Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Walter Oobleck]

--Sigmund,
And I will pray that God our Father will lead you to an understanding of the 13th chapter of Corinthians. I recall that I posted a joke...and the word my father used to describe tar. I did not recall the joke--it has been two years, lacking but one month. I do recall that I posted an apology to you, perhaps more than one. Obviously, you either never saw it, or chose to disregard it. Sigmund, I am sorry for offending you and anyone else who was offended by my post(s). It was wrong of me to post that joke and I'd be minimizing my actions now by trying to explain--again, I believe--that I wasn't altogether comfortable posting it...yes...I did post it. I hope that your job struggles are over, that you and your family are enjoying life, and that at some point in the future you will be able to forgive me. I am sorry.

I tried to explain in another thread--to Sepia and Dust--who seemed to be asking for an explanation, about my temporary sojourn here at the board. Above, you found something nefarious in my time here under a different name. I tried to come back as "oom poppa" and that was not working. I thought about posting on the other side of the board; however, there one is limited to 1,000-characters. I tried to post as a "guest". I assume you have seen posts from "guests"...and that...was lost to me. So, I created a new account to post. I did. First post, a page or two earlier on this thread.

Since this thread is for "Your thoughts about Steve's essay"...this is where I posted. My thoughts.

Stephen could have characterized the radio personality as "coach" and his politics as "his game plan"...he could have characterized that man as "general" and his politics as "his marching orders". Stephen did not. He characterized the man as a "reverend" and his politics as "comforting scripture". I see a kind of bigotry in that that I chose not to ignore. The man is neither a reverend nor a pastor, but to use religious metaphor as Stephen has done, I believe, betrays an underlying...contempt...I also see a kind of bigotry in his characterization of semi-automatic gun owners as "yeehaws".

And...somewhere, Stephen is on record as being opposed to "organized religion". I do not blame him for that. I know I can walk in to any number of churches in the country and be condemned differently in each one. I know I can be accepted in each and every one...if I sign up for the team. (yeah, okay...I can see where this is going...)

--Byras
I do like the people on this board, so please do not misunderstand. If you'd look at the previous 18 posts of mine, the various responses to them...I dunno. I've seen, time and again, the members here wringing their hands over the fabled single-post member. So I am not a single-post member. There's been some hand-wringing anyway. I looked at one of the groups where I'd frequented...Stephen King Quotes...there's a pile there posted under "wally wonder". That, too, was me and I posted them because I've enjoyed Stephen's stories...THAT is why I've been here under the various names. But I tried to explain myself to another here and did not receive a kindly response.

--exzel
Thank you. At least the board has one voice to listen to...or not...another side.
And since this IS my last post here...#19...ooga booga...on the other thread you ask where is the disdain? or why? or something? My answer is: it's better than General Reno's statement about the Waco tank...something about being better than renting a car. Perhaps the pics of the children killed in that disaster could also be posted by someone...it's been twenty years or more since our government acted so... Perhaps with more Vicki Weavers comes disdain.

[jimson]

So, I made a mistake posting about this in general discussion. I have found this forum a little unusual and it took me a while to learn how to navigate it.

Steven King is obviously a little more left of center than I am and it comes through in his writing and in his book afterwards. I can overlook that to enjoy his talent.

What I truly have a problem with is the proceeds of this essay going to the Brady Center.

The Brady Center is the most recent name for Handgun Control Inc.

It is often said that no one is trying to destroy the 2nd amendment, just enact "reasonable" restrictions.

The problem is that spokespeople for this organization are on the record as saying that the goal is that all proposals they support will eventually and incrementally lead to total firearm prohibition in the United States.

This is why I will never buy the essay and why I am upset with Stephen King. If he had donated the proceeds to a victims fund or something of the like I would be happy to purchase it, but I will not knowingly give the Brady Center one dime.

When it comes to guns, there are some proposals I would support, but they do not include banning any currently legal firearms.

I would support dramatically increased penalties for possession of a firearm that has been reported stolen.

I would also support strengthening the background check system to the extent it can be, and an effort to make it easier to place unstable individuals on a prohibited possessors list.

Jared Loughner, the Tucson gunman was kicked off Pima Community College campus and told by campus police not to return until he had been mentally evaluated.

James Holmes, the Aurora gunman, was apparently scary enough to alarm a school psychologist, yet there was apparently no mechanism in place where either of them could be reported and prohibited from buying firearms at least until they had been further evaluated.

If there is something that could be done about that, I would support it.

In Sandy Hook there is one other person besides Adam Lanza that is culpable and that is his mother. She knew he was troubled to the point that she was attempting to have him institutionalized, yet she apparently did nothing to at least temporarily block his access to her firearms.

Secure storage of firearms should be made a priority. I hesitate to support making some new law or requirement (although I don't reject the idea out of hand) but at least a massive public service campaign and possibly offer a tax credit for the discounted purchase of an approved gun safe.

I believe that near universal use of gun safes would have a big impact on the problem of black market stolen firearms.

Had Lanza's mother stored her firearms in a good gun safe, that only she knew the combination to, it's certainly possible that her son would have only possibly had access to one firearm that she kept handy for personal defense and not her entire collection and all the ammunition.

Of course it's possible that he could have, instead of killing her, tortured the combination out of her, or broke into the gun safe (if he had the ability and tools) but I think it more likely that such measures would have helped lesson or prevent the tragedy.

I believe that there are many real "common sense" measures that we could pursue that would be more effective in keeping any type of gun out of the hands of maniacs or criminals than banning one specific type.

[SeleneM1]

Just a hint, for those of us who don't own a Kindle reader yet. The software is available for free, if you still want to buy Mr. King's essay and read it.

That said, I thought he offered a balanced, reasonable perspective. No one needs more than 10 bullets. I would also advocate for better mental health treatment. Cheers.

[jimson]

I'd read it, if he ever changes the organization who benefits from the sale of the essay.

I'd agree that we need to look at the mental health system and certainly have better screening and reporting to the NICS, although I sometimes wonder if all these mood altering mental health drugs prescribed to kids these days might be a contributing factor.

[jimson]

I know many just hate anything from Fox news but this fellow explains the opposition to the current gun control efforts very well.


In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]”


Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it.


Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence.


Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them?


Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.


In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.


When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2O447g45P

[jcj1sbcglobal]

I think Stephen King used his influence as a popular author to state a heartfelt opinion on gun violence. I thought it was right on point. The sad truth is that there is a silent majority in the middle. Most of us are not Lapierre Lapdogs and do not believe guns are the answer to home security. Those that do believe in guns are welcome to have them. Sadly, this ownership is costing the public over $100B a year in damage from gun violence. There is room to find responsible solutions without impugning the integrity of anyone, and certainly not the author. There is a funny website that mocks silly statements on the gun regulation issue. www.howfrigginstupidisthat.org I suspect that guy or gal is one of the middle-of-the-roaders that Mr. King was hoping for.

[David Slattery]

I don't think Mr. King profits from this essay...or needs to for that matter. I think it came out of his grief over these latest shootings.
It's why I wrote this song and made this video. I didn't make a penny and will never sell this. Thanks for listening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwr6udi-puI

[EMTP513]

I thought it was too short and I'm not sure but I got the impression he was writing to a target audience, one of which doesn't include me. I thought he was appealing to gun owners to do something. I agree with it but I also think non gun owners should do something too.
They never posted my last response and I don't know if they'll accept this one, but I've been a victim of gun violence for over 20 years. So I think I have a right to talk about the effect of guns in the "wrong person's" hands.
I was shot in the back three times and almost died; actually I did die "clinically," but my brain activity never stopped. Brain death = physical death. My heart and breathing just stopped and I experienced a cardiac episode.
But I have nerve pain to this day b/c everyone - or ALMOST everyone - seems to not give a damn WHO they sell their guns to and the guy who shot me bought his without needing a background check b/c he went to a gun show.
At a gun show in Texas, a guy was selling an AK-47 in the parking lot. You needed no background check for it and he apparently doesn't care if the next person who buys his gun ends up killing a large number of people.
My brother's had guns his whole life and never done anything like that. I believe you could give my brother an AK-47 and nothing would happen from it. He doesn't have those types of weapons even though he's a hunter. He doesn't even believe the ad line for AR-15, calling it a "modern sporting rifle."
I believe in a background check b/c it would have stopped a lot of people from being able to buy a gun.
NOTHING would have stopped Adam Lanza, b/c his mom bought the guns, put them in her own name and then gave them as gifts to her son.
A friend of mine died at Sandy Hook and her parents have the police report. Part of that was in the police report. That for whatever reason, Nancy Lanza thought her son needed to have protection in the form of all those guns she got him and he killed her with them. Unfortunately, 26 other people also paid for her mistake. My friend, Lauren Rousseau being one of them. We were more casual friends, but she was the kind of person who was so nice and friendly and loving that meeting her only one time would leave a positive impression on you.

As for the essay I'd want to hear more of it. I liked almost everything he said except the part about watching Fox News, which is nothing but lies. Everyone in my family's Republican and none of them watch Fox News. Watching that would be like watching 'The Evil Dead' or any OTHER fictitious show. With less excitement and more needling hatred from Fox.

[Yankee Flyah]

Many thanks to Mr. King for writing the non-fiction essay "Guns." I hope he continues to support common sense legislation & policies that promote public health & safety.