Article Regarding: Guns (an Essay By Stephen King)

[M&P15]

I think it's a pretty safe guess that all of those countries have stronger gun control than the US does. Certainly, Mexico does.

I think we are experiencing a failure to communicate, if you aren't talking about the overall gun crime rate.

At the risk of being accused of minimizing the tragedies, the psycho murder sprees account for a very tiny percentage of the gun death rate, and the worst one ever didn't even happen in the US.

What drives the gun murder rate up in America is the same thing that drives it up in Mexico.

Of course we have more gun deaths here than the average. I just believe there are many factors in that.

 

[M&P15]

Then what is the problem with making that an actual law to make sure that all dealers comply?

?!!!? All dealers do have to comply.

 

[M&P15]

Must've backfired and lodged a BB in your higher reasoning centers, shorting them out and dooming you to life of right wing illogic.

Please try to refrain from personal insults. It's unbecoming of such a prime example of how intelligent Americans can be.

 

[hossenpepper]

You didn’t ask the source the one honest question. But it was a rhetorical question and I didn’t expect a response from the source, as it could potentially be used by King’s detractors, and I wouldn’t want that.

You could have just admitted defeat, but no you had to have your prattle session about this subtle context over this one when your intent was clear.

So lets say you went towards a more puritanical version of this word (glorify) to just it's base meaning, which is to extoll something and make it seem attractive. Let's just say SK did that to sell a story. If he then writes this essay and advocates what some want to define as "gun control" by the opinion he expressed and where the proceeds went, what exactly, in context of his glorification, is the problem with that? Just because he glorified it to make money, it doesn't devalue his opinion on the topic outside the confines of the story or stories. Also in order to qualify it as "glorification" you'd have to prove he intentionally made the violence seem "cooler" and more "attractive" on purpose. But even if true, what exactly would be the problem with him having the opinion?

Unless it was HYPOCRITICAL. which he would be if he was endorsing it by way of glorification of the violence.

Either way, your premise is wrong.

 

[Moderator]

"The more honest question would be... has Mr King written stories that some would consider a glorification of gun violence?"

I think the words "that some would consider a glorification of gun violence" aren't asking the right question. He can't control what others think but the more important question is what was his INTENT when writing his works and it was not to promote or glorify gun violence.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

You could have just admitted defeat, but no you had to have your prattle session about this subtle context over this one when your intent was clear.

So lets say you went towards a more puritanical version of this word (glorify) to just it's base meaning, which is to extoll something and make it seem attractive. Let's just say SK did that to sell a story. If he then writes this essay and advocates what some want to define as "gun control" by the opinion he expressed and where the proceeds went, what exactly, in context of his glorification, is the problem with that? Just because he glorified it to make money, it doesn't devalue his opinion on the topic outside the confines of the story or stories. Also in order to qualify it as "glorification" you'd have to prove he intentionally made the violence seem "cooler" and more "attractive" on purpose. But even if true, what exactly would be the problem with him having the opinion?

Unless it was HYPOCRITICAL. which he would be if he was endorsing it by way of glorification of the violence.

Either way, your premise is wrong.

Fine, I give up. If you need to get into a “puritanical version of this word” to make your point, then I would rather just give up than have my head explode.

 

[M&P15]

I think the words "that some would consider a glorification of gun violence" aren't asking the right question. He can't control what others think but the more important question is what was his INTENT when writing his works and it was not to promote or glorify gun violence.

Of course not, his intent was to make money, partially from the public's titillation by violence.

 

[hossenpepper]

"The more honest question would be... has Mr King written stories that some would consider a glorification of gun violence?"

I think the words "that some would consider a glorification of gun violence" aren't asking the right question. He can't control what others think but the more important question is what was his INTENT when writing his works and it was not to promote or glorify gun violence.

Which would be a great question on your part Mod, if that was what he ahd actually said and started this particular DiO needs his diaper changed hair splitting session.

What is so hard to grasp? He started off in “GUNS” with some commons sense in the piece, but quickly moved to why the NRA and guns were evil. King has glorified violence and tragedy in his books to make money, which one can't deny. His profits (or whatever you want to call them) from the sale of “GUNS” was going to the Brady Foundation, which is all about Gun Control. I don’t understand the idea that some might have a problem with the profits of King’s work going to such an organization, is so hard to comprehend, especially since he has made so much money off the subject in his books.

That statement isn't "some would consider". It's a declaration.

The second highlighted section was what prompted an analytical reply to your words and an explanation as such.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I think the words "that some would consider a glorification of gun violence" aren't asking the right question. He can't control what others think but the more important question is what was his INTENT when writing his works and it was not to promote or glorify gun violence.

Okay, I can buy most of that. But why wasn't Roland portrayed as a Community Organizer then? He could still have battled evil without the use of violence? But most of us, if honest about it, know a gunslinger is much more more interesting, much more exciting and more glorified... and it sells better.

 

[Moderator]

Of course not, his intent was to make money, partially from the public's titillation by violence.

Apparently you've had some conversations with him about the gun issue that I wasn't privy to.

 

[Moderator]

Okay, I can buy most of that. But why wasn't Roland portrayed as a Community Organizer then? He could still have battled evil without the use of violence? But most of us if honest know a gunslinger is much more more interesting, much more exciting and more glorified.

Whatever. Think what you want to think and do what you want to do. At this point I don't much care anymore.

 

[hossenpepper]

Fine, I give up. If you need to get into a “puritanical version of this word” to make your point, then I would rather just give up than have my head explode.

No, you're the one who is trying to spout some nonsense BS that once your logic was again destroyed by a superior example, NOW endorse and glorify aren't essentially the same thing in the context they were being used.

Besides, as Mod (and I) pointed out, the real question is what is SK's intent with his stories. It is not to glorify or endorse violence. His opinion in the essay was very in the middle, as is mine. The media likes the blood n guts for the evening news, the anti-gun crowd starts shouting we need to rid ourselves of all weapons and the NRA says any day now the ATF will storm our houses and take our guns. None of which are true at all. Gun violence is an issue and short of couseling every human to not be violent, then we have to have regulations that work. What won't do that is rejecting any conversation about it summarily.

Beyond that, this is a dead thread and topic.

 

[hossenpepper]

Okay, I can buy most of that. But why wasn't Roland portrayed as a Community Organizer then? He could still have battled evil without the use of violence? But most of us, if honest about it, know a gunslinger is much more more interesting, much more exciting and more glorified... and it sells better.

Go write it. Writers aren't as smart as you are. Hell I've written thousands and thousands of pages of professional and published documents over the course of a couple decades and I am a fool to you. So I can only imagine how dumb SK is in your eyes.

It's all you. If anyone can make it work, a Teabagger can! You have the answers for everything!!

I will buy a copy if you'll sign it.
Like this:
Illogically Yours,
DiOExZelmonsterMunster

 

[M&P15]

Apparently you've had some conversations with him about the gun issue that I wasn't privy to.

No, but violence is something that fascinates the public. Always has. Writing stories that include that, because it is more interesting than stories about amicable resolutions is capitalizing on it which may be a better description than glorify since glorification implies condoning.

 

[hossenpepper]

Please try to refrain from personal insults. It's unbecoming of such a prime example of how intelligent Americans can be.

Shouldn't you be checking to see if your gold bar and Iraqi Dinar values are up? You'll need it to buy all that stuff on the black market after Obama takes your guns away!

SPOOOOOKY!!!! OH NOOZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Here they come!!! AIYEEEEEEEE!!! RUN!!! LIBRULZ ERRRVREEEWHURRR!!!!

 

[hossenpepper]

...since glorification implies condoning.

Nuh uh. DiO said they aren't the same thing, so sorry pal. You're wrong!!! HA HA HA!!!

 

[Moderator]

No, but violence is something that fascinates the public. Always has. Writing stories that include that, because it is more interesting than stories about amicable resolutions is capitalizing on it which may be a better description than glorify since glorification implies condoning.

I'm not 100% in agreement but I'd have an easier time going along with that part of the discussion.

 

[hossenpepper]

Apparently you've had some conversations with him about the gun issue that I wasn't privy to.

I did. In his kitchen. Over a slice of rhubarb pie. And don't try to tell me he doesn't like rhubarb pie. Maybe I can tell YOU a thing or two about SK....

 

[M&P15]

Shouldn't you be checking to see if your gold bar and Iraqi Dinar values are up? You'll need it to buy all that stuff on the black market after Obama takes your guns away!

SPOOOOOKY!!!! OH NOOZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Here they come!!! AIYEEEEEEEE!!! RUN!!! LIBRULZ ERRRVREEEWHURRR!!!!

aaah shut your rhubarb pie hole!

 

[hossenpepper]

I'm not 100% in agreement but I'd have an easier time going along with that part of the discussion.

Didn't I cover this topic in a post earlier too? SK states very clearly WHY he writes many of the things he does, while answering everyone's favorite question "where do your stories come from?". They are things he find s terrifying and so to get them out, plus construct a reality that one can experience such feelings without the consequences, he writes what he does. But these stories work not because they include violence, but because the violence included creates a true sense of terror in the mind of the reader. By doing that, the inevitable result is that you walk away saying "that is NOT good" or something to emulate. Exactly the opposite effect of the intent to glorify or endorse or condone the violence for profit.