Home > 2nd amendment/guns/weapons > Stephen King: Whoop-ass call for greater gun control

Stephen King: Whoop-ass call for greater gun control

January 25th, 2013

guns stephen king

Amazon Kindle has a new format out called Kindle Single.  It is a way that authors can respond quickly to current events in a format that is a little longer than what a newspaper, magazine, or blog can accommodate.  Stephen King finished his essay entitled, “Guns” last Friday late morning and  submitted it.  By Friday night, Amazon had accepted it and had it ready to publish today.

Washingtonpost.com:

Determined and at times profane, the 8,000-word essay confronts NRA members straight on: “In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings,” King writes, “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.”

“I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters,” King writes, but “how many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys? Do the murders have to be in the mall where you shop? In your own neighborhood? In your own family?

He concludes with what he calls “a trio of reasonable measures to curb gun violence”:

1. Comprehensive and universal background checks.

2. Ban the sale of clips and magazines containing more than ten rounds.

3. Ban the sale of assault weapons such as the Bushmaster and the AR-15.

As one of the most popular authors in the world, King is immediately a powerful new presence in the gun control debate. But he repeatedly emphasizes the need for all sides to work together. Acknowledging the political difficulty of getting new restrictions passed, he notes that meaningful change will only happen “if gun advocates get behind it.”

King himself has censored his own work.  Many years ago he wrote under the name of  Richard Bachman.  “Bachman had written a short story called “Rage.”  It was the story of a young man on a rampage who took a gun to school, killed his algebra teacher and held his classmates hostage.  I read the book back in the day. It was terrifying.  King said the book didn’t sell that many copies, but after many years he got wind of the fact that teenage boys were holding up this book as a model of sorts.  King had the book pulled from publication.

Stephen King is one of the most prolific and popular authors in America.  He is inarguably the king of the macabre.  He deals with things that go bump in the night, from Carrie to Tommy knockers to The Stand and the Shining and on.  There is really no area that King has not taken his artful story telling to.

King calls for an end to violence.  I think I will download his essay and see what the old boy has to say.  The King of Horror has spoken.

 

Categories: 2nd amendment/guns/weapons Tags:
  1. January 26th, 2013 at 05:49 | #1

    The essay “Guns” is a must-read. Stephen King is his usual, king of the vernacular self.

    It will piss some off, make others paranoid, and get cheered on by millions.

    It is only available from Kindle. Don’t own a kindle? Put the Kindle app on your PC

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_w8_ln_ar?docId=1000426311

    You can then have access to anything in Kindle print.

    You can also put a kindle app on your cell phone (iphone, droid or windows) or your ipad.

    This essay costs $.99.

    It is worth every penny. I haven’t read Stephen King in a while. I had forgotten how much I love his prose.

  2. January 26th, 2013 at 08:51 | #2

    I’m sure it is brilliant, like all his writing, but “the King of Horror calls for an end to violence” — am I the only one seeing the irony here? I just hope when he and Amazon make a killing off his .99 x millions of downloads, they donate all profits to Newtown. The surge in readers downloading his other works will compensate him for the time he spent shaping his essay and Amazon as well.

  3. Lady Emma
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:23 | #3

    So the king of sadistic thrillers doesn’t like real things that go “boom” in the night? On what science is his 10-round-magazine limit based?

    I wonder what James Patterson and Dean Koontz think about guns, speaking of some of the most poorly written, trashiest and gratuitously sadistic violence that passes for “bestsellers”? Well, maybe I don’t really care about the cynical PR moves of the 1%.

  4. January 26th, 2013 at 11:06 | #4

    @Cindy Brookshire
    He discusses all that, Cindy.

    He isn’t suggesting the pat answers about violence as a remedy.

  5. January 26th, 2013 at 11:08 | #5

    @Lady Emma

    No science but some fairly interesting data provided as to why over 10 is getting into multiple kill round. I think he probably went with 10 because our number system is based on 10. He likes 10 because it isn’t 30.

  6. January 26th, 2013 at 13:43 | #6

    Just pointing out the irony. Stephen King advocating a less violent world is like Lance Armstrong reforming cycling. That will never happen, right? It must be National Irony Day.

  7. Starryflights
    January 26th, 2013 at 16:09 | #7

    Thousands to march against gun violence in Washington
    By Ian Simpson | Reuters – 6 hrs ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-march-against-gun-violence-washington-150256254.html

    Btw: There is nothing contradictory about writing scary books and advocating for gun control. One of the scariest parts of The Shining was a fire hose that the kid kept fantasizing would attack him. He also writes about scary clowns and dogs, among other things, not guns.

  8. January 26th, 2013 at 17:38 | #8

    @Moon-howler
    The 10 is an arbitrary number that the gun banners picked to be palatable to the voters. Until, of course, they decided on 7 in New York.

    Cho used a pistol limited to 10. Didn’t help.

    • January 26th, 2013 at 18:38 | #9

      Of course he had 400 rounds of ammo with him.

      You have to start somewhere. Actually I believe he had some 15 and 10. The point is, nothing will elimitate all these killings. However, its a place to start. The limit would have helped in the Gabby Gifford shooting. There is no reason not to do it.

      Most numbers are artibrary. That is not a reason not to do them.

      As far as I am concerned, you don’t have a valid point of view when you call everyone who disagrees with you a “gun banner.” There are plenty of people who will agree to limit various guns and gun products for the good of us all and for our children and grandchildren– Not necessarily because they have to but because common sense tells them it will cut down on that which we find unacceptable.

      At what point does the social good outweigh everyone’s effen right to do this and that and the other?

      Is your right to own an uzi more important that someone’s life?

      If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, stop calling people with modest proposals gun banners.

      Break down and spend a dollar and read the King essay. Let’s talk about reality rather than what you think he says.

      I will gladly reimburse anyone the dollar they spend if they feel it costs too much. We can handle it right over paypal. Email me.

  9. Lady Emma
    January 26th, 2013 at 18:09 | #10

    @Starryflights You’re not very well read on Stephen King. Check out some of his short stories. Not just scary, but unnecessarily sadistic. But good on you for your literary analysis!

    • January 26th, 2013 at 18:56 | #11

      Most of King’s horror isn’t gun related. I have read King for years. Other than Mercy, I am not sure I would describe King’s as saddistic.

      Unnecessarily saddistic? I guess I feel books are one of those things we can close and stop reading.

      I adore Stephen King. Over the years I find I have grown more sensitive to horror so I don’t read him as much as I used to.

      I don’t see his work as gratuitous violence–but more a date with evil and often the supernatural. Some would argue that which lies with man.

      I would read what he has to say.

  10. January 26th, 2013 at 20:55 | #12

    Sadly, we had a bonfire tonite with friends. I fueled the fire with every King book in the neighborhood and invited more friends to bring theirs and join in.

    • January 26th, 2013 at 21:07 | #13

      @Bullet

      I guess you sure showed him. How did the Kindles do and how will you get the melted plastic up? That’s the problem with electronic print!
      I actually own the collection of short stories that “Rage” is in (in print).

      I am watching old WWII movies turned into new documentaries, The Perilous Fight. It is fantastic. I was amazed at how those old Nazis thought they could burn away the human spirit of anyone they deemed to be a subversive. I suppose it was all symbolic to them.

  11. Starryflights
    January 26th, 2013 at 22:49 | #14

    @Lady Emma Name one of King’s short stories that you claim is unnecessarily sadistic.

    Monk couldn’t answer that since he only knows how to burn books.

  12. January 27th, 2013 at 00:27 | #15

    @Moon-howler
    MY right to keep and bear arms affects no one’s life unless that person attacks me. Its a straw argument. It’s reprehensible that you and others are now trying to institute a meme that those that support the exercise of an inalienable right somehow are less respectful of others’ lives.

    If you are attempting to restrict the exercise of the 2nd amendment, and advocated banning a firearm, access to a firearm, or its necessary equipment, you are banning guns.

    Your “common sense” is someone else’s extremism OR someone else’s lax laws. Since you want your “reasonable” laws, will you denounce the actual gun banners like Feinstein and the other politicians like the ones in New York that rammed through an abuse of rights in record time. Or the politician that is calling for a defacto ban on all firearms that are not a single shot firearm?

    • January 27th, 2013 at 02:12 | #16

      Bullshit.

      The weapons available in society affect all of us. I could stretch your argument and make the same claim about nuclear weapons or surface to air artillery…At what point do we all get to agree that it is a rather bogus argument.

      I realize that you are going to cling to your own ideas, regardless of what is said. You are closed minded and having your hobby equipment is the most important. You will oppose restricting any weapon because you think you have a right to it.

      I don’t think you want to keep that rant up. Most Americans who own guns and who do not oppose restrictions on who can buy what when and where are not trying to “ban guns.” However, keep up the shrill, strident refusals to compromise and those Americans will get a lot testier about it.

      No I am not going to renounce Dianne Feinstein. If there is a weapon listed that is in error, then the only way to work it out is to have normal communication rather than knuckle dragging over the situation.

      Have you read King’s essay yet? Didn’t think so.

      Fine to think I am reprehensible. I suppose it is becoming clear what I think of people who want no limits also.

  13. January 27th, 2013 at 00:43 | #17

    “There are plenty of people who will agree to limit various guns and gun products for the good of us all and for our children and grandchildren– Not necessarily because they have to but because common sense tells them it will cut down on that which we find unacceptable.”

    I’m fighting to KEEP my rights as free as possible for the good of my kid and her future children. Once rights are given away or allowed to be taken, they are terribly hard to recover. Your common sense is just YOUR interpretation. It is NOT common. Your logic is also faulty in that the evidence is not in your favor since gun ownership is way up and gun crime down. 3 million AR’s alone, in private hands…. Millions more including the other semi-auto rifles, and you wish to destroy the rights of millions of innocents because of the actions of one man. Your common sense… A right should be surrendered for the illusion of safety. So, when nothing improves…what more will you give up? What will your children and grandchildren give up? Free speech is already under attack. The demonization of firearms has been the meme for years. Children are being suspended for talking about shooting BUBBLES at each other or having a an “L” shaped piece of paper.

    No. I do not accept your premise.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 02:21 | #18

      Didn’t think you would. I don’t know what premise I made but …that’s ok.

      Oh and please don’t rely on my common sense….I have none. However there are lots of people out there who know a lot more on this subject who are quite willing to give their expert advice.

  14. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 08:27 | #19

    @Cargosquid

    Don’t be surprised that your daughter may be more interested in her right to choose/not choose pregnancy when she’s older than she will be in the second amendment. Gun nuts who don’t strongly support women’s rights are just a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to defending “The Constitution”. (You don’t personally have to support abortion, but you’d better be expending as much energy defending women’s rights to have one as you do your own to possess an AR. If you see no problem with states hacking away at the right to choose, don’t bitch about gun regulations.)

  15. January 27th, 2013 at 08:33 | #20

    Cargo, read the Stephen King essay and fight with him about it. Whether you agree with him or not, it is a well thought out, well-written essay.

    I left all the links up there.

    Insulting me really isn’t a very good argument. I still think you are making a huge mistake to alienate all the people who are gun owners and who do support some restrictions on the gun industry whether its in weaponry design, ammo, background checks or magazine capacity.

  16. January 27th, 2013 at 08:34 | #21

    @Censored bybvbl

    Standing ovation.

  17. Lady Emma
    January 27th, 2013 at 09:07 | #22

    @Starryflights So the queen of hit-and-run troll posts wants me to post proof. Thanks for the morning laugh.

    Try “Smoke Enders”, where a guy enrolls in a smoking-cessation program. Each time he cheats, something worse happens to his wife–let’s see, she’s electrocuted, her fingers are cut off—need I go on?

    But, hey, you’re the literary expert here, so I cede to your vast knowledge.

  18. January 27th, 2013 at 09:53 | #23

    @Censored bybvbl
    Please show me where the right to abort an unborn baby, who, arguably is another life, is found in the Constitution, outside of invented penumbras.

    The right to an abortion was invented. Popular support is what keeps it “alive.” The argument against it is that a fetus is a human life. The argument is whether or not that life has value and/or a right against being ended. So far, the pro legal abortion side is winning.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 11:58 | #24

      Bullshit.

      Cargo, don’t. Not here.

      How about you showing me where the Constitution says you have a right to an UZI or any other specific weapon. You can’t.

      You obviously have no idea what the argument regarding abortion is about. It has nothing to do with the value of fetal life. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that there be unrestricted, unregulated abortion. That certainly isn’t found in Roe.

      You obviously believe that the 9th and 14th amendments were invented also.

      You need to stick to your religious beliefs. However, your religious beliefs should not become the law of the land.

  19. January 27th, 2013 at 10:16 | #25

    @Moon-howler
    Please show me where I insulted you.

    You misrepresent your position as moderate by supporting the anti-rights extremists. Your position that those that support the exercise of inalienable rights are somehow against protecting innocent lives is reprehensible. This is the premise that is objectionable.

    “Is your right to own an uzi more important that someone’s life?”
    “If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, stop calling people with modest proposals gun banners. ”

    I specifically asked if you were willing to denounce Feinstein’s radical proposals since you place yourself with the “modest” proposals. You apparently support her positions. Therefore, you are not a proposing a “modest” idea and support gun banning.

    And people have fought and died to protect our rights to keep and bear arms. You change it to “uzis” when that is not what is being proposed. THOSE are already tightly controlled. Where will you stop on your calls to disarm Americans when your ideas fail, AGAIN? Again, you show your bigotry by discounting the exercise of a right as a “hobby.” Again, you are wrong. Blatantly wrong because you are willing to give up freedom for an illusion.

    The rifle owners of New York have already told the gov’t of New York that they will not comply with registration. That will repeat across the nation.

    I will read King’s essay. I’ll get back to you. I predict that it is the same pablum as all the other essays calling for the restrictions of rights.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 12:23 | #26

      @Cargo

      At least if you read it you can fight with him.

      I answered directly that I would not denounce Dianne Feinstein. I don’t think she is an extremist. She isn’t proposing doing away with all guns or even most guns.

      Gun ownership that is not used for one’s job is avocational which basically means its a hobby. Why does hobby bother you? Boating is a hobby, playing cards is a hobby, collecting things is a hobby, riding horses not for a living is a hobby. What would YOU call it?

      Feel free to substitute AK-47 for UZI if that makes you feel better.

      People have fought and died over a lot of things. I don’t ever remember a war over the right to keep and bear arms but if you say so.

      I actually haven’t suggested any ideas for gun registration. I have heard other people do so and have responded accordingly.

      I guess the rifle owners of New York can’t use that old law-abiding citizen line any more then, if they aren’t following their state’s laws.

      As suspected, anything short of right to own UZI is extremist in your eyes. Its a shame that so many of you extremists are blowing off and alienating those of us who want to protect the 2nd amendment and protect society from weapons that have the capability of killing 20 people in under a minute. We know we can never completely protect but we can cut down on the incidence.

      Too bad the LaPierre stupidly said the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I think that pretty much says it all. DOH!! What an incredibly stupid thing to say at a time when sensitivity was called for.

      It appears that everyone else is to change but you all over there at the NRA. That’s just not how it works. At some point you do have to chip in a little for the good of society.

  20. Lady Emma
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:26 | #27

    How unfortunate that those who want to protect Constitutional rights are derided as “gun nuts” who don’t care about the slaughter of little children. The way I see it, those insults are only mobilizing the pro-2A contingent into opposing even the smallest infringement of their rights.

    Funny which direction so much of the polarizing name-calling seems to come from.

    @Cargosquid

  21. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:15 | #28

    A simple google search of various posters’ names will reveal who gets wrapped around the axle whenever guns are mentioned.

  22. Lady Emma
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:23 | #29

    A simple google search of various posters’ names will reveal who gets wrapped around the axle whenever abortion is mentioned.

  23. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:25 | #30

    @Lady Emma

    You obviously haven’t done the search.

  24. Elena
    January 27th, 2013 at 16:03 | #31

    Stephen King has every right to discuss his opinion of gun violence. I imagine Edgar Allan Poe would have very much appreciated the Stephen King genre of thrillers. Having read most of the Stephen Kings books, in comparison to writers like Thomas Harris and host of other writers who truly use graphic horror in their books, Stephen King is tame. Pa-leez!

    It is interesting to me that the idea of finding common ground without actually “prying your gun out of your cold dead hand” is simply impossible. Having spoken to close friends who are gun owners, even we could have a rational discussion. The tone the NRA took, they agreed, was not helpful. Between Fienstein and the NRA, there are common sense solutions.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 16:11 | #32

      Devil’s advocate here…..exactly what has Feinstein proposed that makes her far left?

      Perhaps I have missed something.

  25. Lady Emma
    January 27th, 2013 at 16:16 | #33

    Universal background checks, better mental-health services to prevent the violence-prone from slipping through the cracks, no more bogus schemes of running guns across the border to manufacture more gun crime–sounds rational to me.

    Still, stuff happens. Too bad we just can’t ban our way out of human evil.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 16:52 | #34

      There was no bogus scheme. There was a sting that broke bad. Happens in the best of families.

      And tighter control over high capacity rapid fire weapons….we already have a bunch of people who claim that they aren’t going to obey their state law. i would say that makes them NOT law abiding. Of course Cargo wants to distinquish between not law abiding and civil disobedience. No, it isnt’ civil disobediance it is breaking the law if you are told to register anything and you don’t do it.

  26. January 27th, 2013 at 17:17 | #35

    Well, I read his little essay. Pablum.
    It says nothing that I did not expect. He’s just another person that has an opinion. I’ve seen it all before.

    The problem with these so-called common sense solutions is that politicians will be involved, will put the power of the law behind them, and then they will ask for more. Feinstein thinks that her solutions are “reasonable.” The politicians in New York feel that their law is generous. When their constituents commit the largest act of civil disobedience in American history by not registering their rifles, perhaps those politicians will have a wake up call.

    Moon says she’s reasonable but won’t state that Feinstein is not…all the while stating that no one wants to ban guns. The problem that “moderates” have in convincing Americans that no one wants their guns is that we can point directly to people in power that have stated that desire. The common ground is trying to find a solution to violence, which includes gun violence. But when I brought up areas where the gun violence is worst, that was brushed aside as unimportant while we chase after THIS emergency. So, apparently not ALL gun violence is the emergency that it is made out to be.

    Collective punishment for the crimes of a few is un-American. You want Americans to give up their rifles? Convince them.
    You’ll have better luck if their principles are not held up to ridicule, their rights are not threatened, and the efforts to disarm the law abiding as opposed to fighting crime, were halted.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 21:48 | #36

      Pablum? Supreme arrogance. Now Stephen King writes pablum. Can you write that well, Cargo and will we be seeing examples?

      I don’t care for Ayn Rand’s content but I haven’t called her work “pablum.”

      Actually I asked you gun hobby people to tell me what is unreasonable about Dianne Feinstein’s bill. I have heard nothing yet.

      I can’t still buy Pseudoephed. I don’t feel like I am being punished. It had to be taken off the over the counter shelf for the good of everyone. It was being misused.

      Gun violence like is found in inner cities and mass killings don’t have the same cause. Obviously. I believe they need to be approached differently.

      I have not ridiculed the rifle owners, the pistol owners or the shotgun owners. What I object to are people who cannot see that we all need to be willing to alter our behavior for the good of us all. You and LaPierre think it is up to everyone but you to change. Nothing in the Constitution implies that you should be able to have any gun you want nor does it mention magazines or ammo.

      Those are invented “rights” that you have tacked on to an archaic amendment. (like the 3rd is archaic) I absolutely believe people should be able to keep and bear arms…what kind is another matter.

  27. January 27th, 2013 at 17:20 | #37

    @Moon-howler
    It was a scheme. It wasn’t a “sting that went bad.” There was NO attempt at tracking the guns. There was NO notification of the operation to Mexican LEO. The stated purpose was to find American guns at Mexican crimes scenes. The ATF ran guns. Those guns were used to commit murder.

    It was a scheme to demonstrate a need for more gun regulation.

  28. January 27th, 2013 at 17:22 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    ” No, it isnt’ civil disobediance it is breaking the law ”

    That is the very definition of “civil disobedience.”

    Devil’s advocate here…..exactly what has Feinstein proposed that makes her far left?

    Statism is a leftist ideal. She wants the state to control all the weapons.

  29. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 18:59 | #40

    Present gun control isn’t adequate. I know a person who hasn’t been involuntarily hospitalized and presumably legally possesses a gun. This person threatened (by phone so there’s no way of verifying it) to go to his girlfriend’s place of employment and blow his brains out if she left him. Who’s the victim here? At the time, as an unrelated person, could she have forced his hospitalization? If this threat weren’t so serious, it would be laughable considering where he was employed at the time.

    I think most gun nuts are scaredy-cats. I just talked to the spouse of one a couple days ago when she called me and asked if a certain part of DC was dangerous and if he should carry his weapon if they decided to go there. I asked her if she want visitation privileges.

    My normal friends never discuss guns – except for their desire to be able to still see well enough to shoot skeet or hunt.

    Those who talk most about their arsenals and the possibility of civil disobedience never want to discuss the details.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 22:00 | #41

      I think I am putting a moratoreum on the discussion on this blog. I am tired of providing ink for extremists.

  30. January 27th, 2013 at 19:10 | #43

    @Censored bybvbl
    My friends only discuss guns when the topic is guns….and shooting, or politics about guns. I don’t hunt or shoot skeet. My shooting sports are different.

    Other than that, for those that carry, the guns are just an article of clothing.

    Have the police been notified about that person? Is there a restraining order? Why not?

    “I think most gun nuts are scaredy-cats.” Whatever.

    And if you want details, …well any of it would be pure speculation. But there are sites where you can read about those details… each author has his own ideas about any such conflict. This site is not the place to go into such…unless Moon wants such speculation on her site.

  31. January 27th, 2013 at 19:27 | #44

    Stephen King is a neon-lit slot machine in Amazon’s Kindle-Vegas. Drop in four quarters, press a button. Read 25 well-written pages. Game over. Three quarters go in his bank account. One quarter goes to Amazon. You walk away, but the slot machine keeps going, day after day with a million looky-loos. Then, later, you have Stephen King on the brain. So you start downloading his other books, from $3 to $15 a pop. We’re lemmings like that, and he and Amazon know it.

    Resist the urge. Send a dollar to Newtown instead.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 23:07 | #45

      @Cindy, then why listen to anyone else’s opinion. Why venture out and ever hear someone with a point of view other than your own.

      I felt the article wads interesting mainly because of the emphasis on the media. “Rage” was a terrifying story and when I first started following these horrible mass killing sprees I thought about that story. I had no idea he had pulled it out of publication and why. I expect his ebook UR that came with Kindle served the purpose you are speaking of.

      I am also always beguiled by new forms of ebooks. The neon glow’s (for lack of a better word) is a new format—for essays and such that are too long for magaine or print and too short for major publication. The turn around time was less than a week.

      I realize that many people can’t bear to put down real books. Just wait until your eyes get old and your neck nerves get pinched. You will be more tolderant of other forms of literature.

  32. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 19:41 | #46

    @Cargosquid

    No, there’s no restraining order – it’s much worse. She married him. It’s a marriage that I think would have naturally failed after a couple years, but now there’s that gun threat. Many of these situations end not with just the gun owner offing himself. He usually wants to make sure that the woman (or child) never finds happiness with anyone else. And then you have to worry about any other family member, neighbor, friend that just happens to be present if this guy decides to use his gun.

  33. January 27th, 2013 at 19:43 | #47

    And so… why have the police NOT been notified? A threat is a threat. I guarantee that if I threatened my wife like that, I would have had a police visit.

    @Cindy Brookshire
    I didn’t resist the urge, but then, I also am not going to buy any more of his books. He lost me on The Stand.

  34. Censored bybvbl
    January 27th, 2013 at 19:48 | #48

    @Cargosquid

    She would have to do that. She’s been encouraged to do that by several people. I don’t know if he’s ever made a threat other than the initial one. Frankly, I think her supervisor, whom she told because he threatened to do this at her office, should have called the police.

  35. January 27th, 2013 at 23:14 | #49

    @Lady Emma

    Terrifying story. I still remember it. I don’t think he shot her though, as I recall.

    As a person who has struggled with smoking or (not smoking )my entire life, that story really hit home.

  36. January 27th, 2013 at 23:19 | #50

    @Cargosquid

    Civil disobedience takes on a little different tone than just breaking a law. Robbing a bank is breaking the law.

    Breaking the law is not necessarily civil disobedience. Civil disobedience might even be failure to comply with authorities when no specific law exists. ie Kent State

  37. January 28th, 2013 at 07:08 | #51

    @Moon-howler
    So…in this case, it seems to be a good example of civil disobedience if they do not comply.

  38. January 28th, 2013 at 10:49 | #52
  39. January 28th, 2013 at 14:29 | #53

    I don’t have a problem with reading Stephen King or Kindles/Nooks/e-reading. I have a problem with King and Amazon making an immediate and disproportionate amount of money off of what amounts to an 8,000 word op-ed in the wake of a lot of real suffering. Compensate King and Amazon for reasonable work done, and then donate the rest to Newtown.

    • January 28th, 2013 at 15:38 | #54

      A dollar?

      How do you feel about having to buy an online subcriptions just to read a newspaper?
      How about having to pay a dollar for a song in from an album on Amazon? Maybe that should be for free also.

      I don’t mind paying to read, watch or listen to someone else’s intellectual property.

      I don’t understand why Stephen King should provide us his social opinion for free and allow Pete Seeger or Bob Dylan to charge us a dollar.

  40. Scout
    January 28th, 2013 at 20:10 | #55

    I always thought King’s work was fiction. Some of the comments up above seem to indicate that he is writing about real events and equating that with gun violence. What am I missing?

  41. January 28th, 2013 at 20:44 | #56

    @Cargosquid

    The Stand is my very favorite Stephen King novel. It also scared the living day lights out of me on so many different level.s

  42. January 28th, 2013 at 20:51 | #57

    @Scout, many years ago, back when he was in high school, King wrote a short story entitled RAGE. It was about a boy who goes on a rampagne and shoots his algebra teacher, a few kids, and holds the rest of them hostage.

    He later published that story along with a couple others under his name de plume, Richard Bachman. 20 some years later it seems that the story RAGE was being linked to some spree killings. Some of King’s own words from that story were appearing.

    He had his publisher pull the short story anthology from print. He didnt have to, he just felt it was the right thing to do. GHe said he didnt think that the story caused the shootings but if there was even a chance it had been an accelerant, then he didnt want it out there.

    That was included in his much discussed essay that just came out on Kindle. (It cost a dollar)

    Apparently King isn’t entitled to his opinion without stirring some folks up.

  43. January 28th, 2013 at 22:03 | #58

    @Moon-howler
    hmm… The Stand didn’t do anything for me. Wasn’t scary to me at all. Weird.

    “Apparently King isn’t entitled to his opinion without stirring some folks up.”

    Where do you get that King isn’t entitled to his opinion. I do find it ironic that he disregard possible influence by media, but pulled his story because people influenced by his book did bad things.

    • January 28th, 2013 at 22:45 | #59

      I don’t understand whatyou are saying about King and the media. He didnt just fall off the turnip truck.

  44. January 28th, 2013 at 23:47 | #60

    King said that he pulled his story because kids were using it as a model in shootings.

    King said in his essay that media ie fiction. movies, games, isn’t to blame for the current shootings, that it has no effect on the kids.

    So that is the ironic contradiction…that’s all.

    • January 29th, 2013 at 01:47 | #61

      Funny that you walked away with that. I sure didn’t. I walked away with those things can be accellerants for evil behavior.

      Example:

      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. Assault weapons will remain readily available to crazy people until the powerful pro-gun forces in this country decide to do a similar turnaround. They must accept responsibility, recognizing that responsibility is not the same as culpability.

      King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 328-332). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

      I think the operative word MIGHT be “might.”

    • January 29th, 2013 at 01:55 | #62

      more from King who also said he didn’t want to provide kids like this with a blue print:

      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.

      King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 97-99). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

    • January 29th, 2013 at 06:27 | #63

      He also didn’t blame gun owners. He did NOT say that media, fiction, movies games had no effect on kids. You have misread his intent.

      You are pulling simplistic answers out of a rather complex conversation–the one King is having with his audience.
      culpability vs responsibility.

  45. Scout
    January 29th, 2013 at 22:39 | #64

    Thanks, MH. I haven’t read the first word from Stephen King, although I have seen a couple of the movie adaptations. I guess I have exposed how spotty my reading is, particularly when it comes to contemporary writers.

    • January 30th, 2013 at 01:26 | #65

      @Scout

      I haven’t read much from him in a long while. I like his use of the vernacular. He and I are more or less contemporaries. I jusdt don’t do horror as well asd I used to.

Comments are closed.