Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In consideration of responses I have had from a number of you who also read and reviewed this essay, I have made a few changes in mine. I am not going to broadly suggest that those who gave it rave reviews are automatons, but allow that their opinion is just that, I only wish everyone would seek to be as accurately as informed on the subject as is reasonably possible. One of the things that genuinely "riles" gun owners is when they hear what they should and should not have or do by persons who don't have much of a clue about the weapons under consideration. I have communicated with those who agree with me and those who do not; some have been incredibly civil and considerate of my point of view, and as such have encouraged me to be more willing to listen and give them their due. Others, not so, but that does not mean that I should reply in kind as that does not get us anywhere. I stand by my beliefs, but in turn respect yours. First, let me attest that I have in fact read this book [in response to many of the initial and rather superlative 5 star reviews alleging that it is so brilliant that anyone who did not like it must not have read it]; in fact since it is so succinct I read it twice, once for general impression and 2nd to more thoroughly assess all of the claims. Here are my impressions [yes it is wordy, but please bear with me]of Mr. Kings conclusion: 1. We are bombarded with media 24/7, and tragic events are covered and presented in the manner to attract the greatest numbers of viewers by which news organizations live and die. What Mr. King does not address in his treatise is the role this instant notoriety plays in encouraging the next perpetrator. I suspect it is quite significant. While we are a nation of free speech and press, and you will never hear my advocating for any type of censorship, there is a responsibility here to report news in a way that is factual without unwittingly but effectively making the perpetrators into dark heroes for those with similar inclinations. 2. It is not always easy growing up in America; High School, replete with burgeoning and hormonally charged silver backs and queen bees, is not for the faint of heart. In fact it can prove to be a miserable experience for many kids and serve as an incubator for years of shame and rage. We live in a culture that values winning and superiority over everything whether in business, sports, entertainment, or foreign affairs; never mind all the efforts to "teach" tolerance and respect from nursery school on, kids this age know what is really valued and how it reflects on them personally and will cynically reject those efforts in return for being a "winner." There is nothing worse than being a "loser" and nothing makes a winner look better than comparing themselves to those relegated to the bottom rung. Add social media to this and you have universal means to express those thoughts and ideas across all former barriers of time and place. Most of us survive the "gauntlet" of marginalization and bullying as some sort of right of passage and put it all behind us and move on with life; a few do not get that far, and become dangerous products of this unforgiving environment. 3. There are many other factors than can contribute to any persons eventual outcome in life, including their DNA, intelligence, environment, family dynamics, and many other personal predispositions. Many people hale from horrendous backgrounds and appear to cope will with life, while many come from what seem to be lives of privilege do not. Our culture also plays a role in this whether it is overtly a "culture of violence," depending on how you define it, or not. It is interesting that three "mass perpetrators" so closely identified with the book Rage that Mr. King felt compelled to pull it off the market. I for one appreciate that gesture, and wish all authors and producers would do the same, but knowing what I do about the economics of media and the guarantees of the 1st Amendment realize of course that this will never happen. The media are the first to claim studies that show they are not responsible, and will invoke their Constitutional rights if they do not. Citing a notably "short list" of best selling movies and games which include violent as well as non-violent themes however does not dismiss our fascination with violence, especially of the sanitized sort. As I am writing this my daughter has been watching television, and no less than 3 movies have been previewed replete with weapons that almost magically inflict a clean death without suffering. While we are not engrossed in violence on the scale of Mexico or South Africa, we do have more than our share of these "accelerants." 4. Lumping "autos and semi-autos" into one category of "weapons of mass destruction" is incredibly misinformed. There is a huge variety amongst these weapons that begs for clarity. Automatic weapons are termed "Class III" and are both difficult and expensive to buy. An automatic weapon has not been used to commit a crime in this country since the days of John Dillinger [he stole his Browning Automatic Rifle from a National Guard Armory] and Machine Gun Kelley. As for semi automatic weapons like the AR 15, these are not used to turn deer into virtual meatloaf [in fact are not used for hunting deer because the bullet is too small] nor are they often used to commit crimes; all all homicides in this country, between 2 and 3% are perpetrated with a rifle of ANY sort. Significantly more people are killed with knives, blunt objects, and even fists and feet than are killed with ANY type of rifle [crimes statistics do not distinguish between .22 caliber target rifles and .50 caliber Barretts]. Criminals just don't use the things because they are too obvious and difficult to conceal. Of the 512 homicides in Chicago and 400+ in Detroit in 2012, I would be surprised if any were done with an AR 15 or AK 47 type of weapon. Nor did the pistols they used typically have "high capacity magazines." The proposed bans on semi automatic rifles and magazines will not impact this even 1 percentage point. If this sounds like I am having a "tantrum in dirt" please let me know. 5. Australia: Following three separate incidents of mass shootings like we have recently seen in our country, the Government of Australia embarked on a gun control initiative only George Soros could be proud of [he actually financed the effort]. A claim is made that homicides by firearms "dropped 60%" since this ban. Here is a direct quote from the Australian Institute of Criminology: "Homicide rates since the early 1990s have fluctuated slightly from year to year (influenced by the relatively small number of victims), but the overall trend has been downward (Figure 1). Since 1989-90, there has been a significant downward trend, with the number of homicide victims declining by nine percent from 330 to 301 (Kendall's tau = -0.43; p)" All homicides have dropped from 330 to 301 per year, or an average of 29 per year, over the past several years since their ban on guns. Meanwhile physical and sexual assaults grew exponentially during this time, as did forcible entries [while people were in their homes]; be wary of blithe references to statistics when the number is so incredibly low, called the "law of small numbers." Liars figure so figures can lie, in other words. This piece of writing gives short shrift to gun owners and classifies them as mostly decent and solid folks but othewise ignorant bumpkins who insist upon retaining their "heavy weaponry" and "dangerous toys" so they can "go to the range once in a while to yell yeehaw and get all horney at the rapid fire." Let me point out something: what you are asking of us "yeehaws" is to accept your proposal as follows: Some terrible things have been committed by some deranged individuals using a variety of weapons with semi-automatic capabilities, including the killing of 20 children. We cannot adequately identify nor have the will to deal with this miscreants nor change the aspects of our society or culture that creates their warped and angry minds, but their unpredictable and random acts are so horrible we have to do something. The something is to ban the sale of whatever weapon they used including semi automatic rifles and handguns so they could neither buy nor steal them from someone who legally can. So you several million bumpkins out there, who have never committed a crime nor misused your weapons in any fashion, can keep what I deem to be within "safe" margins but give up rest--it's only right, so let's be reasonable, ok? You have to be a jerk to not understand this. My response: As a human being [and a parent] how can I not comprehend Sandy Hook is horrible; I have two daughters and as such can only imagine how I would react if my kids were maimed or killed in such a way; however,your proposal to create a national policy that infringes on the rights of millions of Americans who have never committed a crime and never will cause harm to anyone to address events that while terrible are random and isolated, and that will do virtually nothing to affect the "every day sorts of homicides" [direct quote from Jay Carney] that occur in this country [any more than the ban of 1994-2004 did] is where the proposal falls apart. This is a long standing agenda on the part of politicians like Diane Feinstein and Micheal Bloomberg who are seizing upon this "latest opportunity" to impose their "progressive" agenda upon this Country. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence [to which proceeds of this book are going] has opposed the rights of gun owners in this Country on every level and opportunity. This is an agenda we will not see the end of until we are in fact as disarmed as the Citizens of Great Britain and Australia; the crime statistics for these countries do not tell such a happy ending, as violent crimes like assault and rape are significant there, and people are still murdered with knives and other objects while being attacked in their homes. If this legislation sees the light of day, everyday crime will continue to occur, and random "mass" events that are sensationalized by our media will continue to happen and we will continue to have a "gun problem" that begs for a "solution." Focusing on the means rather than the cause does not work for me. If this makes me seem "paranoid" then so be it. As has been said, "just because you're paranoid does not mean someone isn't out to get you." I for one have written and called my U. S. Senators and Representatives to express these beliefs as my expectation of them, and I encourage all of you who agree to do the same. And to edit this post, I just came across a story about the newly elected Democratic Senator from N.D, Heidi Heitkamp, who expresses my views more directly and much more succinctly: On the topic of gun control, Heitkamp does not hesitate when asked if she'll support an assault weapons ban; her answer is a definitive no. "There's literally hundreds of thousands of guns already out there," says Heitkamp. "This isn't a solution to the problem, that's my first thing. And I think if you read the case, the Second Amendment case, you got some serious Second Amendment challenges in all of this, and my personal perspective is that you are ignoring what could actually work to prevent this from happening because you are following an agenda that you already had before this ever happened, instead of taking a look at this circumstance, these situations and how do we prevent this violence."