Lately, I've been
doing a lot of reading, and now that the play is over, I have a little more
time to write about it. Ever since the Sandy Hook incident, and even before
that, gun control vs. gun rights has been a hot topic in the news and even in
everyday conversations. In an effort to branch out a little bit, and keep up
with what's going on in the world around me, I read two essays on the topic: Guns by Stephen King, and the poorly titled Stephen King Don't Know S--t by Rick Carufel.
This has put me in a
tough spot. Mr. King makes a lot of good arguments, and I see where he's coming
from, and I highly respect his intentions. He is a gun-owner in support of gun
control, which gives him a nice balanced stance that I can respect. However, he
doesn't mention one thing that I think is very crucially important to the
issue. Think about the time period in which the Constitution was written.
America was still very newly out of a revolution, and had just separated
themselves from a tyrannical king. Therefore, the Second Amendment was intended
for something deeper than hunting and going down to the gun range for fun. The
Second Amendment was written so that the American people would have the
opportunity to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Now, Mr. Carufel
acknowledges this point in his thesis. However, the title that he has given his
refutation instantly puts the reader's back up, so to speak. Can I just say
that accusing your opponent of not knowing "s--t" instantly makes you
look like an immature brat who was raised by a pack of wolves, and also, that
it's really hard to earn back a reader's respect after a stupid stunt like
that? I understand that the title was chosen for the purposes of getting
attention, and yes, it catches attention, but not the kind of attention that
any respectable rhetor wants.
His essay is also
not as well-researched and not as well-written as Mr. King's. (Mr. Carufel
claims to be a horror writer as well. There's a reason you've all heard of
Steven King. It's the fact that he's been writing for who knows how long, and
with all that experience comes skill that a less experienced writer will
generally lack.) Essentially, though he
understands the intent of the Second Amendment, which makes him more correct
than Mr. King, he makes himself look like an idiot who can't and shouldn't be
taken seriously, all for the sake of grabbing the reader's attention, thus
putting Mr. King on top for this round.
Mr. Carufel, try to
be more dignified next time, and maybe you'll actually win a few points in the
debate.
