Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Moderator]

Starting a placeholder thread for people to comment about Steve's non-fiction essay on gun control/gun rights.

[JordyVerrill]

Honestly, I think it's disgusting for someone to profit off of the recent gun tragedies. I don't understand why he's charging money to read his opinion on gun violence.

[Moderator]

You have jumped to the assumption that he will be profiting from the piece.

[Amphiaraus]

All interested:

I'm glad King took the time to write this article, and it's certainly worth reading whether you agree with his observations or not. His comments regarding 'Rage' alone are worth the price of purchase, and I can only thank King once again for being as conscientious as he is.
My favorite line: "There might even be (o lost and shining city) a resumption of actual dialogue," and he's careful to point out that dialogue is not the shouting (or shrill screaming) of repetitious talking points that seeming pass for political discourse these days.

It's my hope, though, that he eventually publishes this essay on the front page of his website or at least provides a link to the full essay: considering the importance of this issue, and the validity of the points King is making, this ought to be free for all to read.

[JordyVerrill]

Well, it costs money to read it so somebody is profiting from it. If the money made is going towards some charity or something that needs to be made clear on the Amazon page, because as it is now I'm sure I'm not the only one with a very bad taste in their mouth over having to pay money, presumably directly to the author for their own personal profit, on an essay that is written in the wake of 20 children being murdered.

[Moderator]

Stephen's personal beliefs about charity have been that it takes away somewhat from the giving if a big deal is made about it. However, if you want to stretch the analogy, newspapers, TV stations, magazines, etc. all have made money directly or indirectly with reporting and free-lance journalists who write pieces for those publications would have been paid for their piece. I can certainly understand your feelings but you might want to get more information before you automatically assume something.

How about getting back to the actual thoughts he's putting forth in the essay.

[Moderator]

It's my hope, though, that he eventually publishes this essay on the front page of his website or at least provides a link to the full essay: considering the importance of this issue, and the validity of the points King is making, this ought to be free for all to read.

There will most likely be contractual obligations that may prevent that from happening at least for a while.

[exzel]

I can understand him going to Amazon to get it out quickly, but couldn’t he just have put it up here? I think within a couple of days there would have been a zillion links pointing to it. If y’all wanted to avoid: “the comments that are generated when those same sources stir up people who do not bother to do their due diligence to get the original information instead of blindly buying into the (mis)information they were spoon-fed and then come here to express their displeasure”… having to pay for it on Amazon isn’t exactly conducive to that goal IMO. In fact, I think it just feeds the collective cultural psyche of that you wish to avoid.

Then again, if it is controversy he’s looking for, I guess it’s one of the best ways to secure it. :laugh:

I will have to wait till the weekend to hijack my daughter’s kindle to get it. I think she still has some availability on her gift card.

[fljoe0]

Starting a placeholder thread for people to comment about Steve's non-fiction essay on gun control/gun rights.

I must have missed something Ms Mod. Where can I find this?

[fljoe0]

Never mind, I found the thread. I should have looked a little before I asked.:biggrin2:

[PatInTheHat]

Honestly, I think it's disgusting for someone to profit off of the recent gun tragedies. I don't understand why he's charging money to read his opinion on gun violence.



Perhaps, and I'm just best guessin' here butt only 'cause I really dig arranging words, then this might have been what you could have started with:
' "I don't understand why he's charging money to read his opinion on gun violence", could someone please enlighten me?'
Well you know, somethin' like that:eyebrow:.

[Moderator]

I've received Steve's permission to post this and we'll be adding it to our announcements:


"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims
of gun violence. The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."

[fljoe0]

Honestly, I think it's disgusting for someone to profit off of the recent gun tragedies. I don't understand why he's charging money to read his opinion on gun violence.

It's 99 cents. If he would have given this to Time or Newsweek, you'd be paying $5 or $6 to read it.

[king family fan]

Thanks Ms. Mod. you handled this well as always. I for one admire that King continues to be so charity generous. Basically I feel he should have the privatcy to do as he pleases with what he writes. A very many years I have read his writings,

[Spideyman]

I've just finish reading the essay and must say Thank You to Stephen King for taking time to write his thoughts on guns and the issues that face us today.

May I please ask that we remember that here on the SKMB we need to follow the rule- "agree to disagree"

This essay is not only about guns and gun control. He clarified and explained why he pulled Rage. There are analogies that are so spot on- "culture of Kardashians", how there are contradictions between what a person does and how they vote for in Congress. One that resonates is the comparison of a spoon and gun- gun being a tool. The last part- No Solutions, Reasonable Measure spoke volumes.

[not_nadine]

Ms. Mod, I am always amazed by the grace in which you handle SK's business. You need a raise. :love:

No, I am not brown-nosing :tongue:

[Todash]

I downloaded it (on the wrong account, so I might end up buying it twice) but will have to read it later. I'm looking forward to it.

[JordyVerrill]

I've received Steve's permission to post this and we'll be adding it to our announcements:

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims
of gun violence. The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."



Thanks to you and Stephen for releasing this information. I totally understand the not wanting to publicize giving to charity, if I were a public figure I would almost always keep my charitable donations private. But in some cases publicizing that information is warranted, and in my opinion this would be one of them. I didn't want to believe he would be profiting from this, but I can be very cynical I suppose. I can now with good conscious dust off me Kindle and download the essay and share my thoughts, if I have any about it that I think are worthy of discussing.

[Sepia and Dust]

It's my hope, though, that he eventually publishes this essay on the front page of his website or at least provides a link to the full essay: considering the importance of this issue, and the validity of the points King is making, this ought to be free for all to read.


There will most likely be contractual obligations that may prevent that from happening at least for a while.


Hope it isn't too long of a while... dinosaurs like me who don't believe in electronic money won't be able to read it until then, unless it comes out in hardcopy or something. :(

[exzel]

“The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."

Admirable as always! Now someone should relay that same type of message to Barack Obama' peeps and Joe Biden.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/25/obama-grassroots-group-newtown-raise-money/

[Shasta]

Why are you all so angry? If it was published in a magazine he would have gotten paid and no one would have said a word. It's not like he's selling it for $5. It's $0.99 and it goes to cahrity. Relax. And even if it wasn't, if you didn't want to buy it no one forced you. Go be angry elsewhere.

(I just realized Marsha said the same thing but I'm not deleting it because it makes SENSE. ALL reporters get paid. Rush Limbaugh doesn't open his mouth for free.)

[Moderator]

“The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."

Admirable as always! Now someone should relay that same type of message to Barack Obama' peeps and Joe Biden.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/25/obama-grassroots-group-newtown-raise-money/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehousedoss ier.com%2F2013%2F01%2F25%2Fobama-grassroots-group-newtown-raise-money%2F)

I'm taking into consideration the source for the material in your link, but who exactly is personally profiting from Organizing for America? Perhaps you could pass along the same sentiment about profiting from a tragedy like this to the gun manufacturers and sellers. :eyebrow:

[Shasta]

Perhaps you could pass along the same sentiment about profiting from a tragedy like this to the gun manufacturers and sellers. :eyebrow:

Thank you. Thank you so, so, much, Marsha. You are wise. And smart. And calm. And amazing.

[Shasta]

I would like to get off the topic of anger for a moment and say that I REALLY like the art for this. It's very different for Mr. King but I think it's great.

[exzel]

I'm taking into consideration the source for the material in your link, but who exactly is personally profiting from Organizing for America? Perhaps you could pass along the same sentiment about profiting from a tragedy like this to the gun manufacturers and sellers. :eyebrow:

The organization is profiting by specifically using the tragedy at Newtown to fund, promote and pass Barack Obama’s agenda. Please show me where gun manufacturers or sellers purposely went out and used the tragedy to boost sales, and I will gladly call them on the carpet.

[Moderator]

The organization is profiting by specifically using the tragedy at Newtown to fund, promote and pass Barack Obama’s agenda. Please show me where gun manufacturers or sellers purposely went out and used the tragedy to boost sales, and I will gladly call them on the carpet.

That is an opinion, not a fact, and I would submit that your perspective is influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights. I personally hold no such opinion because I believe that something needs to be done and that this is one piece of the organization's mission which came about because it was time to put an end to the senseless tragedies that have been happening. That gun manufacturers and sellers are simply by their existence selling weapons whose primary outcome when used against an individual is death or serious injury and profiting from those sales is enough for me to think that of them.

[PatInTheHat]

I'm taking into consideration the source for the material in your link, but who exactly is personally profiting from Organizing for America? Perhaps you could pass along the same sentiment about profiting from a tragedy like this to the gun manufacturers and sellers. :eyebrow:


And calm.

Yes, calm, and I thank you both so very very much:zip:.

[Shasta]

And to still get back to the point of the thread:

I read the first chapter. I thought it was great. It really made me realize what a cycle we are all stuck in - one that I am a huge part of myself. I hope that things like this make people realize that we have to do things individually to promote change.

[Sepia and Dust]

As I said before, I can't read the essay because I don't do online financial transactions. However, one of the things I like about Mr. King is that he isn't one of those celebrities who feels that, by virtue of fame alone, he has magically attained some sort of expertise and wisdom he just needs to share about whatever topic is currently in the headlines. For the most part, he's content to speak to the masses through his stories.

[Shasta]

The organization is profiting by specifically using the tragedy at Newtown to fund, promote and pass Barack Obama’s agenda. Please show me where gun manufacturers or sellers purposely went out and used the tragedy to boost sales, and I will gladly call them on the carpet.

Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/crockett-keller-gun-store_n_2316413.html

Just because the source leans left doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Shasta]

Exzel, here's more:

When McGovern returned home, he said he logged on to several online forums for gun owners and found an unusually high number of advertisements from arms dealers, including one ad that said, "Get ‘em while you still can,” referring to the prospect that last week’s shooting will lead to stricter gun control laws. Soon enough, online sellers were boosting prices, McGovern said. On CheaperThanDirt.com, a leading web-based gun store, the price of a magazine for assault weapons jumped from $30 to $60, one firearms blog noted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/walmart-guns-newtown_n_2332612.html

[exzel]

That is an opinion, not a fact, and I would submit that your perspective is influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights. I personally hold no such opinion because I believe that something needs to be done and that this is one piece of the organization's mission which came about because it was time to put an end to the senseless tragedies that have been happening. That gun manufacturers and sellers are simply by their existence selling weapons whose primary outcome when used against an individual is death or serious injury and profiting from those sales is enough for me to think that of them.
And I would say yours is also opinion, not fact... and submit that your perspective is also influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights... as their profits are also realized by their use from our military and police in protecting us, and lives saved by those who guns were used in self defense.

Did you happen to get the email by chance?

[Moderator]

And I would say yours is also opinion, not fact... and submit that your perspective is also influenced by your personal feelings about gun rights... as their profits are also realized by their use from our military and police in protecting us, and lives saved by those who guns were used in self defense.

Did you happen to get the email by chance?

Which is exactly why I italicized opinion.

But they aren't just selling them to the military and police, are they? And isn't that exactly the point and the goal of the current gun restrictions?

[Shasta]

And.....

Back to the thread.

Just read chapter two. I had no idea that so many things happened that involved Rage directly. I knew it was pulled but I just thought that was Mr. King trying not to influence. I had no clue that he was really just doing what he could to be a responsible human being. Good for him!

I am appreciating this more and more with every chapter read.

[exzel]

Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/crockett-keller-gun-store_n_2316413.html

Just because the source leans left doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Thanks, I went to the website to call them on the carpet for using the Newtown tragedy in order to make profits - regardless if it, but it doesn’t provide a means to give one's comments. Guess I’ll have to write the odd duck.

[exzel]

Which is exactly why I italicized opinion.

In your opinion, do you think this Obama organization will use all lthe funds obtained by using the tradedy at Newtown to score donations... soley to help in the gun discussions?

[Sepia and Dust]

I think I screwed up. My posts were supposed to be in the Your thoughts about Steve's essay thread. I somehow posted to the Partisan Bull****tery about "Organizing for Action" thread by accident. Moderator, could you fix that, pretty pretty please?

[Moderator]

In your opinion, do you think this Obama organization will use all lthe funds obtained by using the tradedy at Newtown to score donations... soley to help in the gun discussions?

This will be the last comment I'll post about this because it is not about Stephen's essay. First I should have been saying Organizing for Action, not Organizing for America--two different organizations. The Newtown tragedy was the last straw in a long line of shootings and what brought the organization into existence, not that it was a gratuitous power grab for more sensible gun control laws than we currently have on the books. I have no problem with their using it as finally drawing the line in the sand to say enough is enough--my disappointment is that it should have happened much sooner. And no, I do not have the personal opinion that the money that is raised will be used for the purpose other than what it was intended. But admittedly I am biased.

[snazzy]

Thank you......Thank you......Thank you...... for your essay on Guns.

[~Ally~]

I really enjoyed the "essay" and felt SK did a good job of seeing the gun debate from both angles...heck the man even admits to owning three guns himself. He isn't calling for all guns to be banned, but simply recommending that people use a little bit of common sense and question whether your ordinary average joe really needs high powered assault rifles designed to fire 30/50 rounds. In the real world weapons like that aren't used for self defence purposes. As the man says, if you can't defend your home with 10 rounds or less then you better get back to the gun range for more practice. Pronto! (Paraphrasing, but it was something to that effect.)

King isn't saying that gun owners are violent maniacs, and instead recognises that people in the USA aren't violent "junkies" by nature. When you take into account the movies/tv shows they prefer to watch, and the books and games they enjoy they are rarely gun/shooter related. He recognises that these sprees are often performed by people experiencing some form of psychotic episode--but not always--and maybe if these weapons weren't readily available to them they possibly would have experienced a cooling off period and many lives could have been saved. He isn't saying it's a fact, just his opinion. I agree with him. Reading exactly why he pulled Rage was interesting. He could have stuck by the simple/dismissive reasoning that his words don't make people kill--a bit like guns don't kill, I guess?--but acknowledging his book could be part of the catalyst towards triggering such tragedies is admirable, and refreshingly honest.

This essay is so much more than a gun debate, it speaks volumes about society and culture in general, and how as individuals we can be influenced by the media from every angle. Maybe there is too much glorification of these killers? The opening chapter felt eerily familiar, because it is true. We always remember the killers names, but rarely the victims. Anyway, I thought this thread was meant to discuss the essay? So far it's mainly people repeating their views/ideologies, and seems nothing more than an extension of the gun thread.

[Kelly Tankie Garner]

I really want to read "Guns" is it seriously being held hostage to Kindle???

[Moderator]

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.

[Todash]

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.

[swampdonkeykid]

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...

[KCE]

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.

[Samantha_]

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.

[Nevermore!]

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.

[Wildcat]

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!

[GNTLGNT]

...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...

[GNTLGNT]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter what is discussed or posted about this issue.....

...so, that would be one "opinionated vote" for "No Opinion"?...:umm:

[GNTLGNT]

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...

...oh please, you've just proven his point...and I'm sure he'll grieve at the loss of his "best friend"...one other thing....spell/fact check.....

[Todash]

...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...
Indeed, by the strict definition, they are tools, but ... I think he was referring to the silly line of reasoning that they are a completely neutral tool. Because, no, they're not. They're intended to inflict damage on another human being, and that makes them a very special subset of tools. That's all they are good for. Can you kill someone with a hammer? Sure, if you are so inclined (and very quiet, very fast, or very strong). But ye cannae build a bookshelf with a gun, laddie. :wink2:

[atomicinchworm]

I am going to go ahead and say that I LOVE King's non-fiction work. I am not a big fan of his fiction, really, though I admit I do need to read some of the biggies before I really seal that opinion.

This essay pretty much echoes my own feelings on guns and American culture and entertainment industry and gun control. It is intelligently and entertainingly presented and definitely worth reading.

As I have said before, I don't like guns and will never own one, but I recognize the right for people to have them. I will never understand why people are so enraged by the idea of smart regulations and smaller clips. It's not a gateway to appealing the 2nd amendment, but a logical conclusion that guns today are perhaps too good at what they were designed to do. Would it be so bad to wait while your background check clears? Would it be so bad to not have a 30 round clip at the gun range? You certainly can't use it hunting. And you don't need it for protection.

Even if such regulations save only one or two lives or stop one mass shooting, wouldn't that be worth it? There are regulations on most of the amendments to a point. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want with no fear of consequences. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and you can't incite violence against a person or group of people. I think that an assault weapons/large clip ban or general registration is a similar limitation.

I found the insight into Rage interesting. Rage certainly wasn't a cause of those boy's actions, maybe a subconscious influence as to the situation, and it speaks highly of SK's maturity to conscientiously remove it from print.

[Todash]

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.Testify! I agree; it's odd that this isn't mentioned more. I think all guns should be registered, transferring them illegally should be a crime in and of itself, AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time. Sure, there would still be illegal weapons, but they would become painfully expensive. (NOTE: With all the illegal guns out there, it would take time for this to have an impact, there could be a transition period where people could either register their guns or, if they did not wish to do that, turn them in in some sort of buyback program. After that brief period, owning or using an unregistered gun would be illegal.)


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.It is. And once you do get them committed, the bar they have to clear to get out is VERY low. The rights of the mentally ill are important, but it's silly to pretend that they don't have compliance issues.


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. The assault weapon/large clip ban will not make a big dent in numbers of people killed, I agree. But it should impact the numbers and impact of the mass shootings that have been escalating for the past several years. The guys that go barging into schools and malls and such picture themselves as visiting vengeance upon ... who? Someone. And they go loaded for bear. Did you know that Jared Lee Loughner was subdued when he stopped to change clips? I wish he hadn't been able to kill six people and injure 13 others before he had to reload. (It is also my contention that 10 years is not a very long time to determine if something makes much of a difference or not when you consider the number of those weapons out there already ... but I tend to agree with you that, in and of itself, an assault weapon ban will not greatly impact the numbers of people killed, since that is about 30,000 per year. But as part of an overall strategy, it will make a difference. If someone made me choose, though, I would choose mandatory, MANDATORY registration with severe consequences for trafficking over an assault weapon ban.)

I also understand what you say about the teachers, but teachers have a very tough time of it already. If you give a teacher a gun, they become a protector first, educator second. They also have to somehow have that gun at the ready and yet make sure none of the kids is able to get their hands on it. One strong, angry, adolescent boy could turn that into a nightmare VERY quickly. None of the teachers I know (and I have several just among my immediate family, aunts, uncles, and cousins--and most of them are politically quite conservative) want to go that route. You want to station cops at schools? That might be workable, but think about this: even if such a strategy worked perfectly, it would not really make much of a dent in the numbers of people killed annually, and ... well. Somebody is going to have to pay for it. (O noes, taxes!)


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!Hear, hear!

[Gregory Markle]

I have no thoughts on Steve's essay per se because I have not read it. If there is a version posted where the .99 goes to The Second Amendment Foundation then I'll give it a go but I absolutely refuse to enrich the reality challenged individuals at the Brady Foundation.

As for the comment above mine...I have no issue with restricting firearms ownership from people whose mental faculties prevent them from determining whether a hammer or a firearm is the more appropriate tool for assembling a bookcase (likely not needed, since they would probably try to fill out the 4473 with a herring rather than using a pen)...hammers killed more people last year than the firearms proposed as being banned...and I noe which one I'd ratha defend me home agin multiple crooks wi' laddie. The comment about having to be fast/strong/quiet to use a hammer is very apt, and it's the WHOLE point of firearm defense as it empowers those who do not have those qualities against those who do. It's funny how the government refers to a semiautomatic rifle being purchased by a citizen is an "assault weapon" yet 7,000 fully automatic versions of the same firearm being put in the hands of government agents are referred to by the term "personal defense weapons"...I'd say they are FAR more "personal" in the hands of individuals than government goon squads.

[Todash]

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 think when you are able to read it, you probably won't have significant disagreement with the whole culture discussion.

[Todash]

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.

Most aren't, though. Most people who kill other people are not hellbent on doing it, long term. If they are, agreed, they'll find a way. If someone hates you enough to kill you and has plotted it for years, you are probably a goner and might as well move to another country for your own good. But most people who lose their temper find it again very quickly. If, in the meantime, they weren't able to go pick up a gun and some ammo right away, that's probably all it will ever come to.

[Todash]

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.This is kind of a side note, but I know a lot of people are for term limits for Congress. Like you, I am not, and here is why: historically, lame duck presidents (presidents who were not reelected but are serving out the remainder of their term) often take advantage of that time of, shall we say, lesser constraint to do things they might not otherwise do. Even a reelected president will feel a bit more freedom to act out his conscience. It's not evil or some kind of conspiracy; it makes sense. He doesn't have to worry about reelection, PLUS he's had a full term to get his "sea legs." And really, presidential powers are actually quite limited by the other branches.

However, suppose Congress had term limits. And suppose a significant number of members of Congress were approaching their limits, and those members of Congress had been unduly influenced by promises of, say, cushy jobs waiting for them if they could manage to get X through both houses. Sure, it's something their constituents would hate, but it's not like they're going to be in Congress anymore anyway. And Congress, as a group, has quite a bit of power, much more so than the president, really. No ... I think it's a good idea for them to always be a little worried that they might not be elected next time.

[Todash]

I have no thoughts on Steve's essay per se because I have not read it. If there is a version posted where the .99 goes to The Second Amendment Foundation then I'll give it a go but I absolutely refuse to enrich the reality challenged individuals at the Brady Foundation.

As for the comment above mine...I have no issue with restricting firearms ownership from people whose mental faculties prevent them from determining whether a hammer or a firearm is the more appropriate tool for assembling a bookcase (likely not needed, since they would probably try to fill out the 4473 with a herring rather than using a pen)...hammers killed more people last year than the firearms proposed as being banned...and I noe which one I'd ratha defend me home agin multiple crooks wi' laddie. The comment about having to be fast/strong/quiet to use a hammer is very apt, and it's the WHOLE point of firearm defense as it empowers those who do not have those qualities against those who do. It's funny how the government refers to a semiautomatic rifle being purchased by a citizen is an "assault weapon" yet 7,000 fully automatic versions of the same firearm being put in the hands of government agents are referred to by the term "personal defense weapons"...I'd say they are FAR more "personal" in the hands of individuals than government goon squads.
I'm not sure if you got what I was aiming for there. No, not a lot of people are killed by assault weapons (you compare it to blunt objects, but WOW, you should check out how many people are killed by guns overall annually!) ... but I've never heard of someone with a hammer wiping out a whole classroom of first graders, either. Going by how those people choose to arm themselves, semiautomatic rifles and large clips are the correct tools for that. I mean, I guess if you're going by sheer numbers and regard the loss of dozens of innocents at a time as acceptable collateral damage as long as it doesn't add up to much, there's not much to argue about. I suspect the families of the 45 killed last year in such shootings (more if you count the shooters) might disagree.

[exzel]

I was all set to get the essay until I saw who is getting the benefit of the donations from the sale of Guns. I don’t quite see how the Brady Campaign donations constitute "a charity to benefit victims of gun violence." And since I disagree on much of what the Brady Campaign does... I won’t purchase the King piece in order to further fuel their agenda. Alas, I was so looking forward to discussing King's piece once I had read it. :sad:

[Todash]

I was all set to get the essay until I saw who is getting the benefit of the donations from the sale of Guns. I don’t quite see how the Brady Campaign donations constitute "a charity to benefit victims of gun violence." And since I disagree on much of what the Brady Campaign does... I won’t purchase the King piece in order to further fuel their agenda. Alas, I was so looking forward to discussing King's piece once I had read it. :sad:Do you have Amazon Prime and a Kindle (or know someone who does)? If so, you can read it for free, because you can "borrow" one book a month, and that qualifies.

[Moderator]

At the time of the first posting with that language, he was still considering which of a number of charities to give the money to. Originally it was the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy but there had also been other gun-related massacres this past year. There were three major organizations that are focusing on legislation to change current gun laws, but it was his feeling that supporting the efforts of the Brady Campaign was the best way of preventing future victims of gun violence.

I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so much animosity is directed toward the Brady Campaign which came about as the result of the shooting of Jim Brady during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a man protected by trained and armed members of the Secret Service who still were not able to keep the President from being shot.

[Wildcat]

See, this is the benefits of a reasoned, thoughtful discussion: two perspectives that can point out weaknesses in each other and hopefully produce a stronger idea! Imagine the possibilities!


Testify! I agree; it's odd that this isn't mentioned more. I think all guns should be registered, transferring them illegally should be a crime in and of itself, AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time. Sure, there would still be illegal weapons, but they would become painfully expensive. (NOTE: With all the illegal guns out there, it would take time for this to have an impact, there could be a transition period where people could either register their guns or, if they did not wish to do that, turn them in in some sort of buyback program. After that brief period, owning or using an unregistered gun would be illegal.)

It is. And once you do get them committed, the bar they have to clear to get out is VERY low. The rights of the mentally ill are important, but it's silly to pretend that they don't have compliance issues.

The assault weapon/large clip ban will not make a big dent in numbers of people killed, I agree. But it should impact the numbers and impact of the mass shootings that have been escalating for the past several years. The guys that go barging into schools and malls and such picture themselves as visiting vengeance upon ... who? Someone. And they go loaded for bear. Did you know that Jared Lee Loughner was subdued when he stopped to change clips? I wish he hadn't been able to kill six people and injure 13 others before he had to reload. (It is also my contention that 10 years is not a very long time to determine if something makes much of a difference or not when you consider the number of those weapons out there already ... but I tend to agree with you that, in and of itself, an assault weapon ban will not greatly impact the numbers of people killed, since that is about 30,000 per year. But as part of an overall strategy, it will make a difference. If someone made me choose, though, I would choose mandatory, MANDATORY registration with severe consequences for trafficking over an assault weapon ban.)

I also understand what you say about the teachers, but teachers have a very tough time of it already. If you give a teacher a gun, they become a protector first, educator second. They also have to somehow have that gun at the ready and yet make sure none of the kids is able to get their hands on it. One strong, angry, adolescent boy could turn that into a nightmare VERY quickly. None of the teachers I know (and I have several just among my immediate family, aunts, uncles, and cousins--and most of them are politically quite conservative) want to go that route. You want to station cops at schools? That might be workable, but think about this: even if such a strategy worked perfectly, it would not really make much of a dent in the numbers of people killed annually, and ... well. Somebody is going to have to pay for it. (O noes, taxes!)

Hear, hear!

I'm in perfect agreement on the mandatory registration and trafficking issues! I think that could be better in the long run over a ban. I might be willing to reconsider the magazine limit. As for schools, you make good points on teachers. I'm not as sold on that concept as I am armed security. I just list it as a possibility to consider. Armed security I am in support of. I'm not talking about old men either (as Mr. King alluded to in his essay); I mean well trained and in good shape. Yes, that means taxes. But I would argue that it should be taxed at the state level (with federal accountability). I'm normally not in favor of higher taxes (it comes with being typically conservative :)) but when it comes to protecting our children I am. We can always cut elsewhere (I know a lot of pork spending w pay for we can cut to make up for it :)). It would be better than the zero presence we've seen in schools with these tragedies thus far.

[exzel]

At the time of the first posting with that language, he was still considering which of a number of charities to give the money to. Originally it was the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy but there had also been other gun-related massacres this past year. There were three major organizations that are focusing on legislation to change current gun laws, but it was his feeling that supporting the efforts of the Brady Campaign was the best way of preventing future victims of gun violence.

I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so much animosity is directed toward the Brady Campaign which came about as the result of the shooting of Jim Brady during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a man protected by trained and armed members of the Secret Service who still were not able to keep the President from being shot.

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

[exzel]

Do you have Amazon Prime and a Kindle (or know someone who does)? If so, you can read it for free, because you can "borrow" one book a month, and that qualifies.

Yup, but I have always purchased King's works. I even purchased that first ebook thing he did online when it came out, which never worked for me and I never got to read it (don’t even remember the name of the piece anymore). I will not read Guns by slight of hand. He can take a stand, and so can I. Probably my loss... but still my choice.

[Todash]

Want to read something else about ol' Ronnie that's a little more food for thought? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

[Sepia and Dust]

AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time.

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

[Moderator]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

And you are entitled to your opinion. However, is it really a political agenda that bothers you or the fact that it is an organization with a political agenda aimed at a differing outcome than what you would like regarding guns. I've seen several people advocating for the donation to have been given to the Second Amendment Foundation whose primary purpose from what I can see is only to advocate for gun ownership and to make sure that there are no restrictions on it. Is that any less a political agenda? Not to mention that it would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay, i.e. not doing away with second amendment rights but not that it should be a carte blanche right for gun ownership either.

[Todash]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.I think any organization that purports to help victims of gun violence is going to be seen as having a liberal agenda, because any organization that purports to help victims of gun violence is going to focus on reducing the number of future victims. That's just the way it is. I really do see what you're saying, but do you have a name of an organization that you think would be acceptable to all?

Anyway, I'm curious: what is it that you find so objectionable about the Brady Campaign? I admit I don't know a whole lot about the organization, but on looking at their website, I didn't see anything really "out there."

[exzel]

And you are entitled to your opinion. However, is it really a political agenda that bothers you or the fact that it is an organization with a political agenda aimed at a differing outcome than what you would like regarding guns. I've seen several people advocating for the donation to have been given to the Second Amendment Foundation whose primary purpose from what I can see is only to advocate for gun ownership and to make sure that there are no restrictions on it. Is that any less a political agenda? Not to mention that it would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay, i.e. not doing away with second amendment rights but not that it should be a carte blanche right for gun ownership either.

I agree with some of the Brady Foundations ideas, like the one involving background checks. But I also feel they go too far. I also think it would be a mistake to give the money from the sale of Guns to the NRA, who’s idea of arming people in schools (willing and able teachers in my opinion) would do the most to protect our kids from gun violence going forward. I thought the idea of the money going to victims of gun violence was a great idea. Giving the money to the Brady Campaign or even the NRA for that matter... NOT!

Anyway, I don’t know that something would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay... I haven’t gotten through the looking glass.

[Todash]

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

I see what you're saying. I really do. And perhaps there are some reasonable "escape clauses" to be found in such a law. But without a provision requiring the owner to take responsibility, it's pretty damn easy to say "Hey, he borrowed it; I didn't know he was going to hurt someone with it."

[PatInTheHat]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

:laugh:
I loooovs how you split 'em hairs I do I do I surely do:love:...no seriously, I do, some folks are just born with it, it's like a gift, I mean I oughta know, ya know:biggrin2:

[Todash]

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

I suppose it could be financial penalty. Like with a car. You know, if someone borrows your car and does damage with it, you are the one who has to deal with the aftermath, pay the deductible, etc. If guns had to be insured like cars, I suppose it could work exactly the same.

I don't know ... I mean, I really do see what you are saying. I do. And certainly someone could steal a gun and immediately use it to commit a crime. So ... yes, problematic. But frankly, if I have a gun and someone borrows it from me and then uses it to commit a crime, I have a little culpability there. Why did they need to borrow a gun? Shouldn't I question that? Don't we have some responsibility when loaning our car to someone to make sure that person is qualified to drive it?

This part is difficult. Do you have a better suggestion, something that would make it difficult for someone to "loan" another person a gun that is then used to commit a crime (which of course would pave the way for the same black market we have today)? I am all ears, because I see how someone innocent could be hurt by such a measure, and I wouldn't want that ... but I also think that "of course I didn't sell it to him illegally; I 'loaned' it to him" should not be an easy escape clause from a charge of gun trafficking.

[AnnaMarie]

It's 99 cents. If he would have given this to Time or Newsweek, you'd be paying $5 or $6 to read it.

I have seen references in other places that it's 99 cents. But when I click....it's over $3. I realize there is sometimes a slight difference due to the Canadian dollar not be exactly equal to the American....but this is a bit ridiculous.

[Moderator]

It is $0.99 in the U.S, £0.99 in the UK. I don't know why Amazon is charging $2.99 in Canada. :dunno:

[Sepia and Dust]

But without a provision requiring the owner to take responsibility, it's pretty damn easy to say "Hey, he borrowed it; I didn't know he was going to hurt someone with it."

Responsibility for what? Damn few people outside of mobster TV shows would lend someone a gun if there was a question that a human being might get shot. Unless that's the point, such as if I lend a female friend my .32 so she'll have some protection when that crazy stalker ex-boyfriend of hers kicks her door down in the middle of the night again.



But frankly, if I have a gun and someone borrows it from me and then uses it to commit a crime, I have a little culpability there.


No, you really don't. Oh, you'd feel bad about it and you'd wonder what you could have done differently, if there were any signs you missed, but that does not make you culpable.




Why did they need to borrow a gun? Shouldn't I question that? Don't we have some responsibility when loaning our car to someone to make sure that person is qualified to drive it?


You loaned me your .410 shotgun because I need to shoot the rabbit in my garden, but I don't have a gun smaller than a 12-guage. You loaned me your Glock 9 because I wanted to get some practice with it on the range. You loaned me your .32 because some crazy stalker has threatened to kill me. You loaned me your .762-Russian because I've never actually shot a WW-II gun.




This part is difficult. Do you have a better suggestion, something that would make it difficult for someone to "loan" another person a gun that is then used to commit a crime (which of course would pave the way for the same black market we have today)? I am all ears, because I see how someone innocent could be hurt by such a measure, and I wouldn't want that ... but I also think that "of course I didn't sell it to him illegally; I 'loaned' it to him" should not be an easy escape clause from a charge of gun trafficking.

I think you're trying too hard to bust illegal gun traffickers. Almost every gun used in mass-shootings has been obtained legitimately. Almost all gun-related crimes of passion or opportunity are committed with legitimately obtained weapons.

"I loaned it to him" is a perfect defense, since that's almost always what actually happened.

[Amphiaraus]

I don't know why Amazon is charging $2.99 in Canada. :dunno:

It's likely for the same reason Amazon.com charges $119 for the Kindle Paperwhite, while Amazon.ca charges $139 for the exact same device: Canadians happily pay more for everything and so retailers (many of them American-owned operations operating in Canada) happily charge more.

Of course retailers often point out that higher distribution costs are to blame (Canada apparently has a lot more highway between cities, go figure), and so fuel costs and surcharges (also much higher on the northern side of the border, go figure) are partially to blame along with the realities of economies of scale and consumption taxes. The fallacy of these explanations, however, are laughably self-evident when one lives close to the border or when it's an e-document we're yakkin' about.

Me, I was happy to pay $3 for King's essay, and I honestly couldn't care less how the proceeds (if any) were to be distributed: I figure if Uncle Steve needs a new swimming pool, I'll happily kick a bit o' fundin' in exchange for the pleasure of readin' a bit of his scribblin's. Although I continue to hope King's essay will eventually be "liberated" and published in the public domain for all to read, free of charge - while I know contractual obligations must be met, I feel King's essay warrants much greater exposure: It's that important a document, in my opinion.

Gauging the reaction to King's essay (good, bad and downright ugly as it has been), a few million other folks agree with me. Safe to say, more folks will have read King's 'Guns' than will ever read Obama's 23-point Executive Action Plan or Congress' inevitable dry-as-moondust follow-up report, I suspect.

[Todash]

Responsibility for what? Damn few people outside of mobster TV shows would lend someone a gun if there was a question that a human being might get shot. Unless that's the point, such as if I lend a female friend my .32 so she'll have some protection when that crazy stalker ex-boyfriend of hers kicks her door down in the middle of the night again.Right, right, it wouldn't really be lending in the scenario I mentioned. It would be an unregistered sale, but in order to avoid getting in trouble for making an unregistered sale, the registered owner would claim they'd loaned the gun to the person who committed the crime without any suspicion that it would be used to commit a crime.


No, you really don't. Oh, you'd feel bad about it and you'd wonder what you could have done differently, if there were any signs you missed, but that does not make you culpable.I really think that depends on the situation. You know, the "reasonable person" test ... Example: If I let you borrow my car, knowing you've been drinking, and you have an accident, I am to some extent culpable. I should have known better. If I let you borrow my gun, knowing you just lost your job and are angry and depressed, and you shoot someone, I am to some extent culpable. I should have known better. Admittedly, it is hard to outlaw stupidity.


You loaned me your .410 shotgun because I need to shoot the rabbit in my garden, but I don't have a gun smaller than a 12-guage. You loaned me your Glock 9 because I wanted to get some practice with it on the range. You loaned me your .32 because some crazy stalker has threatened to kill me. You loaned me your .762-Russian because I've never actually shot a WW-II gun.Those are all good reasons, I admit.


I think you're trying too hard to bust illegal gun traffickers. Almost every gun used in mass-shootings has been obtained legitimately. Almost all gun-related crimes of passion or opportunity are committed with legitimately obtained weapons.Right ... but I was hoping we could make a dent in the overall numbers. :smile2: And although I personally would be happy to live in a gun-restrictive society, I was trying to think of a way that wouldn't infringe on legitimate gun ownership. Having to do more paperwork, essentially, seems like a fair trade, a reasonable compromise, to be able to (mostly) keep the desired guns.

[rooster827]

Very though provoking and interesting essay. Im a center-right guy who owns a shotgun and rifle (hunter) and really see no purpose of assault rifles unless to kill other humans. After being in the army, I can agree with many that they are great fun to shoot but throwing grenades is also fun yet they should not be legal for just our amusement.

PS: Has anyone read that no assault rifle was used in the newtown shooting? Apparently ABC, CBS, NBC, and the coroner confirmed this. Pistols were used and a hunting rifle was present in the trunk of his car.

[Lily Sawyer]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions...

Because he's *not* neutral about this topic. He makes that clear in his essay.....but you're not going to bother reading it, so you'll never understand why he didn't choose a victim-related charity.

[Shasta]

Yup, but I have always purchased King's works. I even purchased that first ebook thing he did online when it came out, which never worked for me and I never got to read it (don’t even remember the name of the piece anymore). I will not read Guns by slight of hand. He can take a stand, and so can I. Probably my loss... but still my choice.

Stephen is a pretty charitable guy. You should stop buying his books in case he donates some of the money outside of direct sales to something else you don't like.

[Neesy]

I've received Steve's permission to post this and we'll be adding it to our announcements:

"...any money from the essay will go to one of the charities to benefit victims
of gun violence. The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."


Thank you :y:

[exzel]

However, is it really a political agenda that bothers you or the fact that it is an organization with a political agenda aimed at a differing outcome than what you would like regarding guns.

I’ve just gotta ask... for someone so very excellent with grammar and punctuation (unlike me), I chuckled when I first read that. So... was that meant to be a question or were you just glad to deem me? :laugh:

[Neesy]

It is $0.99 in the U.S, £0.99 in the UK. I don't know why Amazon is charging $2.99 in Canada. :dunno:
I guess because they can get away with it? Purty sad if everybody else is charging 99 cents or 99 pence :down:

[Mary19]

Once again so many judgements. Mr. King has an opinion, a platform and a right to express himself. I can't believe some people are saying they will no longer read his work because he expressed himself!! You don't have to agree with him but surely you can separate his thoughts from his work. He provokes thought and hopefully conversation about a very important issue. Part of our problem as a nation is that we are so intolerant of each other. I respect anyone who has the courage to put themselves out there like that.

[MadamMack]

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 and the mentally ill would certainly help, but won't curtail an individual from doing something horrendous if they are bent on doing it.

Ditto.

[Waving The Flagg]

I've lurked these forums for a long time but had to post on this thread. A quick aside, I buzzed over to SKFB but what a zoo!! It was completely sickening...I read Guns so I feel VERY good about posting and cannot tolerate people who spout their opinions without having read what they are spouting about...I'm sorry to see there's some of that going on even in this forum. On with my post...

I'm a 53 yr. old, one time card carrying member of the NRA...I let my membership slide because the organization got too...for lack of a better word, wacko. I also tend to lean more often than not just a bit left so that puts me in a minority position, I'm sure. I was really amazed that Guns followed my line of thinking almost to a "Tee". I thought SK did a great job of pointing out ideas, which I had not necessarily thought of even though I tend to follow political topics quite closely. I have no problem with universal background checks, reduction in clip size and banning "assault weapons". I use quotes only because these should be called Assault Style Weapons. Assault Style Weapons are truly no more lethal than a typical Wal-Mart .22 caliber rifle at close range. The difference is they are more accurate at longer distances (due to a larger powder cartridge) and they are "cool". They may do more damage to a body than a .22 but dead is dead, regardless. I was really happy with SK's views in the essay but for one thing that he missed and that is where I will concentrate.

The term "semi-automatic" has become, largely due to the media and public ignorance, synonymous with something Sly Stallone (fiction) or Al Capone (non-fiction) used. I would love to see polls showing what cross sections of Americans believe the term semi-automatic really means. As I was reading Guns, I kept waiting for SK to explain the term. Maybe it really isn't important and I'm making much ado about semantics but then, maybe it IS important. I was almost completely with SK until Part VI. - No Solutions; Reasonable Measures. I was soooo bummed because I don't think SK get's it either. He states that, "If you used a Bushmaster on a deer in anything than single-shot mode, you'd turn the poor thing into hair-covered meatloaf." Really? Here's the scoop...with a semi-automatic gun, it reloads itself after a shot is taken but IT DOES NOT FIRE AGAIN UNTIL THE TRIGGER IS PULLED........AGAIN, AND THEN AGAIN, AND THEN AGAIN. SK's reference to the deer sounds like throwing a 30 round clip into your AR-15, aim, pull the trigger back one time and unload the entire clip in a second or two. That is referred to an automatic weapon, which is what most military guns are. Even those (most, if not all) have a switch on them to make them semi-automatic. There's no point emptying your clip if you are engaged with an enemy in a "sniper" situation. The automatic or "burst" feature on military weapons is for extreme situations where you may be faced with several enemies in plain sight and your only hope is to "spray" bullets in an attempt to take out as many enemies as possible (it's a survival technique). Those weapons are illegal in this country. My first gun (after I'd been responsible with my BB gun for a few years) was an inexpensive semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle. The bullets slid into a tube which ran along the bottom of the gun barrel and a spring loaded rod slid into the tube to place tension on the bullets so they would be pushed into the firing chamber automatically after a shot was taken. I had to pull the trigger every time I wanted the gun to fire again. Think of a staple gun...very similar. This is semi-automatic. SK says right after the deer comment that semi-automatics have only two purposes...to use at a shooting range and to kill people. Not true. I cannot tell you how many small game animals are taken with semi-automatic rifles every year but I'm sure there are stats available and I would bet the % is higher than those taken with the alternative, a single shot rifle. With a single shot rifle, you can (and usually do) have either a clip or a magazine as I described above. The difference is that after you pull the trigger, the weapon does not reload itself, you have to do it manually. On a rifle the most common method is grabbing a small knob that you twist, pull back (thus ejecting the spent cartridge and allowing a fresh one to pop into it's place) then by reversing the procedure, you “chamber” the bullet, which can then be fired. Most handguns are of the semi-automatic variety but even shotguns can be semi-automatic. Years ago, my dad bought a semi-automatic shotgun he used for duck hunting…I have it now.

[Waving The Flagg]

(continued)

Many of you are probably wondering why I am ranting on this so hard. You're right in thinking, "well, I could pull that semi-automatics' trigger over and over pretty damned fast and do a lot of damage." You are absolutely right. I could unload my little .22 rifle's 15 bullets in probably 3 seconds. Not accurately but at close range and with a lot of targets about? Yeah, pretty devastating. A true automatic rifle (depending on the make & model) could empty a 50 round clip in that time...maybe faster.

My point here is to educate (and to humbly ask SK to add an educational addendum to Guns). SK also refers to keeping a ".45 auto" handy or under your pillow which is referring to a handgun...again, illegal to own automatic weapons and if you're an advocate of single shot handguns (do they even make those?) in lieu of semi-automatics and you're using it for self protection, you better hope there is only one assailant and that you're a damned good shot.

Semi-automatic is not a bad word. It's a type of weapon (handgun, rifle or shotgun) which is owned prolifically n this country. I have 2 rifles and 3 shotguns myself...all semi-automatic. I also have a single shot musket rifle. The Civil War was fought almost entirely with single shot rifles. A new study released in April of 2012 raised the estimated death toll from 628,000 to 750,000. There are no solid numbers for the injured but it's obvious that number would likely be even higher. All this carnage in 4 years with guns that took, at best, 10 seconds to reload.

To summarize: I am in favor of basically everything SK put forth and I loved his defense of the actions, which need to be taken. I am MOST in favor of the limited clip size due to what I've stated above...even with a SEMI-automatic weapon, you CAN pull that trigger damned fast. And again, SK, PLEASE use your respected voice to put the myths and mis-information to bed where it belongs. I've written about and explained this to many people but I'm not Stephen King.

Your humble Constant Reader.

[jafen]

I absolutely loved the essay. In typical SK fashion there was an in-your-face vibe with a bit of humor, and it was dead on.
However, he cited a historical fact about Hitler's Germany and stats about Australia's violent crime rates without listing any sources. To be able to use these, I feel that some valid citations are needed. If the Mod or anyone else has some evidence to back these up, I would love to hear them
Thanks

[Moderator]

Very though provoking and interesting essay. Im a center-right guy who owns a shotgun and rifle (hunter) and really see no purpose of assault rifles unless to kill other humans. After being in the army, I can agree with many that they are great fun to shoot but throwing grenades is also fun yet they should not be legal for just our amusement.

PS: Has anyone read that no assault rifle was used in the newtown shooting? Apparently ABC, CBS, NBC, and the coroner confirmed this. Pistols were used and a hunting rifle was present in the trunk of his car.

The discrepancy appears to have more to do with semantics and the common misuse of the term assault weapon. The weapon that killed the 26 people there was the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S and the gun Lanza used to kill himself was a handgun. Here are some links to articles that describe the guns that were found at the scene.


Referring to the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle recovered inside the school, "All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said (Lt. J. Paul) Vance…"

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshootin...#ixzz2JNCG7xHk (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctpost.com%2Fn ewtownshooting%2Farticle%2FState-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4222299.php%23ixzz2JNCG7xHk)

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226 (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdespp %2Fcwp%2Fview.asp%3FQ%3D517284%26A%3D4226)

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3122...own-shootings/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/31221-update-state-police-confirm-weapons-used-in-newtown-shootings/)

[swampdonkeykid]

Proven his point? Really? Don't think so...

the point is we have no idea what actually happened at sandy hook. None. The media dropped the ball, big time, and we are left with so many questions that its maddening! I find it hard to believe someone like Stephen doesn't question the narrative of this event. So many inconsistencies and high weirdness. The latest? Anderson coopers disappearing nose.

Start hurling your insults--- predictably anyone questioning this event, and the tons of gaps and outright lies, is labeled a conspiracy theorist! I mean, this is beyond absurd! Do you have any idea of the scope of this?

So, yeah, I am skeptical of the timing of kings article. He should've waited. Or said nothing. Complying with the mainstream media account of this event is suspicious to say the least..I thought he was on the other side.

You all have no questions regarding sandy hook? Really?

[swampdonkeykid]

Do you,have any original thoughts/ideas on the subject? Or do you believe everything you hear and see on corporate news " shows"? Hmmm?

And, how is it that you are fed up with so called " assault weapons" yet don't care how many innocent women and children we murder via drone attacks? Hmmm?

finally, spellcheck? Ok. But I'm not so sure your an expert on grammar. Complete sentences start with capital letters. Oh sorry, I'm not sure you know what a complete sentence is--- or a period.

[MrsSmeej]

Stephen King has written a new essay titled Guns.
Bought it on my Kindle so I didn't freeze my buns.
Only cost a little bit and all the proceeds go
To a fund for victims (which could be a lot of dough.)

I would read a laundry list if that's what Stephen wrote.
If he ran for office in a state where I could vote,
I would send him to the Senate; quite a sacrifice...
I've already read his whole collection of books - twice.

One of them I read before he pulled the book from print,
(Didn't like the Bachman books; they never had a hint
Of the light that's at the core of things that Stephen writes.)
Didn't have to pull the book; his 1st Amendment rights

Offered him protections which he limited himself.
Thinks it's time to take high-powered weapons off the shelf,
Universal background checks, keep bullet counts to 10,
Funding for our mental health but says that, even then,

We can't ever stop the boys determined to succeed.
Wonder if an age limit is something that we need?
Seems to me these murderers are young and angry men.
Something must be done before it all shakes out again.

[Todash]

Yup, but I have always purchased King's works. I even purchased that first ebook thing he did online when it came out, which never worked for me and I never got to read it (don't even remember the name of the piece anymore). I will not read Guns by slight of hand. He can take a stand, and so can I. Probably my loss... but still my choice.That is your choice indeed, but based on this and your other posts, I very much doubt your assertion in another thread that you read from all sources, all angles. It seems like your approach is to simply bury yourself in a foxhole of those who agree with you. I realize that's a human tendency, of course, but I have to say it's been a while since I've known someone to be so very dedicated to it.

I'm going to quote something directly from the essay that I think you might find interesting, although I understand if you feel you have to avert your eyes on general principle:


If I could wave a magic wand and have one wish granted, I'd wish for an end to world hunger; the small s*** could wait in line. If, however, the god or genie who bestowed the magic wand told me my one wish had to do with American politics, I think I'd wave it and make the following proclamation: "Every liberal in the country must watch Fox News for one year, and every conservative in the country must watch MSNBC for one year." ... The viewers themselves might change. Not a lot; just a slide-step or two away from the kumbayah socialists of the left and the Tea Partiers of the right.

And now. I'm still feeling blunt, so: I have seen a lot of argument about this topic recently, and I have seen some reasonable, thoughtful arguments behind the opinion that less gun regulation is better, arguments that contain facts and logic. But nearly everything I see on the topic from you is just a reiteration of your opinion. You avoid anything that might challenge that opinion using generalities, red herrings, and, when those aren't readily available, the simple strategy of "duck and cover."

I don't think who King donates to has a damn thing to do with your refusal to read this essay. I think you're afraid that it might make you think. That it might make you question your stance. That your extreme beliefs are based upon such a foundation of clay and sand that the second you start examining them, they'll crumple. If that's the case, then maybe they could stand to be examined.

[exzel]

Stephen is a pretty charitable guy. You should stop buying his books in case he donates some of the money outside of direct sales to something else you don't like.

The King’s donate plenty of money to things I don’t like. But they donate it, not me. If King wanted to take the revenues personally from the sale of Guns and donate it to whoever they wish, I would be okay with that. But I won’t do it directly. I would gladly pay ten times the price if he would instruct Amazon to give half to the NRA in order to balance it out – making it neutral IMO. But I’d venture a guess that he would not have any of the donations go to the NRA… based on principle. And he would be heralded here for his stand on principle. But let me take a stand, and I’m castigated for it. Go figure! The only loss here is mine, and I'm okay with that. I may change my mind on the matter, but I haven't heard anything yet that would cause me to do that.

And I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so many of those trumpeting universal background checks on all gun purchases are usually vehemently against showing proper identification in order to vote. Both safeguards that the Rights we enjoy are acted upon legally and responsibly.

[Neesy]

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. King. I did not read the entire GUNS because I don't have Kindle or an account with Amazon so I only got to read excerpts that were quoted directly from the essay. (I did an on-line search). My younger brother died as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head (with a .22 rifle). He was only 15 and stuttered badly. He was being made fun of at high school and did this a few days into his second year of high school. My parents were devastated. I was there the day it happened. We only had those rifles in the family room in a gun rack and they were used for hunting small game. My brother actually must have had a lot of guts to do that. It was a quick "kill" if you will in that the bullet went in and never came out. He fell behind the door in his bedroom. When the ambulance got there he just looked like he was unconscious and only had a bit of blood coming out of one nostril. He was such a smart and funny kid. I miss him a lot (and this happened 36 years ago). Anyway, enough about my sad story. Guns should be properly locked up and everyone should need a background check and a license to carry a handgun. Sorry but the days of the Wild West are over now. America needs to reevaluate the situation. Good luck with the gun control legislation going through and I hope many lives are saved as a result in the future. (Speaking as one of your neighbours to the north) I'm a Canuck, eh?

[Charms7]

Two issues are gnawing at my craw right now. One are those people who just want to throw their hands up in the air and surrender to the violent looneys who wish to slaughter innocents at will. I thank God Dr. Martin Luther King didn't give up so easily. Second, how can a .22 caliber rifle possibly be compared to an assault rifle? True enough, dead is dead, but if Adam Lanza had used a .22, there might be only one family grieving for the loss of their baby, not 20. Yes, it is a crying shame we grieve just a little less when there are fewer innocents lost, but we do. Except when it's our own. Or maybe I'm alone here. And we lost some wonderful educators in the massacre. Our loss. Not only America's loss, humanity's loss. And that was only one mass shooting, the most recent, the one that caused yet unhealed wounds. I say we do whatever we can to stop such madness. Not argue over how Stephen King spends his money. That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

[Sepia and Dust]

Proven his point? Really? Don't think so...

the point is we have no idea what actually happened at sandy hook. None. The media dropped the ball, big time, and we are left with so many questions that its maddening! I find it hard to believe someone like Stephen doesn't question the narrative of this event. So many inconsistencies and high weirdness. The latest? Anderson coopers disappearing nose.

Start hurling your insults--- predictably anyone questioning this event, and the tons of gaps and outright lies, is labeled a conspiracy theorist! I mean, this is beyond absurd! Do you have any idea of the scope of this?

So, yeah, I am skeptical of the timing of kings article. He should've waited. Or said nothing. Complying with the mainstream media account of this event is suspicious to say the least..I thought he was on the other side.

You all have no questions regarding sandy hook? Really?

You use twenty dead little kids to push your political ideas. You sicken me.

[Sepia and Dust]

Second, how can a .22 caliber rifle possibly be compared to an assault rifle? True enough, dead is dead, but if Adam Lanza had used a .22, there might be only one family grieving for the loss of their baby, not 20.

Truth be told, I'd almost rather take my chances with the assault rifle. .22 bullets tend to shatter and ricochet from bone to bone, jellifying everthing inside. The Bushmaster bullets aren't much larger than a .22's, but there's more force behind them for punching through.

[exzel]

That is your choice indeed, but based on this and your other posts, I very much doubt your assertion in another thread that you read from all sources, all angles. It seems like your approach is to simply bury yourself in a foxhole of those who agree with you. I realize that's a human tendency, of course, but I have to say it's been a while since I've known someone to be so very dedicated to it.

I'm going to quote something directly from the essay that I think you might find interesting, although I understand if you feel you have to avert your eyes on general principle:

LOL… I've read quite a bit of comments on King's piece and have seen a number of selections, including that one. I already watch probably twice as much MSNBC than Fox News... And for quite some times now. I enjoy the musings of the Morning Joe show, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and occasionally Lawrence O’donnell. Over at Fox News I enjoy Bret Baier and Bill O’Reilly. I believe you should watch both in order to see how many of today's hot topics are handled and/or ignored by both cable news programs. Honestly, doing so has cemented my conservative convictions even more. I also enjoy NPR very much... My bad!

(Have you noticed that a recent 100,000 pro-life march was ignored by most of the media, but a 1,000 gun control event was highly covered?)



And now. I'm still feeling blunt, so: I have seen a lot of argument about this topic recently, and I have seen some reasonable, thoughtful arguments behind the opinion that less gun regulation is better, arguments that contain facts and logic. But nearly everything I see on the topic from you is just a reiteration of your opinion. You avoid anything that might challenge that opinion using generalities, red herrings, and, when those aren't readily available, the simple strategy of "duck and cover."

I don't think who King donates to has a damn thing to do with your refusal to read this essay. I think you're afraid that it might make you think. That it might make you question your stance. That your extreme beliefs are based upon such a foundation of clay and sand that the second you start examining them, they'll crumple. If that's the case, then maybe they could stand to be examined.

Well you are allowed your opinion, and I doubt anything I say will convince you of the truth.

And what part of my repeated comments that I would favor Background Checks on all gun purchases, and a possible reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1996, is it that you don’t seem to comprehend? Or is it that I’m not willing to lay down and have someone who supposedly knows better than poor old misguided me, run roughshod over my thoughts and convictions, that really rubs you wrong? :wink2:

(My postings are ones personal in nature to provide opinion in a humorous or non-threatening manner so as to avoid hurt feelings, anger, anguish, sensitive burning and itching or any other discomfort. And no sanctioned organizations with a political agenda were directly hurt in the writing of the post.)

[Waving The Flagg]

Second, how can a .22 caliber rifle possibly be compared to an assault rifle? True enough, dead is dead, but if Adam Lanza had used a .22, there might be only one family grieving for the loss of their baby, not 20.

I figured someone would make this statement. I stand by it...at close range (a classroom is definitely close range) a .22 is lethal. See the sad posting above about the unfortunate suicide. I have not shopped for a gun in years but as I said in my initial post, my first .22 held 15 maybe 18 shells. So you're wrong, Lanza and a .22 would have still caused havoc. Realize please that I'm on the same side as you. I'm simply frustrated by the fact that semi-automatic is used synonymously with automatic and there is a significant difference. Even the venerable Bob Schieffer of CBS News made the same faux pas the week after Sandy Hook when he had Wayne LaPierre on Face The Nation. He said "pull the trigger and empty the clip". I was torn...LaPierre tried to correct Schieffer but was cut off so on one hand, mis-information...on the other, LaPierre came off as the ruthless wacko that he is so it was a draw.

After reading Guns and many of the really wacky posts on SKFB and some pretty nearly wacky ones here, the thing I find most unbelievable are the number of people who vehemently refuse to spend a measly 99 cents to read Guns due to the charity involved. Even more disturbing than that are the people who won't read it but still comment about it, many saying they already know what it says because SK is a liberal. America is a great country but not as great as it once was.

[Lily Sawyer]

The King’s donate plenty of money to things I don’t like. But they donate it, not me.

So what's the difference?? You can't tell your dollar from someone else's, and if you don't like the charities or organizations to which the Kings donate, then on principle, you wouldn't be buying a King-authored book.


And I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so many of those trumpeting universal background checks on all gun purchases are usually vehemently against showing proper identification in order to vote.

I beg your pardon; to whom are you referring? A political party? A professional association?
I am 100% for lengthy and invasive background checks for ALL sales of handguns, at gun shows, between citizens, and at stores where guns are sold. If it fires, it must be registered, and the owner must provide proof that they know how to operate it at the time of registration. It's true for the ownership and operation of vehicles, so guns must be subject to the same regulations.
I also believe firmly that proper identification is needed to vote, and that includes all forms of picture IDs. It doesn't have to be a driver's license, and it doesn't have to be state-issued, either. I am NOT against showing proper identification in order to vote.

[Moderator]

I absolutely loved the essay. In typical SK fashion there was an in-your-face vibe with a bit of humor, and it was dead on.
However, he cited a historical fact about Hitler's Germany and stats about Australia's violent crime rates without listing any sources. To be able to use these, I feel that some valid citations are needed. If the Mod or anyone else has some evidence to back these up, I would love to hear them
Thanks

I asked when he called in this morning. He was heading out for an appointment and didn't have the exact link handy but he told me it was from Wiki in a piece about German gun laws. I don't know with certainty that this is the same one but it includes statistics about the modern history of gun laws in Germany since World War 1 and the particulars of the 1938 German Weapons Act which I believe is what he was referring to.

Gun politics in Germany

[Shasta]

Once again so many judgements. Mr. King has an opinion, a platform and a right to express himself. I can't believe some people are saying they will no longer read his work because he expressed himself!! You don't have to agree with him but surely you can separate his thoughts from his work. He provokes thought and hopefully conversation about a very important issue. Part of our problem as a nation is that we are so intolerant of each other. I respect anyone who has the courage to put themselves out there like that.

I actually agree with their right to do so. I won't eat Chik-Fil-A because of their hatred, but I wouldn't before the whole gay thing came out anyway. They've always been filled with hate. If they don't want to read King anymore that is 100% their right not to support him. I'm sure it's not going to hurt his book sales all that much anyway.

[Moderator]

Sorry, forgot the second part of your question. He thinks the statistics he'd read about Australia's crime rates were from a piece in the Washington Post but as I'd mentioned, he wasn't able to go back to his notes to verify that was the source.

[Shasta]

The King’s donate plenty of money to things I don’t like. But they donate it, not me. If King wanted to take the revenues personally from the sale of Guns and donate it to whoever they wish, I would be okay with that. But I won’t do it directly. .

A) No, you do donate it. You buy a book. He gets your money. He donates it. That's your donating it. Sorry.
B) Didn't you originally have an issue that it was being sold for profit?

[Shasta]

(Have you noticed that a recent 100,000 pro-life march was ignored by most of the media, but a 1,000 gun control event was highly covered?)




No, because I heard ALL about the pro-life march over and over again and I don't even know what gun control event you are talking about.

[PatInTheHat]

Proven his point? Really? Don't think so...

the point is we have no idea what actually happened at sandy hook. None. The media dropped the ball, big time, and we are left with so many questions that its maddening! I find it hard to believe someone like Stephen doesn't question the narrative of this event. So many inconsistencies and high weirdness. The latest? Anderson coopers disappearing nose.

Start hurling your insults--- predictably anyone questioning this event, and the tons of gaps and outright lies, is labeled a conspiracy theorist! I mean, this is beyond absurd! Do you have any idea of the scope of this?

So, yeah, I am skeptical of the timing of kings article. He should've waited. Or said nothing. Complying with the mainstream media account of this event is suspicious to say the least..I thought he was on the other side.

You all have no questions regarding sandy hook? Really?


Do you,have any original thoughts/ideas on the subject? Or do you believe everything you hear and see on corporate news " shows"? Hmmm?

And, how is it that you are fed up with so called " assault weapons" yet don't care how many innocent women and children we murder via drone attacks? Hmmm?

finally, spellcheck? Ok. But I'm not so sure your an expert on grammar. Complete sentences start with capital letters. Oh sorry, I'm not sure you know what a complete sentence is--- or a period.

Just maybe lay off the high fructose children of the corn syrup for a while:glare:.

[exzel]

A) No, you do donate it. You buy a book. He gets your money. He donates it. That's your donating it. Sorry.
Wrong.
[/quote]B) Didn't you originally have an issue that it was being sold for profit?[/QUOTE]
No.

No, because I heard ALL about the pro-life march over and over again and I don't even know what gun control event you are talking about.
Then I believe you are in the minority.

Listen, I would rather not post in this thread again, unless I’m willing to read King’s piece. If you want to keep ragging on me regarding my views on the subject, let’s take it over to the Hot Topics thread.

[Moderator]

I've gone back and forth on steering the discussion back to the Hot Topics forum since one of the things Steve mentioned in his essay was that he was hoping it would spark discussion but the Hot Topics area may be a better place for comments that aren't directly related to the essay itself.

[GNTLGNT]

Do you,have any original thoughts/ideas on the subject? Or do you believe everything you hear and see on corporate news " shows"? Hmmm?

And, how is it that you are fed up with so called " assault weapons" yet don't care how many innocent women and children we murder via drone attacks? Hmmm?

finally, spellcheck? Ok. But I'm not so sure your an expert on grammar. Complete sentences start with capital letters. Oh sorry, I'm not sure you know what a complete sentence is--- or a period.

...you are so right...thanks teacher and oh sage of all knowledge, your wisdom and pure insight leaves us all breathless...I AM truly outgunned in this battle of wits...and periods?...yeah I know what they are

[~Ally~]

Listen, I would rather not post in this thread again, unless I’m willing to read King’s piece. If you want to keep ragging on me regarding my views on the subject, let’s take it over to the Hot Topics thread.

If you are willing to read it you can borrow my copy via Kindle. That way you aren't donating directly to the cause, but can join in a conversation regarding the essay. Your choice. :smile2:

[Charms7]

I figured someone would make this statement. I stand by it...at close range (a classroom is definitely close range) a .22 is lethal. See the sad posting above about the unfortunate suicide. I have not shopped for a gun in years but as I said in my initial post, my first .22 held 15 maybe 18 shells. So you're wrong, Lanza and a .22 would have still caused havoc. Realize please that I'm on the same side as you.

Are we talking about weapons that hold 15 rounds here? Really? Isn't high-powered, multi-round, so many rounds it would stop a bull elephant in its tracks, let alone an innocent bystander, what is in question to fulfill the need for home security? And would you seriously need 15 rounds to stop an intruder, or a deer, or elk, or moose, or whatever prey you find yourself hunting at the time? Have they stopped making .22 caliber guns that don't fire off 15 rounds or more? Just asking. If that's the case, then .22 caliber guns need to be outlawed too.

[GNTLGNT]

He should've waited.

...Seems to me he did.(period)....now if you'll excuse me...I'm gonna go poop all over another "conspiracy theorist"....:laugh:....I just love how they get all riled up and vindictive when I bite back, after they hurl insults at the patron of our Board, just because the "opinions" expressed, don't jibe with their own views...

[Jordan]

A few thoughts...

If you want to balance out Steve's donation to the Brady Campaign, you could also donate $0.99 to the NRA. If you really hate the Brady Campaign, you could donate $10 to the NRA.

This is a great breakdown of the Sandy Hook conspiracy video that is fueling the Sandy Hook truther movement. Please give it a read before blindly having faith in the accuracy of the video.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Finally, as a progressive liberal who makes Obama look like a hard-right president, I found Steve's piece to be just left of center. Unsurprisingly, I have received about 30 emails from angry people (using fake email addresses for the most part) claiming that Stephen's "essay about destroying the second ammendment [sic]" and "hating the NRA" is "unamerican [sic]," "traitorous," and/or "bullsh!t." Additionally, the eloquent writers have suggested that Stephen "GTFO of America" and/or perform various and sundry sexual acts upon himself. While I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, I wonder how people can parrot their pundits without reading the essay and pretend to have their own opinions.

[swampdonkeykid]

Your lack of critical thinking sickens me.
We have no idea what happened at sandy hook. None. Get it?

When the media bungles and misreports we are left to conclude they have no integrity.

Do you have any idea of the discrepancies and inconsistencies surrounding this shooting?

the point is there shouldn't be any! At all! So we are left with poignant questions regarding a complete mess of a case.

unbeleivabe. Attacked for wanting answers to simple questions! And this is America?

[swampdonkeykid]

Actually it was obama who used twenty dead kids to push his agenda. Press conference flanked by little kids when this guy routinely oks drone strikes that slaughter women and children...but that's ok huh?

unbelievable...

[swampdonkeykid]

Hardy har har..yeah, I can pretend this stuff isn't happening and just puppet the rest of the sheep!

How noble...

[Autumn Gust]

Exzel, you advocate for Stephen King to donate half of the Amazon profits from his essay to the NRA in order to provide "balance". I don't know how old you are but for my ENTIRE LIFE (and I am fifty-four) there has been absolutely no balance at all in the national discourse on gun violence. All of my life, until now, the NRA has run roughshod over American politics. To question even a tiny part of their platform got you labeled "unpatriotic". "Love it or leave it!" was another stale phrase that was used whenever someone would try to discuss gun ownership. Now, finally, we ARE actually starting have some balance. I was thrilled to be one of the first to join Mark Kelley and Gabby Giffords' new organization, "Americans For Responsible Solutions". And--NEWSFLASH--you can dearly love your country and still question the NRA.

[Todash]

I figured someone would make this statement. I stand by it...at close range (a classroom is definitely close range) a .22 is lethal. See the sad posting above about the unfortunate suicide. I have not shopped for a gun in years but as I said in my initial post, my first .22 held 15 maybe 18 shells. So you're wrong, Lanza and a .22 would have still caused havoc. Realize please that I'm on the same side as you. I'm simply frustrated by the fact that semi-automatic is used synonymously with automatic and there is a significant difference. Even the venerable Bob Schieffer of CBS News made the same faux pas the week after Sandy Hook when he had Wayne LaPierre on Face The Nation. He said "pull the trigger and empty the clip". I was torn...LaPierre tried to correct Schieffer but was cut off so on one hand, mis-information...on the other, LaPierre came off as the ruthless wacko that he is so it was a draw.

After reading Guns and many of the really wacky posts on SKFB and some pretty nearly wacky ones here, the thing I find most unbelievable are the number of people who vehemently refuse to spend a measly 99 cents to read Guns due to the charity involved. Even more disturbing than that are the people who won't read it but still comment about it, many saying they already know what it says because SK is a liberal. America is a great country but not as great as it once was.

I agree that the two types of guns aren't the same and wish the clarification were made more clear in general practice. While you are right that a regular ol' rifle at close range would indeed cause havoc, the weapons mass shooters actually choose are assault-style weapons or semi-automatic pistols and large clips (lots of 'em, too), which have the drawback (from the perspective of everyone but the shooter) of allowing them to kill several people before pausing to reload, which, as in the case of the 2011 Tucson shooting, provides bystanders a greater opportunity to disarm the shooter, resulting in a higher number of people killed. Anyway, I have a theory about the weapons used in mass shootings. I've never seen this posted anywhere else, and I have no factual backing. It's just something that makes sense to me after pondering on the way these shootings go down and human nature and such.

So here's my thinks: whatever motivates the shooters, and I believe it is typically revenge, they often go into these scenarios loaded with multiple guns, big clips, and lots of ammo. Overkill much? I think they generally know they are going to end up by killing themselves, either directly or suicide by cop. I also think beyond doing as much damage as possible as quickly as possible, they envision themselves as "going out with a bang," making a huge impact. A Statement. And while a lot of them choose semiautomatic handguns (maybe because of easier concealment?), a pretty big percentage of them tend to pick semiautomatic rifles like the ones I've shown below as examples. I know they cause a lot of damage ... but I wonder, is it partially also the imagery? I think maybe part of the appeal is not just the firepower, but also the revenge fantasy. These guys, who have to get back at *somebody*, meaning they have seen themselves as the powerless victim at some point, are envisioning themselves as Rambo or something. Like I said, I have no proof; it's just an opinion based on my knowledge of fallible humans. But I think it's an idea that could have merit.

Left to right: .223 Bushmaster, used by Newtown shooter (he had a 30-round magazine); Smith and Wesson .223-caliber AR-15 (100-round magazine), used by the Aurora shooter; AK-47 (30-round magazine), used by Carson City, NV, shooter.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50cb9c5becad04c867000015-400-300/10182805.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5soZzDfhnI0yMGUTuoOPQNlCE6bju4 Yo18Br9obUfRBnbx-u6dQ https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVwt2KYzJn7FJlwS0uIwVdKMxdzq0h7 3Dvc02fRG-eMtPkyjoS

[Lily Sawyer]

DFTT

[Patricia A]

I just finished reading Guns, wow. I'd like to shout out an amen from the choir.
I was reading something someone said about storing and stockpiling weapons to stave off government forces, because they wholeheartedly believe that the government will eventually come knocking at their door to take all their stuff and enslave them.... wot?
I'd like to counter that supposition with the fact that if the government decided to invade us (actually "us" "is" "the government") we'd all be dead meat on a pogo stick no matter how many guns we stash in our closets and under out pillows... can you say drone? Can you say a well planned accidental release of a deadly virus?
I have nothing against guns or their ownership, but I strongly support the "well regulated" part of said ownership deal. That's my two cents.

[Moderator]

And don't make it personal. Just an observation, but for the most part all of the discussions in this forum and in Hot Topics since the Sandy Hook massacre that have been between members who have been here for a while were respectful even when expressing differences of opinions. Please let's continue to take the high road when posting and maintain that level of civility and lead by example that we can agree to disagree.

[PatInTheHat]

We have no idea what happened at sandy hook. None. Get it?


An idea by an expert on having absolutely no idea:oo:..:idea:...yeah there should be an ironic country song in there somewhere, doncha reckon:eyebrow:

[Todash]

Actually it was obama who used twenty dead kids to push his agenda. Press conference flanked by little kids when this guy routinely oks drone strikes that slaughter women and children...but that's ok huh?

unbelievable...Have you been venting about war your whole life? Because guess what, that's what war is. (Don't believe me? Talk to some Vietnam vets and ask them about what they saw and did. Or does the word Hiroshima ring a bell?) No, it's not okay. It's not okay at all. But if you didn't mind until the current Commander in Chief started overseeing operations, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Sepia and Dust]

Your lack of critical thinking sickens me.
We have no idea what happened at sandy hook. None. Get it?

When the media bungles and misreports we are left to conclude they have no integrity.

Do you have any idea of the discrepancies and inconsistencies surrounding this shooting?

the point is there shouldn't be any! At all! So we are left with poignant questions regarding a complete mess of a case.

unbeleivabe. Attacked for wanting answers to simple questions! And this is America?


Were 20 children and six innocent adults killed in the shooting? Yes.

Was the shooting committed with a gun? Surprisingly, yes.

What else matters? What inconsistency or discrepancy, what poignant question could possibly add or remove anything?

Disgusting.

[Todash]

And what part of my repeated comments that I would favor Background Checks on all gun purchases, and a possible reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1996, is it that you don't seem to comprehend? Or is it that I'm not willing to lay down and have someone who supposedly knows better than poor old misguided me, run roughshod over my thoughts and convictions, that really rubs you wrong? :wink2:

Per the moderator's most reasonable and excellent reminder, I am responding to this elsewhere. (Sorry I started that here, Ms. Mod.)

[Chuggs]

Arguments like these are interesting to me, because on both sides people feel that they are 100% correct. Logic would seem to say that the actual correct path would be in the middle, but then again, logic is not always correct. But I understand that some poeple's opinions are different than mine, and that is fine. Our opinions and beliefs are just that, ours, so civilaty would make the arguments go smoother, and perhaps we could get somewhere. As it is, poeple on both sides are passionate, which is also good, so all of these things tend to contradict one another. Its part of being human, I think.

[Todash]

An idea by an expert on having absolutely no idea:oo:..:idea:...yeah there should be an ironic country song in there somewhere, doncha reckon:eyebrow:

Throw in prison, mama, a train, the rain, drinking, and pickup trucks, and you got yourself a certified hit.

[Todash]

I just finished reading Guns, wow. I'd like to shout out an amen from the choir.
I was reading something someone said about storing and stockpiling weapons to stave off government forces, because they wholeheartedly believe that the government will eventually come knocking at their door to take all their stuff and enslave them.... wot?
I'd like to counter that supposition with the fact that if the government decided to invade us (actually "us" "is" "the government") we'd all be dead meat on a pogo stick no matter how many guns we stash in our closets and under out pillows... can you say drone? Can you say a well planned accidental release of a deadly virus?
I have nothing against guns or their ownership, but I strongly support the "well regulated" part of said ownership deal. That's my two cents.

That's actually a really good point. Not to feed the paranoia, but if the gubmint wants to kill us (and if it does, what will it eat?) then it will not come a-knockin' with handguns. Or even machine guns.

[Todash]

Arguments like these are interesting to me, because on both sides people feel that they are 100% correct. Logic would seem to say that the actual correct path would be in the middle, but then again, logic is not always correct. But I understand that some poeple's opinions are different than mine, and that is fine. Our opinions and beliefs are just that, ours, so civilaty would make the arguments go smoother, and perhaps we could get somewhere. As it is, poeple on both sides are passionate, which is also good, so all of these things tend to contradict one another. Its part of being human, I think.
A lot of people do, but I don't. I don't feel that I'm 100% correct. Well ... I feel it, but I don't think it. Because I'm smart enough (and been proved wrong enough times) to know there's a whole bunch I don't know. I just want to find a reasonable consensus, a meeting of the minds.

[Sepia and Dust]

Throw in prison, mama, a train, the rain, drinking, and pickup trucks, and you got yourself a certified hit.

Well, I was drunk,
watching Fox News in the rain.
Obama came to get me in his pickup truck,
and all my second amendment rights went down the damned ole drain.

[Neesy]

Stephen King has written a new essay titled Guns.
Bought it on my Kindle so I didn't freeze my buns.
Only cost a little bit and all the proceeds go
To a fund for victims (which could be a lot of dough.)

I would read a laundry list if that's what Stephen wrote.
If he ran for office in a state where I could vote,
I would send him to the Senate; quite a sacrifice...
I've already read his whole collection of books - twice.

One of them I read before he pulled the book from print,
(Didn't like the Bachman books; they never had a hint
Of the light that's at the core of things that Stephen writes.)
Didn't have to pull the book; his 1st Amendment rights

Offered him protections which he limited himself.
Thinks it's time to take high-powered weapons off the shelf,
Universal background checks, keep bullet counts to 10,
Funding for our mental health but says that, even then,

We can't ever stop the boys determined to succeed.
Wonder if an age limit is something that we need?
Seems to me these murderers are young and angry men.
Something must be done before it all shakes out again.

"I would read a laundry list if that's what Stephen wrote"

Thank you for the smile :smile2: Keep on submitting your stuff SVP - it makes a nice change from reading rants!

[bryantburnette]

It's a great essay, although I think Uncle Steve is entirely wrong in his assertion that Americans have zero interest in movies/television/games featuring guns. Yeah, sure, most of the top ten movies this year feature little in the way of gunplay. It's a different matter when you look at the top 100, though, and if you take weapons other than guns into account, it's clear that a large number of those movies have considerable violence in them.

That said, I agree with the underlying thought: that violence in the entertainment media is not responsible for violence in culture. I consume a lot of that entertainment myself, so if it could turn people into murderous psychopaths, surely I'd have gone on a rampage by now. But the fact is, I'm really only a danger to chili-cheese dogs and Coca-Colas.

They've got a reckoning coming, though, oh yes they do...

[exzel]

If you want to balance out Steve's donation to the Brady Campaign, you could also donate $0.99 to the NRA. If you really hate the Brady Campaign, you could donate $10 to the NRA.

Okay one last one.

I don’t “hate” the Brady Foundation, but I do think they are misguided on some areas in which they are seeking government legislation. You’re all kinda missing the point I’m trying to make here. I wouldn’t really want the donation to go to the NRA, as I wouldn’t want the donation to go to the Brady Campaign. It sets the wrong attitude from the get-go if the idea was to open honest debate on the essay. I used examples I think are on opposite ends of the gun control spectrum… IMO. If the donations would be going to families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, then I would have absolutely no problem.

But ya’ll have worn me out. I will buy the essay. I will read the essay. I will make my donation to the Brady Campaign, and hold my nose in the process... for no other reason than to be able to post in the Chattery Teeth (Other) section, under the Thread “What’s the coolest way you’ve ever read an SK story?… " and be able to answer: UNDER DURESS. :down:

[Waving The Flagg]

Are we talking about weapons that hold 15 rounds here? Really? Isn't high-powered, multi-round, so many rounds it would stop a bull elephant in its tracks, let alone an innocent bystander, what is in question to fulfill the need for home security? And would you seriously need 15 rounds to stop an intruder, or a deer, or elk, or moose, or whatever prey you find yourself hunting at the time? Have they stopped making .22 caliber guns that don't fire off 15 rounds or more? Just asking. If that's the case, then .22 caliber guns need to be outlawed too.

Sure, they make single shot .22's and bolt action .22's but just taking a quick, cursory glance online, I found this http://www.walmart.com/ip/Marlin-Model-60SB-Rifle-with-Scope-.22-LR/17654639 (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walmart.com%2F ip%2FMarlin-Model-60SB-Rifle-with-Scope-.22-LR%2F17654639). This is a 14+1 semi-automatic .22 which means it holds 14 rounds in the magazine and one on the firing chamber for a total of 15 shots. A .22 is not considered a high powered weapon and wouldn't do much but piss off a bull elephant (I suppose if you were close enough or hit it in the eye, you might eventually get it down). All I can say in defense of such a weapon is this. If I were squirrel hunting and I sat still long enough to have several squirrels near me, I would be much more likely to bag more than one with this weapon than with a single shot. These are truly either small game hunting rifles or target shooting at cans in your "back 40" guns. That said, unless I'm shooting at deaf squirrels, they're going to be on the run after the first shot and the likelihood of hitting a moving squirrel, rabbit or any small game with a rifle is slim. A small gauge shotgun is actually better for this type of hunting.

If you read all my posts, especially my first one which was nearly as long as Guns (thanks to Ms. Mod for allowing such a long post...I had to split it to get it all up here!) you should get my point by now which is simply the frustrating (to me) misuse of the term semi-automatic. The media latches on to a term like that and proceeds to demonize it as only the media can.

[swampdonkeykid]

Care to answer the question? Do you have any original thoughts on newtown? Or, do you believe the msm media account? Simple.

Please, if you have the answers ill listen.

Typical. Can't address the post so deflect with non sense. I get it.

but, can you provide answers to what should be very easy questions regarding sandy hook?

Sorry, but that is a complete cop out not to mention illogical.

Where's the evidence? Why no cry from the msm regarding motive? Ssri pills?


Yup, a gun was used. Though likely not an ar15. Every media reported that pistols were used for over 24 hours. First it was two, then four..do you realize we wouldn't be having this debate if the narrative didn't change?
Sorry for asking questions..


What else matters? Everything. Again, I simply am saying there are easy questions and should be easy answers! Yet, they aren't even addressed.


Here's a quick list. There shouldn't be a list. There shouldn't be any open questions. There shouldn't be any " conspiracies". That's my point.


Second and third shooters
Purple van
Nuns ( not making this up)
Robbie Parker
No CCTV footage? Really?
The medical examiner
How does it get reported lanzas mom worked at school? No one even really knew her at the school?
How does he get through the door of a state of the art security with not one person dialing 911 ( he would've been seen approaching decked out in armor, etc.)
Whose car was he in? Makes no sense
An autistic kid with no real training weighing 140 pounds weighed down with armor and numerous ammo clips, etc. pulled off absolutely precise shooting? Really? Do you realize how many times he would've had to reload?
Gene rosen? Gene, you never thought to call 911? Sorry, don't buy it.
The,principal is quoted though she was shot


There more. It scares me to death. You say this is disgusting? Since when is wanting answers so terrible? Anyone questioning the msm is crazy? I find that disgusting.

[Shasta]

One thing I have learned from watching the West Wing and listening to NPR:

While both sides think the other is absolutely wrong, they both come from a place of wanting to do the right thing.

We should all keep that in mind.

[swampdonkeykid]

"...Seems to me he did.(period)....now if you'll excuse me...I'm gonna go poop all over another "conspiracy theorist"........I just love how they get all riled up and vindictive when I bite back, after they hurl insults at the patron of our Board, just because the "opinions" expressed, don't jibe with their own views..."

Just what I thought. Anyone questioning the corporate state media is labeled a " conspiracy theorist".
Vindictive? Hardly.

Opinions? Hardly. There are legitimate questions to seemingly simple things regarding newtown.
why so dismissive? Afraid of something?

The point is there shouldn't be any open questions. Nor should there be numerous gaffs and inconsistent reporting.
that you all accept this bs without question speaks volumes.

It was widely reported that pistols were used by every msm media outlet for over 24 hours. Corroborated by Feds and cops. Then suddenly it was an ar15? And you just accept that? Wow...we wouldn't be having a national debate if 9mm pistols were used...unbeliavable.

please, since you have all the answers please enlighten me regarding the following:

second third shooters, purple van, nuns, CCTV footage, how he entered a state of the art security system without being seen and no one called 911, the precision involved in one guy carrying this out is not consistent, to say the least, especially a feather weight autistic kid weighed down with a lot of gear, a lot. Or, how a dead principal gives a statement? I'm sorry but robbie Parker is not exhibiting the appropriate behavior, and the medical examiners press conference? Beyond unprofessional and very bizarre. Anderson coopers disapperaing nose on CNN, etc. etc.

or, dismiss this with some pithy comment regarding "conspiracy theory" and stick your head back in the sand.

youd think this community would want some answers.

Snopes? No. Not even close.

just do your own thinking and research. Things simply don't add up. You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that.

again, ask yourself why all this " conspiracy theory" is out there? It shouldn't be. Why, then, is it?
because the reporting was so inept and bungled that the media has no credibility. None.

Guys like professor james Tracy are under attack because they raise legitimate questions..

[Jordan]

James Tracy is a person who denies facts in order to support his own opinion. That makes him a charlatan of the highest order.

He believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F) was a false flag operation orchestrated by powerful elite interests. He believes the same thing about last summer's shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); the same thing about the September 11 attacks (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F04%2F09%2Finversion-truth-to-power%2F); the same thing about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the assassinations of (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
(http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)

Have you read the Snopes article, swampdonkeykid? If not, please do. Once you have, please debunk the statements contained therein with sourced and cited evidence.

[Deb1960]

I am glad that Stephen King made this stand in his essay. It inspired me to contact my representative although the response was quite dismal. I agree with everything the essay said. Thank you S K !

Dear ----
Thank you for contacting me regarding Second Amendment rights and gun laws in this country. I sincerely appreciate the benefit of your views.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama signed 23 Executive Orders relating to the problem of gun violence in America. Ranging from federal background checks, gun seizures, and mental health parity regulations, the President has once again decided to circumvent the role of Congress. The Constitution dictates that we must have a transparent and open discussion on issues of national importance, a discussion that allows the voices of all Americans to be heard rather than the sole voice of the Executive Branch. After situations such as the horrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of U.S. citizens have indicated that they want to be able to protect themselves and their families. The fundamental right to bear arms cannot be trampled upon.

After the President's Executive Orders were outlined, I signed onto two letters with my colleagues to the President to express our strong dismay that he is attempting to infringe upon the second amendment rights of our nation. The first letter, circulated by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) emphasizes that, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, we have a duty to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not stripped of their constitutional rights by an overreaching federal government. The second letter, circulated by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI) urges a respect for human life and human dignity and encourages the President to work through the legislative process rather than pursuing action solely determined by the Executive Branch. In regards to legislation put forth in the House or the Senate relating to gun control, I must emphasize that I cannot support any bill that would infringe upon our fundamental Second amendment rights.

When our Founding Fathers adopted the Bill of Rights, they specifically included a right for individuals to keep and bear arms. They wisely knew that if the people were armed, there would always be a built-in protection against criminal activity and tyranny. As an avid supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner, I have consistently fought to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

While many call for more gun laws, we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. The true solution to gun violence is not creating more laws, but rather in something Congress can't do—changing the basic values people cherish. The solution to violence lies in our homes, schools, and places of worship as people learn the value of the lives of others. We can all work toward addressing those basic attitudes.

Along these same lines, it is important to protect firearm manufacturers from groups that try to shut them down through legal means. Gun makers, just like manufacturers of kitchen knives, make a product, and should not be held liable when that product is used in criminal activity. People make decisions to misuse products—the product itself does not cause the crime.

Hearing from my constituents allows me to better understand your perspective, and how they impact the future of Georgia and the nation. As your representative in Congress, I will continue to take your views into consideration as legislation moves through the process for votes. Thanks again for letting me know your thoughts. For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the Third District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/westmoreland (http://www.house.gov/westmoreland), and to receive my monthly newsletter, you can sign up on my website at http://westmoreland.house.gov/Forms/EmailSignup/ (http://westmoreland.house.gov/Forms/EmailSignup/).

Sincerely,
Lynn A Westmoreland
Member of Congress

P.S. Please do not reply to this email, this is an unattended mailbox. Due to the large number of constituent emails received each day, all electronic constituent comments must be entered through my official website. Replies to this email address will not receive a response.

[MadamMack]

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 and the mentally ill would certainly help, but won't curtail an individual from doing something horrendous if they are bent on doing it.

I'm quoting you again because I ran across this tonight and it made me think of your post again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[swampdonkeykid]

Huh, the Vietnam vets I know didn't sit in a leather chair in Virginia controlling a drone with a joystick and dropping bombs on questionable targets? Hmmm?

Yeah, I get it, your guy is at the helm so it's ok to slaughter innocent kids. Pathetic and shameful...

and that sorry reply of yours, have I been against war my whole life? Seriously?

[Charms7]

If a pea shooter is incapable of hitting a squirrel, how can a maniac possibly expect to slaughter 20, 30 or 40 school children? But I digress. I'm bored with feeding the fish. *Yawn* Bite someone else's ankles. Someone who isn't sticking to the subject of gun control, perhaps someone more interested in semantics.

[~Ally~]

Care to answer the question? Do you have any original thoughts on newtown? Or, do you believe the msm media account? Simple.

It might help if we knew who you were addressing your questions to...specific members here or Stephen King? If it's King then he probably isn't going to answer you since he has already voiced his opinion in Guns, the man doesn't really need to share anything else. If you are questioning other members here then please use the quote function so we know exactly whom you are expecting answers from. It makes debate/conversing that little bit easier.

As to your earlier posting regarding we have no idea what happened at Sandy Hook; what do you think happened? I've read your posts and you've never actually flat out stated your opinion without trying to tell others what they should be thinking and looking at...so what do you actually think?

Also, I find your comment about Robbie Parker not exhibiting the appropriate behaviour for a grieving father repulsive. You do not know the man, his family, or his beliefs. What you see in public does not always correspond with what happens in the privacy of a persons home, or their behaviour around those they trust. For all we know that man could cry himself to sleep every night and have to forcibly drag himself out of bed every morning. As a husband and father he may be expected to be the "strong" one and continue to act as normal in the hope of supporting those he loves and cares for...yes they lost one daughter, but they still have two others that need love and attention. Unfortunately the world can't stop just because a bad thing happened to them. I think the negativity towards Robbie Parker is disgusting, apparently if he cries he is acting, yet if he laughs he's abnormal...what do people expect from the man?? There are many stages of grief, and we all grieve differently, yet luckily for most of us we don't have tv cameras in our faces expecting us to respond "appropriately"...give the man a break already!

[Sepia and Dust]

blather blather blah blah

Look up there. Yeah, up at the very top. Your thoughts about Steve's essay. Let me clarify: Your thoughts about Steve's essay.

Your soapboxing here is of interest to nobody but you. You're just the guy who pees in the pool.

[Out of Order]

For his next trick swampdonkeykid will tell us all what really happened on 9/11.............

Disgusting...........20 children and numerous adults still warm in their graves and there are people using this tragedy to try to create doubt in those peoples' minds who are gullible enough to believe it.

Go back to watching to Alex Jones, I'm sure he has a new video out with the latest "proof" on what really happened in CT.

Shameful doesn't begin to describe some of the nonsense I'm seeing......

[Amphiaraus]

Lynn A Westmoreland, Member of Congress

*quiet laughter*

Westmoreland... well that explains the computer-generated autoresponse.

In addition to having once described the Obamas as "uppity", Westmoreland's appearance on 'The Colbert Report' was unforgettable: during Colbert's 'Know Your Congressional District' with Westmoreland as his guest, Colbert asked if it was true that he was co-sponsoring a bill that would require the Bible's Ten Commandments to be posted in the House of Representatives and in the Senate Building. Westmoreland replied, "Yes." Colbert then asked, "Well, is there any other building other than a public building that should post the Ten Commandments?" Westmoreland replied, "No."
Then came the punchline - Colbert asked Westmoreland, "Congressman, what are the Ten Commandments? Can you name them?"

Westmoreland's face went blank. About 6 seconds passed, which on a taped program is a *long* time. But Westmoreland eventually rose to the challenge and started with a vague list wherein he - a self-professed, dyed in the wool, born again Christian of the Southern fried... errrr, Baptist... variety - named four of them.... sort of.

But, you know, folks like 'im all the same, and he's managed to get himself re-elected once again. He may not know much about Bible basics, but when it comes to raising campaign finances and holding the line against them evil old Democrats and their evil old budget, he's a wizard :wink2:

[Shasta]

Deb1960 - I am so glad you wrote a letter. Thank you for sharing the response. I am sad to see that your representative seems to think that teaching values is going to help everything but I really appreciate that you tried. You are a good person.

[Shasta]

Huh, the Vietnam vets I know didn't sit in a leather chair in Virginia controlling a drone with a joystick and dropping bombs on questionable targets? Hmmm?

Yeah, I get it, your guy is at the helm so it's ok to slaughter innocent kids. Pathetic and shameful...

and that sorry reply of yours, have I been against war my whole life? Seriously?

Nope, they didn't. But my DAD, a Vietnam vet who was in recon and saw and did horrible things, still works for the Marines and is happy to do what he can to support protecting American life.

[Lily Sawyer]

Throw in prison, mama, a train, the rain, drinking, and pickup trucks, and you got yourself a certified hit.


Well, I was drunk,
watching Fox News in the rain.
Obama came to get me in his pickup truck,
and all my second amendment rights went down the damned ole drain.

I was drunk right outside the prison,
watching Fox Nois- I mean News in the rain;
Obama got me and Mama in his pickup truck,
to watch our Second Amendment rights leave on the congressional midnight train.

[Patricia A]

Here are some more of my thoughts on Steve's essay. I think guns should be harder to come by, less people would die if guns weren't so handy. That's not an opinion, that's math.
I also admire the fact that he put his money where his mouth is. Can you imagine the uproar if he made one red cent from this essay? Oh Mylanta!
One thing he said gave me a mini-waking-nightmare, it was that liberals should watch FOX news for a year...... Noooooooo!
Personally I am a fired up and ready to go, dyed in the wool progressive liberal who watches more C-SPAN than other news. I feel like I get more facts and less opinions that way, but I loves me some MSNBC too and find it hard to resist Stephanie Miller on Current in the morning.
But I do watch some FOX just to keep abreast of what they are telling people. I also have this habit of fact checking things I hear on the news and if I watched a whole year of nothing but FOX my poor internets would explode and I would probably develop a permanent and nasty nervous tic in my eye lid. I get those when I'm stressed and watching people lie through their teeth makes me mad, and fear mongering harshes my attitude. Being wrong is excusable, being deceptive is not, at least not in my universe. Maybe in Glenbeckybeckybeckystan facts can be manufactured to fit an agenda but not here in Patlandia. We the person and cat of Patlandia demand and deal with the facts as they are.

[Chessie]

I read the first few chapters of this essay last night. So far, I only have one opposing view (if it's even an opposing view) and that is King's consideration that the NRA should modify their approach to stopping gun control - stop being so radically right-wing. However, I think radical thoughts are needed - left and right - because if we don't hear and listen to the radical ideas, how can we decide that our ideas are correct?

I consider myself center of right, a Conservative Democrat, accepting and rejecting viewpoints after careful consideration of facts. While I am right of center on gun control, I am left of center on other issues. I am also one of those rare individuals who can 'change their mind' when new facts are encountered.

I'll post more when I have completed the essay.

[Waving The Flagg]

If a pea shooter is incapable of hitting a squirrel, how can a maniac possibly expect to slaughter 20, 30 or 40 school children? But I digress. I'm bored with feeding the fish. *Yawn* Bite someone else's ankles. Someone who isn't sticking to the subject of gun control, perhaps someone more interested in semantics.

A .22 is not a pea shooter. Do you think it would be easier to hit a moving squirrel (or a person) with an AR-15? My guess is that you have no clue because you've never hunted and probably never fired a weapon. That is why semantics in this discussion is important. A large % of Americans do not understand guns...a .22, a 12 gauge shotgun, a 30.06, a TEC 9? They're all guns and therefore all fall into the same category for them. Same with my ORIGINAL point which is the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. The terms are used interchangeably and that doesn't help the discussion. The only way to have good dialog is for the people involved in the dialog to be educated on the subject they are discussing. The semantics have everything to do with the subject of gun control.

[Sepia and Dust]

My guess is that you have no clue because you've never hunted and probably never fired a weapon.

Never thought I'd see the day where someone from Indiana accuses someone from Texas of never having fired a gun....

Cool username, by the way.

[91rewoT]

I haven't read they essay yet, but want to throw in my two cents worth. Sai King is so NOT like other high profile people when it comes to stating his opinions about political issues. He actually reads, researches, and understands what he is talking about, unlike many in Hollywood who simply use their positions to state their political opinions every chance they get. Whether you agree or disagree with him on this issue will never change the fact that he is a very wise, generous, responsible man. And no, I am not a liberal, so I'm not just "taking his side". I look forward to reading the essay (as soon as I can figure out how to get it on my dang Nook!) to see what his thoughts are. Reasonable people can have differing opinions while maintaining respect for each other.

[Todash]

Huh, the Vietnam vets I know didn't sit in a leather chair in Virginia controlling a drone with a joystick and dropping bombs on questionable targets? Hmmm? Right, so much better to slaughter little kids in person. Anyway, here's a little tip for you: the real guys in charge are pretty much always controlling drones. It's just sometimes the drones are 18 years old, wearing combat boots and fatigues, and eating MREs.


Yeah, I get it, your guy is at the helm so it's ok to slaughter innocent kids. Pathetic and shameful...
1. He's not "my guy."
2. No. It's not okay. It's awful. Horrible. It's always been awful and horrible.


and that sorry reply of yours, have I been against war my whole life? Seriously?Yes. Seriously. Questioning my valid, reasonable question is not an answer. The US is responsible for some awful, awful things, and that didn't start four years ago.

[Todash]

Well, I was drunk,
watching Fox News in the rain.
Obama came to get me in his pickup truck,
and all my second amendment rights went down the damned ole drain.
<slow clap> Well done. Well done, I say.

[GNTLGNT]

....could somebody please open a window?...the reek of stale rhetoric is overpowering....and I look to the swamp as I ask that...methinks I've had enough of the histrionics and hissy fits...the rest of ya have made reasoned and sound debate and opinion slinging very enjoyable...I'm proud of this family, and I mean family in the sense of those who have been here for the long haul...not those that have decided to only be "Johnny Come Lately's" and deride and dissemble...

[swampdonkeykid]

Executive orders are not how this works....

[swampdonkeykid]

" Re: Your thoughts about Steve's essay
For his next trick swampdonkeykid will tell us all what really happened on 9/11.............


Disgusting...........20 children and numerous adults still warm in their graves and there are people using this tragedy to try to create doubt in those peoples' minds who are gullible enough to believe it.


Go back to watching to Alex Jones, I'm sure he has a new video out with the latest "proof" on what really happened in CT.


Shameful doesn't begin to describe some of the nonsense I'm seeing......"

----------------------------

Go back to sleep America. Here's American idol. Nothing to worry about here. We've got it under control.

its funny how y'all love to cry conspiracy yet can't address any of the questions that are posed regarding sandy hook.
i suppose anderson coopers disappearing nose is normal?

You don't need alex jones or anyone else to tell you what stinks....

whats shameful is your gullibility and lack of critical thinking....

[swampdonkeykid]

"Also, I find your comment about Robbie Parker not exhibiting the appropriate behaviour for a grieving father repulsive. You do not know the man, his family, or his beliefs. What you see in public does not always correspond with what happens in the privacy of a persons home, or their behaviour around those they trust. For all we know that man could cry himself to sleep every night and have to forcibly drag himself out of bed every morning. As a husband and father he may be expected to be the "strong" one and continue to act as normal in the hope of supporting those he loves and cares for...yes they lost one daughter, but they still have two others that need love and attention. Unfortunately the world can't stop just because a bad thing happened to them. I think the negativity towards Robbie Parker is disgusting, apparently if he cries he is acting, yet if he laughs he's abnormal...what do people expect from the man?? There are many stages of grief, and we all grieve differently, yet luckily for most of us we don't have tv cameras in our faces expecting us to respond "appropriately"...give the man a break already!"
---------------------------------


repulsive, huh? Whatever. I find it incredible that anybody actually thinks that Parker exhibits anything resembling normal behavior. "Oh, but everyone grieves differently." No. They don't. His behavior is suspect to say the least. Why on earth would you go from jovial to hyperventilating just after you realize the cameras on? I find your lack of critical thinking skills repulsive . And, what exactly is he saying to the camera? Huh? Oh, that's right, anderson cooper has told you all you need to know.

back to your tv...and thanks, spineless adherence to corporate media? That's how you know what happened?
Ok......

And what about the anderson cooper interview with another " grieving parent" ? Anderson's nose disappears! Green screen anyone? Wake up..

[swampdonkeykid]

"Nope, they didn't. But my DAD, a Vietnam vet who was in recon and saw and did horrible things, still works for the Marines and is happy to do what he can to support protecting American life."

-----------------------
That's your answer? Really? So, because your father still works for the govt it's ok to drone murder women and children?
seriously?

Thanks, that clears everything up.

By the way, how exactly is murdering innocent people with drones in countries we aren't at war with protecting American life? Ask anwar al alwakis 16 year old son, an American citizen who Was drone killed. With no due process...

Unbelievable.......

[swampdonkeykid]

"One thing I have learned from watching the West Wing and listening to NPR:"


thanks. Explains everything....no wonder

[swampdonkeykid]

"James Tracy is a person who denies facts in order to support his own opinion. That makes him a charlatan of the highest order.

He believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a false flag operation orchestrated by powerful elite interests. He believes the same thing about last summer's shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the same thing about the September 11 attacks; the same thing about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.




Have you read the Snopes article, swampdonkeykid? If not, please do. Once you have, please debunk the statements contained therein with sourced and cited evidence."
-------------------------------

uhm, he does teach a class called conspiracy theory, so...........hello!

your wrong about his stance in sandy hook. Obviously you didn't read what he said you merely puppet what the msm said about him. He simply raises questions! That aren't being answered. No, he does not directly believe it was a false flag.
Maybe read him or watch his interviews before assuming?

What's amazing is the lemming mentality you display. Excercise your first amendment rights and your a cook because Brian Williams says so, or some other pathetic talking head. You're getting your info from corporations. It ain't n"news" pal, it's a " show"... Unbelievable

And, all these events you mention, 9/11 etc., you mean to tell me you think the msm accounts of these events are what actually happened? If so, that explains everything. You'd think of all places the king fans would have the backbone, imagination and ability to apply critical thinking to the most important events of our time..."nope, duh, I think Disney, er abc tells me the truth yes I do and so what if GE owns NBC they tell it like it is, duh huh..."

back to your tee vee....

[not_nadine]

Why is it that you never responded to Jordan's post, Swamp?

[Jordan]

"James Tracy is a person who denies facts in order to support his own opinion. That makes him a charlatan of the highest order.

He believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a false flag operation orchestrated by powerful elite interests. He believes the same thing about last summer's shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the same thing about the September 11 attacks; the same thing about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.




Have you read the Snopes article, swampdonkeykid? If not, please do. Once you have, please debunk the statements contained therein with sourced and cited evidence."
-------------------------------

uhm, he does teach a class called conspiracy theory, so...........hello!

your wrong about his stance in sandy hook. Obviously you didn't read what he said you merely puppet what the msm said about him. He simply raises questions! That aren't being answered. No, he does not directly believe it was a false flag.
Maybe read him or watch his interviews before assuming?

What's amazing is the lemming mentality you display. Excercise your first amendment rights and your a cook because Brian Williams says so, or some other pathetic talking head. You're getting your info from corporations. It ain't n"news" pal, it's a " show"... Unbelievable

And, all these events you mention, 9/11 etc., you mean to tell me you think the msm accounts of these events are what actually happened? If so, that explains everything. You'd think of all places the king fans would have the backbone, imagination and ability to apply critical thinking to the most important events of our time..."nope, duh, I think Disney, er abc tells me the truth yes I do and so what if GE owns NBC they tell it like it is, duh huh..."

back to your tee vee....

Couldn't find anything to disprove the Snopes article, then?

[Moderator]

I have lost a child--how does not matter, the loss is still a loss. Have you? Do you know how it feels to give you the insight to judge how every parent who has lost a child should in your esteemed opinion, react?

I've given you a lot of latitude to continue posting but the only person here who seems to be ignoring the truth is you. You have been presented with numerous sources including the official web site for the CT State Police disputing the allegations of the conspiracy theorists and you refuse to believe them. That is certainly your choice but your attempts to "enlighten" the rest of us as to the "truth" have been rebuffed because we also have the ability to form our own opinions. You will see what you want to see regardless of what further facts are listed so perhaps we can stop belaboring the point and agree that we disagree and move on.

[swampdonkeykid]

James Tracy is a person who denies facts in order to support his own opinion. That makes him a charlatan of the highest order.

He believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F) was a false flag operation orchestrated by powerful elite interests. He believes the same thing about last summer's shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); the same thing about the September 11 attacks (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F04%2F09%2Finversion-truth-to-power%2F); the same thing about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the assassinations of (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
(http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)

Have you read the Snopes article, swampdonkeykid? If not, please do. Once you have, please debunk the statements contained therein with sourced and cited evidence.
---------------------


snopes? Seriously? I found it to be a pretty lame attempt. And, by the way, who owns and runs snopes? So.......no, ain't buying it.
In this day and age you don't do your own investigating ? Let the corproate backed website debunk it for you? Ok, explains everything....

[PatInTheHat]

"One thing I have learned from watching the West Wing and listening to NPR:"


thanks. Explains everything....no wonder
Would you like drool cup?...well, it's just that sometimes new meds can make a tad bit loopy and I just thought...
Oh I'm so very sorry, didn't mean to bring up that bein' able to think thing, why I'd almost swear how repentant I feel about it:down:...yeah, I'm like totally over it now, thanks for caring:y:

[swampdonkeykid]

James Tracy is a person who denies facts in order to support his own opinion. That makes him a charlatan of the highest order.

He believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F) was a false flag operation orchestrated by powerful elite interests. He believes the same thing about last summer's shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); the same thing about the September 11 attacks (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F04%2F09%2Finversion-truth-to-power%2F); the same thing about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F08%2F10%2Ffals-flag-terror-and-conspiracies-of-silence%2F); and the assassinations of (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
(http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmemoryholeblog.com %2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fanalyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects%2F)

Have you read the Snopes article, swampdonkeykid? If not, please do. Once you have, please debunk the statements contained therein with sourced and cited evidence.
------------------

not to mention snopes attacks it from the staged hoax perspective. I don't believe it was a staged hoax. Never have. Again, I just want answers to seemingly easy questions that can't be given. I have no idea what happened at sandy hook! That's always been my point! The media has no integrity because of the inept reporting. And no, it's not just simple confusion. My god, anyone with questions and y'all knee jerk react conspiracy theory.

your reactions say more about what you think then you know. None of you are sure and are obviously scared.

me too!

[Sepia and Dust]

And, by the way, who owns and runs snopes?

David and Barbara Mikkelson. Barbara is a Canadian national, and David was a card-carrying Republican until a year or so ago, when he became an Independent, more Libertarian, US voter.

That's who.

[Jordan]

---------------------


snopes? Seriously? I found it to be a pretty lame attempt. And, by the way, who owns and runs snopes? So.......no, ain't buying it.
In this day and age you don't do your own investigating ? Let the corproate backed website debunk it for you? Ok, explains everything....


When a site (like Snopes) does research, and then cite their sources, it is very easy to verify their information. When someone like James Tracy hypothesizes and provides no evidence to support his claims, it is usually easy to do the research to disprove their claims.

[Sepia and Dust]

I find it incredible that anybody actually thinks that Parker exhibits anything resembling normal behavior. "Oh, but everyone grieves differently." No. They don't. His behavior is suspect to say the least.

Since my last will no doubt be blocked by the ever-watchful eye of our moderator, I'll try again.

Congratulations, you're now the cream of the crop. You're right up there on the short list with Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist. Good job, I guess.

[swampdonkeykid]

Would you like drool cup?...well, it's just that sometimes new meds can make a tad bit loopy and I just thought...
Oh I'm so very sorry, didn't mean to bring up that bein' able to think thing, why I'd almost swear how repentant I feel about it:down:...yeah, I'm like totally over it now, thanks for caring:y:

------
Thanks for bringing up meds. I wonder why the media ignores the connection between big pharma and mass shootings? Guns guns guns is the battle cry from corporate media. Not one mention of why it happened? Or ssri pills?I find that just a bit curious.

[Patricia A]

A .22 is not a pea shooter. Do you think it would be easier to hit a moving squirrel (or a person) with an AR-15? My guess is that you have no clue because you've never hunted and probably never fired a weapon. That is why semantics in this discussion is important. A large % of Americans do not understand guns...a .22, a 12 gauge shotgun, a 30.06, a TEC 9? They're all guns and therefore all fall into the same category for them. Same with my ORIGINAL point which is the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. The terms are used interchangeably and that doesn't help the discussion. The only way to have good dialog is for the people involved in the dialog to be educated on the subject they are discussing. The semantics have everything to do with the subject of gun control.

I agree that it's helpful to have a clear idea of what the weapons we are discussing actually do and what they are called, but in the end, the more bullets a gun can fire the more targets it can hit no matter what it's called. When six-year-olds are in the line of fire I don't really find what the gun is called an issue of much consequence. We just need to make it harder to shoot people, that's all.

[Moderator]

------
Thanks for bringing up meds. I wonder why the media ignores the connection between big pharma and mass shootings? Guns guns guns is the battle cry from corporate media. Not one mention of why it happened? Or ssri pills?I find that just a bit curious.

What happened was that guns were easily accessible to a person who should not have had them. Lack of or use of SSRIs is not what killed those people. Guns with ammunition fired into their bodies is what killed them.

[Todash]

------------------

not to mention snopes attacks it from the staged hoax perspective. I don't believe it was a staged hoax. Never have. Again, I just want answers to seemingly easy questions that can't be given. I have no idea what happened at sandy hook! That's always been my point! The media has no integrity because of the inept reporting. And no, it's not just simple confusion. My god, anyone with questions and y'all knee jerk react conspiracy theory.

your reactions say more about what you think then you know. None of you are sure and are obviously scared.

me too!

Maybe you should start a thread in the debate section of the forum detailing what you believe/don't believe and why. I can't seem to get a grasp on it here.

[Sepia and Dust]

What happened was that guns were easily accessible to a person who should not have had them.

Very true.



Lack of or use of SSRIs is not what killed those people. Guns with ammunition fired into their bodies is what killed them.

While technically, that's true, if the killer's brain was acting like a normal brain, the very idea of shooting all those kids would never have even occurred to him.

I don't believe that America has a gun problem. We have a people problem. And no, I have no idea how to fix it, though comprehensive background checks for every firearm purchase would be a good start.

[Tim D.]

I just read an article which I think is interesting, no matter which side of the gun debate you are on. At the very least it is level headed and well thought out.

http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html

[~Ally~]

repulsive, huh? Whatever. I find it incredible that anybody actually thinks that Parker exhibits anything resembling normal behavior. "Oh, but everyone grieves differently." No. They don't.

Yes sugah, they do. I've witnessed it professionally far too many times to keep count...but it's true. There's been studies around the subject of grief leading back decades, which led to the creation of the very well respected/researched Kubler-Ross_model. Have you heard of that/DABDA? It stands for denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. These are the five stages that each person can encounter when grieving, and they don't necessarily occur in the sequence listed in the acronym. Some people can even bounce between the various stages for very long periods of time before ever reaching acceptance, if at all. We are all individuals, and experience things differently. I'd really enjoy reading your evidence that all grief is the same, though...I look forward to you providing it. :smile2:



His behavior is suspect to say the least. Why on earth would you go from jovial to hyperventilating just after you realize the cameras on?

There was one quick glimpse of him smiling before he addressed the cameras. We don't know what he was smiling at. Maybe he had just been reliving/discussing happy memories of his daughter in the hope that would encourage him to honour her memory the way she deserved. That could make many people smile through their sadness. And the hyperventilating? He had been thrust into the spotlight, in the most devastating of circumstances, and probably had no experience in front of tv cameras--and on an international level--so that would definitely be enough for most people to display nervous behaviour.

As for what he said to the camera; from what I recall he spoke fondly of his daughter, and expressed sorrow for all of the victims including Adam Lanza's family, since they were (in)directly victims also. He seemed the kind of man that was compassionate and determined to be strong enough to hold his grieving family together.




back to your tv...and thanks, spineless adherence to corporate media? That's how you know what happened?Ok......

And finally...who the heck is Anderson Cooper? I'm not even from the USA, ha, and the coverage I watched was shown by respected News channels over here, so your final insult is a mega fail! UHUH, must try harder if you're planning on insulting this wee chickee. :rofl:

Ooh and by the way, are you aware one of the little boys murdered was from England and hadn't lived in the States very long? I read interviews with his devastated relatives/grandparents over here...so the Brits must be involved in this gun agenda conspiracy also, eh? :wink2:

[hossenpepper]

“The idea that I'd profit from these tragedies is disgusting."

Admirable as always! Now someone should relay that same type of message to Barack Obama' peeps and Joe Biden.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/25/obama-grassroots-group-newtown-raise-money/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehousedoss ier.com%2F2013%2F01%2F25%2Fobama-grassroots-group-newtown-raise-money%2F)


WTF? Obama won, get the hell over it. The overall American zeitgeist is not your neocon crap anymore. You lose.

This is about Steve's essay.

[swampdonkeykid]

When a site (like Snopes) does research, and then cite their sources, it is very easy to verify their information. When someone like James Tracy hypothesizes and provides no evidence to support his claims, it is usually easy to do the research to disprove their claims.

----------------
I have watched countless hours of video on both sides and find snopes to ignore and gloss over key questions.

thtese are two sites I quickly came up with just I answer your question. But again, I don't find that snopes does a thorough enough job.

http://westinabox.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/debunking-snopes-debunking-of-the-most-popular-sandy-hook-investigation-video/

http://thedemoniacal.blogspot.com/2013/01/video-response-to-snopes-re-sandy-hook.html?m=1

and again, have you researched this on your own? Or just rely on snopes? Glen beck referenced snopes too, so...

[swampdonkeykid]

What happened was that guns were easily accessible to a person who should not have had them. Lack of or use of SSRIs is not what killed those people. Guns with ammunition fired into their bodies is what killed them.


---

eaily accessible? Ct. Has tougher laws than the previous federal ban.
someone had to pull the trigger. And if ssri pills are involved then it needs investigating. No?

Thanks for clearing up the connection between ssri pills and violence and suicide. Informative.

[swampdonkeykid]

Maybe you should start a thread in the debate section of the forum detailing what you believe/don't believe and why. I can't seem to get a grasp on it here.

-----

me neither! That's the point! I have no idea what happened! How could I?

[Moderator]

Very true.




While technically, that's true, if the killer's brain was acting like a normal brain, the very idea of shooting all those kids would never have even occurred to him.

I don't believe that America has a gun problem. We have a people problem. And no, I have no idea how to fix it, though comprehensive background checks for every firearm purchase would be a good start.

We have both. The mental health system has serious issues that need to be addressed but so does the issue of guns/ammunition that are capable of mass destruction being too readily available. Had there not been guns easily accessible, who is to say that their anger/paranoia/whatever the mental break was would not have had a different outcome? The scenario of those with mental illness having violent tendencies who are not medicated or improperly medicated is playing out daily but it's only the ones who gain access to weapons and then use them against others that we hear about.

[Moderator]

---

eaily accessible? Ct. Has tougher laws than the previous federal ban.
someone had to pull the trigger. And if ssri pills are involved then it needs investigating. No?

Thanks for clearing up the connection between ssri pills and violence and suicide. Informative.

The guns he used were legally obtained, he'd been trained how to use them, and they were there in his very own home, so yes they were easily (and currently legally) accessible.

[Todash]

While technically, that's true, if the killer's brain was acting like a normal brain, the very idea of shooting all those kids would never have even occurred to him.

I don't believe that America has a gun problem. We have a people problem. And no, I have no idea how to fix it, though comprehensive background checks for every firearm purchase would be a good start.
True, but if he hadn't had access to such weapons, the idea of shooting them would be as far as he would have gotten. (He might have gone in for a mass stabbing, which would have been horrible, but those tend to end up with few or no fatalities.)

The problem is a many-spoked wheel, but while tracing the root causes is important, the problem can and should be tackled in the meantime, I think.

[cat in a bag]

I just finished reading the piece. I found it to be thoughtfully and passionately written and it did speak to me on many levels.

One question that I had though, here is a quote...

As a corollary to these background checks, there have to be stiff penalties for those who lie about their pasts in order to obtain weapons...

The lie about their pasts part...is that referring to private sales and the gun show loophole or just basically lying when you're filling out the paperwork to buy from a licensed seller? I ask because here, when you're buying from a licensed seller, your address on your picture ID has to match what they get during the background check, or it's a no go. Did I just misunderstand that or is it not that way in every state?

[Todash]

-----

me neither! That's the point! I have no idea what happened! How could I?Okay ... so then start a thread detailing why you think we don't know, more than how these things usually play out, what happened. Seriously. We are all grownups here; none of us, I hope, are naive enough to buy every last piece of whatever that every public official is selling. Heck, just sitting in 11th grade American History class will show you that isn't a sensible mindset. HOWEVER. When you are accusing someone of lying, staging a scene, whatever, such an accusation must stand up to scrutiny. You have doubts. That's fine; doubt can be a healthy thing. But not all doubt is reasonable doubt. Maybe yours is; I haven't seen a thing that compels me to believe that Sandy Hook was anything other than how it's been presented, but show some clearly researched information (motive, means, opportunity, witnesses, etc.) that cannot be easily dispelled, that seems reasonable, and ... maybe you'll make a dent. We are a pretty open-minded group here. But we are also thinkers. You gotta bring something to the table.

[PatInTheHat]

------
Thanks for bringing up meds. I wonder why the media ignores the connection between big pharma and mass shootings? Guns guns guns is the battle cry from corporate media. Not one mention of why it happened? Or ssri pills?I find that just a bit curious.

SN:rofl:RT!
Yeah, yeah I just bet you do:rolleyes:...hey Homeskillet, if ya unplug all of your electronic devices, I understand they stop talking to you, can't help ya with the house plants though, sorry, but your on your own with those smack talkin' jabbermouths...ya know, I think must be 'cause they're always in the pot is why they're so yacky, butt then that's just my theory, you of course have a full blown world wide house plant conspiracy, and just how drool is that:cool2:?!

[Sepia and Dust]

We have both. The mental health system has serious issues that need to be addressed but so does the issue of guns/ammunition that are capable of mass destruction being too readily available. Had there not been guns easily accessible, who is to say that their anger/paranoia/whatever the mental break was would not have had a different outcome? The scenario of those with mental illness having violent tendencies who are not medicated or improperly medicated is playing out daily but it's only the ones who gain access to weapons and then use them against others that we hear about.

Who's to say that a non-gun outcome would have been much different?

Two stories, both related:

One guy I used to work with, you may have heard of. Marquise Hudspeth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGtNug8gvpk) (warning: graphic video) was shot by the Bossier City police while in an almost psychotic state. He was unarmed. I didn't know him well.

Almost a year later, another guy who had worked alongside me and Marquise went home and sliced up his wife and five year old daughter with a butcher knife. There was no indication; he seemed normal. We believe that the daughter got cut by accident when she ran to help Mommy, but nobody knows for sure.

So guns aren't a necessary part of violence or of crimes.

Of course, I agree that those who aren't necessarily in complete control of their own actions should never have access to a firearm, but what can you do? Take me, for example--I've bought one gun in my life. The other eight I inherited from my dad. So maybe someday my brain stops working so good and I go a little nuts... how could my rampage have been prevented? Most people I know who own guns have at least one that came down to them from one of their parents or grandparents; also inherited from their family might have been dementia or psychosis. That's a lot of potentially crazy people with a lot of guns, but it's only the ones who are crazy that you've really got to worry about.

[Moderator]

I just finished reading the piece. I found it to be thoughtfully and passionately written and it did speak to me on many levels.

One question that I had though, here is a quote...

As a corollary to these background checks, there have to be stiff penalties for those who lie about their pasts in order to obtain weapons...

The lie about their pasts part...is that referring to private sales and the gun show loophole or just basically lying when you're filling out the paperwork to buy from a licensed seller? I ask because here, when you're buying from a licensed seller, your address on your picture ID has to match what they get during the background check, or it's a no go. Did I just misunderstand that or is it not that way in every state?

My thought was that he was referring to the applicant having had mental health issues or whatever else might prevent them from passing the background check, but saying they hadn't.

[Moderator]

Who's to say that a non-gun outcome would have been much different?

Two stories, both related:

One guy I used to work with, you may have heard of. Marquise Hudspeth (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F watch%3Fv%3DYGtNug8gvpk) (warning: graphic video) was shot by the Bossier City police while in an almost psychotic state. He was unarmed. I didn't know him well.

Almost a year later, another guy who had worked alongside me and Marquise went home and sliced up his wife and five year old daughter with a butcher knife. There was no indication; he seemed normal. We believe that the daughter got cut by accident when she ran to help Mommy, but nobody knows for sure.

So guns aren't a necessary part of violence or of crimes.

Of course, I agree that those who aren't necessarily in complete control of their own actions should never have access to a firearm, but what can you do? Take me, for example--I've bought one gun in my life. The other eight I inherited from my dad. So maybe someday my brain stops working so good and I go a little nuts... how could my rampage have been prevented? Most people I know who own guns have at least one that came down to them from one of their parents or grandparents; also inherited from their family might have been dementia or psychosis. That's a lot of potentially crazy people with a lot of guns, but it's only the ones who are crazy that you've really got to worry about.

Absolutely true but we could at least reduce the odds of it happening by making it more difficult to have them in the future and why a registry of gun owners and the weapons they have is not IMO a bad idea.

[Todash]

Who's to say that a non-gun outcome would have been much different?

Two stories, both related:

One guy I used to work with, you may have heard of. Marquise Hudspeth (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F watch%3Fv%3DYGtNug8gvpk) (warning: graphic video) was shot by the Bossier City police while in an almost psychotic state. He was unarmed. I didn't know him well.

Almost a year later, another guy who had worked alongside me and Marquise went home and sliced up his wife and five year old daughter with a butcher knife. There was no indication; he seemed normal. We believe that the daughter got cut by accident when she ran to help Mommy, but nobody knows for sure.

So guns aren't a necessary part of violence or of crimes.

Of course, I agree that those who aren't necessarily in complete control of their own actions should never have access to a firearm, but what can you do? Take me, for example--I've bought one gun in my life. The other eight I inherited from my dad. So maybe someday my brain stops working so good and I go a little nuts... how could my rampage have been prevented? Most people I know who own guns have at least one that came down to them from one of their parents or grandparents; also inherited from their family might have been dementia or psychosis. That's a lot of potentially crazy people with a lot of guns, but it's only the ones who are crazy that you've really got to worry about.
Cutting down on the number of guns doesn't stop violence, but it does reduce the number of murders, simply because guns are more lethal than other weapons. Something else that probably plays into it, as atomicinchworm has pointed out before, is that no matter how you feel, once that bullet leaves the gun, you cannot stop it. With guns there is no way to pull your punches. I'm sure plenty of people have killed someone with a gun and then immediately thought "What have I done?" :down:

[swampdonkeykid]

The guns he used were legally obtained, he'd been trained how to use them, and they were there in his very own home, so yes they were easily (and currently legally) accessible.
-------------


woa! Thank you, this is why I'm wailing about the medias coverage. No, we don't know how the guns were obtained. And no we don't know the extent of his " training". He can we when the media proves they have no integrity?

and I don't buy for a second his mother was a "prepper".

Even if he was trained he would have had to have been a green beret to do what he did! Remember, this is a feather weight autistic kid loaded down with gear! How did he even get in? Remember, state of e art security, had to be buzzed in. CCTV everywhere which suggests he would've been seen before he got close enough to the door. Even if he hadn't, no one called 911? What?

This kid would've had to reload many many times. And he hardly missed? The precision involved in this tragedy doesn't jibe with Adam lanza.

Again, I can only speculate and question. Because the media dropped the ball numerous times I can't believe anything they say. Again, integrity and consistency.

[Sepia and Dust]

Absolutely true but we could at least reduce the odds of it happening by making it more difficult to have them in the future and why a registry of gun owners and the weapons they have is not IMO a bad idea.

I'm trying to figure out the logistics of that. The government doesn't know that I own even a single gun. My dad's .357 that he used when he was a cop was left to my mom, but she was afraid of it, so now I have it. I have no intention of telling the government otherwise, simply because it's not their business. In general, I avoid being on the government's lists.

I imagine that's a sentiment shared by millions of others, so--since most gun owners have more than one firearm--that's millions of gun owners and many millions of guns that won't show up on the registry.

[Jordan]

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that the shooter in Newtown wasn't actually an alien using advanced technology to assassinate the children who would, in the future, destroy his home planet.

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about the moon landing, swampdonkeykid?

[~Ally~]

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that the shooter in Newtown wasn't actually an alien using advanced technology to assassinate the children who would, in the future, destroy his home planet.

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about the moon landing, swampdonkeykid?

I have a feeling my head will explode when I read the response to this one! :eek2:

[Moderator]

-------------


woa! Thank you, this is why I'm wailing about the medias coverage. No, we don't know how the guns were obtained. And no we don't know the extent of his " training". He can we when the media proves they have no integrity?

and I don't buy for a second his mother was a "prepper".

Even if he was trained he would have had to have been a green beret to do what he did! Remember, this is a feather weight autistic kid loaded down with gear! How did he even get in? Remember, state of e art security, had to be buzzed in. CCTV everywhere which suggests he would've been seen before he got close enough to the door. Even if he hadn't, no one called 911? What?

This kid would've had to reload many many times. And he hardly missed? The precision involved in this tragedy doesn't jibe with Adam lanza.

Again, I can only speculate and question. Because the media dropped the ball numerous times I can't believe anything they say. Again, integrity and consistency.

Let's leave the media out of this for a moment. Do you really think that the CT State Police would not have mentioned that the weapons were illegally owned? Or are they also in on this supposed misrepresentation of facts? I'm having a hard time understanding what your basic problem is with accepting that this happened in exactly the way it was reported once there had been time to sort out all the inconsistencies that occurred at the beginning because of our expectancy for immediate gratification and making sure the media has the first sound byte (which is what leads to misinformation). The only conclusion I can come to is that you are more afraid that your beliefs about the government cannot be validated if it did happen just as was reported and you would have no argument to dig in your heels against any form of gun control. As others have mentioned, you have not presented any facts to support your hypotheses--just speculations.

[Moderator]

I'm trying to figure out the logistics of that. The government doesn't know that I own even a single gun. My dad's .357 that he used when he was a cop was left to my mom, but she was afraid of it, so now I have it. I have no intention of telling the government otherwise, simply because it's not their business. In general, I avoid being on the government's lists.

I imagine that's a sentiment shared by millions of others, so--since most gun owners have more than one firearm--that's millions of gun owners and many millions of guns that won't show up on the registry.

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

[Sepia and Dust]

Cutting down on the number of guns doesn't stop violence, but it does reduce the number of murders, simply because guns are more lethal than other weapons.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. IIRC (and I may not), gunshots are one of the most survivable serious injuries, while stabbings and even car wrecks are more often fatal. Guns give a greater range, which offers a larger number of targets, though; there's no denying that.

[Todash]

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

Here is something that I don't understand: why is the idea of a vague, shadowy government offensive that doesn't seem to be impending somehow more frightening than the actual status of the US right now as the killingest rich country in the world?

[Lily Sawyer]

SDK, I'm referencing your very first post on this website.


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.

How did the media bungle the story, and what is it that happened that we don't know about, and with what, and by whom, and how, at Sandy Hook Elementary?


Would we be having these discussions over "assault rifles" if a 9mm glock was used?

Yes, especially in light of today's shootings in Chicago and Phoenix, on the very same day that Gabrielle Giffords and Wayne LaPierre both testified on the Hill about restrictions on guns in the U.S. I am certain I'm not alone when I say the irony of today's events is not lost on me.


And those of us who want our media to do their job are marginalized as "conpsiracy theorists" or worse----for asking simple questions..Unbelievable.

Has it occurred to you that with the spate of law enforcement officials, parents of victims, survivors of the attack, and educated journalists working for credible and legitimate news agencies all reporting that no one other than Adam Lanza acted, that they are reporting the truth? When you publicly question what happened after hearing all these reports that all say the same thing, independent of each other, then you question the integrity and honesty of people who worked hard to fit the puzzle pieces together....and you disrespect the victims' family members, coroners, survivors, police officers, mayors, morgue and hospital employees who witnessed the results of the shootings, journalists, sheriffs, firefighters, and emergency responder crews.

No wonder you're marginalized as a conspiracy theorist. You sound like you have one foot inside the mental ward door.


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!

Drones, B-25s, B-52s, missile launchers, it doesn't matter - they're all the same: mediums through which we deliver a devastating attack on humanity. President Obama is not the first POTUS to drop bombs on another country. Please stop posturing as if it was somehow less of an ethical issue when atom bombs were dropped on Japan during WWII than it is now. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. Might I also remind you that Congress green-lit this war in which the current administration drops bombs. The A(uthorized)U(se) of M(ilitary)F(orce) came with blessings from all political parties and the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, so don't act like it didn't. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups, and was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Question for *you*: how does the use of American drones relate to Mr. King's essay? Because you think it's hypocritical for Mr. King to want NRA members to be "cleaners" at gun crime sites, if only for a few hours, to drive home the point of how gory and awful gun killings are? I'm bringing you back to the topic, so please don't stray again. It's political, but it's not about bombs or whose bomb is the very worst or a war overseas.


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.

With this you're off topic once again. You're not really upset about Mr. King's opinion regarding gun control and a corresponding responsible and open dialogue; you're upset because Obama was elected twice to the Presidency and you don't like him. You're entitled to your opinion regarding President Obama but it's inappropriate in *this* thread to air it. Please opine about Mr. Obama and his administration in threads designated for such perspectives.


I simply cant agree Stephen. And, whats more, youve lost a reader.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am sorry that you're choosing to henceforth no longer seek out an author who tells outstanding stories.


mainstream media

Please define "mainstream media". Is it Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Conspiracy Theory News of the Western Hemisphere? Local programming streamed from someone's compound in rural Idaho? And how does it relate to Mr. King's take on all this? He owns a radio station, has mentioned watching national news coverage on several different channels throughout his entire professional career, and reads a metric ton of both literary and journalism material a week. I therefore suspect his news sources have been impeccable in both scope and integrity.

One last bit: lively debate is encouraged and welcomed here, but your argument(s) lack both corroboration and legitimate source references. I'm not encouraging you to post bibliographically. I'm merely pointing out that without said references, you would appear to be a fast-sinking ship in credibility.

[Sepia and Dust]

I'd like to know why they are so reticent about revealing that information if they're responsibly securing their firearms. As has been mentioned a few times, the idea that the government would not be able to overpower the populace regardless of how well armed it is, if that was their intention, is optimistic at best.

Personally, it's for much the same reason that I don't want the companies I do business with selling my information to third parties. More precisely, the government is a gigantic bureaucracy--the system is ineffecient, insecure, and may be changed by fiat of some unelected director's whim.

I do not want them making up a new tax for me. I do not want them checking up on me. I do not want them misplacing, selling, or sharing my private information. I do not want them meddling.

[swampdonkeykid]

SN:rofl:RT!
Yeah, yeah I just bet you do:rolleyes:...hey Homeskillet, if ya unplug all of your electronic devices, I understand they stop talking to you, can't help ya with the house plants though, sorry, but your on your own with those smack talkin' jabbermouths...ya know, I think must be 'cause they're always in the pot is why they're so yacky, butt then that's just my theory, you of course have a full blown world wide house plant conspiracy, and just how drool is that:cool2:?!
-----------

thoughtful and informed answer. Thanks. Anything to ignore the elephant in the room. Big pharma.

[Sepia and Dust]

Here is something that I don't understand: why is the idea of a vague, shadowy government offensive that doesn't seem to be impending somehow more frightening than the actual status of the US right now as the killingest rich country in the world?

You're not putting the paranoid conspiracy-theorist nutjob lable on me, by any chance, are you?

[Todash]

You're not putting the paranoid conspiracy-theorist nutjob lable on me, by any chance, are you?

I absolutely am not. Was not thinking of you, in particular, at all. Pinky swear.

[hossenpepper]

....could somebody please open a window?...the reek of stale rhetoric is overpowering....and I look to the swamp as I ask that...methinks I've had enough of the histrionics and hissy fits...the rest of ya have made reasoned and sound debate and opinion slinging very enjoyable...I'm proud of this family, and I mean family in the sense of those who have been here for the long haul...not those that have decided to only be "Johnny Come Lately's" and deride and dissemble...

What about us asshats who do this and HAVE been here for awhile? Please hate me for my looks Giant...

[Moderator]

Personally, it's for much the same reason that I don't want the companies I do business with selling my information to third parties. More precisely, the government is a gigantic bureaucracy--the system is ineffecient, insecure, and may be changed by fiat of some unelected director's whim.

I do not want them making up a new tax for me. I do not want them checking up on me. I do not want them misplacing, selling, or sharing my private information. I do not want them meddling.

I don't agree with it, but I can understand that. Not having a registry is one of the things that hampers the ability of law enforcement to do what it needs to do when they don't have resources available to them. People are asking for gun laws to be better enforced but don't want to give them the tools to do it. Sort of the not in my backyard kind of thinking is how it comes across to me.

[Sepia and Dust]

I don't agree with it, but I can understand that. Not having a registry is one of the things that hampers the ability of law enforcement to do what it needs to do when they don't have resources available to them. People are asking for gun laws to be better enforced but don't want to give them the tools to do it. Sort of the not in my backyard kind of thinking is how it comes across to me.

To personalize it a bit, how would you feel if Paul LePage were to oversee a new crime-stopping measure requiring an inventory of everything you own? Every pill, every kitchen knife, every gallon of gasoline.

While I don't have anything specific against the current adminstration, will whoever's in charge in five years be a Paul LePage?

[hossenpepper]

---------------------


snopes? Seriously? I found it to be a pretty lame attempt. And, by the way, who owns and runs snopes? So.......no, ain't buying it.
In this day and age you don't do your own investigating ? Let the corproate backed website debunk it for you? Ok, explains everything....

Yet somehow, in the maelstrom of all this disinformation you purport, YOUR sources are truthful. Interesting.

I believe there is a condition people have where they see an alternate reality, often through very paranoid eyes and believe this alternate reality to be 100% real and all others, even in the face of overwhelming proof, are just a ruse or attempt to deny the truths they so obviously see and others do not. I believe they prescribe Clozaril for it.

I am certainly not suggesting this is you. Just that your rants seem like it. Perhaps reducing your caffeine or meth intake would help.

Also, engaging me in your nonsensical attempt to show your obviously superior intellect is a complete waste of time. I am far too stupid and arrogant for that. I only mention these comments out of genuine concern for my fellow man and when one of them has obviously jumped the tracks.

Also, the heavy duty tinfoil works much better than the "regular" kind. The Klovaxian High Councilman from Nebulon 5 told me so personally.

[swampdonkeykid]

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that the shooter in Newtown wasn't actually an alien using advanced technology to assassinate the children who would, in the future, destroy his home planet.

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about the moon landing, swampdonkeykid?
----------

hey thanks all! Love the reception from the open minded folks here. In addition, it's refreshing to see that anyone questioning the state run media is marganilized. Let freedom ring!

By the way, and I ask this again, any of your own thoughts on this? I guess not? Care to address any of the things I've mentioned? CCTV, purple vans, etc..? Nah? That's right case closed---- snopes.com is the final word and a true authority, even glen beck says so!

“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their f###**^ skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”
― Bill Hicks


“I get a kick out of being an outsider constantly. It allows me to be creative. I don't like anything in the mainstream and they don't like me.”
― Bill Hicks

“When two or more people agree on an issue, I form on the other side.”
― Bill Hicks


“If you want to understand a society, take a good look at the drugs it uses. And what can this tell you about American culture? Well, look at the drugs we use. Except for pharmaceutical poison, there are essentially only two drugs that Western civilization tolerates: Caffeine from Monday to Friday to energize you enough to make you a productive member of society, and alcohol from Friday to Monday to keep you too stupid to figure out the prison that you are living in.”
― Bill Hicks


Have fun people. And, by the way, I have reconsidered my very first post and realized how rash it was. I could never give up being a fan of uncle Stephen! And I did read the guns essay--- don't necessarily agree, but it's a free country....well, it was...

i will no longer respond to your posts, all of you. you do realize not one of you actually addressed the inconsistencies or gaffes reported by the msm? i mean, on your own.....that pretty much says it all. your reactions to my posts demonstrate fear and confusion by way of attacking rather than responding. And I apologize for hijacking the thread a bit. But I am very surprised to find such narrow mindededness here.

but when you see blatant bs being peddld by the state, well, if it walks like a duck........some of us can't play dumb and just sit back and take it.

I never claimed it was a hoax, sandy hook, just that there are way too many questions unanswered and high weirdness ( dr. carver, andersoon cooper and his disappearing nose, nuns etc.) to ignore. I don't think we will ever know what truly happened in newtown that day. In addition, I urge you all to start from the beginning of this event and take in all the info you can, from both sides, and draw your own conclusions. If you feel secure in the bosom of corporate media, well, then I don't know what to tell you.

Freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
war is peace

thanks for keepin' on Stephen. I look forward to many more years of your writing!

[Charms7]

SN:rofl:RT!
Yeah, yeah I just bet you do:rolleyes:...hey Homeskillet, if ya unplug all of your electronic devices, I understand they stop talking to you, can't help ya with the house plants though, sorry, but your on your own with those smack talkin' jabbermouths...ya know, I think must be 'cause they're always in the pot is why they're so yacky, butt then that's just my theory, you of course have a full blown world wide house plant conspiracy, and just how drool is that:cool2:?!


-----------

thoughtful and informed answer. Thanks. Anything to ignore the elephant in the room. Big pharma.

Yeah. What about the voices inside the drooler's head? Isn't it necessary to turn the TV up full blast to drown out those Chatty Cathys? Is that the elephant you're referring to, swampydonkeykid? Oops! I said I wasn't going to feed the fish. Apologies, everyone. Apologies to everyone except the trolls, that is.

[swampdonkeykid]

"Has it occurred to you that with the spate of law enforcement officials, parents of victims, survivors of the attack, and educated journalists working for credible and legitimate news agencies all reporting that no one other than Adam Lanza acted, that they are reporting the truth? When you publicly question what happened after hearing all these reports that all say the same thing...."
--------------------


Ok I lied..one more post.


uhm, to start six corporations own the " news". Do the math.
How was the story bungled? Seriously? Have you been paying attention ? At all? They are too numerous to list! But a little sampling: it was Ryan, it was adam, his mom worked, their she didn't, she was well known,she wasn't, the car used, second shooter, third shooter, purple van, nuns, two handguns were used, four handguns were used, an ar15 was used, no it was in the trunk, no that was a shotgun, CCTV footage etc. etc. ( not to mention why wait for a day to do an autopsy on the shooter?!?!)


"Has it occurred to you that with the spate of law enforcement officials, parents of victims, survivors of the attack, and educated journalists working for credible and legitimate news agencies all reporting that no one other than Adam Lanza acted, that they are reporting the truth? When you publicly question what happened after hearing all these reports that all say the same thing, independent of each other, then you question the integrity and honesty of people who worked hard to fit the puzzle pieces together"


uhm, really? Please which are the credible and legitimate news agencies comrade? ( remember the six corporations?) Are you kidding me? I can't dignify that with an answer..the naïveté is astounding....and, hello! No, all the reports DIDN'T say the same thing!!! My god...that's the point!
-------------------------
no, there wouldn't be talk about assault weapons if a glock 9mm was used!!! Hello!!!! Anyone home? And it was WIDELY reported for over 24 hours that handguns were used! First two, then four..How can that suddenly change? Come on....kinda important.


your rationale for drone murders speaks volumes and is truly disgusting. Trying to justify an illegal drone campaign ( we aren't at war with Yemen, etc.). nope obama isn't the first but as far as I know he's the first to grandstand in front of children when he has authorized the murder of countless children in other countries! ( you do know he authorized a strike on Xmas eve, right? And Inauguration Day too? Didn't think so.) come one, where is your sense of decency? Shameful...(wait for jeremy scahills new documentary dirty wars) and when did the "overwhelming" population agree to this? I missed that meeting. No the president doesn't get to decide who lives and who dies! Anwar al awaki? Ate dinner at the pentagon! Wake up. He was murdered along with his sixteen year old son via drone. Both US citizens! Due process anyone? That's what separates us from them, well, it used to. The right to trial, innocent until proven guilty! I don't advocate for a suspected terrorist however I do advocate for the rule of law! And his son!! 16 years old, come on...what sickens me is that you prove the farce that is two party politics. Your guy " won" so it's ok? And what is this pathetic tactic of trying to assume what i stood for in the past as it realtes to mass bombings? awful...And I never compared the drone campaign to anything else! It's simply wrong! As was Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc.! don't attempt to assume..you know what they say....? And I will be the first to admit I was off topic with my first post. Guilty. However, yes, I would like to see the obamas visit Afghanistan and Yemen and talk with the families Barack has destroyed. Do you have a clue how this program is run? At all? Just as I would have W, Reagan, Clinton and every other corporate shill puppet you call mr. President do to atone for their sins!


Yes, my dragging obama and Ndaa, etc, into the post was not appropriate to the thread. And I apologize. It was rash and not thought out too well. Guilty again.


---------
mainstream media.. You need me to tell you what constitutes mainstream media really? as stated six corporations own ALL our "news"...what else can I say? And king owning a radio station is irrelevant..GE, the big military contractor owns NBC. Conflict of Interest maybe? Hmm.they wouldn't lie to push an agenda? Nah..Disney owns abc, etc. my god, what did you think? You have reverence for corporate controlled information? And trust? Wow..ok..Good for you, but trying to belittle people who want nothing to do with a corporately controlled world is insane. Remember when CNN got caught trying to fake a scud attack/chemical weapons attack? Charles Jaco 1990 gulf war? They were on a soundstage! A soundstage! hello!That's your hardworking "impeccable" media chock full of integrity! Hahahahaha. Unbelievable. YouTube that then start questioning everything you " know" http://m.youtube.com/watchv=jTWY14eyMFg.....the audacity....unbelievable. And I'm not so sure anderson cooper hasn't been caught doing the same thing as Jaco! Disappearing nose anderson? What?


------
"One last bit: lively debate is encouraged and welcomed here, but your argument(s) lack both corroboration and legitimate source references. I'm not encouraging you to post bibliographically. I'm merely pointing out that without said references, you would appear to be a fast-sinking ship in credibility"


what on earth are you talking about? Of course there's no corroboration! Because I'm asking questions! Im not posing an actual theory here? Get it? Big difference.


clealry you're an informed genius! ( with no sense of deceny, or what it is to be a US citizen)


as far as sai king goes. My previous post addresses that. I recant and again my first post was rash. I could never give up on uncle Stevie! Love him too much. My reaction was knee jerk.




ignorance is strength, huh?

[Patricia A]

Marsha should get a bonus every time Steve says any thing about anything controversial. I just read this whole thread in one sitting and I feel like I have just walked five miles barefoot both ways uphill in the snow.
Just wanted to say that as a preface to my next thought on Steve's essay. It occurred to me that were he so inclined, that his essay is the stuff of great Congressional testimony. I think all 14 of us US citizens who actually watch C-SPAN and those who we have elected to make laws for us need to hear what he says in this most eloquent essay, sans the watching You-know-what for a year part of course.

[Todash]

What about us asshats who do this and HAVE been here for awhile? Please hate me for my looks Giant...
You're grandfathered in.

Thank you; I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

[mjs9153]

A little late to the party here,but didn't read the essay until tonight..agreed with much of what SK had to say and his reasoning,but not all of it.I did think he could have toned down the language somewhat,but I understand that this is a highly charged,emotional issue,and people have the right to say what they think,exactly how they want it to be viewed.. I tend to view things with a jaundiced eye,and think that some people will never change their minds on this issue,unless their direct family happens to be victimized.I do diverge from his thinking that a gun is not a tool..That is exactly what it is,but definitely not like a spoon as the lady he referenced opined.I was taught that a gun is just that,it is not a toy,or a plaything,or something to be glamorized or romanticized like it is in films..it is a tool to deliver a gunshot ,and when you pull the trigger,that is where the bullet will go.You cannot plead with the bullet,or change it's course,good intentions afterward or saying I'm sorry just doesn't work..If a person is in the way of the bullet's path,it will injure or kill that person,so the gun is not to be pointed at people and the trigger is not pulled unless you are fully able to understand and live with the consequences.Thus,I carry and use my firearm with the gravity and care that a potentially lethal tool's possession demands..all in all well intentioned piece with salient viewpoints, and I hope it is discussed and considered as the country moves forward..God Bless the innocent children and teachers who lost their lives that day..:smile2:

[kingricefan]

Ya know, way back in the day, when Zork and company lived in a cave with all the other cro-magnum (or whatever they were called) people, they didn't have to worry about one of their own picking up a great big rock and blithely bashing in a bunch of heads. Nowadays, what do we have? This is what our society has come down to? I have read Stephen's 'Guns' and thought it to be very well put and thought provoking and even parts of it were a surprise to me (ie him owning guns). I may not agree with everything he wrote, but at the same time there have been books that he wrote that weren't my 'cup o' tea' either. He's entitled to his opinion, just as I (and YOU) are entitled to yours. We don't always have to agree to get along. The word 'disgusting' has been thrown around in this thread by numerous posters, and that's fine, it's your opinion (and, no, I'm not picking on you or pointing my finger in your direction, it's just a word that I want to use in my next point, keep reading). But, what's disgusting to me is that we are at this point in our society where we even have to have this type of discussion about people being killed in masses and that half of our society (hypothetically) thinks it's ok for these types of weapons to be in existance! It doesn't matter what the root cause of all of these killings are- what matters is that we have reached this point where human life means nothing anymore! I'm sorry if 'Daddy' wants to take away your 'Lollypop'! Well, bud, your 'Lollypop' hurts and kills people! I know, I know, here I go again with the 'Can't we all just get along?' thing- but, ask yourselves just WHY can't we? Why does it seem to be pretty much ok that this crap keeps happening- it's like Stephen says (and I'm paraphrasing here)- 'we just move onto the next thing'. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it- I WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE I FEEL SAFE!!!!! I'm tired of EVERYDAY hearing about a bunch of people getting killed! I'm just tired of it all! It's DISGUSTING! Now is the TIME for us to get our heads out of our arses and make a change for the better. NOW! Ok, I'm off my soapbox now. Please continue.

[GNTLGNT]

What about us asshats who do this and HAVE been here for awhile? Please hate me for my looks Giant...

...YOU make sense!...and know when to cut to the chase, and generally make valid, thoughtful points-whether I agree with all of them or not...you don't continue to chatter like a Prozac soaked squirrel...and I AM jealous, but of the double secret burrito recipie and great possum conspiracy of 2012...

[GNTLGNT]

...well, no use dilly-dallying any longer...the time has come to break out my secret weapon...remember, we all had this coming!...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA

[Moderator]

To personalize it a bit, how would you feel if Paul LePage were to oversee a new crime-stopping measure requiring an inventory of everything you own? Every pill, every kitchen knife, every gallon of gasoline.

While I don't have anything specific against the current adminstration, will whoever's in charge in five years be a Paul LePage?

You're seriously comparing those items to guns? And no, it is not the same thing to have guns registered and to be asked to submit to a state authority an inventory of personal items. I've never been in the bracket to have to be concerned about it, but at one time some states required a tax to be paid on certain personal items and those weren't even things that could kill other people so it's not like there isn't already a precedent to have to report personal items.

[Sundrop]

What about us asshats who do this and HAVE been here for awhile? Please hate me for my looks Giant...

Welcome home, Hoss......you have been missed.

Now, what did ya bring me? :biggrin2:

[swampdonkeykid]

Read much? I've never said I know what happened. That's been my point all along.

how could I? One more time...the press dropped the ball, big time. So I can't possibly know the truth.

but you all do, so best of luck....

unbelievable..your answer says it all

[PatInTheHat]

-----------

thoughtful and informed answer. Thanks. Anything to ignore the elephant in the room. Big pharma.
Never a problem, always happy to help our more addled youth:love:..and you I'm thinkin', you wouldn't know an Elephant in a room on a bet, pink, polka dotted, or in basic factory grey, but I do appreciate your youthful exuberance:smile2:...as will your dentist, if you have one that is, if not, may I suggest you shop around for one specializing in replacement dental work:y:...just sayin', and I speak from experience so take it for what it's worth, or not, I mean after all, no questions and all hat, obviously your our new great oracle, our tree of knowledge if you will, hmm, yeah 'k, more of a shrub, butt still.....
My new brutha oh yes, yes you just keep on keepin' on, and you too will most probably become a certified bona fide member of, The Punkin' People Tribe, and with hardly no more effort at all, and we gots sucha kewl look too, doncha think:wow:?

[Todash]

Personally, it's for much the same reason that I don't want the companies I do business with selling my information to third parties. More precisely, the government is a gigantic bureaucracy--the system is ineffecient, insecure, and may be changed by fiat of some unelected director's whim.

I do not want them making up a new tax for me. I do not want them checking up on me. I do not want them misplacing, selling, or sharing my private information. I do not want them meddling.

Now this ... I get this, at least part of it. I don't buy the whole vast shadow puppet everything-is-a-conspiracy thing largely BECAUSE such malfeasance is pretty hard to organize and generally eventually gets outed. And if there ARE people who can manage this crap on a regular basis, I would like work somewhere that hires them to be project managers, because maybe we could get something done for a change. But falling through the cracks? Information getting into the wrong hands because someone, somewhere didn't think through proper security? I do understand that. It happens. But I also agree with Ms. Mod that that is very NIMBY thinking. And also, the horse is already out of that particular barn.

[Moderator]

Read much? I've never said I know what happened. That's been my point all along.

how could I? One more time...the press dropped the ball, big time. So I can't possibly know the truth.

but you all do, so best of luck....

unbelievable..your answer says it all

No, they just didn't report it the way you want to believe it. Your questions regarding inconsistencies have been answered time and again. One of the problems with the instant gratification news reporting style that has become the norm of today as each network vies for scooping another is that it doesn't allow for all the information to be sorted out so that in the confusion and chaos of an event such as this, things like Lanza being mistakenly identified for his brother because he was carrying his brother's ID, the full inventory of his guns and that some were inside the school and others were in his car get reported and then have to be corrected. Reasonable people understand that can happen and once given the full story, don't make the leap that they were being purposely misled.

[swampdonkeykid]

Yet somehow, in the maelstrom of all this disinformation you purport, YOUR sources are truthful. Interesting.

I believe there is a condition people have where they see an alternate reality, often through very paranoid eyes and believe this alternate reality to be 100% real and all others, even in the face of overwhelming proof, are just a ruse or attempt to deny the truths they so obviously see and others do not. I believe they prescribe Clozaril for it.

I am certainly not suggesting this is you. Just that your rants seem like it. Perhaps reducing your caffeine or meth intake would help.

Also, engaging me in your nonsensical attempt to show your obviously superior intellect is a complete waste of time. I am far too stupid and arrogant for that. I only mention these comments out of genuine concern for my fellow man and when one of them has obviously jumped the tracks.

Also, the heavy duty tinfoil works much better than the "regular" kind. The Klovaxian High Councilman from Nebulon 5 told me so personally.



Last time. Apparently you can't read? I am posing questions about a narrative that changed many many times and addressing inconsistencies in reporting that shouldn't have happened. I never said I know what happened. Never.

So your attempt at belittling is , again, pathetic and beneath you. Do you have any thoughts of your own on sandy hook?
ever wonder why so many people, and I do mean many, have the same questions? There shouldn't be any questions! That's my point always was.

my god, question corproate media and look out...all of your answers to my posts reaffirm my belief that we haven't been told the truth---- personal attacks, tin foil hat references, etc. only says to me your scared. Well, so am I.

[Sepia and Dust]

You're seriously comparing those items to guns? And no, it is not the same thing to have guns registered and to be asked to submit to a state authority an inventory of personal items. I've never been in the bracket to have to be concerned about it, but at one time some states required a tax to be paid on certain personal items and those weren't even things that could kill other people so it's not like there isn't already a precedent to have to report personal items.

No, not really comparing them, just making a ferinstance using a politician you don't like.

[Sundrop]

I haven't read the essay yet, so I don't feel that I can properly form an opinion, much less post comments about it. However, I am reading the thoughts of folks here.

I notice that one person in particular seems to have misunderstood the topic of this thread....It's supposed to be your thoughts about Steve's Essay, NOT your thoughts about the media, pills, and your own personal fantasy world where everything is a conspiracy, and it's okay for you to rant like a madman, but it's not okay for thinking people to discuss pertinent ideas.

and....Since someone brought up the subject of credibility, and the same someone stated several different times that he wasn't postng here any more, and then continues posting and ranting......
I have to ask where is the credibility in that behavior?......

[~Ally~]

Okay, for once I'm going to be the sensible one here and say is there really any point in posting swamp's opinions since (s)he obviously has no desire to engage in civilised discussion? Every reply has been dismissive and insulting without actually displaying any valid point, or even a real opinion. If they don't know what they're trying to say about this tragedy and what they believe happened then how the heck are we supposed to know what they expect in response? Swamp you're just going round in circles and frankly doing my head in now! Time to stop reading your posts methinks. I thought this thread would be interesting but you've killed it for me. Bravo. :y:

*Yes, I respect I have no right to suggest this, but surely a new thread could be opened for Swamp to bounce off the walls in regarding what did(n't) happen?*

[Sepia and Dust]

I don't agree with it, but I can understand that. Not having a registry is one of the things that hampers the ability of law enforcement to do what it needs to do when they don't have resources available to them. People are asking for gun laws to be better enforced but don't want to give them the tools to do it. Sort of the not in my backyard kind of thinking is how it comes across to me.


But I also agree with Ms. Mod that that is very NIMBY thinking. And also, the horse is already out of that particular barn.

I'm strongly of the opinion that making law enforcement's job easier is never a good reason, on its own, to do anything. After the reactive politics to the murders dies down, if we--as a nation--decide that we want stricter gun controls, then that's what we'll have, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't erode our fundamental rights.

I don't see what possible good a big ole list is going to do, though. Really, what would they use it for? To find out if the notorious criminal Joe Schmoe is armed? They should just assume that he's armed. Maybe it could be used if Joe goes to prison or if he's institutionalized to make sure that he doesn't have firearms waiting for him when he gets home, but vanishingly few of the people on the list would ever commit violent crimes or have a mental break. So I don't really see much point to a national registry of firearms.

Better would be a national registry of crazy people who, somewhere down the line, forgot that murdering people is wrong.

[fushingfeef]

Okay, for once I'm going to be the sensible one here and say is there really any point in posting swamp's opinions since (s)he obviously has no desire to engage in civilised discussion? Every reply has been dismissive and insulting without actually displaying any valid point, or even a real opinion. If they don't know what they're trying to say about this tragedy and what they believe happened then how the heck are we supposed to know what they expect in response? Swamp you're just going round in circles and frankly doing my head in now! Time to stop reading your posts methinks. I thought this thread would be interesting but you've killed it for me. Bravo. :y:

*Yes, I respect I have no right to suggest this, but surely a new thread could be opened for Swamp to bounce off the walls in regarding what did(n't) happen?*

Ally, just do what I did. Click on the "ignore this member" button.

[Todash]

No, they just didn't report it the way you want to believe it. Your questions regarding inconsistencies have been answered time and again. One of the problems with the instant gratification news reporting style that has become the norm of today as each network vies for scooping another is that it doesn't allow for all the information to be sorted out so that in the confusion and chaos of an event such as this, things like Lanza being mistakenly identified for his brother because he was carrying his brother's ID, the full inventory of his guns and that some were inside the school and others were in his car get reported and then have to be corrected. Reasonable people understand that can happen and once given the full story, don't make the leap that they were being purposely misled.

Yes. This happens every time a story like this unfolds, swampdonkeykid. It is a messy monster, but it is a monster we the public have created with our insatiable need for NOW NOW NOW NEWS. I tend to not even look at these things as they're developing because I know it's just going to be a mass of confusion. Have you ever reported on an event, even at the student level? I have, and you can bash the media as much as you want, but it is not an easy job. People don't want to talk to you, or someone you think should know the facts tells you something and it turns out that they were telling you what they suspected, not what they knew, or in the confusion you simply accidentally get it wrong. It's a hard freaking job. (And as regards six corporations: if all mass media was owned by one corporation, you might have something. You'll never get six corporations to cooperate in any significant way unless the rewards for doing so are enormous. And even then, it's unlikely. Corporations, by their very nature, are competitive.)

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is usually the right one." (That's the plain English version, anyway.)

Or, more pointedly, Hanlon's Razor? "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

[~Ally~]

Ally, just do what I did. Click on the "ignore this member" button.

Already done. They can post what they like but surely the rules should apply to everyone? They aren't posting about the essay so why should their posts be allowed to monopolise the thread? I've recently had the tone and nature of my posts questioned and feel I am also expressing a valid view here, sorry if anyone disagrees.

[Moderator]

Already done. They can post what they like but surely the rules should apply to everyone? They aren't posting about the essay so why should their posts be allowed to monopolise the thread? I've recently had the tone and nature of my posts questioned and feel I am also expressing a valid view here, sorry if anyone disagrees.

Because, Ally, as I explained in a previous post in this thread, I had debated about whether to continue side discussions here and decided that since one of the purposes of Steve's essay was to encourage debate about the topic, they were still in the spirit of what he was asking. We have a place on the main portion of the site for people to put their reviews of his works.

[Todash]

Already done. They can post what they like but surely the rules should apply to everyone? They aren't posting about the essay so why should their posts be allowed to monopolise the thread? I've recently had the tone and nature of my posts questioned and feel I am also expressing a valid view here, sorry if anyone disagrees.

Heck, I was so dazzled and dizzied by the maelstrom that I actually forgot about the ignore function till now.

[PatInTheHat]

Or, more pointedly, Hanlon's Razor? "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Ohhhhhhhh:love:!
I just always knew I cholesterol encrusted heart you:y:!

[Spideyman]

A thought concerning swampdonkeykid-- a person experiences frustration and inner conflicts because their perception and actions are "unfit"/inapt for the reality. It's all about perception.

[swampdonkeykid]

Originally Posted by Jordan
"I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that the shooter in Newtown wasn't actually an alien using advanced technology to assassinate the children who would, in the future, destroy his home planet.


Out of morbid curiosity, how do you feel about the moon landing, swampdonkeykid?"
----------


hey thanks all! Love the reception from the open minded folks here. In addition, it's refreshing to see that anyone questioning the state run media is marganilized. Let freedom ring!


By the way, and I ask this again, any of your own thoughts on this? I guess not? Care to address any of the things I've mentioned? CCTV, purple vans, Anderson coopers disappearing nose, etc..? Nah? That's right case closed---- snopes.com is the final word and a true authority, even glen beck says so!


“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their f###**^ skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”
― Bill Hicks




“I get a kick out of being an outsider constantly. It allows me to be creative. I don't like anything in the mainstream and they don't like me.”
― Bill Hicks


“When two or more people agree on an issue, I form on the other side.”
― Bill Hicks




“If you want to understand a society, take a good look at the drugs it uses. And what can this tell you about American culture? Well, look at the drugs we use. Except for pharmaceutical poison, there are essentially only two drugs that Western civilization tolerates: Caffeine from Monday to Friday to energize you enough to make you a productive member of society, and alcohol from Friday to Monday to keep you too stupid to figure out the prison that you are living in.”
― Bill Hicks




Have fun people. And, by the way, I have reconsidered my very first post and realized how rash it was. I could never give up being a fan of uncle Stephen! And I did read the guns essay--- don't necessarily agree, but it's a free country....well, it was...


i will no longer respond to your posts, all of you. you do realize not one of you actually addressed the inconsistencies or gaffes reported by the msm? i mean, on your own.....that pretty much says it all. your reactions to my posts demonstrate fear and confusion by way of attacking rather than responding. And I apologize for hijacking the thread a bit. But I am very surprised to find such narrow mindededness here.


but when you see blatant bs being peddld by the state, well, if it walks like a duck........ some of us can't play dumb and just sit back and take it.


I never claimed it was a hoax, sandy hook, just that there are way too many questions unanswered and high weirdness ( dr. carver, andersoon cooper and his disappearing nose, nuns etc.) to ignore. I don't think we will ever know what truly happened in newtown that day. In addition, I urge you all to start from the beginning of this event and take in all the info you can, from both sides, and draw your own conclusions. If you feel secure in the bosom of corporate media, (again, cnn was caught faking a report from Saudi Arabia during the gulf war, Charles Jaco et al, fake scud attack, and fake chemical weapons attack! All on a soundstage,ha) well, then I don't know what to tell you.


Freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
war is peace


thanks for keepin' on Stephen. I look forward to many more years of your writing!Am I imagining things, or is this a double post?

-- Jordan

[~Ally~]

Because, Ally, as I explained in a previous post in this thread, I had debated about whether to continue side discussions here and decided that since one of the purposes of Steve's essay was to encourage debate about the topic, they were still in the spirit of what he was asking. We have a place on the main portion of the site for people to put their reviews of his works.

It seems I missed your previous post, all apologies.

[hossenpepper]

Last time. Apparently you can't read? I am posing questions about a narrative that changed many many times and addressing inconsistencies in reporting that shouldn't have happened. I never said I know what happened. Never.

So your attempt at belittling is , again, pathetic and beneath you. Do you have any thoughts of your own on sandy hook?
ever wonder why so many people, and I do mean many, have the same questions? There shouldn't be any questions! That's my point always was.

my god, question corproate media and look out...all of your answers to my posts reaffirm my belief that we haven't been told the truth---- personal attacks, tin foil hat references, etc. only says to me your scared. Well, so am I.

Well, nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

My thoughts? I think maybe some of your same approach (to what I have to assume is all of life) has been posted here many times over my 3 years or so of perusing this board; oft times quite frequently. I think you will find that ad nauseum rants about how stupid and uniformed we all are will find no purchase with anyone of any substance here. If your intent ( which is what often fuels these sorts of things) is to impressive Mr. King, you might be disappointed to know that he and his entire staff, deal with near insanity more than the insane themselves.

In short, if you are trying to give us and the King staff a laugh, you have probably done so. However, it has become tiresome and frankly belies an immature mind and thought process. I, too, thought all the "big people" were not to be trusted in my days of youth and folly.

To that end, this is why I refuse to actually discuss this subject with you. Like the faith in spiritual religion, your conspiratorial religion (obviously fueled by Beck, Limbaugh, Bortz and Alex Jones) precludes you from logical debate. It is impossible to debate faith or reason with it. A logical discussion attempting to address the 7 foot bullet list of verbal diarrhea you have spewed in your posts is simply impossible due to volume and short attention spans.

But make no mistake, your technique of voluminous onslaught of various and sundry topics is one that is used by those who simply want to bully their way through a debate, not actually learn something, or are so unsure of themselves or their argument that they must distract from the issue or create an environment that eliminates debate so their weakness can't be exposed.

Summary of your "thoughts" and "arguments":
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."

Good day, elephant whisperer. :smile2:

[Amphiaraus]

It's all about perception.

Hmmm...

Just thought I'd fling another two cents at this discussion, and suggest a whole lot of argument isn't about perception, per se, so much as selectivity... or more accurately, the potential state of psychological dissonance that arises from cognitive processes that encourages selectivity.

Psychologists have studied this unusual phenomenon for over 60 years; Leon Festinger started the ball rolling in the early 1950s in an attempt to explain why and how the members of a UFO cult were persuaded by their leader, a certain Mrs Keech, that the earth was going to be destroyed on a certain date and that they alone were going to be rescued by aliens. What puzzled Festinger most of all was that members actually increased their commitment to the cult when nothing Keech had prophesized had actually come to pass.

Festinger soon observed the dissonance that arose from the realization of being perceived as so foolish (if not outright stupid) was so great that cult members revised their beliefs so as to conform to self-evident facts: that the aliens had, through their concern for the cult, decided to save the world instead.
In a more mundane experiment conducted in 1959, Festinger and a colleague named James Carlsmith, asked college students to lie about a boring task, and so they did... often happily. To understand the significance of this, I'll need to describe the experiment in a bit of detail: students were asked to spend an hour on tasks that were intentionally meant to be frustrating, boring and tedious (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). Once the students had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favour. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an confederate) and persuade this subject that the tasks were genuinely interesting and engaging. Some of the students were paid $20 (equivalent to about $160 in present day value) while other students were paid $1 (equivalent to about $10 in present day value] (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/#cite_note-inflation-US-8)). A control group was not asked to perform the favour, but to only perform the task.



When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This is exactly what Festinger and Carlsmith expected to happen: people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behaviour, and thus experienced less dissonance.

To sum things up, research suggests the consequences of exposure to information inconsistent with prior beliefs tends to be out-right ignored or argued against. Furthermore, when individuals act in ways that are inconsistent with their prior attitudes, a great deal of rationalization (i.e., cognitive distortion) typically follows. It's for this reason people seek out information (and opinions) that generally confirm their beliefs rather than challenge them. For this reason, it's not really an issue about perception so much as selectivity.Here's an interesting article that covers a lot of this:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.co m%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F03%2Fdenial-science-chris-mooney)

-- Jordan

[hossenpepper]

Ally, just do what I did. Click on the "ignore this member" button.

I respect anyone's choice to do such, but I never ignore anyone. And I have definitely been attacked many times here on the board. Don't take that BS so serious. Just don't reply.

[~Ally~]

I respect anyone's choice to do such, but I never ignore anyone. And I have definitely been attacked many times here on the board. Don't take that BS so serious. Just don't reply.

Yeh this is the first time I've ignored someone, I figure it's the only way to ensure I'm no longer tempted to reply. My self control is weak, as has been proven time and time again. :smile2:

[Todash]

I respect anyone's choice to do such, but I never ignore anyone. And I have definitely been attacked many times here on the board. Don't take that BS so serious. Just don't reply.

I do, occasionally, temporarily. But it's not because I think they shouldn't talk; it's just to dial down the rhetoric and help me suppress the urge to reply when doing so will clearly do no good.

[PatInTheHat]

Just don't reply.

:oo:
~gulp~
Uhhhhhh, Scooby say whaaaaaaaa:eek2:?
Ohhh that was a joke, got it:laugh:!
:wink2:

[Todash]

To sum things up, research suggests the consequences of exposure to information inconsistent with prior beliefs tends to be out-right ignored or argued against. Furthermore, when individuals act in ways that are inconsistent with their prior attitudes, a great deal of rationalization (i.e., cognitive distortion) typically follows. It's for this reason people seek out information (and opinions) that generally confirm their beliefs rather than challenge them. For this reason, it's not really an issue about perception so much as selectivity.

It's extremely valuable to remember that we all have a tendency to do that. On the plus side, once you know it's a problem, and once you know you're not immune to it, you can correct for the tendency. I really do try to do that. I am not inclined, however, to make someone's argument for him. If there is a discussion going on, "here look at this link" as an entire response is a little tiresome as it requires me to parse the site for my opponent's argument, try to pull the points from it that I think he's referring to, and then counterpoint all in one fell swoop. If it's important to you, and if you feel you have a compelling argument, I figure you'll actually work to make your point. If not, I am under no obligation to make it for you, so to speak.

[hossenpepper]

My self control is weak, as has been proven time and time again. :smile2:

You say this as though it were a bad thing... :wink2:

[~Ally~]

You say this as though it were a bad thing... :wink2:

:devil:...naughty!
Yes, sometimes it is bad when it makes Ms Mods job more difficult...I can't always be trusted to wear big-girl pants. :down: