The Gun Debate: Stephen King and That Other Dude

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.