-is I will steadfastly argue against the fact that guns aren't tools...I know they're weapons, duh, but I'm not gonna go out in season and beat a 12 point buck to death with a circular saw...wrong tool...that's my nickle's worth and many thanks for his committment of his convictions for posterity...
...so, that would be one "opinionated vote" for "No Opinion"?...:umm:Quote:
In my opinion it doesn't really matter what is discussed or posted about this issue.....