Stephen King on Guns

OK... I guess I'm in the wrong room. I think I have everything King has ever written. Some is great, some is just good, some not so good. Everybody has mentioned The Stand and that is considered to be his master work. Kind of hard to know you hit your peak when you were in your 20's. To know everything else you ever do will be compared to that earlier work. Kind of like Dylan today. I read an interview with Bob where he said his earlier songs were truly inspired and almost magical to him how they just appeared. And that he hasn't had "that feeling" in decades. That the work he produces now is competent but no longer inspired. The magic came, the magic left.

My favorite part of any King story is his characters. No matter what kinds of crazy things happen to them, the people seem like REAL people. He rarely makes that mistake where the reader questions the choices made by a character. Many of his books contain such vivid characters that finishing them is a sad thing, you know that character is out of your life now. You can write novels that are entirely plot driven. While the plot in a King story is often intriguing, the real meat is the characters.

The Stand is great. Firestarter and Christine are very good. He recently published a time travel book that uses the date of JFK's assassination for the title, something like 11/22/63. There are some really good parts to that book but the ultimate ending was very, very disappointing. Kind of like the very end of the Gunfighter series. I consider Hearts in Atlantis to be one of his very best books for his later years. And Rose Madder. Obviously his short story books contain many good stories.

I'm not surprised at all that he has a superficial understanding of firearms and the efficacy gun control laws.

Click to expand...

As a person who has read the complete body of work... I'm not sure that's accurate. I know, I know, his works contain vast amounts of "wrong gun information." If you know guns, it's not hard to notice. The first few, I was ready to send him a letter to help him get these things right. But notice how the mistakes usually work. He will arm the character with a Ruger .44 Auto pistol. Gun people start to bang their heads. Or a rifle shooter will use a .349 Magnum rifle to shoot people. After a while, you realize there is a pattern. He finds the real information, picks a real gun or cartridge, and then slightly changes it. To something that doesn't actually exist.

I even saw an interview with him once where he admitted this is what he does. Because he had one sniper story where a real life wacko copied a story and shot some people. So he makes the conscious decision to use "slightly wrong and definitely non-existent" weapons in his stories. He does't want to arm a hero with a Colt 1911 in 38 Super and then find out years later that some nut job took that as the perfect choice for their own deeds. King said he looks up guns in Gun Digest but then changes the information slightly.

I'm not surprised he said some things that we consider anti-gun. He has money, he feels like he has more to lose. And that "regular people" are at least slightly untrustworthy with top line weaponry. Considering the total idiot who ran him down with his rusty old van while King was jogging down the side of the road, it wouldn't surprise me if he thinks a lot less people should own cars as well!

Gregg

hq said:

There's a massive amount of evidence of these kind of legislative actions failing all around the world, and instead of working for the objective of making societies safer they've one time after another worked against it. Widespread civil disobedience, losing the little control what government has over firearm ownership and especially violent criminals and promises of anything better turning out empty is not in the best interest of anyone.

There are many valid points on both sides of the gun debate, but when you look at all aspects, implications and consequences of legislative action, objective facts are solid and undeniable.

I have no respect for people who are more or less clueless and still want to voice their opinion on something, and this applies to pro-gun celebrities as well. If they're unable to see the big picture, state the facts that affect the resulting situation and have a somewhat in-depth understanding of how legislation can affect human behavior in society, their 'ME TOO' announcements are pointless from the intellectual point of view. And that's what the debate is lacking nowadays, more than ever.

Last November I resigned from the position of the vice president of NRA Finland. After six years I grew too tired to interacting with total idiots, both anti-gun and pro-gun, especially because more than half of my work consisted of legislative, behavioral and social science research, finding out facts that can be used on both sides of the debate. Never before I had realized how much I can hate politics.

And despise people like Stephen King.

Click to expand...

??? Are you sure you intended to respond to my post?

Made little sense to me. Perhaps something was lost in translation.

I wonder which side of the issue Bugs Bunny is on ? ( Just as much of an icon as King ).

Then again ,with Elmer always after him, maybe I don't want to know . I would think he at least is better qualified to give an opinion anyway.

The point : If a person has only celebrity as a qualification to give a good opinion - they are likely not qualified.

9MMare said:

??? Are you sure you intended to respond to my post?

Made little sense to me. Perhaps something was lost in translation.

Click to expand...

Quite positive. Your assumption that mr.King's political views are a result of objective instead of subjective consideration sounded so optimistic that rather than giving him the benefit of a doubt, I'd expect far more reasoning and elaboration from his part. Especially when we're talking about a person who most likely has no difficulties in expressing himself in writing.

My educated guess is a combination of peer pressure, his personal indifference about the whole issue and a lapse of judgement regarding his perceived comprehension of legislative matters. Celebrities are no less lemmings than anyone else; neutral and indifferent individuals can easily feel compelled to 'do something' when their friends express strong political opinions and something like this may result. Earning a pat in the back from anti-gun buddies is no small incentive and there's little doubt how many people in the entertainment industry think. The people Stephen King rubs shoulders with.

Think Toyota Prius and acceptance that can (could) be bought with one among 'concerned' celebrities.

Denouncing an artists fascinating work, because you don't agree with his views?

Really?

How narrow-minded an in my view un-american is that?

I always like King and will continue to read his works, just like I like and still listen to willie nelson even through they are both somewhat against gun rights. They have a right to their opinion,

I respect Ezra Pound's poetry, though I denounce his pro-Nazi world view. I appreciate his accomplishments as a poet, but not his positions as a human being.

It's the same with King.


.

I tweeted the following yesterday:

Differences between me and Stephen King. I know what the 2nd Amendment means. I know soldiers can read. And I can write an actual ending.

I have never understood why people rave over King's writing. I've read a few of his books, saw a few of the movies, haven't liked any of them. Even an axe-wielding Nicholson couldn't make a King story palatable to me. They all seem the same...rambling and bloated....they read a lot like that old comedy song, "Choppin' Broccoli' ..... like someone was just writing down any old words as they went along, without regard to content or storyline.
I'm a rabid/avid reader.....usually 2 to 4 books every week. Currently on book 6 of the Helmsman series (by Bill Baldwin)...after reading the 'Flight Engineer' series a couple weeks ago (by James Doohan & SM Sterling).
But everyone has different tastes. Some people like broccoli.
.

I misread the title and confused it with Stephen Hawking aka someone that actually matters. =D

I read the 25 page essay. I found it amusing that he mentions that he owns several guns to establish himself as a knowledgeable gun owner and then mentions that Adam Lanza was found with the dreaded Glock .10 which is used in Alaska to kill moose. I can only assume he was referring to a 10mm Glock sicne Glock doesn't actually make a .10 caliber. Pretty much shows him and his editorsk know jack **** about guns.

Stephen King makes money writing his book Rage, which is known to have inspired FOUR school shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(Stephen_King_novel) and defends himself with the first amendment.

Now he has a case of the guilts and is calling for the infringement of the second amendment rights of millions of Americans, who never hurt a fly, let alone profited from inspiring others to commit violence.

Please tell Merriam-Webster to revise their definition of Hypocrisy!

confused it with Stephen Hawking aka someone that actually matters

Click to expand...

gag, cough, spit....

SidRon said:

I read the 25 page essay. I found it amusing that he mentions that he owns several guns to establish himself as a knowledgeable gun owner and then mentions that Adam Lanza was found with the dreaded Glock .10 which is used in Alaska to kill moose. I can only assume he was referring to a 10mm Glock sicne Glock doesn't actually make a .10 caliber. Pretty much shows him and his editorsk know jack **** about guns.

Click to expand...

...Makes his references to safeties on revolvers sound like he's a gunsmith...


.

Not to defend Mr. King (I, too, wish he could write an ending); but I would not be at all surprised if King wrote "10" and an overzealous, under-informed editor changed it to ".10" without it being noticed.

With Mr. King's logorrhea, I'm sure he does not have the time to proofread everything after the editors maul it.

In my opinion Mr King is an astoundingly talented author. What amazes me is that for a man who obviously abhors violence and is painfully misinformed on firearms, his books involve an awful lot of gun violence, violence in general, and - oh yeah - dead children.

King can fall off the earth and would never be missed by me.

I'm not sure if King does know about guns and changes details on purpose, or not. I do know he doesn't know s**t about cars. I read a short story of his called "The Road Virus Heads North"(if I recall correctly). He describes a car that is obviously a Trans Am as a Grand Am. He also describes the souped-up engine as a "442ci, with reground valves, carburetor, fuel injection" etc. If you are into cars like I am, that one sentence made the whole story ridiculous. Ruined by uninformed absurdity. I do like the Dark Tower series, but there were gun inaccuracies(like the previously stated Ruger .44 automatic, that really confused me). I also did not care for him writing himself into the books(narcissistic much?).

hq said:

Quite positive. Your assumption that mr.King's political views are a result of objective instead of subjective consideration sounded so optimistic that rather than giving him the benefit of a doubt, I'd expect far more reasoning and elaboration from his part. Especially when we're talking about a person who most likely has no difficulties in expressing himself in writing.

My educated guess is a combination of peer pressure, his personal indifference about the whole issue and a lapse of judgement regarding his perceived comprehension of legislative matters. Celebrities are no less lemmings than anyone else; neutral and indifferent individuals can easily feel compelled to 'do something' when their friends express strong political opinions and something like this may result. Earning a pat in the back from anti-gun buddies is no small incentive and there's little doubt how many people in the entertainment industry think. The people Stephen King rubs shoulders with.

Think Toyota Prius and acceptance that can (could) be bought with one among 'concerned' celebrities.

Click to expand...

LOL

Your writing is exactly the opposite of his....his is plain and of 'the common man,' yours is completely pretentious and so difficult to decipher that I'm not spending the time to try and sort it out.

And I'm a technical writer/editor by trade so I have to sort thru such all the time...(not on my time off tho)

So I still dont know what your point is, but that's ok with me.

Mp7 said:

Denouncing an artists fascinating work, because you don't agree with his views?

Really?

How narrow-minded an in my view un-american is that?

Click to expand...

Is that what he was saying?

Ah ha!

Funny King wants to avoid having any responsibility for the repercussions of his expression of free speech, BUT

King wants gun owners to be punished for the actions of someone else.

The first amendment means you are allowed to ability to say whatever you want - you still need to suffer the consequences of your actions.

The second amendment means you are allowed the ability to own whatever weapons you want - you still need to suffer the consequences of YOUR actions.

There is no way a free country can exist when people are punished for the actions of others. You don't see movie theaters gagging people in the theaters so that they can't yell "fire". You can't punish an action that has not yet happened.

When I first read IT I felt that King was a greatly disturbed person.

I've had reservations about him ever since.

9MMare said:

LOL

Your writing is exactly the opposite of his....his is plain and of 'the common man,' yours is completely pretentious and so difficult to decipher that I'm not spending the time to try and sort it out.

And I'm a technical writer/editor by trade so I have to sort thru such all the time...(not on my time off tho)

So I still dont know what your point is, but that's ok with me.

Click to expand...

:banghead:

I give up. Be well.

Here's my take. As a novelist, I'm used to having my political views dismissed because I'm a conservative, even when it is a subject that I am an actual subject matter expert on. So I find it is hilarious that when it is a left wing novelist, then their opinion is extra important because they're a novelist.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2...phen-king-and-thus-deserve-a-hugo-nomination/

Yeah he's used that line in a couple books describing a fast car: "carburetor, fuel injection..." He's sloppy as hell about technical details. How hard is it to get the details of a car right, or a gun for crying out loud? But his opinion of gun rights matters? Pffft...