Guns by Stephen King

In case you haven't noticed, I like firearms a lot.  I like their shape, their engineering, the variety, the culture, the practice, and the focus it requires to get the perfect shot.  Obviously, I'm a fan of the Second Amendment that allows me own these firearms.  However, that doesn't mean I'm totally against gun regulation or controls.

I also read a lot and I'm a huge fan of Stephen King, so when he came out with a Kindle Short called "Guns", I picked up a copy.

"Guns" by Stephen King on Amazon

This is an extended essay on Stephen King's opinion on gun violence and gun control.  It's a no BS take that doesn't pull punches toward any group or party, he pretty much mocks everyone involved and all of the politicians.  He also discusses politics in general and American culture.  I would call it a page-turner but I'm not sure that term really applies to an essay.  Lets just say it was a quick and interesting read.  His wit keeps it rolling along well.  I think it's worth a read, whatever your opinion on gun control (Hint: King is for it).

SPOILER ALERT

In the end he agrees with a lot of the President's proposed legislation.  Universal background checks, limits magazines to 10 rounds, and ban "assault" rifles.  He backs it with studies and examples.

While I don't agree with some of his points, and I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions he draws from his examples (granted, I'm fairly biased), it is an interesting read.  It is at times funny, thoughtful, respectful, or even sadly retrospective.  It is as well written as all of King's works.

If you are a fan of gun control, or King, or just looking for an interesting read, you should check out "Guns".


Now a couple of thoughts in response to to his conclusions:

The two points that I disagree with are the ones on magazine restrictions and the ban on "assault" style rifles (and the misuse of the term "assault" drives me nuts these days.  They mean 'military style' semi-auto rifle, not one with selective fire).

First, the magazine restriction is a hindrance to legal firearm owners and does nothing to limit illegal use.  Look at two guys with Glock pistols, one trying to kill the other.  The legal owner has 10 rounds (or 7 if you are in New York) and the illegal owner has the 15 round magazine that gun originally came with (or an after market 33 round mag).  Or what if two (or more) criminals break into your house, you're ability to defend yourself is hampered against those that don't follow the law.  Another point, many "restricted" magazines are standard magazines with a block installed that limits the capacity.  A criminal can simply take the block out to go back to the larger capacity.  On the other hand, it's harder to justify the 30+ round magazines that are available for some rifles (unless preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse).

I totally agree with the universal background check and closing the gun show loop hole.  Those decrease the likelihood of criminals and crazies buying guns.  I'm also OK with waiting periods, as frustrating as they are, because that would force any emotions to cool.  Those are two concessions that I think gun owners should make because they could actually make a difference.

As for the "assault" rifle ban, it would block the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.  Banning a certain weapon will only mean that other weapons get used by criminals and crazies.  I think a better option would be to make legal gun owners liable for their fire arm, how it's stored and used.  Or require fire arms to be locked up (you could exempt one or two for home defense when the owner is home), or require specific security measures for specific fire arms.  After all, the owner goes through the back ground check, their family, friends, or robbers don't.  I think that would drastically limit access by those that couldn't pass a check.

As a legal gun owner I have no empathy toward anyone owning, carrying, obtaining, or using firearms illegally.  I absolutely support logical gun control that limits the illegal use of firearms.  It's just too bad that so many of the proposed restrictions do more to restrict legal owners than the criminals.

"What Will You Do If They Come For Your Guns?"

I have to say, I think that is probably one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard.

There is a thick streak of conspiracy theorists on the Survivalist websites, and that question has been bouncing around a lot recently.  Normally, I would ignore the conspiracy theorists but I had an interesting encounter the other day that prompted me to share some thoughts.

I was standing in line to register a new pistol.  The line was amazingly long, as it has been for the past two months... not too difficult to figure out why.  So, of course all of us were BSing as we waited in line.

The middle aged gentleman in front of me started to tell this story to a couple young rednecks ahead of him.  I'll paraphrase it here.

"You guys hear about the government in New Orleans?  The story was leaked by one of the SWAT officers, he took video and posted it on YouTube.  It only took them two days to get the video blocked and taken down, but that's how it got out.  The City wanted to know what would happen when they took away people's guns.  So, they got the SWAT team to raid a couple houses and demand any firearms they had.  The owner's didn't do anything, just let the officers take the guns.  They did this at a bunch of different houses and no one did anything about it!  Oh, they wouldn't get away with that at my house!"

It was at this point that I broke in to his conversation,  "Dude, if some SWAT team broke down my door and demanded my guns, I'd hold my hands up high, and point them to the safe."

"No way, man!  I'd show them my guns, fully loaded, barrel first!" wink, wink, nudge one of the rednecks.  They laughed.  I just shook my head.

First off, that's just a ignorant response.  It's like guys talking about who's caught the biggest fish, bagged the biggest buck, etc.  Guys talking themselves up, being stupid.

When someone in uniform yells "Freeze!  Police!", you're first reaction should be to f***ing freeze!  Then patiently await further instructions with your hands motionless and visible.  If you're first reaction is to do anything else, you're just stupid and going to make things worse.

"What will you do if they come for your guns?"

Secondly, no one is talking about taking away all of our guns.  They are talking about restrictions, there's popular support for restrictions.  However, there is no popular support for banning ALL fire arms.  I dislike politicians as much as the average person, but even I realize that they thrive on mass support.  No massive support, nothing gets done.  Hell, most of the time nothing gets done even with massive support.

If you have a problem with the the current legislation proposed, then get in contact with your legislator, gather support, and exercise your rights in the Democracy.

And then, if someday the police want to take your guns, you give them up, and then call a lawyer.  I'm sure the NRA would be happy to foot the bill.

Religious and Political aspects of Prepping

Survivalists and Preppers are an interesting cross section of society.  It's not an evenly distributed cross section though, it sometimes seems to be predominantly conservative and Christian.  Or, it might just be that some people with those traits tend to be very vocal on those forums and websites.  Now, I have no problem with someone being conservative or being Christian, even though I'm not particularly conservative or religious myself.  However, that tolerance can be tested when those views are so frequently, vocally, preached.

You see all sorts of threads like:
"Obama re-elected, better buy your guns now before they all get banned!"
"Can Liberals be Survivalists?"
"Top 10 Reasons Democrats Are Ruining Our Country"
"You remember what life was like when we had a REAL leader?"
"Signs the Apocalypse is coming!"

Yeah, if you went to any of these forums or sites after Obama got re-elected...  Wow, that was quite an interesting time.  A lot of very vocal people expressing their 1st Amendment rights.

Now, I'm not a huge Obama fan, I'm definitely not a fan of Romney, but why would those topics matter on a Survival website?  What do politics or religion have to do with prepping or survival?

I go to these sites looking for tips on how to survive, gear reviews, get along better in the wilderness, and anything else outdoor related.  I don't go to those sites for religious or political reasons.  I don't want or need lectures, or opinions on unrelated topics, or interpretations on world events.  It can be a big distraction though, detracting from the real benefits on the rest of the site.

I try not to preach my own beliefs, as difficult as that is at times, because the disagreements don't do anyone any good.  I'm not going to change their mind, they aren't going to change my mind, so what is the point of starting the argument?  What is the point of contributing to the argument?  It's doesn't benefit anyone and just distracts from the reason we go to those sites in the first place.

So, I would encourage all preppers and survivalists to get over their differences and embrace the similarities.  If you are an expert at starting a friction fire, awesome, I'm sure I can learn something from you.  Does that mean that I need your opinion on the latest political scandal?  Nope.  Just like I'm sure you don't need my opinion on it.

Bringing up polarizing topics, opinions, and beliefs just builds barriers.  We might have different reasons but we all have the same goals, religion and politics have nothing to do with those goals.  Leave them at home.

And when faced with those beliefs?  Don't fall into the trap of continuing the argument, drop it and move on to a different thread.  There are still plenty of good threads out there to enjoy and learn from.