Guns

[mtoutdoors]

I can respect Steven Kings right to have his own option on guns. However I wish he hadn't published his views on gun control. Statements such as the following are so insulting to me that I can't understand looking down on others while ignoring the facts.

"I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters," says Steven King, But how many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys?"

"Gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment, or if it's just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage."

Facts: The most violent cities in our country are those with the most restrictive gun laws.

Passing new laws will not have any effect enforce the current laws uniformly and increase the penalties relating to them. We have thousands of gun laws on the books and Criminals ignore them. If laws could stop deaths then lets start with things that cause many more deaths a year like drinking and driving. Again people that ignore laws are not effected by new ones however law abiding people are. Why restrict our right to defend our self's from criminals.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and and everything to do with protecting our self's from others that would do us harm. I wish to protect my self from others and would like to be as well armed as any group that would threaten me. More to the point the second amendment provides us a means of protecting all of our rights and insuring other well intentioned groups don't impose their beliefs and standard on all of us.

Law abiding Americans do not as a whole consider guns TOYS. Guns are tools of every day life and if one does not care to us the tool that is your right and I can respect it. But please respect my right to have and maintain them as well.

Why is that Personal Responsibility is always left out of the equation when well intentioned people want to fix the problems in the world. Lets focus the discussion on what can have the most impact on our life's. Holding people personally responsible for their actions and punishing those that break the law equally in an meaningful, respectful and appropriate manor regardless of their position in our country.

So Steven I hope you can respect my opinions and understand why because we don't share any common ground I will not be reading any of you work going forward.

[GNTLGNT]

...I'm sure he CAN respect your opinions, just as you should his...I don't understand this whole "well, coz he don't agree with me...I ain't a'gonna read him no more" mindset...that's akin to not breathing, just because you think the air quality stinks....

[Shasta]

I can respect Steven Kings right to have his own option on guns. However I wish he hadn't published his views on gun control. Statements such as the following are so insulting to me that I can't understand looking down on others while ignoring the facts.

"I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters," says Steven King, But how many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys?"

"Gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment, or if it's just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage."

Facts: The most violent cities in our country are those with the most restrictive gun laws.

Passing new laws will not have any effect enforce the current laws uniformly and increase the penalties relating to them. We have thousands of gun laws on the books and Criminals ignore them. If laws could stop deaths then lets start with things that cause many more deaths a year like drinking and driving. Again people that ignore laws are not effected by new ones however law abiding people are. Why restrict our right to defend our self's from criminals.

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and and everything to do with protecting our self's from others that would do us harm. I wish to protect my self from others and would like to be as well armed as any group that would threaten me. More to the point the second amendment provides us a means of protecting all of our rights and insuring other well intentioned groups don't impose their beliefs and standard on all of us.

Law abiding Americans do not as a whole consider guns TOYS. Guns are tools of every day life and if one does not care to us the tool that is your right and I can respect it. But please respect my right to have and maintain them as well.

Why is that Personal Responsibility is always left out of the equation when well intentioned people want to fix the problems in the world. Lets focus the discussion on what can have the most impact on our life's. Holding people personally responsible for their actions and punishing those that break the law equally in an meaningful, respectful and appropriate manor regardless of their position in our country.

So Steven I hope you can respect my opinions and understand why because we don't share any common ground I will not be reading any of you work going forward.

"Steven" is actually spelled Stephen.

Bye!

[PatInTheHat]

Facts: The most violent cities in our country are those with the most restrictive gun laws.

Fact: Your fact, it's fiction.


Blather yada blather yada blather yada yada..blather blather........................




So Steven I hope you can respect my opinions and understand why because we don't share any common ground I will not be reading any of you work going forward.
Fact: Your a big baby.
:unclesam:

[not_nadine]

How come this one gets it's own thread? :dunno:

[Tim D.]

Seems like all day I've been reading comments from folks who have decided they won't read SK books anymore because they don't agree with his opinion on gun control. Whatever your opinions or feelings toward guns and gun control, it has nothing to do with reading a book for entertainment. Mr. King has merely expressed his opinion, as is his right as an American. Sounds to me like a lot of people should relax their childish "I'm gonna take my toys and go home" mentality put on their grown up pants and learn how to play well with others.

[Moderator]

How come this one gets it's own thread? :dunno:

It was originally posted in the Hot Topics forum so I moved it over to this one.

[Shasta]

Seems like all day I've been reading comments from folks who have decided they won't read SK books anymore because they don't agree with his opinion on gun control. Whatever your opinions or feelings toward guns and gun control, it has nothing to do with reading a book for entertainment. Mr. King has merely expressed his opinion, as is his right as an American. Sounds to me like a lot of people should relax their childish "I'm gonna take my toys and go home" mentality put on their grown up pants and learn how to play well with others.

THANK YOU. I feel like this board has turned into the Yahoo "comments" section. *Cringe*

And if you don't want to read anymore, don't!!

(And come on. The correct spelling of Stephen's name is at the TOP OF THE PAGE. I don't know many Constant Readers that don't know how to spell Stephen so I'm not real concerned.)

[kingricefan]

Well, if 'they' ain't gonna read any more King books that just leaves more for the rest of us!!! Yippee!! :laugh:

[Tim D.]

THANK YOU. I feel like this board has turned into the Yahoo "comments" section. *Cringe*

And we don't want that. I occasionally peruse some of the comments there after reading an article and I can feel my IQ drop a few points.

[fourto5]

Our government has become an adversarial system. We are encouraged by leaders to agree that half the country (and half of government) is made of boobs or sociopaths who have no concept of what is right.
Ok, I agree.
So how can anyone agree that such leaders as these should be the only ones empowered with weapons?

My personal view is that when those empowered to take have taken all they can get through non-violent means, they will easily rationalize their righteous entitlement to take what they want by any means available to them.
One Senator with a weapon, when she is the only one allowed that weapon, is empowered to devastate our entire nation.

What if someone with as wide an influence as Mr. King were to propose a compromise that maintained (restored) some balance of power, that protected we the many from them the few, that wasn't complicated by waivers and favors for friends of the few in power...?
Mr. King, having enjoyed your books from the start, and now your son's work, I get the impression you have the strength of character to go down with the ship rather than jump on private jets and flee if America goes really sour.
You are so very clever, couldn't you think of a third alternative that neither strips citizens of their only deterrant protection against a government nobody trusts, nor allows for tragedies you have described to occur?

[Sigmund]

Hi!

I went through the thread quickly so I might have missed or misunderstood some things.

Did a number of people just join the SKMB to rage against SK piece on guns? And then turn around and say they are going to stop reading SK because of his opinion? :umm:

If they we such big SK fans why didn't they join the SKMB before and talk about SK's books?

Just wondering.

Peace.

[Chuggs]

I agree with some of what this fellow is saying, but why in the heck would you not read Stephen King just because you don't agree with him? That makes absolutley no since. I don't agree with my mother from time to time, but does that mean that I'm not gonna go visit her anymore, or not eat the food that she cooks? Heck no! I love my momma no matter what! And while I don't agree with Sai King on everything, I respect him and his opinion greatly, and will continue to read him. Heck, my favorite musician of all time is Eddie Vedder, and while I don't agree with everything he says or does or believes, I still think he is a great mind and a wonderful person, and I will always listen to and love his music. I was, at least in some ways, a Bush supporter. EV was most definatley not, but his anti-Bush song doesn't offend me in the least. I actually like it!
People on both sides of arguments need to be more open minded and less pig-headed. Mr King has his opinion on gun control, which is his right, and I respect him for it. And like I said, though I am a gun owner and avid gun rights supporter, I will continue to read and love Mr. King's stories, etc. He is my favourite writer, and will likely continue to be so for a very long time.

[Chuggs]

THANK YOU. I feel like this board has turned into the Yahoo "comments" section. *Cringe*

And if you don't want to read anymore, don't!!

(And come on. The correct spelling of Stephen's name is at the TOP OF THE PAGE. I don't know many Constant Readers that don't know how to spell Stephen so I'm not real concerned.)

I agree with you, Shasta, I dont think this fella is a constant reader at all. I just think he posted here to try and ruffle some feathers. Love and let love, live an let live.

[Sepia and Dust]

You are so very clever, couldn't you think of a third alternative that neither strips citizens of their only deterrant protection against a government nobody trusts, nor allows for tragedies you have described to occur?

Coupla things. The firearms you have available as a citizen will not give you any significant protection against the government. The idea of a citizen militia facing down the US government plays well on TV, but in reality, the military would simply roll over the armed citizens without breaking a sweat. Also, there is no solution that would prevent large-scale tragedies from occurring--the insane, the ruthless, and the evil will always be with us.

[Lily Sawyer]

Did a number of people just join the SKMB to rage against SK piece on guns? And then turn around and say they are going to stop reading SK because of his opinion? :umm:

Yes, and yes. DFTT

[Todash]

Hi!

I went through the thread quickly so I might have missed or misunderstood some things.
Did a number of people just join the SKMB to rage against SK piece on guns? And then turn around and say they are going to stop reading SK because of his opinion? :umm:

If they we such big SK fans why didn't they join the SKMB before and talk about SK's books?

Just wondering.

Peace.

As Ms. Mod can tell you, it happens every time he has the nerve to think that as a citizen of the US, he has the right to say what he thinks. And hey, you know, I get that. I feel their pain. STEPHEN KING, YOU ARE A BIG JERKFACE FOR STATING YOUR OPINION IN A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE ... LIKE ... like ... like I am doing right now ... Oh.

:biggrin2:

[mjs9153]

I just don't get the argument about protecting yourself from the govt with these weapons..do people really believe their .223 AR 15 will match up with military weapons,helicopters, and tactics?Should rocket propelled grenades,atomic weapons,etc be sold to private citizens to protect themselves against the govt?Of course not..and the argument that most deaths occur by a handgun is true,but the mass shootings seem to involve the assault style gun,which somehow seems to appeal to the damaged psyche of those perpetrators.See nothing wrong with most shotguns,rifles and handguns,but the ones that are glamorized in cinema as being people killers,well they are just not necessary to a personal citizen's armory.Too late anyhow,as over 300 million guns are in circulation,so am afraid that nothing is going to change until there are more and more tragedies,and I think Mr King was right when he questions whether that will be what it takes before some people see reason,that it touches their family..

[GNTLGNT]

Hi!

I went through the thread quickly so I might have missed or misunderstood some things.

Did a number of people just join the SKMB to rage against SK piece on guns? And then turn around and say they are going to stop reading SK because of his opinion? :umm:

If they we such big SK fans why didn't they join the SKMB before and talk about SK's books?

Just wondering.

Peace.


...you have grasped their intentions perfectly Sig...solidairity in silliness for the (Salems)lot of em...

[fourto5]

Coupla things. The firearms you have available as a citizen will not give you any significant protection against the government. The idea of a citizen militia facing down the US government plays well on TV, but in reality, the military would simply roll over the armed citizens without breaking a sweat. Also, there is no solution that would prevent large-scale tragedies from occurring--the insane, the ruthless, and the evil will always be with us.


I disagree. You have to imagine the sort of military that would be turning on countrymen, and who those countrymen might be. You must try to imagine the scenario that leads to a hostile takeover of the many by the few.
Recent history (past 15 years) in Zimbabwe is an interesting study.

And if you say that no solution exists to prevent large-scale tragedies from occurring...then why trade one set of danger for a different one? Won't we still always have senseless killings?

There are always non-standard solutions when good hearted people apply their minds to problems. Lets try harder to not be pawns of two extremes, both sides of which are serving their own needs, not America's needs.

[fourto5]

Imagine this scenario: the country has abundant agricultural potential. Government officials covet the wealth in the land, businesses, and other resources of the nation. Officials make laws such that businesses and farmers cannot afford to stay in business (example: price fixes on commodoties below the cost of production. Producers stop producing, as they would have to sell their production at a loss). Officials then rage publicly against the producers, calling them criminals who are starving the nation by refusing to produce. A nation of people who are hungry, and who simply take the word of any party official who promises them many government benefits, agrees that these evil producers deserve whatever the government sees fit to do to them.
In the more benign scenario, legal methods employed simply drive the producers out of business, and then the officials are given title to those farms and businesses in quick property transfer deals.
Once the ownership has changed hands to official insiders, the price controls are lifted! Onerous government regulations are lifted or waivers are granted! NOW the businesses and farms can produce, and if the production prices are too high for the ordinary citizenry to purchase the production, the government prints lots of currency to purchase products from the insider-owned businesses.

There are Americans who find this scenario morally repugnant, and would defend all of us against it. Some may serve in military now. People need to have a strong sense of honor to be in the service.
You might want to try to predict just who the military is apt to be in your scenario. Is it a righteous one, or a gang working for pay or a bit of food for family?

[EMTP513]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

[FlakeNoir]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

I'm very sorry for your loss. :sad:

[Lily Sawyer]

I'm very sorry for your loss. :sad:

That makes two of us.
And I couldn't agree more with your post. Wayne LaPierre made me ill when he first spoke after Sandy Hook happened.

[jimson]

That's not a fact, it's the biggest load of crap I ever heard. "Cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crime."
Gimme a damn break. There's no such thing as a "city with restrictive gun laws" because the loophole in the Brady Law, that's been in existence for 20 years nullifies and/or deletes any gun laws that exist.
If you can't get a gun by passing a background check, then all you have to do is travel to one of the more than 35 states that DON'T observe background checks, bring the gun back across state lines and then I guess blow away as many people as you want to, then tell everyone, "But I got my gun 'legally," ' just because you bought it in the parking lot at a gun show, making it a private sale, bypassing a background check, and slithering through the loophole in the Brady Law.
And that silly old Wayne LaPierre doesn't even like background checks. He never cared about what happened in Connecticut and lied when he said he did. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have been SCREAMing out that he never cared and did that whole "wait a week, talk on national television, care-so-much" driveling, sniveling little pissant act.

friend of Lauren Rousseau, one of the two three teachers who died at Sandy Hook

Also sorry for your loss, but there are a couple of things I'd like to comment on.

All states observe background checks, there is no state where you can walk into a gun store and buy a gun with no background check. There is of course transfer of firearms between private parties and I can't really argue with those who think something needs to be done about that.

Surely a solution can be found that both sides can live with.

However, even in cities with strict gun control there is still a black market of firearms and there is no way we can magically get rid of that.

Also I have to take issue with your statement that Wayne LaPierre doesn't care about what happened in Connecticut. why would you say that? You just hate so much that you refuse to believe he's ever had children or grandchildren that he loves, just because he didn't immediately capitulate to the anti gun lobby?

It's very sad when you can be characterized as being in favor of the murder of children if you are not in favor of new restrictive gun laws. I also might interject here that The NRA is supporting legislation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Pretty much all gun rights supporters would be in favor of laws that target the people who commit these type of crimes rather than also targeting the millions of law abiding citizens who may own or want to own semi automatic firearms.

We just simply don't agree on how to address it.

One thing I can tell you is that I don't believe that anyone in their right mind reacts with anything other than sadness and dismay at such incidents but we as gun rights supporters groan even harder, knowing that the rights we believe we have are going to now fall under attack, and while I am sure that they are also saddened, people like Dianne Feinstein's eyes light up at the opportunity they have been waiting for.

She has been ready to go with this legislation for years and has just been waiting for the best chance to get it through.

I'm sorry if people don't believe I am a Stephen King fan because my first post was about this issue. If I wasn't a fan I wouldn't likely care about his essay.

I suppose I hoped that in some way he might be reminded that he also has conservatives and gun rights supporters among his fans and might consider them next time he considers taking sides in an issue and actually steer his fans into helping an organization dedicated to the total prohibition of firearm ownership in this country.

Those of you who favor restrictive gun control including bans: Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't have some of the same feelings if he had written a pro-gun essay, donating the proceeds to the NRA?

Actually, don't bother answering, If you say no, I won't believe you anyway.

[Lily Sawyer]

Also I have to take issue with your statement that Wayne LaPierre doesn't care about what happened in Connecticut. why would you say that?

Had LaPierre given $0.02 about what happened in CT, he'd have held a press conference the day Sandy Hook happened, with a statement of sympathy (at the very least) and a request for a legislative dialogue regarding solving how it could have been avoided (ideal).

[jimson]

Had LaPierre given $0.02 about what happened in CT, he'd have held a press conference the day Sandy Hook happened, with a statement of sympathy (at the very least) and a request for a legislative dialogue regarding solving how it could have been avoided (ideal).


And he would have still been excoriated for even showing his face. I believe the only thing he could have done that would have muted criticism is to immediately come out in favor of more restrictions on firearm ownership.


While I'm sure there are some Democrats who truly believe an "assault weapons" ban will do some good, there is a whole lot more going on here than this corrupt narrative that only the anti gun Democrats care about our children.


I personally think that the whole gun issue is mostly just being used as a weapon (irony unintended) in the larger cultural and ideological war.


Why else are they pushing for something the Vice President admits will be essentially ineffective and that they know will fail in the Senate and is absolutely guaranteed to fail in the House when they could be concentrating on other measures that actually have a chance, if it's not more about demonizing the political opposition?


Harry Reid seems to be the only Democrat who gets it.


If it's all for the children, then why does the President want pediatricians to inquire about gun ownership as a danger, when they are not being urged to inquire about the much larger dangers of residential swimming pools?

[Lily Sawyer]

And he would have still been excoriated for even showing his face. I believe the only thing he could have done that would have muted criticism is to immediately come out in favor of more restrictions on firearm ownership.

In his role as the President of the NRA, LaPierre owed it to the Sandy Hook victims' families to express condolences on the day it happened. Period. I understand he waited to learn the who, what, when, why, and how of the tragedy happening, but when the rest of us learned that Lanza's mother's weapons had been used, he still didn't take an immediate stand denouncing the decision of Lanza's mother to continue to allow her son access to her weapons, even though she knew he wasn't mentally healthy. He instead waited another three days.

LaPierre's decision to remain silent for as long as he was indicates an appalling insensitivity to what happened and a refusal to become part of the solution. The very reason for his professional existence was abused and used in a way that cast extreme doubt on any justification of its existence in homes where irresponsible gun owners live. And that spoke volumes to me, both about supposedly intelligent gun owners and the NRA.

[jcj1sbcglobal]

I agree with Stephen King that there is a middle ground on the gun issue. One of my brother's would line up with your "facts" and would say that even something as limited as universal background checks would be folly. My other brothers would rather feed hungry children than stock their homes with guns. Most of your "Facts" are either incorrect or misleading. One would expect large cities with a lot of violence to have more restrictive gun laws. The question is not whether they are now non-violent because of more restrictions, but whether there are fewer deaths by gun violence because of them. Police Chiefs in all large cities say the restrictions help. The restrictions are of limited value, however, if not uniform throughout the country. Your Second Amendment "Fact" is equally flawed. It doesn't mean either thing.