What do you think?
Rate this book
Guns
In a pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion, Stephen King sets down his thoughts about gun violence in America. Anger and grief in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are palpable in this urgent piece of writing, but no less remarkable are King’s keen thoughtfulness and composure as he explores the contours of the gun-control issue and constructs his argument for what can and should be done.<br><br>King's earnings from the sale of this essay will go the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. <br><br>STEPHEN KING is the author of 11/22/63, Under the Dome, Carrie, The Shining and many other bestselling works.
31 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 25, 2013
774 people are currently reading
7794 people want to read
About the author
Stephen King
2,452 books887k followersStephen Edwin King was born the second son of Donald and Nellie Ruth Pillsbury King. After his father left them when Stephen was two, he and his older brother, David, were raised by his mother. Parts of his childhood were spent in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where his father's family was at the time, and in Stratford, Connecticut. When Stephen was eleven, his mother brought her children back to Durham, Maine, for good. Her parents, Guy and Nellie Pillsbury, had become incapacitated with old age, and Ruth King was persuaded by her sisters to take over the physical care of them. Other family members provided a small house in Durham and financial support. After Stephen's grandparents passed away, Mrs. King found work in the kitchens of Pineland, a nearby residential facility for the mentally challenged.
Stephen attended the grammar school in Durham and Lisbon Falls High School, graduating in 1966. From his sophomore year at the University of Maine at Orono, he wrote a weekly column for the school newspaper, THE MAINE CAMPUS. He was also active in student politics, serving as a member of the Student Senate. He came to support the anti-war movement on the Orono campus, arriving at his stance from a conservative view that the war in Vietnam was unconstitutional. He graduated in 1970, with a B.A. in English and qualified to teach on the high school level. A draft board examination immediately post-graduation found him 4-F on grounds of high blood pressure, limited vision, flat feet, and punctured eardrums.
He met Tabitha Spruce in the stacks of the Fogler Library at the University, where they both worked as students; they married in January of 1971. As Stephen was unable to find placement as a teacher immediately, the Kings lived on his earnings as a laborer at an industrial laundry, and her student loan and savings, with an occasional boost from a short story sale to men's magazines.
Stephen made his first professional short story sale ("The Glass Floor") to Startling Mystery Stories in 1967. Throughout the early years of his marriage, he continued to sell stories to men's magazines. Many were gathered into the Night Shift collection or appeared in other anthologies.
In the fall of 1971, Stephen began teaching English at Hampden Academy, the public high school in Hampden, Maine. Writing in the evenings and on the weekends, he continued to produce short stories and to work on novels.
Stephen attended the grammar school in Durham and Lisbon Falls High School, graduating in 1966. From his sophomore year at the University of Maine at Orono, he wrote a weekly column for the school newspaper, THE MAINE CAMPUS. He was also active in student politics, serving as a member of the Student Senate. He came to support the anti-war movement on the Orono campus, arriving at his stance from a conservative view that the war in Vietnam was unconstitutional. He graduated in 1970, with a B.A. in English and qualified to teach on the high school level. A draft board examination immediately post-graduation found him 4-F on grounds of high blood pressure, limited vision, flat feet, and punctured eardrums.
He met Tabitha Spruce in the stacks of the Fogler Library at the University, where they both worked as students; they married in January of 1971. As Stephen was unable to find placement as a teacher immediately, the Kings lived on his earnings as a laborer at an industrial laundry, and her student loan and savings, with an occasional boost from a short story sale to men's magazines.
Stephen made his first professional short story sale ("The Glass Floor") to Startling Mystery Stories in 1967. Throughout the early years of his marriage, he continued to sell stories to men's magazines. Many were gathered into the Night Shift collection or appeared in other anthologies.
In the fall of 1971, Stephen began teaching English at Hampden Academy, the public high school in Hampden, Maine. Writing in the evenings and on the weekends, he continued to produce short stories and to work on novels.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,063 reviews
April 26, 2023
2022 reread:
The more things change, the more they stay the same. A decade later, King’s essay still is not only excellent but very relevant.
—————
2013 original review:
The recent gun debate in America has reached the 'chicken vs. egg' level of absurdity. Do guns kill people? Or do people kill people¹? Well, I think the only thing that matters in the end is that people are shot and die, adults and children alike. And something at some point needs to be done about that. Someone needs to bring in the question of responsibility, not the blame.
The call for restriction on buying guns and the fear of losing the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution have been regularly taking over the news in the last few weeks.
So why the hell should we listen to Stephen King chiming in with his opinion on it? After all, he's a writer. Shouldn't he just shut up and write? (Oh wait, that's what some say to the singers here, not to writers.)
Well, King (apparently a registered owner of three handguns) in addition to having written an amazing Western-inspired fantasy "The Gunslinger" and the 6 sequels that followed, making even me gasp in delight over the words Roland Deschain teaches his apprentices ; he also authored (in his teens, no less) and a few decades later released into the wide world the book that more than one teenage school shooter just happened to have in his possession.
This book was "Rage", and having read it (also in my teens), I must say - that is some disturbing shit, if you pardon my language. It's about a messed up high-schooler who shoots his algebra teacher and takes the classroom of students hostage - and in a strange turn of events they begin to form a sort of the bond. That stuff is sick, and scary as hell.
King now knows about the appeal of this book for the aspiring young mass shooter - and after a few such events has pulled it from print. No, he has never even tried taking the blame for the actions his character may have inspired - as a matter of fact he's adamant about that - but he thought removing this story was his responsibility.
Let me repeat it - he refused to take the blame, and yet he acted in the way he thought of as responsible.
Tragedies like the one that happened at Sandy Hook elementary school appear to shake up the nation and lead to quite a bit of speeches and hand waving - but in the end, it appears, everything settles down, another 'exciting' even comes along and the media circus dies off, public promptly shifts its attention away, and status quo continues. For a while. Until next shooting snaps our attention back. King very aptly and appropriately cynically describes the ridiculous media circus that sprouts with each such tragedy, runs in the predictable manner and fizzles off right on schedule. And he does not cut slack for our media or the National Rifle Association, given their always-predictable reaction:
——————
Also posted on my blog.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. A decade later, King’s essay still is not only excellent but very relevant.
—————
2013 original review:
The recent gun debate in America has reached the 'chicken vs. egg' level of absurdity. Do guns kill people? Or do people kill people¹? Well, I think the only thing that matters in the end is that people are shot and die, adults and children alike. And something at some point needs to be done about that. Someone needs to bring in the question of responsibility, not the blame.
¹ Yes, sadly it's a human instinct to find someone or something to blame when tragedy strikes, to point the all-knowing accusatory finger and place the blame and guilt where we feel it belongs.
Currently here in America this accusatory finger wavers between pointing at guns and pointing at people. Or maybe pointing at people with guns. In any case, it's a mess here in the good ole U.S. of A.
To quote Mr. King:
"Political discourse as it once existed in America has given way to useless screaming. On second thought, forget the finger pullers. We’re like drunks in a barroom. No one’s listening because everyone is too busy thinking about what they’re going to say next, and absolutely prove that the current speaker is so full of shit he squeaks."
The call for restriction on buying guns and the fear of losing the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution have been regularly taking over the news in the last few weeks.
So why the hell should we listen to Stephen King chiming in with his opinion on it? After all, he's a writer. Shouldn't he just shut up and write? (Oh wait, that's what some say to the singers here, not to writers.)
Well, King (apparently a registered owner of three handguns) in addition to having written an amazing Western-inspired fantasy "The Gunslinger" and the 6 sequels that followed, making even me gasp in delight over the words Roland Deschain teaches his apprentices ; he also authored (in his teens, no less) and a few decades later released into the wide world the book that more than one teenage school shooter just happened to have in his possession.
This book was "Rage", and having read it (also in my teens), I must say - that is some disturbing shit, if you pardon my language. It's about a messed up high-schooler who shoots his algebra teacher and takes the classroom of students hostage - and in a strange turn of events they begin to form a sort of the bond. That stuff is sick, and scary as hell.
King now knows about the appeal of this book for the aspiring young mass shooter - and after a few such events has pulled it from print. No, he has never even tried taking the blame for the actions his character may have inspired - as a matter of fact he's adamant about that - but he thought removing this story was his responsibility.
According to The Copycat Effect, written by Loren Coleman (Simon and Schuster, 2004), I also apologized for writing Rage. No, sir, no ma’am, I never did and never would. It took more than one slim novel to cause Cox, Pierce, Loukaitis, and Carneal to do what they did.He does not take blame for what his books may have helped inspire, and asking him to do that is just as insane as blaming Marilyn Manson for school shootings (and there have been crazy people who did just that!). Regardless, by pulling his book from print he believes he did the responsible thing - and he would like you - yes, YOU, American public - to do the same.
My book did not break Cox, Pierce, Carneal, or Loukaitis, or turn them into killers; they found something in my book that spoke to them because they were already broken. Yet I did see Rage as a possible accelerant, which is why I pulled it from sale. You don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it.
Let me repeat it - he refused to take the blame, and yet he acted in the way he thought of as responsible.
"I didn’t pull Rage from publication because the law demanded it; I was protected under the First Amendment, and the law couldn’t demand it. I pulled it because in my judgment it might be hurting people, and that made it the responsible thing to do."What does he support? Very mellow measures, actually, if you side with the gun opponents - and quite restrictive measures, if you side with the gun proponents. He agrees with the lowering the number of rounds a gun magazine can hold to eliminate the possibility of shooting dozens of people at once; and banning assault weapons.
"Even if I were politically and philosophically open to repealing the Second Amendment (I’m not), I don’t believe that repeal, or even modification, would solve the problem of gun violence in America, particularly violence of the sort that’s at the root of that problem. Although I need to add that I also believe strict gun control would save thousands of lives."That's really it. No taking guns away, no strict limits - just the sensible restrictions that can make it just a touch harder for someone to set out on a shooting spree in your local mall or school. He does not place the blame on people who already own such guns or manufacture such weapons - no more than he blames himself for having written 'Rage'. He just assumes that passing some restrictions would be acting responsibly.
¹ "I read a jaw-dropping online defense of these weapons from a California woman recently. Guns, she said, are just tools. Like spoons, she said. Would you outlaw spoons simply because some people use them to eat too much?
Lady, let’s see you try to kill twenty schoolkids with a fucking spoon.
Guns are not tools — not unless you reverse a pistol and use the butt to hammer in a nail. Guns are weapons. Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use."
Tragedies like the one that happened at Sandy Hook elementary school appear to shake up the nation and lead to quite a bit of speeches and hand waving - but in the end, it appears, everything settles down, another 'exciting' even comes along and the media circus dies off, public promptly shifts its attention away, and status quo continues. For a while. Until next shooting snaps our attention back. King very aptly and appropriately cynically describes the ridiculous media circus that sprouts with each such tragedy, runs in the predictable manner and fizzles off right on schedule. And he does not cut slack for our media or the National Rifle Association, given their always-predictable reaction:
"Nineteenth, the NRA drops the other shoe (only it’s more like a combat boot), proclaiming itself dead-set against any changes in existing gun laws. In their official statement, they blame the shooters and America’s culture of violence. They also single out the failure of mental health professionals to ID potentially dangerous persons, even though most US senators and representatives with A ratings from the NRA don’t want to see a single dime of federal aid spent on beefing up such services. (Gosh, they’ve got that pesky deficit to think about.) The NRA doesn’t come right out and say the victims are also to blame for thinking they could live in America without a gun on their person or in their purse, but the implication is hard to miss."A gun owner himself, King does not vilify those Americans who own guns and love them. He does understand people's desire to be able to protect themselves if all hell breaks down. But he also does question the lengths we are willing to go to for hypothetical threats, the threats that the vast majority of gun owners have never faced and probably never will - while in the meantime the weapons that were bought with the goal of keeping the owners safe end up being involved in murders once a child gets hold of them, or a sleepy gun owner mistakes a family member for an intruder, for instance.
"I guess the question is, how paranoid do you want to be? How many guns does it take to make you feel safe? And how do you simultaneously keep them loaded and close at hand, but still out of reach of your inquisitive children or grandchildren? Are you sure you wouldn’t do better with a really good burglar alarm? It’s true you have to remember to set the darn thing before you go to bed, but think of this — if you happened to mistake your wife or live-in partner for a crazed drug addict, you couldn’t shoot her with a burglar alarm."King's view on gun control is very conservative (if you are a die-hard liberal) and yet quite liberal (if you are a die-hard conservative). And yet he has his trademark King answer to all those who insist that "YOU WILL TAKE MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS":
"In his war against the first grade, Lanza fired multiple thirty-round clips. As for the Glock: it was pried from his cold dead hands."
——————
Also posted on my blog.
May 20, 2019
I needed a short filler today while in the vehicle and turned to this well-crafted essay by the King of Horror (no pun intended) who has great personal and professional insight into this topic that plagues America with a solution nowhere in sight. Please enjoy the review I made when first I read it, or hate it... your choice!
A great personal soap box speech-type essay by the Master of Horror, who lays out some of his strong opinions on gun and their owners in the light of the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012. King pulls no punches and offers up some of his own personal opinions, while also showing his connection (loose) to some 1980s school shootings and what he did in the aftermath. Using some great comedic relief, perhaps to cut the tension of the essay's topic, King shows how some people within the NRA are spouting off silliness to justify the Second Amendment. "Guns are a tool, like a spoon. Would you take away all the spoons?" I admit, I did crack up a few times.
King makes no effort to hide his liberal mentality or his disdain for the NRA and its right-wing backers. He speaks from the heart and perhaps, as some have noted, pushed the essay out with a few erroneous details. That said, he is speaking out, much as someone might blog, about his opinions related to the issue that is by no means new to the US or its congressional members. Alas, as King points out, the NRA has Congress by the short and curlies (to coin a UK phrase I always thought was too uncouth for them). What can be done when a bunch of rich oafs pour money into the pockets of a bunch of mindless oafs with the power of the vote?
I can sit here, in my Canadian home and shake my head at the US and its ever-growing problem of gun control and school shootings. I can sit here and watch on the US feeds we get through our cable packages and news outlets and see the carnage and say, 'at least it's not here". Alas, in 1999 it did come home in the small town of Taber, Alberta. Gun control, while not major issue in Canada, has had its ebb and flow period as well. For as long as the US media sensationalise these school shootings and we see weeping parents and talking heads coming into our living rooms, full on with that symphonic music to denote breaking news and tragic events, there will be this 15 minutes of fame associated with gun violence. While they lay dead, the shooter gets all the publicity they may have lacked in life... their cry for help answered by demonising them.
King presents some strong reasons why US gun violence may never end and the oafs who propagate the stupidity that is the NRA. But they are not alone in keeping the Sandy Hook events alive. Media outlets live for this, people eat it up, and the blame is always "someone else". It takes too much to change this... and until the ostrich nature of legislators end and electors push for it, Billy-Bob and Cletus will have free reign, laughing their toothless cheers all the way to Wal-Mart.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A great personal soap box speech-type essay by the Master of Horror, who lays out some of his strong opinions on gun and their owners in the light of the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012. King pulls no punches and offers up some of his own personal opinions, while also showing his connection (loose) to some 1980s school shootings and what he did in the aftermath. Using some great comedic relief, perhaps to cut the tension of the essay's topic, King shows how some people within the NRA are spouting off silliness to justify the Second Amendment. "Guns are a tool, like a spoon. Would you take away all the spoons?" I admit, I did crack up a few times.
King makes no effort to hide his liberal mentality or his disdain for the NRA and its right-wing backers. He speaks from the heart and perhaps, as some have noted, pushed the essay out with a few erroneous details. That said, he is speaking out, much as someone might blog, about his opinions related to the issue that is by no means new to the US or its congressional members. Alas, as King points out, the NRA has Congress by the short and curlies (to coin a UK phrase I always thought was too uncouth for them). What can be done when a bunch of rich oafs pour money into the pockets of a bunch of mindless oafs with the power of the vote?
I can sit here, in my Canadian home and shake my head at the US and its ever-growing problem of gun control and school shootings. I can sit here and watch on the US feeds we get through our cable packages and news outlets and see the carnage and say, 'at least it's not here". Alas, in 1999 it did come home in the small town of Taber, Alberta. Gun control, while not major issue in Canada, has had its ebb and flow period as well. For as long as the US media sensationalise these school shootings and we see weeping parents and talking heads coming into our living rooms, full on with that symphonic music to denote breaking news and tragic events, there will be this 15 minutes of fame associated with gun violence. While they lay dead, the shooter gets all the publicity they may have lacked in life... their cry for help answered by demonising them.
King presents some strong reasons why US gun violence may never end and the oafs who propagate the stupidity that is the NRA. But they are not alone in keeping the Sandy Hook events alive. Media outlets live for this, people eat it up, and the blame is always "someone else". It takes too much to change this... and until the ostrich nature of legislators end and electors push for it, Billy-Bob and Cletus will have free reign, laughing their toothless cheers all the way to Wal-Mart.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
April 12, 2020
Very good and informative essay in several chapters on gun use/abuse, school shootings, his Bachman book Rage and why automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned. This volume is several years old but nothing has changed in real life. Almost every month a new shooting takes place anywhere. That is very sad. In the beginning you see how breaking news on school shootings work, all the stages. A very disturbing and shocking inside view into the world of gun violence. Absolutely recommended!
July 3, 2025
Wow - scariest thing about this essay is that it is a real horror story. This perspective on guns will really make you think. Stephen King has a way of getting to the core of fear; and he does so in this thoughtful and provocative essay. Really a very unique look at this polarizing issue. Highly recommended.
March 2, 2018
Guns
By: Stephen King
Narrated by: Christian Rummel
This is an excellent essay on a subject near and dear to most people's heart, one way or another. Stephen King has a way of expressing his opinion in a way that matters...you will understand after you hear his story. I never read the story he mentions. I used my Kindle Unlimited to get it, good use of it!
Narrator was great!
By: Stephen King
Narrated by: Christian Rummel
This is an excellent essay on a subject near and dear to most people's heart, one way or another. Stephen King has a way of expressing his opinion in a way that matters...you will understand after you hear his story. I never read the story he mentions. I used my Kindle Unlimited to get it, good use of it!
Narrator was great!
February 16, 2017
It's good to see somebody with as large an audience as Stephen King making a public statement on this issue. I hope it's provoked a lot of thought in a lot of people.
As for me, well, he's preaching to the choir in my case... It just makes me bloody glad I live in the UK.
As for me, well, he's preaching to the choir in my case... It just makes me bloody glad I live in the UK.
January 25, 2013
i wouldn't waste your time as the author of this piece isn't interested in "discourse".
i saw this one advertised on the official stephen king website where it said that the proceeds would be going to a charity devoted to victims of gun violence. it wasn’t until a day or two after i made my purchase that i discovered at the same site that by “charity” king meant the brady center, a lobby devoted to taking guns out of the hands of the public. strike one, or fool me once, shame on you.
when i made my purchase at amazon, i believe the same sales-pitch was there…the proceeds to go to a charity etc.
i'm astonished at the number of reviewers who believe king makes a rational plea for gun control. this is what is astonishing, that king marginalizes honest gun owners, and that he does it in this fashion:
semi-automatics have only two purposes. one is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. their other use--their only other use--is to kill people.
hey, stephen:
stephen king has his head up his ass…and a large majority of readers of this diatribe have followed suite, if they believe this is a rational plea. i've suspected before that stephen king is a bigot...this confirms it for me.
my semi-autos are seriously defective as they've yet to be used for either purpose.
take the quote from above and change it to something a little less palatable to the “rational” and see how it reads: “fried chicken has only two purposes. one is so buyers can take it home to the ghetto, yell fried chicken!, and get all horny at their greasy fingers and the aroma of the deep fat fryer. the other use--the only other use--is to clog your arteries.” imagine the outrage…
but when the bully-in-chief can demonize a people, “clinging to their guns and religion”…as well as a host of others--is it any wonder that rational king believes…and knows…he can get away with this boolsheet of the purest ray serene? we are polarized--king maintains that we are in this piece--so it is bizarre that he not only couches his argument w/words like this…patronizing the reader, addressing him/her as “honey”.
he does write something i can agree with--the best thing we can do for handgun violence is to impose strict mandatory sentences... yes! by all means!
i've grown weary of the many times i've read of incidents in my american rifleman magazine (nra life member, may it do ya fine) that speak of honest citizens protecting life and limb from those who would do harm--
--something that king negates (again, not his word)...but that seems to be the thrust of one angle of his argument....
--anyway, i've read numerous incidents where a honest citizen protected their family or self from harm...from...someone that should have been locked up ten crimes ago. why are they walking the street? some have lists of crimes dating back years. yet they are free to do harm. these incidents are ignored when the so-called "gun debate" is in full swing...mention john lott's study of 2.1 million defensive gun uses a year and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd gets a bit testy...they're unwilling to credit even a single instance of a "good" outcome to a defensive gun use...in england and elsewhere, the bastards have prosecuted individuals for defending themselves w/arms.
makes me wonder, honestly, if the whole damn world isn't possessed by demons...what other explanation works?
it is mind-boggling that the so-called pro-choice crowd shouts from the rooftops that a woman should be able to murder the baby growing in her womb...while the next day they are calling for mr and mrs america to turn them all (guns) in.
choice? The point is that it is nothing less than bizarre that the so-called “pro-choice” crowd gets a bit testy if the choice is something other than murder of the unborn child.
what? that same woman whose temple is sacrosanct is not entitled to the same "choice" when the matter is keeping and bearing an arm to protect it? on the way to the abortion clinic?
anyone wants a reason/cause for violence, perhaps they need look no further than the statistics of abortion...people the world round "talk" about all manner of medical "thingies"...yet i've heard precious few brag about abortion. what's that? your panties in a twist over the word brag...okay, well...i'm human...i do not hear people speaking about abortion in the same tone as cancers, broken limbs, breast cancer is spoken about. i'll hazard we are indeed ashamed of the 65 million dead since the heralded event 40 years ago...baby
we claim to want "choice" for that...yet we're willing to deny the same kind of choice to others when it comes to guns. all because it will make us feel good about ourselves.
jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and acquire a sword. perhaps the so-called liberated women would do well to learn. jesus specified a sword...something to consider...or not...that's not to say we should substitute a sword for faith...simply an item to consider....or not...
senator ed kennedy was outraged when his personal bodyguard, charles stein, was arrested at the capitol for having an illegal handgun and a fully automatic submachinegun.
mr king?
diane feinstein got the city of san francisco's only gun permit issued in 1980 for her own .38 special. " mr and mrs american, turn them all in," senator feinstein yet she saw no paradox two years later in banning handguns for everybody else in san francisco.
i grow weary of the elected officials mantra: do as i say, not as i do
mr king?
nbc ignored fast & furious for over a year before they were willing...i'll hazard they were forced...to present that news that was no longer news...and the argument that bush started it is a hoot, as the bully-in-chief's main argument his 1st 4 was that all bush did was a mistake. bush did not allow guns to cross the border as obama has done.
do as i say, not as i do. same o same o. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
king has added nothing to the debate…he has marginalized people who believe different than him…but I suspect that was his point. the marixt mao zedung would be proud.
i think it is curious that our so-called diverse society sees nothing wrong with marginalizing certain people...white trash...rednecks...crackers...YEEHAWS. this is what passes for acceptable today...imagine your surprise when things turn fouled.
i saw this one advertised on the official stephen king website where it said that the proceeds would be going to a charity devoted to victims of gun violence. it wasn’t until a day or two after i made my purchase that i discovered at the same site that by “charity” king meant the brady center, a lobby devoted to taking guns out of the hands of the public. strike one, or fool me once, shame on you.
when i made my purchase at amazon, i believe the same sales-pitch was there…the proceeds to go to a charity etc.
i'm astonished at the number of reviewers who believe king makes a rational plea for gun control. this is what is astonishing, that king marginalizes honest gun owners, and that he does it in this fashion:
semi-automatics have only two purposes. one is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. their other use--their only other use--is to kill people.
hey, stephen:
stephen king has his head up his ass…and a large majority of readers of this diatribe have followed suite, if they believe this is a rational plea. i've suspected before that stephen king is a bigot...this confirms it for me.
my semi-autos are seriously defective as they've yet to be used for either purpose.
take the quote from above and change it to something a little less palatable to the “rational” and see how it reads: “fried chicken has only two purposes. one is so buyers can take it home to the ghetto, yell fried chicken!, and get all horny at their greasy fingers and the aroma of the deep fat fryer. the other use--the only other use--is to clog your arteries.” imagine the outrage…
but when the bully-in-chief can demonize a people, “clinging to their guns and religion”…as well as a host of others--is it any wonder that rational king believes…and knows…he can get away with this boolsheet of the purest ray serene? we are polarized--king maintains that we are in this piece--so it is bizarre that he not only couches his argument w/words like this…patronizing the reader, addressing him/her as “honey”.
he does write something i can agree with--the best thing we can do for handgun violence is to impose strict mandatory sentences... yes! by all means!
i've grown weary of the many times i've read of incidents in my american rifleman magazine (nra life member, may it do ya fine) that speak of honest citizens protecting life and limb from those who would do harm--
--something that king negates (again, not his word)...but that seems to be the thrust of one angle of his argument....
--anyway, i've read numerous incidents where a honest citizen protected their family or self from harm...from...someone that should have been locked up ten crimes ago. why are they walking the street? some have lists of crimes dating back years. yet they are free to do harm. these incidents are ignored when the so-called "gun debate" is in full swing...mention john lott's study of 2.1 million defensive gun uses a year and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd gets a bit testy...they're unwilling to credit even a single instance of a "good" outcome to a defensive gun use...in england and elsewhere, the bastards have prosecuted individuals for defending themselves w/arms.
makes me wonder, honestly, if the whole damn world isn't possessed by demons...what other explanation works?
it is mind-boggling that the so-called pro-choice crowd shouts from the rooftops that a woman should be able to murder the baby growing in her womb...while the next day they are calling for mr and mrs america to turn them all (guns) in.
choice? The point is that it is nothing less than bizarre that the so-called “pro-choice” crowd gets a bit testy if the choice is something other than murder of the unborn child.
what? that same woman whose temple is sacrosanct is not entitled to the same "choice" when the matter is keeping and bearing an arm to protect it? on the way to the abortion clinic?
anyone wants a reason/cause for violence, perhaps they need look no further than the statistics of abortion...people the world round "talk" about all manner of medical "thingies"...yet i've heard precious few brag about abortion. what's that? your panties in a twist over the word brag...okay, well...i'm human...i do not hear people speaking about abortion in the same tone as cancers, broken limbs, breast cancer is spoken about. i'll hazard we are indeed ashamed of the 65 million dead since the heralded event 40 years ago...baby
we claim to want "choice" for that...yet we're willing to deny the same kind of choice to others when it comes to guns. all because it will make us feel good about ourselves.
jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and acquire a sword. perhaps the so-called liberated women would do well to learn. jesus specified a sword...something to consider...or not...that's not to say we should substitute a sword for faith...simply an item to consider....or not...
senator ed kennedy was outraged when his personal bodyguard, charles stein, was arrested at the capitol for having an illegal handgun and a fully automatic submachinegun.
mr king?
diane feinstein got the city of san francisco's only gun permit issued in 1980 for her own .38 special. " mr and mrs american, turn them all in," senator feinstein yet she saw no paradox two years later in banning handguns for everybody else in san francisco.
i grow weary of the elected officials mantra: do as i say, not as i do
mr king?
nbc ignored fast & furious for over a year before they were willing...i'll hazard they were forced...to present that news that was no longer news...and the argument that bush started it is a hoot, as the bully-in-chief's main argument his 1st 4 was that all bush did was a mistake. bush did not allow guns to cross the border as obama has done.
do as i say, not as i do. same o same o. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
king has added nothing to the debate…he has marginalized people who believe different than him…but I suspect that was his point. the marixt mao zedung would be proud.
i think it is curious that our so-called diverse society sees nothing wrong with marginalizing certain people...white trash...rednecks...crackers...YEEHAWS. this is what passes for acceptable today...imagine your surprise when things turn fouled.
January 29, 2013
What struck me as so astonishing about the points raised in this 25 page essay on guns by bestselling author Stephen King, was not the reasonability of his points but that they needed stating at all. He’s not against the Second Amendment, he doesn’t want it repealed especially as he owns 3 handguns himself - no, he wants gun control, like millions of other Americans, because he’s sick of seeing more and more news stories of yet another maniac loading up on firepower and shooting random innocents because they’re miserable and crazy.
King wrote a novel as a teenager about a kid who goes into a school with a gun, then rewrote it years later and published it under the pseudonym Richard Bachman as “Rage”. Unfortunately, as King points out, the novel became a touchstone for some gun toting lunatics who went on to kill others in schools and he ended up withdrawing it from publication. To him it was the responsible thing to do.
After detailing the most recent atrocities of gun violence in America - specifically Sandy Hook and Aurora - he reaches the crux of the essay which is that assault weapons should be banned, clips should be limited to 10 bullets, and background checks be made more thorough. Very reasonable - and amazing that anyone would oppose this!
What is the use of an automatic assault rifle? Hunters readily admit that if you shot game with it they’d be inedible making the whole point of hunting in the first place pointless. What, you’re going to defend your home with an automatic weapon?! It doesn’t make any sense that such military grade weaponry should be made readily available to members of the public. And limiting clips to 10 bullets? How many do you need to take out the imaginary burglar just itching to get into your place? If you need more than 10, you probably shouldn’t have a gun to start with. Thorough background checks and harsh penalties against those who lie to obtain guns - who could be against this, honestly!
That these points are still issues shows just how badly America needs this discussion on gun control, especially as the news becomes morbidly repetitive in its stories of yet another disturbed young man (it always seems to be young men) pushed too far for whatever reason and deciding to check out in the bloodiest way possible. It’s good that someone as famous as Stephen King use his celebrity to bring more focus on this important issue, using his writing ability to express clearly and eloquently the matter at hand. Here’s hoping reason wins.
King wrote a novel as a teenager about a kid who goes into a school with a gun, then rewrote it years later and published it under the pseudonym Richard Bachman as “Rage”. Unfortunately, as King points out, the novel became a touchstone for some gun toting lunatics who went on to kill others in schools and he ended up withdrawing it from publication. To him it was the responsible thing to do.
After detailing the most recent atrocities of gun violence in America - specifically Sandy Hook and Aurora - he reaches the crux of the essay which is that assault weapons should be banned, clips should be limited to 10 bullets, and background checks be made more thorough. Very reasonable - and amazing that anyone would oppose this!
What is the use of an automatic assault rifle? Hunters readily admit that if you shot game with it they’d be inedible making the whole point of hunting in the first place pointless. What, you’re going to defend your home with an automatic weapon?! It doesn’t make any sense that such military grade weaponry should be made readily available to members of the public. And limiting clips to 10 bullets? How many do you need to take out the imaginary burglar just itching to get into your place? If you need more than 10, you probably shouldn’t have a gun to start with. Thorough background checks and harsh penalties against those who lie to obtain guns - who could be against this, honestly!
That these points are still issues shows just how badly America needs this discussion on gun control, especially as the news becomes morbidly repetitive in its stories of yet another disturbed young man (it always seems to be young men) pushed too far for whatever reason and deciding to check out in the bloodiest way possible. It’s good that someone as famous as Stephen King use his celebrity to bring more focus on this important issue, using his writing ability to express clearly and eloquently the matter at hand. Here’s hoping reason wins.
March 22, 2017
Excellent Read!
February 28, 2013
[Edited this review because I was being mean and unfair right about this area here, and it was, rightly, called to my attention. My apologies.]
Stephen King and I differ in regards to our stance on policy, in that I would be wholly and completely in favor of banning all guns outright. However, since that's unlikely to happen, I would be happy with some sort of action being taken to prevent further tragedies like Sandy Hook.
I think that King laid out his opinion well, and provided a fair account of the issue. Stephen King only proposes moderation - ban automatic weapons and limit clip size so that only a certain number of rounds can be shot before having to reload. Do thorough background checks. Have a longer waiting period. It makes sense to me, it's not an all-or-nothing proposal, but still there are some who think ANY regulation is a violation of their unassailable rights.
I just don't see why compromise is such a hard concept to grasp.
Stephen King and I differ in regards to our stance on policy, in that I would be wholly and completely in favor of banning all guns outright. However, since that's unlikely to happen, I would be happy with some sort of action being taken to prevent further tragedies like Sandy Hook.
I think that King laid out his opinion well, and provided a fair account of the issue. Stephen King only proposes moderation - ban automatic weapons and limit clip size so that only a certain number of rounds can be shot before having to reload. Do thorough background checks. Have a longer waiting period. It makes sense to me, it's not an all-or-nothing proposal, but still there are some who think ANY regulation is a violation of their unassailable rights.
I just don't see why compromise is such a hard concept to grasp.
June 22, 2021
Kindle Reading #9
Some notes:
○ I am NOT going to buy this essay in italian. You are fucking crazy if you buy an essay of 25 pages for €15. This costs only €1,17 on the kindle.
○ If you go on my Anobii you will find this as audiobook. It was the only tab available and since this hasn't isbn I can't create a new tab. I don't sell my books so it is the same.
To sum up I agree with everything Stephen King said in this essay except that I believe, I am sorry, the USA are a country of violence. I am italian and I have never heard/seen (of) a shooting either in a school or in a mall...etc
Sure there are shootings I am not saying the opposite. Naples or at Christmas markets...etc However, how many times it happens? Not so many as happens as in the USA.
In Italy the weapons are illegal and you must own a gun license. Then, of couse, we have Mafia but still there are less weapons around than the USA.
No, I am really sorry and I really love the USA but I can't help myself they are a State built on violence.
Personal opinion. You can agree on or not it doesen't matter.
Some notes:
○ I am NOT going to buy this essay in italian. You are fucking crazy if you buy an essay of 25 pages for €15. This costs only €1,17 on the kindle.
○ If you go on my Anobii you will find this as audiobook. It was the only tab available and since this hasn't isbn I can't create a new tab. I don't sell my books so it is the same.
To sum up I agree with everything Stephen King said in this essay except that I believe, I am sorry, the USA are a country of violence. I am italian and I have never heard/seen (of) a shooting either in a school or in a mall...etc
Sure there are shootings I am not saying the opposite. Naples or at Christmas markets...etc However, how many times it happens? Not so many as happens as in the USA.
In Italy the weapons are illegal and you must own a gun license. Then, of couse, we have Mafia but still there are less weapons around than the USA.
No, I am really sorry and I really love the USA but I can't help myself they are a State built on violence.
Personal opinion. You can agree on or not it doesen't matter.
February 11, 2013
Let's be frank. This 25 page essay is not an unbiased look at the issue of gun control. I didn't expect it to be. King's stance on the issue is a balanced and reasonable approach for reasonable people. He supports the right to have guns (he owns three) but also supports universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity clips and magazines. But you can get this type of info from any simple and quick research into this topic. The strength of King's essay is that he delves into the prevalence of the state of debate in America which he labels as "Drunks in a barroom." If anyone is uniformed enough to think this is not the case, simply look at any remarks on a anti-gun control YouTube video or, better yet, the vitriolic one star reviews of this Kindle Single on Amazon. King also writes about his own experiences and ambivalence regarding his novel Rage, in which an armed teenager holds classmates hostage, King eventually took that novel off the market due to his own concerns when young copycat shooters were found with copies of it. One can argue that nothing new is being discussed in these 25 pages but I do believe that King effectively places his points in a respectful and empathetic way that is missed by most articles on the topic.
May 21, 2016
Uncle Steve's views on guns and gun-control in the US pretty much match my own.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
March 26, 2021
Unfortunately this is not a thriller.
I finished reading this essay and the day before there was a shooting in Boulder, Colorado, where nine people were killed at a store. I was, again, terrified while reading the news, so heartbroken of just thinking about the lives of the victims and their families. Always speechless and trying to understand why these atrocities keep happening. Even though I do not live in the US these news go around the world and hurts every time.
Stephen King discusses the issues around the legal possession of guns in the United States. It is a very tough topic which remains unsolved despite the thousands of people that have been killed by being shot. This essay was written by Stephen King in 2013 and sadly the situation has remained the same. This keeps happening.
He talks about some of the cases of mass shootings and the details of some shooters. He also discusses the so called “culture of violence” and the reasons why many people defend gun possession and how many feel that having a gun at home provides safety and freedom. Finally, he also presents his views on the possible measures that could help regulate gun possession and reduce the number of shootings and victims. He mentioned the successful story of Australia where deaths by gun shooting had lowered by sixty percent after gun control measures had been implemented.
I personally have never understood why a gun could make someone feel safe when all my life the presence of a gun in any situation poses a risk of violence or of someone getting hurt either by accident or mishandling of the weapon. In my opinion it is definitely safer to be in a place where no one actually carries a gun.
I understand this has become much more complex in the US because so many people actually own guns, and so the people who do not have one feel at risk. I guess one might feel in danger knowing that there are guns around and you don’t have one. But again, this is something that could be regulated thus helping reduce the number of people killed.
The issue is still on the table. I hope that something changes and people stop being killed by being shot by someone that needs psychological help, and that this essay remains as something that used to happen but it’s over now as a nightmare in a bad night.
I finished reading this essay and the day before there was a shooting in Boulder, Colorado, where nine people were killed at a store. I was, again, terrified while reading the news, so heartbroken of just thinking about the lives of the victims and their families. Always speechless and trying to understand why these atrocities keep happening. Even though I do not live in the US these news go around the world and hurts every time.
Stephen King discusses the issues around the legal possession of guns in the United States. It is a very tough topic which remains unsolved despite the thousands of people that have been killed by being shot. This essay was written by Stephen King in 2013 and sadly the situation has remained the same. This keeps happening.
He talks about some of the cases of mass shootings and the details of some shooters. He also discusses the so called “culture of violence” and the reasons why many people defend gun possession and how many feel that having a gun at home provides safety and freedom. Finally, he also presents his views on the possible measures that could help regulate gun possession and reduce the number of shootings and victims. He mentioned the successful story of Australia where deaths by gun shooting had lowered by sixty percent after gun control measures had been implemented.
I personally have never understood why a gun could make someone feel safe when all my life the presence of a gun in any situation poses a risk of violence or of someone getting hurt either by accident or mishandling of the weapon. In my opinion it is definitely safer to be in a place where no one actually carries a gun.
I understand this has become much more complex in the US because so many people actually own guns, and so the people who do not have one feel at risk. I guess one might feel in danger knowing that there are guns around and you don’t have one. But again, this is something that could be regulated thus helping reduce the number of people killed.
The issue is still on the table. I hope that something changes and people stop being killed by being shot by someone that needs psychological help, and that this essay remains as something that used to happen but it’s over now as a nightmare in a bad night.
January 26, 2013
I part company with Stephen King every time he starts talking about his novel, Rage, and why he pulled it from print, but I don't think he is being irrational about it, or even missing the point. I think he has a big heart and the weight of how a few people relate to that book rests too heavily upon it. That said, I think he's pretty spot on with this essay. We need to have a rational conversation in this country about what it is we actually mean when we say we are in favor of gun control or the Second Amendment. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, IMO, and the inability to even entertain that notion as long as it takes to entertain what to have for dinner tonight isn't doing anyone any favors. It might actually be hurting people. I'm with King on this. I think we should be having the conversation in a way that doesn't involve shouting and name-calling. And the first thing we should be talking about is, why can't we talk about this? Good on Stephen King for stepping up, risking some of his readership (not that it'll hurt him any to lose the Wayne LaPierres among his Constant Readership), and saying something well-considered about the problem we have with violence in America.
February 6, 2017
A short, to the point, no bullshit analysis of the 'gun situation' in the USA. King is not calling for a GUN BAN, just the notion that deadly automatic assault rifles perhaps should be harder to have in your living room. He denies that 'gun culture' even plays a role in the mass shootings that occur every year- frankly, a lot of people will be surprised upon reading this. He makes a lot of great arguments and is not afraid to back them up with the salty language needed for such a deadly issue.
April 25, 2025
I mostri sono reali, e anche i fantasmi lo sono. Vivono dentro di noi e, talvolta, vincono.
Le parole di King, qua sopra citate, sono la summa della sua bibliografia, ma anche di queste libretto che ha scritto per dire la sua, sull'annosa questione delle armi negli Stati Uniti.
In uno dei capitoli del breve saggio che ho letto, ve n'è uno sulla storia travagliata della sua opera più controversa e bersagliata: Ossessione. Opera prima dell'autore, almeno nella sua ideazione: datata 1965, quando King era ancora un ragazzo, appena maggiorenne e che riversava su quel racconto, tutta la sua frustrazione di adolescente bullizzato, maltrattato e preso di mira. Poi racconta del perchè l'abbia voluto ritirare dalla vendita. Altri capitoli sono delle prese di posizione sulla questione, poi l'esposizione di massacri nelle scuole e non, intervallati da dati sulla situazione delle armi in USA.
Un saggio prezioso non solo per la posizione critica di King verso le armi, ma per la nota preminente di contradditorietà insita nell'essere umano. Per esempio King non vorrebbe la rimozione dell'emendamento sul possesso di armi, ma ne caldeggia una regolamentazione. Insomma noi esseri umani siamo parecchio strani e contraddittori, ma riusciamo a pur sempre, a spallate, a far riflettere. Spero che queste riflessioni saranno di buon auspicio, ma...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzcE-...
Le parole di King, qua sopra citate, sono la summa della sua bibliografia, ma anche di queste libretto che ha scritto per dire la sua, sull'annosa questione delle armi negli Stati Uniti.
In uno dei capitoli del breve saggio che ho letto, ve n'è uno sulla storia travagliata della sua opera più controversa e bersagliata: Ossessione. Opera prima dell'autore, almeno nella sua ideazione: datata 1965, quando King era ancora un ragazzo, appena maggiorenne e che riversava su quel racconto, tutta la sua frustrazione di adolescente bullizzato, maltrattato e preso di mira. Poi racconta del perchè l'abbia voluto ritirare dalla vendita. Altri capitoli sono delle prese di posizione sulla questione, poi l'esposizione di massacri nelle scuole e non, intervallati da dati sulla situazione delle armi in USA.
Un saggio prezioso non solo per la posizione critica di King verso le armi, ma per la nota preminente di contradditorietà insita nell'essere umano. Per esempio King non vorrebbe la rimozione dell'emendamento sul possesso di armi, ma ne caldeggia una regolamentazione. Insomma noi esseri umani siamo parecchio strani e contraddittori, ma riusciamo a pur sempre, a spallate, a far riflettere. Spero che queste riflessioni saranno di buon auspicio, ma...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzcE-...
September 16, 2025
Stephen King wrote Guns in 2013, in the shadow of Sandy Hook, as a plea for basic gun reform. More than a decade later, the landscape he described has only darkened. Mass shootings have multiplied in the US, with 304 in 2025 as of this review, and the political stalemate feels even deeper. (I can almost hear a Charlie Kirk soundbite trying to surface, but I’ll keep my soapbox to myself.) King reflects on his own role in the conversation, recalling his decision to pull his early novel “Rage” after learning it had inspired real violence. The essay is brief but undaunted, a reminder that the urgency he felt then has only grown more acute with time.
July 24, 2018
Wow. This book was unexpectedly refreshing. One thing that really struck me was that King doesn’t write from a typical anti-gun perspective. He’s a handgun owner, and has written a few books in which gun violence pops up. In fact, Rage was a book that was actually found to have links with several real shootings. Which leads to this:
It’s important to know the turning point between “it’s my right” and “it’s the responsible thing to do.”
Writing Rage and publishing it was King’s first amendment right.
Taking it off the shelves was the responsible thing to do.
It’s important to know the turning point between “it’s my right” and “it’s the responsible thing to do.”
Writing Rage and publishing it was King’s first amendment right.
Taking it off the shelves was the responsible thing to do.
February 4, 2013
With his usual flair for blunt - at times even crude - prose, Stephen King has accurately and powerfully chronicled America's current gun violence epidemic. King, a gun owner himself, right blames it on media sensationalism, cultural malaise, and a failure to seriously engage mental illness. But these are only minor factors in our firearm affliction.
The true villain behind our mass shootings and rampant gun violence is the paranoia and fanatic insanity of a narrow group of far right extremists, who live in mortal terror that the government will any day impose a Hitler or Stalin like(they can't tell the difference between these two) regime on them and that they must have a personal stockpile of arms in order to survive this imminent dystopia.
King, a gun owner himself, makes it clear that he is not a stereotyped liberal who wants to ban all firearms. Like most rational people he simply suggests that we need better background checks, restrictions on military weapons for public use, better attention to and more funding for the treatment of the mentally ill, and a concentrated effort on better funding and prepping school guidance counselors to identify serious mental illness early on.
In a rational and sensible world nobody would question King's judgment. But we don't live in a rational world; or, at least, not a rational country. King makes it clear that the crazed delusions of the NRA leadership, the Tea-Party lunatics, and the right wing hate mongers will continue to drown out the voices of sanity. I hope he is wrong ... but can any of us not fear that he is right?
In the end this is a fine essay on gun violence, how to greatly reduce it, and the forces that stand in the way of real reform. Of Particular interest is King's account of how he took his own book about a school shooting ("Rage" written under the Pseudonym "Richard Bachman") off the shelves when he thought it might be possible that it had, in a small way, contributed to some instances of gun violence. King does not regret writing or publishing the book and does not feel culpable for the violence of those who appealed to it as a source. He is right not to blame himself for it. But King was equally right to pull his book from the shelves when he found it might add fuel to the flame. This is how responsible adults act. When they see a problem they do what is in their power to fix it.
Unlike King, the powerful gun lobby in the United States is neither rational nor responsible. We can only hope that those of us who are sane can muster up the numbers and the passion to defeat the madmen.
The true villain behind our mass shootings and rampant gun violence is the paranoia and fanatic insanity of a narrow group of far right extremists, who live in mortal terror that the government will any day impose a Hitler or Stalin like(they can't tell the difference between these two) regime on them and that they must have a personal stockpile of arms in order to survive this imminent dystopia.
King, a gun owner himself, makes it clear that he is not a stereotyped liberal who wants to ban all firearms. Like most rational people he simply suggests that we need better background checks, restrictions on military weapons for public use, better attention to and more funding for the treatment of the mentally ill, and a concentrated effort on better funding and prepping school guidance counselors to identify serious mental illness early on.
In a rational and sensible world nobody would question King's judgment. But we don't live in a rational world; or, at least, not a rational country. King makes it clear that the crazed delusions of the NRA leadership, the Tea-Party lunatics, and the right wing hate mongers will continue to drown out the voices of sanity. I hope he is wrong ... but can any of us not fear that he is right?
In the end this is a fine essay on gun violence, how to greatly reduce it, and the forces that stand in the way of real reform. Of Particular interest is King's account of how he took his own book about a school shooting ("Rage" written under the Pseudonym "Richard Bachman") off the shelves when he thought it might be possible that it had, in a small way, contributed to some instances of gun violence. King does not regret writing or publishing the book and does not feel culpable for the violence of those who appealed to it as a source. He is right not to blame himself for it. But King was equally right to pull his book from the shelves when he found it might add fuel to the flame. This is how responsible adults act. When they see a problem they do what is in their power to fix it.
Unlike King, the powerful gun lobby in the United States is neither rational nor responsible. We can only hope that those of us who are sane can muster up the numbers and the passion to defeat the madmen.
December 6, 2023
Liberal dribble from the man who "literally" wrote the book on school shootings.
They found his book "Rage" in the possession of more than one school killing suspect but he does not take any blame. He says it is his "first" amendment right. Then he calls normal gun owners "cry babies" when the government takes their guns away against their "second" amendment right. Are both amendments not part of the Constitution? If we take away one, who is to say the rest are not next. Maybe they should also ban semi-automatic rifles in novels and movies. All movies should have less than 10, or in King's view, less than 8 gun shots.
For such a great writer, he uses very disappointing logic. When you don't have a logical argument, just say the other person is stupid and their mother dresses them funny. I am sure the "Bill Maher" crowd will laugh and shout "Amen".
Hollywood blames the NRA. I blame Hollywood (including King) and the liberal media who set these crazed killers up as celebrities? Hollywood is hypocritical. There is a gun fight in every movie but it is not their fault, they say it is the fault of those pesky hunters, hunting wabbits. They are the problem. They love foul language and violence and then blame someone else when someone copies that violence.
I wish the Libs would quit using tragedies, hurricanes, and the like to push their agenda. lets stop the people who are responsible and leave the innocents alone. I believe when the media stops giving these guys a month of coverage, much of this will stop.
They found his book "Rage" in the possession of more than one school killing suspect but he does not take any blame. He says it is his "first" amendment right. Then he calls normal gun owners "cry babies" when the government takes their guns away against their "second" amendment right. Are both amendments not part of the Constitution? If we take away one, who is to say the rest are not next. Maybe they should also ban semi-automatic rifles in novels and movies. All movies should have less than 10, or in King's view, less than 8 gun shots.
For such a great writer, he uses very disappointing logic. When you don't have a logical argument, just say the other person is stupid and their mother dresses them funny. I am sure the "Bill Maher" crowd will laugh and shout "Amen".
Hollywood blames the NRA. I blame Hollywood (including King) and the liberal media who set these crazed killers up as celebrities? Hollywood is hypocritical. There is a gun fight in every movie but it is not their fault, they say it is the fault of those pesky hunters, hunting wabbits. They are the problem. They love foul language and violence and then blame someone else when someone copies that violence.
I wish the Libs would quit using tragedies, hurricanes, and the like to push their agenda. lets stop the people who are responsible and leave the innocents alone. I believe when the media stops giving these guys a month of coverage, much of this will stop.
May 29, 2024
2024: This short essay is terrifying. Even scarier it could have been published today. Nothing has changed just as King predicted when he originally wrote this. Terrifying. 4.4/5
This book is less than 80 pages which is the cut off line for a book to be entered onto my all time book list. I do not really consider this to be a book at all. This is a mere 25 pages, which gets it a written review instead of a video review. This is a essay on guns, gun violence in America, politics, and violence. King breaks up his essay into many shorter sections; each covering a different subject. By far the most interesting section to read is the one where King discuses his book Rage, which he pulled from publication. Most of the rest of the essay is very well written, but not about a subject that keeps my attention. I have no opinion on guns or gun violence. The topic is far too political for my tastes and I find there are more important things for me to worry about. I think this is a good read for someone who wants to get up to speed quickly on the subject. King looks at both sides and while he is slightly biased to one side; he does an amazing job of creating a good overview of the issue and many of its finer points. 3 out of 5.
This book is less than 80 pages which is the cut off line for a book to be entered onto my all time book list. I do not really consider this to be a book at all. This is a mere 25 pages, which gets it a written review instead of a video review. This is a essay on guns, gun violence in America, politics, and violence. King breaks up his essay into many shorter sections; each covering a different subject. By far the most interesting section to read is the one where King discuses his book Rage, which he pulled from publication. Most of the rest of the essay is very well written, but not about a subject that keeps my attention. I have no opinion on guns or gun violence. The topic is far too political for my tastes and I find there are more important things for me to worry about. I think this is a good read for someone who wants to get up to speed quickly on the subject. King looks at both sides and while he is slightly biased to one side; he does an amazing job of creating a good overview of the issue and many of its finer points. 3 out of 5.
June 28, 2016
Now me and Mr King don't really stand in the same camp when it comes to guns. I live in the UK, we don't really have large predators so the only thing you could 'need' one for here is hunting game or going off to war. However, this was a very compelling read.
I like that King was able to speak to both sides. He didn't try and argue too much for guns, he just said he has three and can see people's reasoning for owning them. A lot is covered in this short essay and King doesn't just rant his opinion, he's taken everything into account. Like how if you need more than 10 rounds to shoot a home intruder you're just not a good shot. Owning a gun doesn't make you a trained assassin any more than owning weights makes you a bodybuilder.
I won't go too deep into the politics because I have a lot of opinions and I don't think Goodreads is the place but I do think, this is worth a read whichever side you fall on.
I like that King was able to speak to both sides. He didn't try and argue too much for guns, he just said he has three and can see people's reasoning for owning them. A lot is covered in this short essay and King doesn't just rant his opinion, he's taken everything into account. Like how if you need more than 10 rounds to shoot a home intruder you're just not a good shot. Owning a gun doesn't make you a trained assassin any more than owning weights makes you a bodybuilder.
I won't go too deep into the politics because I have a lot of opinions and I don't think Goodreads is the place but I do think, this is worth a read whichever side you fall on.
September 12, 2014
3.5 stars. Very informative and well written. It’s interesting how different the problems are in countries. Although we also have the occasional school shooting etc, our problem is guns used in committing criminal offences.
I agree with Stephen King that America does not have a culture of violence. In a society that has a culture of violence, you don’t need guns to express this. You just need to look at South Africa’s rape stats to realize that we have a culture of violence. His solution of reasonable measures made a lot of sense, but I am most impressed by Australia’s stats. After the government banned or restricted automatic weapons, and did a buyback of guns already out there, homicides by firearm has declined almost 60%. Maybe something our government should think about...
I agree with Stephen King that America does not have a culture of violence. In a society that has a culture of violence, you don’t need guns to express this. You just need to look at South Africa’s rape stats to realize that we have a culture of violence. His solution of reasonable measures made a lot of sense, but I am most impressed by Australia’s stats. After the government banned or restricted automatic weapons, and did a buyback of guns already out there, homicides by firearm has declined almost 60%. Maybe something our government should think about...
September 4, 2023
Guns by Stephen King
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5*)
What can you say to this whole topic, that wasn‘t said before? Apparently, at least in my opinion, Stephen King found some great points. Even if his essay is about 10 years old, it still is very much part of the daily discourse.
„In a pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion, Stephen King sets down his thoughts about gun violence in America. Anger and grief in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are palpable in this urgent piece of writing, but no less remarkable are King’s keen thoughtfulness and composure as he explores the contours of the gun-control issue and constructs his argument for what can and should be done.“
Take yourself about 45 Minutes to read about an opinion from someone who owns guns and still doesn‘t want people to get hurt. Recommended! 👍🏻
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5*)
What can you say to this whole topic, that wasn‘t said before? Apparently, at least in my opinion, Stephen King found some great points. Even if his essay is about 10 years old, it still is very much part of the daily discourse.
„In a pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion, Stephen King sets down his thoughts about gun violence in America. Anger and grief in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are palpable in this urgent piece of writing, but no less remarkable are King’s keen thoughtfulness and composure as he explores the contours of the gun-control issue and constructs his argument for what can and should be done.“
Take yourself about 45 Minutes to read about an opinion from someone who owns guns and still doesn‘t want people to get hurt. Recommended! 👍🏻
February 12, 2013
I've read much of Stephen King's work. He is a great craftsman and he brings that skill to this piece, a quickie Kindle Single.
The fact that he wrote the "book" fast shows. He made at least one huge mistake. He named the Newtown shooter as Ryan Lanza the first time he mentioned Newtown (he later correctly names Adam). This was after describing how the press reacts to a mass shooting including getting the shooter's name wrong. There are also irritating quirks like the use of "honey" to address readers.
Style and mistakes aside, King tries to add to the national dialog about gun violence. The last section of this short work, lists policy ideas that might cut down on gun violence. One notion is aa ban on "assault weapons" but he loses his argument when he gets too cute by half, honey.
King justifies calling for such a ban by insulting owners of semi-automatics (a gun that fires one round per trigger pull). He says that the owners only use these guns to fire as fast as they can while yelling yeehaw and getting horny. I shoot often and own what might be called an assault weapon. I have never fired as fast as I can twitch my finger. I've never yelled yeehaw while shooting and I've never seen such behavior at gun ranges. In fact, most people participating in rifle competitions today use variants of the AR-15. The platform is highly accurate, stable, and has low recoil.
Besides the assault weapon ban, King has three main policy ideas; universal background checks, bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds. King's policy ideas will not work and I'll take them one at a time.
Congress may pass some sort of enhanced background checks. Depending on details, such a law really will not affect me much. I tend to buy guns from federally licensed dealers who must check my background even if they are selling guns at a gun show. Criminals tend to buy guns on the street where there are no background checks. Some mass shooters have bought their guns legally (Cho, Holmes) and were not in the system as "nucking futs" even though Cho should have been. Others steal guns.
A magazine ban ignores the millions of magazines that already exist. A magazine is a box with a spring and anyone with a 3D printer can print one. Do we really want to try to outlaw 3D printers, springs, sheet metal, let alone the millions of magazines that people bought legally one year and become felons for owning the same box the next year?
King admits that an assault weapon ban probabaly will not happen. There is the problem of identifying just what is an assault weapon. There really is no such thing when you start getting into it. That's why the 1994 ban really did not ban much. King touts Australia's ban on them and pump action shotguns. (In other words, confiscating your grandfather's duck hunting gun.) The jury is not truly in on that gun ban. For one, there are still a lot of guns in Australia and other countries that have strong gun laws (see, http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22...). Also, crime has risen in Australia after the ban (see, http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php...).
Finally King calls on gun owners to "urge Congress to do the right thing, and insist the NRA climb aboard...." I own guns. I am a former police officer. I first shot a gun with I was 8 years old. I was given a pump action .22 rifle for my 13th birthday. I've owned guns for over 40 years and never put a hole in anyone (not even as a cop) or anything I was not willing to shoot. I am a responsible gun owner.
There are millions of gun owners who have never abused the right to own a gun. They've never shot up a school, or stuck up a taxi driver. Gun laws will only affect these responsible people. Laws will not stop crime, and will not stop a mass shooter.
Given this fact, why should I support Congress banning my guns or making it impossible to leave them to my children? Why would I support a ban on magazines that might make me a felon? Why would I support enhanced background checks when I don't know the details and don't believe they will work anyway? Sorry Stephen, you haven't convinced this gun owner who has never once yelled "yeehaw" while shooting a semi-auto or any gun for that matter.
The fact that he wrote the "book" fast shows. He made at least one huge mistake. He named the Newtown shooter as Ryan Lanza the first time he mentioned Newtown (he later correctly names Adam). This was after describing how the press reacts to a mass shooting including getting the shooter's name wrong. There are also irritating quirks like the use of "honey" to address readers.
Style and mistakes aside, King tries to add to the national dialog about gun violence. The last section of this short work, lists policy ideas that might cut down on gun violence. One notion is aa ban on "assault weapons" but he loses his argument when he gets too cute by half, honey.
King justifies calling for such a ban by insulting owners of semi-automatics (a gun that fires one round per trigger pull). He says that the owners only use these guns to fire as fast as they can while yelling yeehaw and getting horny. I shoot often and own what might be called an assault weapon. I have never fired as fast as I can twitch my finger. I've never yelled yeehaw while shooting and I've never seen such behavior at gun ranges. In fact, most people participating in rifle competitions today use variants of the AR-15. The platform is highly accurate, stable, and has low recoil.
Besides the assault weapon ban, King has three main policy ideas; universal background checks, bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds. King's policy ideas will not work and I'll take them one at a time.
Congress may pass some sort of enhanced background checks. Depending on details, such a law really will not affect me much. I tend to buy guns from federally licensed dealers who must check my background even if they are selling guns at a gun show. Criminals tend to buy guns on the street where there are no background checks. Some mass shooters have bought their guns legally (Cho, Holmes) and were not in the system as "nucking futs" even though Cho should have been. Others steal guns.
A magazine ban ignores the millions of magazines that already exist. A magazine is a box with a spring and anyone with a 3D printer can print one. Do we really want to try to outlaw 3D printers, springs, sheet metal, let alone the millions of magazines that people bought legally one year and become felons for owning the same box the next year?
King admits that an assault weapon ban probabaly will not happen. There is the problem of identifying just what is an assault weapon. There really is no such thing when you start getting into it. That's why the 1994 ban really did not ban much. King touts Australia's ban on them and pump action shotguns. (In other words, confiscating your grandfather's duck hunting gun.) The jury is not truly in on that gun ban. For one, there are still a lot of guns in Australia and other countries that have strong gun laws (see, http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22...). Also, crime has risen in Australia after the ban (see, http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php...).
Finally King calls on gun owners to "urge Congress to do the right thing, and insist the NRA climb aboard...." I own guns. I am a former police officer. I first shot a gun with I was 8 years old. I was given a pump action .22 rifle for my 13th birthday. I've owned guns for over 40 years and never put a hole in anyone (not even as a cop) or anything I was not willing to shoot. I am a responsible gun owner.
There are millions of gun owners who have never abused the right to own a gun. They've never shot up a school, or stuck up a taxi driver. Gun laws will only affect these responsible people. Laws will not stop crime, and will not stop a mass shooter.
Given this fact, why should I support Congress banning my guns or making it impossible to leave them to my children? Why would I support a ban on magazines that might make me a felon? Why would I support enhanced background checks when I don't know the details and don't believe they will work anyway? Sorry Stephen, you haven't convinced this gun owner who has never once yelled "yeehaw" while shooting a semi-auto or any gun for that matter.
February 4, 2018
Not really a book so much as an essay/polemic, Stephen King’s “Guns” is still a powerful and often profane pushback against the insanity of American gun laws. I was particularly moved by the example of a story he wrote as a young man called “Rage” in which a bullied student uses a gun to take revenge on his school. As assailants in school shootings began to quote from this book, King became horrified and voluntarily asked his publishers to take it out of circulation. It may not have been the sole cause of the fires that raged in the heads of these young men, but as King so eloquently put it, even if it was simply an accelerant, it needed to be removed. It was the kind of greater good thinking that is so absent from today’s gun debate where even a moderate change in policy is labelled fascist and shouted down. As King writes:
“We’re like drunks in a barroom. No one’s listening because everyone is too busy thinking about what they’re going to say next, and absolutely prove that the current speaker is so full of shit he squeaks.”
Until this changes, it’s difficult to see any meaningful progress on the horizon. We are instead likely to see more of arguments such as one King highlights:
“I read a jaw-dropping online defense of these weapons from a California woman recently. ‘Guns’, she said, ‘are just tools. Like spoons’, she said. ‘Would you outlaw spoons simply because some people use them to eat too much?’ Lady, let’s see you try to kill twenty school kids with a fucking spoons. Guns are not tools, not unless you reverse a pistol and use the butt to hammer in a nail. Guns are weapons. Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use….A gun is not a bit like a spoon. A gun is like a gun.”
In the end the question King poses to gun advocates is the one that will ultimately determine how long America will continue to turn a blind eye to gun violence:
“…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 as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage. If that’s the case, let me suggest that fuck you, Jack, I’m okay is not a tenable position, morally speaking.”
“We’re like drunks in a barroom. No one’s listening because everyone is too busy thinking about what they’re going to say next, and absolutely prove that the current speaker is so full of shit he squeaks.”
Until this changes, it’s difficult to see any meaningful progress on the horizon. We are instead likely to see more of arguments such as one King highlights:
“I read a jaw-dropping online defense of these weapons from a California woman recently. ‘Guns’, she said, ‘are just tools. Like spoons’, she said. ‘Would you outlaw spoons simply because some people use them to eat too much?’ Lady, let’s see you try to kill twenty school kids with a fucking spoons. Guns are not tools, not unless you reverse a pistol and use the butt to hammer in a nail. Guns are weapons. Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use….A gun is not a bit like a spoon. A gun is like a gun.”
In the end the question King poses to gun advocates is the one that will ultimately determine how long America will continue to turn a blind eye to gun violence:
“…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 as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage. If that’s the case, let me suggest that fuck you, Jack, I’m okay is not a tenable position, morally speaking.”
January 25, 2013
An interesting point-of-view on the gun control controversy, as Stephen King once authored a book, Rage, that inspired multiple high-school shooting incidents. King also happens to lean left, but owns three handguns himself, so his perspective pulls from both sides, although he is clearly in favor of Obama's reform proposals. He is also hyper-aware of the counter-arguments and grandstanding taking place all over, and often instead of, this debate.
At the very least, this essay will hopefully create some genuine dialogue -- and not just rhetoric -- about one of the more important issues currently facing this country and its citizens.
The essay is available for 99c as a Kindle Single here, with proceeds going to victims of gun violence. As an aside, it says very specifically that King's proceeds are going to charity, making me wonder if Amazon's are not. I hope that is not the case; having Amazon profit from this in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy would really be shameless.
At the very least, this essay will hopefully create some genuine dialogue -- and not just rhetoric -- about one of the more important issues currently facing this country and its citizens.
The essay is available for 99c as a Kindle Single here, with proceeds going to victims of gun violence. As an aside, it says very specifically that King's proceeds are going to charity, making me wonder if Amazon's are not. I hope that is not the case; having Amazon profit from this in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy would really be shameless.
April 10, 2018
What a brilliant man King is.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,063 reviews