Article Regarding: Guns (an Essay By Stephen King)

[hossenpepper]

I do not necessarily disagree with you on the violence in his books thing but I just don't understand this:



Did you misspeak?

If he proposes we have magazine and "assault weapons" bans etc and the proceeds go to the Brady center then the essay clearly does just that.

Proposes is not exactly correct. He said he can understand how they'd be helpful, while also saying that the issue has been turned into a paranoia thing for the right because of the NRA. The essay is a thought experiment and exercise to really expose that everyone goes to their corners on this and if you stand in the middle, and see both sides, and then logically would be the most qualified opinion to strike a balance, you'll find yourself ALL ALONE and criticized by both sides. Do you honestly believe that extreme persons who advocate no guns at all, haven't also lit him up for this essay?

And when the Brady Center posts a policy that says the government should take guns and control them and hand them out to "approved" citizens at a government depot, I'll agree they are for "gun control" in the way the right intends it when they say it. Short of that, as SK implies in the essay, this angle is a recitation of the NRA paranoia campaign.

 

[hossenpepper]

Once again, no one is saying he should not be allowed to state an opinion on the issue... for the umpteenth time.

And I didn't say you said he shouldn't have ANY opinion. I said you commented essentially that he is wrong for having the opinion he does. Which when further discussed you supported by mentioning he writes and GLORIFIES (your word) gun violence in his stories off which he makes money. I clarified for you that his stories do not advocate that violence, but instead take a reader to a place of understanding the horrific experience of being in terror of that violence and the damage it causes to people, without having to experience it for real. A huge reason why some are attracted to his writing.

So again, I'll state/ask this clearly (and then you'll ignore it as it unravels the illogical and frankly insulting to SK nature of your comment), the only way that angle has any validity is if your argument is that SK endorses (I believe the synonymous word you used is "GLORIFIES") gun violence. Because if that WAS true, he'd be a bit of a hypocrite to write a scene involving gun violence without any care regarding this topic, and then write a piece like the "Guns" essay, and then give the profits to what YOU see as a "gun control" advocacy group. And if I thought his rue feelings were such, I would AGREE with you.

So the question is this: are you saying (well you already did, but just clarifying this directly) SK glorifies and endorses violence, at the very least in an offhanded, "who cares, not my problem", kind of way? So much so that when he writes a passage that includes gun violence, he doesn't care if someone reads it and then mimics it, as long as he gets paid. And then, to really top it off, in truly hypocritical fashion, writes an essay that hits the other side of the fence, so he can make money then too, and give it to "gun control" groups.

Or were you trying to point out something else equally devoid of logical standing?

 

[DiO'Bolic]

And I didn't say you said he shouldn't have ANY opinion. I said you commented essentially that he is wrong for having the opinion he does. Which when further discussed you supported by mentioning he writes and GLORIFIES (your word) gun violence in his stories off which he makes money. I clarified for you that his stories do not advocate that violence, but instead take a reader to a place of understanding the horrific experience of being in terror of that violence and the damage it causes to people, without having to experience it for real. A huge reason why some are attracted to his writing.

So again, I'll state/ask this clearly (and then you'll ignore it as it unravels the illogical and frankly insulting to SK nature of your comment), the only way that angle has any validity is if your argument is that SK endorses (I believe the synonymous word you used is "GLORIFIES") gun violence. Because if that WAS true, he'd be a bit of a hypocrite to write a scene involving gun violence without any care regarding this topic, and then write a piece like the "Guns" essay, and then give the profits to what YOU see as a "gun control" advocacy group. And if I thought his rue feelings were such, I would AGREE with you.

So the question is this: are you saying (well you already did, but just clarifying this directly) SK glorifies and endorses violence, at the very least in an offhanded, "who cares, not my problem", kind of way? So much so that when he writes a passage that includes gun violence, he doesn't care if someone reads it and then mimics it, as long as he gets paid. And then, to really top it off, in truly hypocritical fashion, writes an essay that hits the other side of the fence, so he can make money then too, and give it to "gun control" groups.

Or were you trying to point out something else equally devoid of logical standing?

"The Gunslinger?"

It appears Mr. King did spark debate over guns with his piece. Unfortunately I don’t think it was the type of debate he had in mind. Personally, if the profits from the sale of “GUNS” hadn’t gone to the Brady Foundation To Prevent Gun Violence, I think the debate would have been more constructive. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

 

[hossenpepper]

"The Gunslinger?"

It appears Mr. King did spark debate over guns with his piece. Unfortunately I don’t think it was the type of debate he had in mind. Personally, if the profits from the sale of “GUNS” hadn’t gone to the Brady Foundation To Prevent Gun Violence, I think the debate would have been more constructive. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

Ok, so again, is your point, before and now again with the example of the DT books with the gunslinger as the central character (never mind the setting which required this type of character) is equal to him glorifying gun violence? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Ok, so again, is your point, before and now again with the example of the DT books with the gunslinger as the central character (never mind the setting which required this type of character) is equal to him glorifying gun violence? It's a simple yes or no question.

Sure it can be taken as glorifying. As easily as one could say for A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

 

[M&P15]

Very simple. Writers/reading tend(s) to attract a more progressive crowd (including SK's prose). That translates to his fan base being more progressive. That translates to more progressive people coming to his de facto "official" fan site, the SKMB. Hence the "average opinion" here will lean more center-progressive.

Do you have sources proving that novelists attract a more progressive crowd? I just don't see it.

Most of the hostility I see here is coming directly from you. From an admittedly biased perspective, one might believe that there is more deference shown people who share the "powers that be's" viewpoints. That is completely human and understandable, but might contribute to the imbalance in the hot topics section.

Relax though, it's just a theory because I don't share yours, which is an obvious implication that conservatives, being dumb, don't like to read.

 

[M&P15]

Proposes is not exactly correct. He said he can understand how they'd be helpful, while also saying that the issue has been turned into a paranoia thing for the right because of the NRA. The essay is a thought experiment and exercise to really expose that everyone goes to their corners on this and if you stand in the middle, and see both sides, and then logically would be the most qualified opinion to strike a balance, you'll find yourself ALL ALONE and criticized by both sides. Do you honestly believe that extreme persons who advocate no guns at all, haven't also lit him up for this essay?

And when the Brady Center posts a policy that says the government should take guns and control them and hand them out to "approved" citizens at a government depot, I'll agree they are for "gun control" in the way the right intends it when they say it. Short of that, as SK implies in the essay, this angle is a recitation of the NRA paranoia campaign.

This is a good example on how to redefine center. The opposite of wanting total firearm prohibition isn't keeping the current laws the same.
Only in your bizarro world is stopping short of advocating total prohibition, not advocating gun control.

Speaking of total prohibition and the Brady Center which used to be Handgun Control inc

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and allhandgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.



Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)

 

[hossenpepper]

Sure it can be taken as glorifying. As easily as one could say for A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Ok, then very simple now. Mod can settle this for us. She knows this man personally and as her employer. It would be fair to say none of here could speak with authority on this topic as she can.

Mod, does Mr King endorse gun violence? Does Mr. King, with his writing, seek to glorify guns or gun violence, in order to satiate a personal desire or to make money?

Secondary to that would also be, does Mr. King seek to play both sides for profit by espousing less glorifying opinion sin his "Guns" essay?

 

[Moderator]

Ok, then very simple now. Mod can settle this for us. She knows this man personally and as her employer. It would be fair to say none of here could speak with authority on this topic as she can.

Mod, does Mr King endorse gun violence? Does Mr. King, with his writing, seek to glorify guns or gun violence, in order to satiate a personal desire or to make money?

Secondary to that would also be, does Mr. King seek to play both sides for profit by espousing less glorifying opinion sin his "Guns" essay?

No
No
No. He personally made no money from sales of the essay.

 

[hossenpepper]

Only in your bizarro world is stopping short of advocating total prohibition, not advocating gun control.

No sir, only in your bizarro world is this country still in 18th century times with England taking our guns where any regulation is equal to total control.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Ok, then very simple now. Mod can settle this for us. She knows this man personally and as her employer. It would be fair to say none of here could speak with authority on this topic as she can.

Mod, does Mr King endorse gun violence? Does Mr. King, with his writing, seek to glorify guns or gun violence, in order to satiate a personal desire or to make money?

Secondary to that would also be, does Mr. King seek to play both sides for profit by espousing less glorifying opinion sin his "Guns" essay?

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

 

[hossenpepper]

No
No
No. He personally made no money from sales of the essay.

Thank you Mod. I appreciate you clarifying this issue and indeed supporting what I said as facts.

So again, since he does not in any way, his opinion is not hypocritical and therefore devoid of any weight or justification and subject to such criticism. By extension, therefore, the argument that he is being a hypocrite by donating the sales proceeds from this to a gun safety advocacy group and should therefore NOT have this opinion because of the things he writes in his stories, is completely invalid as it proceeded from a false premise.

 

[M&P15]

Do you have sources for that?

And no one except the most left leaning liberal/progressives is suggesting that we repeal the 2nd amendment including myself and I HATE guns.

I know that. I just said that even if we did go that route, there would be 10's of millions of firearms still available on the black market

What we are asking for, among other things, are stricter rules about purchasing them such as a wait period and background checks to make them less accessible to those who shouldn't have them.

So you are not in favor of banning semi-autos and limiting magazine capacity?

You do understand that we already have a background check system for retail purchase of firearms right?

FBI — National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2013

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Venezuela 50.90
Uruguay 14.01
Swaziland 37.16
South Africa 21.51
Mexico 11.17
Jamaica 39.74
Honduras 64.8
Guatemala 36.38
El Salvador 46.85
Colombia 28.14
Brazil 19.03

United States 10.30

 

[M&P15]

No sir, only in your bizarro world is this country still in 18th century times with England taking our guns where any regulation is equal to total control.

Nice strawman there. We have regulations and I am not in favor of removing those.

 

[hossenpepper]

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

And that was addressed in my original comment that he does not control how people take something, so unless you are trying to say he personally endorses it (GLORIFIES in your words), that is a moot point. And also I mentioned that anyone who truly understands his writing and his motivations (as he so eloquently cited in 'On Writing') he writes about how terrible these things are in graphic detail so that he can show you what truly scares and terrifies him. He has said that many of his stories were ways of working out violent thoughts he had in his head towards his children and family. And fears of things that could happen to them. NOT endorsements. The effectiveness of his writing from a terror and suspense perspective is that he transports you there without having to actually be there. If these things were not terrifying to you and others, then they'd have no mass effect and perhaps he wouldn't be the famous writer he is now.

Maybe you read these things and go "COOL" and "YEAH!!!" when someone gets their heads blown off. And in a few spots when it was a bad character, I did too a bit. But that was cheering justice for me, not violence. I cheered just as much when Big Jim suffocated to death. And maybe I am wrong and most people see "coolness" in the violence he writes. But my experience personally, and the overall feeling I've gotten from the members here and from Mod, who knows him personally and probably a lot more of his fans than any of us do, is that the typical SK reader finds the same sentiments I do. He isn't glorifying it, he is showing how awful it really is.

Maybe Mod could give some insight to this topic beyond what I or you have.

 

[hossenpepper]

Nice strawman there. We have regulations and I am not in favor of removing those.

An equal response to a ridiculous premise is not a strawman argument. You falsely defined my original point in hyperbolic fashion. THAT is a strawman argument. mine was more a responsive red herring, bordering on "Tu quoque", in that your illogic on presenting a straw man defines your inability to provide logic on the topic. Though not a direct "Tu quoque" which is actually the "good for the gander" argument.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

And that was addressed in my original comment that he does not control how people take something, so unless you are trying to say he personally endorses it (GLORIFIES in your words), that is a moot point. And also I mentioned that anyone who truly understands his writing and his motivations (as he so eloquently cited in 'On Writing') he writes about how terrible these things are in graphic detail so that he can show you what truly scares and terrifies him. He has said that many of his stories were ways of working out violent thoughts he had in his head towards his children and family. And fears of things that could happen to them. NOT endorsements. The effectiveness of his writing from a terror and suspense perspective is that he transports you there without having to actually be there. If these things were not terrifying to you and others, then they'd have no mass effect and perhaps he wouldn't be the famous writer he is now.

Maybe you read these things and go "COOL" and "YEAH!!!" when someone gets their heads blown off. And in a few spots when it was a bad character, I did too a bit. But that was cheering justice for me, not violence. I cheered just as much when Big Jim suffocated to death. And maybe I am wrong and most people see "coolness" in the violence he writes. But my experience personally, and the overall feeling I've gotten from the members here and from Mod, who knows him personally and probably a lot more of his fans than any of us do, is that the typical SK reader finds the same sentiments I do. He isn't glorifying it, he is showing how awful it really is.

Maybe Mod could give some insight to this topic beyond what I or you have.

Glorifies is not the same as endorses. Please try to limit the discussion to what I actually say, and not to things you make up and attribute to me. Thanks.

 

[M&P15]

You falsely defined my original point in hyperbolic fashion.

Just how did I do that?

 

[hossenpepper]

Do you have sources proving that novelists attract a more progressive crowd? I just don't see it.

Most of the hostility I see here is coming directly from you. From an admittedly biased perspective, one might believe that there is more deference shown people who share the "powers that be's" viewpoints. That is completely human and understandable, but might contribute to the imbalance in the hot topics section.

Relax though, it's just a theory because I don't share yours, which is an obvious implication that conservatives, being dumb, don't like to read.

I didn't endorse nor speculate why. It's a long accepted sentiment based on psychological and cognitive reasoning studies. It's not theory, it's an observation. A theory would be the proven results of a hypothesis. In this case, perhaps that might be the hypothetical that being more educated makes you see more angles of a topic because you've developed better problem solving skills. Or something like that.

I further said that in my anecdotal experience, from talking to other fans of famour authors (including SK), the general consensus is they tend to be more progressive. That is also not a theory. It's my personal observation. Not scientific by any means. I can't talk to every single person here or in any writers group of fans.

 

[M&P15]

An equal response to a ridiculous premise is not a strawman argument.

Oh OK sorry. How about idiotic bullsh!t exaggeration?