Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Stephen King Weighs in on Video Game Violence
kotaku.com — Best-selling author Stephen King points up and rips down the double-standard of what's tolerable in violent films, compared with video games, in a brilliant op-ed for Entertainment Weekly.
Deadpixel1221- 2746 diggs
- digg it
- aoki4, on 04/06/2008, -245/+3who cares what some washedup one-hit-wonder thinks about something that doesnt even matter
- WhereAmI, on 04/06/2008, -4/+125There are so many things wrong with that statement.
- HauntedTank, on 04/06/2008, -9/+53Epic fail sums up Your comment pretty well!
- SteveThePlank, on 04/06/2008, -4/+68who cares what some retarded idiot thinks about something that many people are interested in
- gtank92, on 04/06/2008, -2/+82.....one hit wonder?
- bobthegreat1224, on 04/06/2008, -4/+58Sure, I'll feed a troll.
The Shawshank Redemption is #2 on IMDB's top 250 list, The Shining is #54, and The Green Mile is #124.- lickmylovepump, on 04/06/2008, -3/+13don't forget how well The Mist did or will do.
- gnslngr1919, on 04/06/2008, -0/+51He writes books too, you know.
- bobthegreat1224, on 04/06/2008, -1/+11I have an entire shelf devoted to King books (some of which are excellent and some of which blow), but I figured it would be better to attack the uneducated assertion with evidence from a medium he's more likely to be familiar with.
- bitterbug, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8The Mist was a wonderful surprise. The story creeped me out when I read it as a kid, and I always wanted to see it made into a movie. But after years of seeing his other horror stories done so poorly I was losing hope. The Frank Darabont comes along and does it justice like no other director could.
I've been recommending it to anyone looking for a good movie to rent or buy.- nickj6282, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Ok, I just saw that for the first time last night. I really wanted to like that movie a lot, I really did. But they should have ended it where the book ends. The ending of the movie was ***** terrible.
And normally I like that kind of ending. But without spoiling it, lets just say that the movie took the ending just a little further than it should have. ***** terrible. I like Stephen King, I like Tom Jane, I like other Stephen King movies, an I really wanted to like the Mist. But that ending was unbelievably ***** awful.
- nickj6282, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Ok, I just saw that for the first time last night. I really wanted to like that movie a lot, I really did. But they should have ended it where the book ends. The ending of the movie was ***** terrible.
- therightclique, on 04/06/2008, -11/+3You've actually seen the garbage that is The Mist, right? ***** terrible movie. That anyone liked it is just another sign of the coming apocalypse.
- crow22, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1The reason certain movies based off of King's works (i.e. Children of the Corn, 1408, etc) suck is that they're based off his short stories (which are great, btw). The script writers for these movies had to make ***** up. No way in hell a 20 pg short story is gonna fill a 2 hour movie. I loved 1408 as a short story, but hated it as a movie - the "filler" was written by someone other than King, and it shows. You can tell which parts King wrote and which parts were added if you're familiar with King's style, even without having read the story. It's also hard to convey a character's thoughts in a movie (unless you have Morgan Freeman narrating, and even then it sounds like schizophrenia) but really damn easy in the book, which doesn't help at all, considering a majority of King's terror is psychological. Consequently, King's screenplays are usually excellent movies/TV shows, yet suck when trying to read them.
However, the fact that even at a reduced level, people are still drawn to and affected by his movies says much about him. He holds more sway over public opinion than people may think - hell, just look at the number of readers and his fanbase.
- gnslngr1919, on 04/06/2008, -0/+51He writes books too, you know.
- lickmylovepump, on 04/06/2008, -3/+13don't forget how well The Mist did or will do.
- romistrub, on 04/06/2008, -4/+26Who cares what a never-has-been no-hit-wonder thinks about anything?
In conclusion, go ***** yourself. - rokinroj, on 04/06/2008, -1/+22great...just what Digg needs...another retarded basement dwelling child with extreme uneducated views.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -17/+1Diggers are all retarded basement dwelling children with extreme uneducated views. One more or less...
- frogman54, on 04/06/2008, -1/+58Stephen King had 6 books on the bestsellers list at the SAME time. Is it possible this guy mistakenly thinks Stephen King wrote the song Tubthumping?
- therightclique, on 04/06/2008, -0/+9That song is scarier than anything Stephen King has ever written.
- evodude, on 04/06/2008, -5/+5Apologize, NOW!
- Sidzilla, on 04/06/2008, -11/+4Remember the sarcasm tag next time. You were too subtle for some people.
- crump199, on 04/06/2008, -9/+20M-O-O-N, that spells moron
- greenlight2001, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6haha, I just had a movie flashback...
- rune420, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2Took me a sec to figure out where that reference was from.
- crow22, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Haha, it's a shame people aren't digging that one more. The reference was pretty obscure (not many people have read The Stand entirely) but it's still pretty damn funny.
- gcauthon, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Was that even in the movie? I only remember it from the book. Clever joke though, because it is almost spelled correctly. In the book, the retarded guy is like "M-O-O-N, that spells car."
- Abomonog, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Yes it was in the movie.
- Brooks007, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1you made my day
- satyarth, on 04/06/2008, -4/+3You were writing a suicide note to the world, weren't you?
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/06/2008, -19/+1Steven King's books are quite lame. They present frequently less and less literary material. He might as well start writing Goosebumps.
- bobthegreat1224, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5Which books are you referring to? Some were definitely duds, but others are quite good, like the Dark Tower series.
- madm0nk, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Do you know how long this man has been writing? Do you know how many books he has written? Try some of his earlier works, like The Running Man (read the book, don't watch the movie), Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption (I don't think I need to mention the movie), The Stand (once again the book, not the movie), The Body (both the book and the movie), Rage (which you will have to find in a used book store if buying in the U.S.), and many others that were absolutely brilliant. Yes he did write some stupid stories but when you are pumping them out as much as he is you are bound to have some crap in there. And yes the majority of his latest works are junk, I really don't think he is even trying anymore.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1So basically you are agreeing with the OP when he says that Steven King is washed up?
- Abomonog, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1When you've got something like 40 books under your belt some of them are going to suck. He hasn't been doing so hot lately but his last few efforts have also not been standard King fare. I must say that finally the more obscure stuff is making the movies. Maybe, if we get lucky, someone will do The Gunslinger or The Regulators/Desperation series.
- DarKnight90, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1More like 50.
- goldenhearted, on 04/06/2008, -13/+336"What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy. It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room. Elephant One is the ever-deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in this country, a situation guys like Fiddy and Snoop have been indirectly rapping about for years. Elephant Two is America's almost pathological love of guns. It was too easy for critics to claim — falsely, it turned out — that Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) was a fan of Counter-Strike; I just wish to God that legislators were as eager to point out that this nutball had no problem obtaining a 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Cho used it in a rampage that resulted in the murder of 32 people. If he'd been stuck with nothing but a plastic videogame gun, he wouldn't even have been able to kill himself.
Case closed."
Nailed it right there. Dugg.- sweeneyowns, on 04/06/2008, -35/+19the only problem is with the whole the guy had access to a gun issue. if other kids were allowed guns on campus it woulda been stopped earlier
- pipipie, on 04/06/2008, -7/+33Would it have been? What if they were and it only happened that one other kid in the class room had a gun and he was shot first, giving this guy even more ammo to kill more people? What if all the other kids had guns, and in turn of the chaos they all started to fire randomly at the confusion killing each other? In times of crisis most people do not think clearly or act rationally (most of the time).
- jordanmac, on 04/06/2008, -10/+5or if you're going to go into your worst case scenario "what if". what if the guy had stood up to shoot people...and then to his dismay he was shot...one person killed. the worst case scenario that you gave would still not likely result in 32 dead, whereas the best case scenario would result in not a single innocent person dying. in order to get a concealed weapon permit you have to take classes. maybe making these classes teach people how to deal with these types of issues (which they may already do, i don't know) would prevent your chaotic scenario where everyone just kills each other because you somehow think college students are all complete morons or something.
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -6/+4What if space aliens were going to beam down and shoot ray guns out and save everyone but the kid carrying a concealed weapon shot them instead starting an intergalactic war? We can play make believe all day but there is no reason too. Concealed carry is legal in 48 states and has been anywhere from a couple years to decades. This is a huge data set to look at. If what you're afraid of happening actually happens you should be able to cite some instances of it. I can cite examples of school shootings stopped by people with guns and examples of lots of unarmed people being murdered in "gun free zones." Do you have anything other than your imagination?
Realistically how dumb do you think people are that they can't tell that the guy walking around a class room executing people is the bad guy? - rheaume, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2"how dumb do you think people are"
Reading John's comment answers that question- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0I'm open to any evidence to the contrary but I do try to insist that my decisions are grounded in logical thought. My challenge remains. I can cite examples of school shootings stopped by people with guns. I can cite examples of "gun free zones" where many helpless victims were slaughtered. Can you give examples of where that above "what if" held true? If not why given the large data set available?
- rheaume, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1"I can cite examples of school shootings stopped by people with guns"
Please. Nobody has been able to do it beyond some kid with a toy gun, nobody has stopped a mass murder in its wake as far as many of us are concerned. Are you telling me you would be comfortable teaching a class filled with armed kids? How about if they were mostly black and muslim, im sure thatll spark something in your gut. - johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3Two right off hand that come to mind are the school shooting in pearl, MS. The principal stopped the shooter with his gun. The other was at the Appalachian School of Law where 1 or 2 students stopped the shooter with their guns. These are just the school shootings I can think of that were stopped by people with their own guns and doesn't count crime stopped in other places by people with guns. Now can you return the favor and provide me a couple examples of where all these people with all these concealed guns over all these years have went stupid and started shooting the wrong people?
I'm telling you I would feel comfortable teaching a class filled with adults where those that have concealed carry permits have weapons. These are people that meet all the qualifications to carry a concealed weapon nearly everywhere else in their state and do so without incident. I don't see why teaching them should induce any pants wetting fear. What does black or muslim have to do with anything. What is it exactly that you're sure of? People advocating self defense through guns must be bigots, racists, ignorant rednecks, or christians that hate other religions. That is a pretty offensive stereotype. "He thinks its smart to be able to defend himself...clearly he hates muslims." - rheaume, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2The point is that clearly, you cannot take several thousand random, young people with minds not yet fulled formed, under a great deal of stress, and expect that you wont get a few nuts. Could be a bad breakup, failing grades with insane parents, money issues, bullying, if you thrown guns into the mix...
I dont know man, not good for me personally. - johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0You must have misunderstood, I'm not giving young people without formed minds guns. That implies that I'm handing out handguns to highschoolers or junior high schoolers like tater tots in the cafeteria. I'm suggesting that we allow adults that have met all the requirement necessary to obtaina concealed carry permit in their state (age, training, background checks, whatever) also carry on campus. These people are already allowed to carry nearly every other place they go in life. They're packing when they're having money issues, they're packing when they have a fight with the g/f, they're packing when they're having a bad day at work, they're packing when they're cut off in traffic. I'm asking you to quit speculating and look at the evidence. ALl of these adults can carry every other place they go with their carry permit, why shouldn't their permit be valid on campus too? Don't guess at what might happen, we have a HUGE data set available, look at what really happens. People with concealed carry permits simply don't behave like you imagine they do.
- yeahthatsme, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1"The point is that clearly, you cannot take several thousand random, young people with minds not yet fulled formed, under a great deal of stress, and expect that you wont get a few nuts."
but you can restrict gun sale to people on medication for mental disorders, as the shooter at both NIU and Virginia tech were.
- ksgant, on 04/06/2008, -2/+4I think you nailed it right there, may have killed the shooter at first after he killed maybe 2 or 3 people...but then someone seeing the guy shooting him may not have known he was taking out the shooter, then he himself gets taken out and so on. In a confusing situation such as this with bullets flying all over the place, other people would have gotten hurt or killed, no doubt about that. Perhaps not the 32 that were murdered, but still a lot of collateral damage. But you can't tell the gun apologists this because they all feel that everyone would be an expert shot and no one would miss or accidentally hit someone else. Their lives revolve around guns, so therefore they feel everyone's lives should revolve around them as well.
- jordanmac, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3so you are saying that if someone stood up to shoot up a classroom, and then began firing on people that if someone else stood up and shot the original person that people would forget who the original shooter was and would shoot the person who saved them?
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3So we have concealed carry in 48 states. Some have allowed it for a couple years, some for decades. Could you cite some examples of this "collateral damage" actually happening in the real world were people are too confused to tell who the guy walking around a room executing innocent people is?
Why do you think someone's life revolves around a gun? I am and know strong advocates of the 2nd amendment and I get to the range to practice now and then but my life hardly revolves around a gun. My life revolves around slipping a gun into my front pocket as much as my life revolves around slipping a wallet into my back pocket. I'm just campaigning for a little common sense and to be allowed to defend myself. I'd do the same with other basic safety precautions like seat belts, fire extinguishers, and insurance too.
- RayLuxuryYacht, on 04/06/2008, -6/+15"For the period 1995 to 2002, college students ages 18 to 24 experienced violence at average annual rates lower than those for nonstudents in the same age group (61 per 1,000 students versus 75 per 1,000 nonstudents)."
" 93% of crimes occurred off campus, of which 72% occurred at night."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vvcs02.txt
There it is. There are more violent crimes per capita off campus where guns are allowed (and by your logic, supposedly available to stop said crimes), than there are on-campus where guns are not allowed. If your goal is actually to reduce violent crime, you need to start by looking at other policies that promote violence - might I suggest those that enable access to weapons and perpetuating economic underclass. But your goal isn't actually to reduce violence; it's to push your caricature of the 2nd amendment, so you won't do that.- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -1/+9First of all, college campuses are really not the best place to commit a crime (lots of lights and people moving around alot). Also, alot of crimes are crimes of opportunity, which tend to happen in neighborhoods not necessarily near a campus. Regardless of whether or not guns were banned, you would still be able to get them with enough effort - meaning that only dedicated killers would have them (not the vast majority of firearm owning citizens who do not commit crimes).
- Lazydriver, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Agreed.
You can't really commit grand larceny in college, with everyone seeing. You'd be mad to start randomly murdering people and thinking you can get away with it there - because you WILL die, the sooner the better so less innocent people die - and so forth. - johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4You're trying to turn correlation in causation and you just can't do that. Blaming or crediting guns is taking a very superficial view of the problem. Crime is largely due to socio-economic conditions that people live in and come from. A college campus obviously has people with more education and likely more money/employment/certainty of having a place to live than the rest of the city in general. Of course there isn't going to be as much crime on campus as where the crack heads hang out. The mall in the good part of town will have less crime than the one in the bad part of town but it isn't because one has a better pretzel stand, its because of the people that are there.
- RayLuxuryYacht, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Great mirunit, Lazydriver, and johnmearns, we are all in agreement: crime on campuses is really amazingly low, and rather than focusing on changing college campus gun policies, we should implement policies that, for example, improve the socioeconomic status and living conditions of the general population and that this will have a much greater impact on reducing violence than guessing that lifting campus gun bans will reduce an already strikingly low on-campus violent crime rate.
- johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Why can't we do both? Can't we work to improve living conditions for people and still not be forced to be helpless victims at school ourselves? Lets try to come up with some ways to raise kids to think crime isn't the answer even if they're raised in poverty. Lets work on getting a more educated workforce that can do a wider variety of drugs. Maybe we should end the war on drugs to get some of the money out of easy crime. I'd love to do those things but I also want to take a simple precaution to help protect myself in case those things fail. The odds of my home burning to the ground are strikingly low but I still pay a few bucks a month for insurance. The odds of me getting into a wreck are strikingly low but I still put on my seat belt. Sometimes its about whats at stake more than what the odds are. My life is one of those examples.
My urge doesn't come from speculation. We have states where concealed carry is legal on college campus, there are no problems from it. That isn't surprising, in most states concealed carry is legal nearly everywhere anyway, people don't behave differently just because they're at work or school instead of the grocery store or the mall. I've seen enough slaughter of helpless victims in "gun free zones" where the most people could do to fight back was throw folding chairs or play dead. I want people to be able to chose to be able to defend themselves if they like.
- johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Why can't we do both? Can't we work to improve living conditions for people and still not be forced to be helpless victims at school ourselves? Lets try to come up with some ways to raise kids to think crime isn't the answer even if they're raised in poverty. Lets work on getting a more educated workforce that can do a wider variety of drugs. Maybe we should end the war on drugs to get some of the money out of easy crime. I'd love to do those things but I also want to take a simple precaution to help protect myself in case those things fail. The odds of my home burning to the ground are strikingly low but I still pay a few bucks a month for insurance. The odds of me getting into a wreck are strikingly low but I still put on my seat belt. Sometimes its about whats at stake more than what the odds are. My life is one of those examples.
- Aokitsune, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3But that report says nothing about guns. There are other methods of violence and robbery- Knife? Stick? Brute force?
- RayLuxuryYacht, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Aokitsune: Does it matter?A victim of violence that responds to their attacker with force doesn't need to match the weapon type of the attacker - the argument is whether everyone packing guns in anticipation of becoming a victim could reduce the crime rate. This needs to be counterbalanced with the possibility that the increased number of guns may lead to increased number of incidents due to their increased availability in combination with factors cited by the DOJ report such as drugs/alcohol intoxication, or as Lazydriver said, mental health issues or as mirunit said in crimes of opportunity. Given the /very/ low violent crime rate on campuses, I propose not picking at it, being happy with the status quo there & spend our energy fixing off-campus violence.
- Abomonog, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1Ok guys you obviously haven't a clue so hears some word from the other side of the fence. There is no such thing as a crime of opportunity. Even street robberies (muggings) are planned out by detail and potential victims profiled. If you are getting mugged chances are that mugger waited an hour or more for the right victim to come by. The movie scene with the mugger just randomly picking out a victim just doesn't happen in reality. The victim is picked out by what clothes they are wearing and weather they look like sheep or not. If the potential victim is alert at all the mugger will pass him/her over. Why? Because alert people are more likely to be carrying a gun.
Also, collage campuses are rife with crime with rape being the most typical crime you see on campus. Again the lack of self protection as technically not only guns are forbidden on campuses but weapons of all types on many. This includes pepper spray, tasers, knives, any weapons.
Criminal avoid people with guns for the exact same reason cops avoid going after violent criminals. They don't want to get hurt.
- Amric, on 04/06/2008, -5/+14If he did not have access to any gun then the other kids would not NEED any gun to stop him. That is the whole point.
- jdaniel284, on 04/06/2008, -3/+6That's circular logic, and thus a fallacy.
I don't mind the anti-gun argument, but I really long for the days when people actually built well-constructed arguments upon the foundations of logic. Reading our forefathers debate issues in the federalist papers, for example, is a great example on how arguments on both sides of an issue appear to be impenetrable.
Today, however, all we get is simple oft-parroted phrases.- bitterbug, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5What's interesting is the division in gun violence between the US and Canada, and up here we don't have any sort of ban on guns but you do have to take a 16 hours safety course and obtain a license just to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To obtain a handgun license you tack another six hour course on top of the initial 16 hours, send in the relevant paperwork and a few weeks later you are free to buy a handgun.
The paperwork for a firearms license in Canada requires a criminal background check, AND requires that your spouse or any former partner in a specific time frame sign the document acknowledging that they are aware of your request. I found that rather interesting when I had to submit the documents for mine.
When it comes to moving about with a handgun though, our laws are much stricter. You have to file for an authorization to transport from the place of storage to various gun clubs or other addresses, and may then freely do so once you have the ATT paperwork, but you can't stop for a coffee along the way. The law requires that you only go from point A to point B with the firearm secured, and the ammunition secured separately.
This makes for a fairly responsible and informed gun culture up here, but still doesn't explain why gun crime is still so prevalent south of the border. After all, a gun toting bank robber or gang member doesn't give a damn about the paperwork that the law abiding gun owner must go through.
We watch the same television shows, and are culturally similar in many ways (though I'm sure others protest at the thought). It might be that the responsibility placed on our gun owners makes it much harder for violent thieves to obtain our weapons for their own use, so they have to resort to using what can be smuggled across the border, which is a much smaller subset of the total firearms in Canada.
After all, if someone manages to steal your firearms here you can be charged for improper storage of a firearm. They need to be locked up when not in use.
Our instructor referred to a fellow he knew that had a large collection of guns which were kept in the equivalent of a bank safe in his basement. No easy task to penetrate. But he went on a two week vacation, and while he was gone people broke into his house and took the best part of a week to crack it and steal his collection. He was charged. Though he took great care to protect his weapons, the fact that they were unattended long enough for someone to successfully steal them made them a case for not being securely stored. Forget dog-sitting, some people will have to hire gun-sitters in the future. An extreme example, but an interesting one for sure.
Does anyone know what happened to the fellow who was in a story on Digg a few months ago, who saw his neighbor's house being robbed and then ran out to engage the thieves as they fled the scene. The 911 dispatcher advised him not to go out but he still went out armed and killed one robber, and wounded the other. Was he charged?
Legally here, we can't even kill someone in self defense though charges may later be dropped or the person acquitted. If I found someone in my house at night while I was home though, I would still consider them a direct threat to my family and would act accordingly. In his case, it didn't appear that he was in any direct danger, though the robbers could have injured the residents next door.
- bitterbug, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5What's interesting is the division in gun violence between the US and Canada, and up here we don't have any sort of ban on guns but you do have to take a 16 hours safety course and obtain a license just to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To obtain a handgun license you tack another six hour course on top of the initial 16 hours, send in the relevant paperwork and a few weeks later you are free to buy a handgun.
- nksoccer13, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3I am all for making guns harder to acquire but you have to remember that it is impossible to keep guns completely off the streets. Britain has essentially outlawed guns and they still have gun deaths. 766 offenses (homicides) were committed with firearms in 2005/2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_U ...
Where there is a will there is a way. - Aokitsune, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2The only way to do that is to never have any guns anywhere in the US- ever. Just because guns aren't available through legitimate means doesn't mean an individual can't get one if they're determined. The argument in favor of expanded concealed-carry etc. is that laws prohibiting guns don't hinder people who would use them to break the law anyway. If you're going to kill someone, thinking "Oh no! It's illegal for me to have a gun!" isn't going to happen.
Not saying that we should be free to buy whatever (some limits make sense- Who honestly needs an Ak-47?), nor should it be easy for anyone to walk in and buy weapon without a thorough check into their history (look for violent crime, instability etc.) but bans on guns work the same way as locks- they only keep an honest man honest. - coldfusion1970, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Only 50 crimes were committed with guns. Did you read the Wikepedia link?
- jdaniel284, on 04/06/2008, -3/+6That's circular logic, and thus a fallacy.
- jordanmac, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4how are you going to prevent him from getting a gun? if you make it difficult or even illegal to get a gun do you really think that would make any difference? i'm sure that you can come up with countless things that are illegal to have, but people still have. making them illegal would just ensure that only criminals had guns. and if you're saying that they don't need to be illegal, then how in the world are you going to choose who gets access to them?
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Exactly, you can't keep people from buying a consumable product like drugs, how could you ever keep law breakers from getting a durable product easily made in any machine shop from getting a gun?
- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1Can't wait to see the drug cartel try to smuggle a rifle into the US in some guys ass.
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -0/+0Why not just put them in trucks, cars, boats, or planes and bring them across the border like drugs and even people? I don't have any numbers in front of me but I doubt that any significant portion of illegal drugs smuggled into the US have been colorectally contained.
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Exactly, you can't keep people from buying a consumable product like drugs, how could you ever keep law breakers from getting a durable product easily made in any machine shop from getting a gun?
- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -4/+6The facts simply don't back up your point of view. Nations with strict gun control laws have less violent crime. Period.
You can come up with as many fantasy situations as you want, where the student with the gun saved the day. The fact of the matter is, when you make it hard for EVERYONE to own guns, less people get shot with them. US citizens have more guns per capita than any industrialiazed nation in the world, we also have far far far more violent crime than any other industrialized nation in the world. How can you people read this simple fact and continue to believe the more guns = less violence?
Yes, there are specific cases of US towns who make everyone own guns, and they have less violence. Those cases involve small rural towns, not metroplitan cities. They are also within American borders. So criminals can go to those towns and pick up a gun with their morning newspaper like everyone else, then leave the town and kill someone 20 miles away.- maexus, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2It also makes it harder for citizens to defend themselves against those who have the guns.
- Sendai129, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2Hrmm... what about Switzerland? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm They have 2 million guns for a population of 6 million yet they are arguable the safest nation in the world to live in. Their guns include fully automatics as well. They are provided guns by their own government and have very few restrictions on guns in general.
The difference there is in education, people are educated and trained in how to handle and respect guns. Canada is on the right track with having mandatory courses before you can purchase a gun and if you look at gun related deaths it would seem to be working.- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Touche. It appears though, that the Swiss have an alltogether different point of view on the purpose of owning a gun than Americans. The NRA has all but forgotten the original intent of the 2nd amendment: to keep a civil militia to balance the strength of the federal government. Now the NRA sees itself as a band of vigilantes, out killing bad guys whenever they step on the wrong lawn. The Swiss still see the right to bear arms as it was originally intended: for defense of their nation.
It's just a totally different mindset. Here guns are used for crime & defense against criminals, nobody buys them so that if the US is invaded, we can fight off the conquerors. - Sendai129, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Yes but none the less they have lots of guns and it's still a safe place to live. Taking away guns isn't going to solve the problem if the problem isn't the guns. The problem is the people who own the guns and the only way to change that is through education. In Switzerland it's mandatory to go in the army for about 1 year after high school. Now I'm not saying that forced conscription should be instituted in the States or in Canada but I think it would be beneficial to all if there was some sort of mandatory course even in the senior of high school perhaps.
It's cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. People have been killing each other since they've been on this earth using everything from sticks and stones to harnessing the power of the atom. You take away the guns and people will just find another way to kill each other.
- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Touche. It appears though, that the Swiss have an alltogether different point of view on the purpose of owning a gun than Americans. The NRA has all but forgotten the original intent of the 2nd amendment: to keep a civil militia to balance the strength of the federal government. Now the NRA sees itself as a band of vigilantes, out killing bad guys whenever they step on the wrong lawn. The Swiss still see the right to bear arms as it was originally intended: for defense of their nation.
- P5ycHo, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Right. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death
Now try and explain again.
- pipipie, on 04/06/2008, -7/+33Would it have been? What if they were and it only happened that one other kid in the class room had a gun and he was shot first, giving this guy even more ammo to kill more people? What if all the other kids had guns, and in turn of the chaos they all started to fire randomly at the confusion killing each other? In times of crisis most people do not think clearly or act rationally (most of the time).
- WhistlinTom, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Video Games and Pop Culture don't cause these random acts of violence. It's the ever expanding gap that people feel in their lives and their inability to have normal social interactions with their peers that eventually causes peopel to feel so alone and so unable to feel a connection with people that causes them to want to shut down and take as many people that they weren't able to identify with them.
I think the issue should lie moreso in the fact that our country has a serious ever growing problem with depression, social and behavioral disorders and is masking these by the ever growing use of overmedicating of drugs in this country instead of outreach to individuals who show warning signs.- muffinmonk, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2I don't know why, but I just buried your comment for no apparent reason.
- jdaniel284, on 04/06/2008, -17/+8Actually King's argument is very weak. He is basically saying that "even if video games cause violence, banning guns would neuter violent offenders". If his point is that video games do not cause violence, then he should argue why video games DO NOT cause real-world violence instead of arguing HOW TO REDUCE real-world violence. And, no, the case is not "closed", because access to legal handguns has shown to REDUCE violent crime.
- Drkgodess, on 04/06/2008, -2/+13Really? Citation please, otherwise I call *****.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2The highest crime rates in the country are in places that have the highest gun control laws - MA, CA, NY. Also something to mention- you will never hear of a shooting happening at a gun range but meanwhile it seems quite commonplace for someone to shoot up a mall or a school. So ask yourself, does banning guns on college campuses really stop crime?
- TheJokerV, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2correlation does not imply causation...Perhaps the reason that MA CA and NY need such strict gun laws is because of the high crime rate.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Why would you keep pushing for gun control if it clearly is varying proportionally to crime? Instead of trying to debate me with your knowledge of basic psychology, why don't you answer the latter part of my question?
- KimonoThief, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2I think the "correlation does not imply causation" thing went right over your head.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1No Thief, it's a concept that is covered in General Psychology.
- theWrkncacnter, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4The problem with that argument is that it is REALLY easy to get guns somewhere else and take them into areas with strict laws. Look at Washington D.C. - it has very strict gun laws, but is right between Maryland and Virginia where it is much easier to obtain handguns. Is the solution to make it just as easy to get a gun in D.C. as it is to get one elsewhere, or make nationally coherent laws on gun control?
One thing that really pisses me off is the news stories about people getting hit with stray bullets not even meant for them.- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3lol, this reminds me of when I was in DC with some friends last summer. We were at a party, and ran out of alcohol, so we went out to get some more. Little did we know, DC had banned sale of alcohol after a specific time that day. (I don't remember what time it was, but I think it was a Saturday night)
What was the solution to the problem? We drove 20 minutes into Virginia and stocked up on alcohol there. The law doesn't work if it's only enforced in a small area. - johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0So then cocaine is illegal across all of the US, and I would imagine north america. How hard is it to get cocaine? All you do by banning something that has value to someone is increase its value on a black market, you never cut off the supply.
- Tebixan, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2Okay, by that logic, nothing should be illegal, because if someone really wants something, they will be able to get it regardless.
Why don't we make murder, rape, and theft legal. I mean, if someone wants to murder, rape, and steal badly enough, laws will not get in the way - Abomonog, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1 Tebixan: You are missing the point. All the illegal guns, drugs, the banning of items or activities in the name of prurient interest is the cause of our crime problems. We have created a black market for these things that has fed organized and unorganized crime trillions of dollars. As a result criminals wield more and more power while the people and law enforcement have less and less.
Wanna keep guns off the street? Here's what you got to do. An all encompassing ban. No one gets them. Not our people, not our military, not our police. All factories are destroyed and all gun imports from other countries forbidden. And be prepared to kill a lot of people because there are going to be millions who are not going to give up their guns without a fight. But hey you've just banned guns entirely so now your police force has no guns to take away the guns from the people who still have them. Of course the drug war has proven that even banning something outright in this country is a lost cause. Banning guns outright for anyone is just going to increase gun crime. The law may not get in the way of a rapist but a bitch with a gun will stop him dead and prevent future rapes. Think about that. - johnmearns, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0Tebixan: Our laws against murder, rape, and theft punish those who do harm to others. Shouldn't we punish the crime and not possession of the object used for the crime? If you want to make possession of guns illegal and murder is a crime, isn't that kind of like suggesting that a penis should be banned because rape is illegal? We should punish actions that harm others, if no one is harmed there should be no crime.
I read stuff about the latest gun control bills all the time, the same day I read about murderers and rapists that have been let out of jail after 15 years. I'm floored that people are worried about what guns I have or where I carry them but don't seem to care about these people. These are the people that they need to be worried about! Why are we letting murderers and rapists out of jail to walk the streets again? Why do we let people that have pointed guns at others out of malice off with a slap on the wrist. The recidivism rates for these crimes are through the roof. If you want a safer world you'll quit worrying about people who don't break the law like myself and starting demanding that people that use guns in crime and those that rape and murder be kept in jail and out of society.
The practicality of it is you can't stop people from getting simple objects that they want, all you usually do is make a violent black market. We should have learned this with prohibition and gangsters. We should have learned this with our war on drugs and gangs. Guns won't be able to magically make disappear. The heroin user still gets high while people go without medical marijuana. Law abiding people get killed by criminals with guns in gun free zones everyday. Criminals break the law. Expecting a murderer to not get a gun because it would be illegal is like expecting a bank robber to drive the speed limit in his get away car.
- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3lol, this reminds me of when I was in DC with some friends last summer. We were at a party, and ran out of alcohol, so we went out to get some more. Little did we know, DC had banned sale of alcohol after a specific time that day. (I don't remember what time it was, but I think it was a Saturday night)
- twomeyw23334, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws"
This is all the citation you could possibly need. Comparing different states or countries doesn't work because there are too many different variables. You must take a single location and gives statistics at that same location before and after change in gun laws. This has been done many times and a great percentage of the time demonstrates exactly what the title of the book states. If you really don't feel like reading that, quickly do a google search on a couple of recent examples with gun laws going in both directions. See what has happened to homicide rates in Australia after their gun ban and in Florida after they allowed concealed weapons permits.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2The highest crime rates in the country are in places that have the highest gun control laws - MA, CA, NY. Also something to mention- you will never hear of a shooting happening at a gun range but meanwhile it seems quite commonplace for someone to shoot up a mall or a school. So ask yourself, does banning guns on college campuses really stop crime?
- davidamerland, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1That's right, I totally get this. We all tool-up with some high-calibre ordinance, and then our hair-trigger response to the slightest sign of danger, frustration and stress will guarantee that no one gets hurt, injured or out of control. Meanwhile in the sane, civilised world people will be busy offing each other with rolled up newspapers and perhaps specially sharpened gumstick wrappers. Dude where were you when we needed your kind of logic during the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty? Right now we would all be sooooo peacefully employed pushing up those daisies.
- wrs123, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
'nuff said
- wrs123, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
- oilcan, on 04/06/2008, -3/+1guns don't kill people, people kill people. outlaw guns, and only outlaws have guns. sorry folks guns are a fact of life and they are not going away. I'm not saying guns shouldn't have a structure how one legally acquires one, but I am saying that if you think guns should be banned you are being beyond naive to think this would cause anything except a higher crime rate to follow. Australia is dealing with issues like that now because of recent increased gun restrictions. and don't ask me for a source, stop being lazy and look it up if you want to learn anything about it.
- JackHarkness, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7As an Australian, WTF are you on about. there are never any shootings here unless it's purely bikie related, ie, a contract hit on another gang's member and almost always in a manner that is safe for the public. there are no armed holdups, no armed home invasions, no gun battles in the streets, no inoccent people catching stray bullets in the streets.
when you think about it, not haveing a gun makes killing someone more personal/ hands on; kinda limits the amount of "tough guys" that kill people over nothing. probably limits the amount of crimes of passions when it takes longer and the killer starts feeling remorse before the victim dies in their hands.
it used to be different when guns were easily avalible, back in the sixties there was a bank robery every other week. bikie gangs had regular shoot outs with police in the streets. the main prosecutor and top brass of the police were regularly getting shot after big busts. I don't think there were many home invasions though, that was always viewed as kinda wrong.- phauna, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Definitely agree. I have a friend who is a cop in Sydney, and he has never fired his weapon ever, and only taken it out once or twice.
- thailand1972, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Well said. Same in the UK. About 50-75 gun-related deaths a year compared to 30,000 per year in the US. The UK has gun control, the US does not. Even per-capita, that's 100 fold increase in gun deaths in the US compared to the UK. Switzerland has high gun ownership but doesn't seem to suffer such appalling gun-related death rates like the US. It's the mix of American culture and guns - it will always lead to this horrible figure of around 30,000 deaths a year, with goodness knows how many injuries.
- gbro, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1@phauna
I can believe that. A friend was mugged in Sydney, and the cops showed up after the ambo's. - oilcan, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0just to put this in perspective, cars kill 40000+ per year in the US, and smoking kills 400,000+ per year in the US. perhaps we should ban automobiles and mandatory prison sentences for smoking?
furthermore, you never see any statistics on how many people own guns, and nothing bad ever happens. people seem to tout the belief that if you own a weapon, it is inevitable that murder should occur next.
- JackHarkness, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7As an Australian, WTF are you on about. there are never any shootings here unless it's purely bikie related, ie, a contract hit on another gang's member and almost always in a manner that is safe for the public. there are no armed holdups, no armed home invasions, no gun battles in the streets, no inoccent people catching stray bullets in the streets.
- Drkgodess, on 04/06/2008, -2/+13Really? Citation please, otherwise I call *****.
- krizzle, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1More importantly, DOES STEVE PLAY COUNTER-STRIKE? ***** YEAH STEVE! RUsh that banana baby.
- muffinmonk, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2DOES COUNTER-STRIKE PLAY STEVE, more importantly? YEAH STEVE, *****! Banana RUsh that baby.
- twomeyw23334, on 04/06/2008, -4/+2Simultaneously bashing government for demonizing art (books, movies and video games) and using it as a whipping boy, and then doing the same exact thing himself for guns, nice.
- Gizza, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2Books, movies and video games are designed for entertainment. Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people. I think it's fair enough to demonize them.
- offspring06, on 04/06/2008, -4/+2Americans need guns in case the King of England decides to push them around.
- ratherbeinvegas, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Also to take out today's modern super animals, such as the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.
- Scheissen, on 04/06/2008, -7/+1Stephen King has a horrible argument. He wants to give welfare to the poor. LOL
- ihatediggcom, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0the only reasons ure not dug down that much is because people's digg buttons dont work.
AND NEITHER DOES MINE!!! WTF
- ihatediggcom, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0the only reasons ure not dug down that much is because people's digg buttons dont work.
- Norris667, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Sometimes I just want to digg something more than once.
- muffinmonk, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Thanks for writing the article. Didn't even have to click the link. Digg users are so thoughtful!
- thailand1972, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1Nice to see the Digg gun lovers not digg this down. The more prevalent guns are and the easier they are to obtain, the more gun-related deaths you will have. Well, it's certainly true for the US. American culture and guns don't mix well. When guns are a simple reach away for a drunk or mentally unstable person, ***** will happen.
- phrstbrn, on 04/07/2008, -2/+3I hate to go offtopic, but I would argue the EXACT opposite. I think we should have MORE guns. That's right, MORE guns, EVERYBODY should have a gun.
The majority of people are honest people. And honest people will do the right the thing, and not shoot other people. Now if I have a gun, and all the people around me have guns, a criminal and/or mentally disturbed person might think twice before doing something stupid. I'm not saying we should have guns so we can go shoot other people who threaten us. I'm saying we should have them to flat out deter these criminals, for a lack of a better word.
And if you think "more people with guns, more bloodbaths", think about this for a second. How often do you hear about mass shootings at gun shows or rifle ranges vs mass shootings as places like, oh, schools. Which are, by the way, classified as "gun free zones". Which means, things like, oh, Virginia Tech, can't happen, because it was a "gun free zone". Oh wait...
Gun control is a crock. Please, go ahead and digg me down now.- thailand1972, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 100% if you are talking about a country like Switzerland, where gun ownership is very high per capita. However, this is a nuanced debate, and it very much depends on what type of culture you're allowing gun ownership into. The US has around 30,000 gun related deaths per year, the UK anywhere between 50 and 75 (over last 10 years). That's per-capita, around 100 times greater the number of gun-related deaths in the US, to the UK (30,000 deaths / 60 deaths) / (300 mill / 60 mill pop). I'd say the UK and the US have a more similar culture than Switzerland to the US/UK, and allowing gun ownership without control in the UK would certainly increase dramatically the number of gun-related deaths in the UK. And most of those would be impetuous suicides or accidents, but with an increase in gun deaths by crime too.
In a country like Switzerland, your argument carries some weight. In a country like the US, it just isn't going to work.- phrstbrn, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1First you talk about how culture has a big impact on why my theory is wrong and why what works in one culture won't work in another, then you compare statistics from 2 COMPLETELY different cultures (despite what you think) to make a point...
That aside, let's talk the actual "gun deaths" that are occurring, and look what's happening in the US, and not the UK. The majority of gun related crimes (non-accidental) are caused by guns that were bought on the black market, stolen, or taken from a friend/family member (effectively stolen). So, before they even committed a gun related crime, they've already committed at least one crime (theft, smuggling, etc). Somehow I doubt that making guns illegal (aka gun control) is going to prevent more crimes from happening.
Already, most people who commit gun related crimes are getting guns illegally. How are more gun control laws going to prevent these same people from breaking the law? Honestly, if you intend to shoot somebody with a gun, the last thing on your mind is making sure you obtain that gun legally. Making it harder to get a gun means the criminals will just go about the business, and just smuggle them in (which they were probably doing anyways), and everybody else will just follow the law. What are gun control laws going to do preventing criminals from committing more crimes? It seems the only person who has anything to lose, is, well, the person without a gun.
If I were a criminal, and I had a choice between robbing a town with lots of gun owners and a town with heavy gun laws (few gun owners), I know where I'd go.
- phrstbrn, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1First you talk about how culture has a big impact on why my theory is wrong and why what works in one culture won't work in another, then you compare statistics from 2 COMPLETELY different cultures (despite what you think) to make a point...
- thailand1972, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 100% if you are talking about a country like Switzerland, where gun ownership is very high per capita. However, this is a nuanced debate, and it very much depends on what type of culture you're allowing gun ownership into. The US has around 30,000 gun related deaths per year, the UK anywhere between 50 and 75 (over last 10 years). That's per-capita, around 100 times greater the number of gun-related deaths in the US, to the UK (30,000 deaths / 60 deaths) / (300 mill / 60 mill pop). I'd say the UK and the US have a more similar culture than Switzerland to the US/UK, and allowing gun ownership without control in the UK would certainly increase dramatically the number of gun-related deaths in the UK. And most of those would be impetuous suicides or accidents, but with an increase in gun deaths by crime too.
- phrstbrn, on 04/07/2008, -2/+3I hate to go offtopic, but I would argue the EXACT opposite. I think we should have MORE guns. That's right, MORE guns, EVERYBODY should have a gun.
- cheappop, on 04/07/2008, -2/+3This entire argument makes me ecstatic that what people say on Digg holds no water in the real world. At least I will have that when my classmate tries to kill me. What you guys don't understand is that these people will still find a way to get that gun. A tremendous black market will spawn and he will still get his weapon, except that there will be nobody with a gun to stop him. Who cares if it is against the law? Like he will care after he blows his brains out.
- coalpha, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0shut up
- sk11, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1The thinking of some politicians is astounding, it seems like pure madness in itself. A mentally unstable man murders innocent people and a computer game gets blamed? Isn't it obvious that the real problem could very well be the difficulty with mentally ill people getting easy access to good mental healthcare? Maybe that's where the attention should be focused. Then, perhaps, the politicians would be the first to benefit.
- sweeneyowns, on 04/06/2008, -35/+19the only problem is with the whole the guy had access to a gun issue. if other kids were allowed guns on campus it woulda been stopped earlier
- michaelje0, on 04/06/2008, -1/+106How wonderful is it to hear these statements from a person (high-profile or not) who doesn't even enjoy the medium himself. Even if you don't play video games, you can still understand their harmless effect on culture.
A resounding thank you.- antiorblkflag9, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6Well put. It's so easy just to point to something and say it's that things fault. People are ignoring the real problems and turning to easy scapegoats.
- davidamerland, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Actually Stephen King writes for video games and designs the concept so the argument here is moot. His statements come from someone who is intimately involved in high profile media in book, film and video game format. Did you even bother to really read the article or are you just knee-jerk responding to the comments?
- michaelje0, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Which games has he written for? Please educate me.
- smacksaw, on 04/06/2008, -27/+3"What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy."
Of all the many possible things that contributed to King's insanity, I would have put the old "politicians using pop culture as a whipping boy" pretty far down on the list. But hey, that's why he's the master of horror and the macabre - you have to have some sort of unexpected shock ending. I had 2-1 odds he made a deal with the devil. You got me again, Stephen!- Pyehole, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Huh?
- Cdog923, on 04/06/2008, -0/+9Congrats on not making any sense whatsoever!
- smacksaw, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1King is saying he's insane. And for all of the things that make him insane, it's politicians using pop culture.
Considering all of the messed up stuff to come out of his brain, it seems ridiculous that the cause of his extreme disturbance is politicians going after media and pop culture. You'd think that his resilience and continued success dealing with the metaphysical, macabre and demonic would be something sexier like a pact with the devil - but clearly no one read the actual article.
- smacksaw, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1King is saying he's insane. And for all of the things that make him insane, it's politicians using pop culture.
- AoiTakuma, on 04/06/2008, -5/+25Every time there is a story on digg involving quotes with Stephen King I like the person more and more. And I am more proud to be from Maine
- xs11ax, on 04/06/2008, -6/+4how do you pronounce ayuh???
- bitterbug, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Don't digg them down! It's a valid question. King has included that specific verbal tic in any book set in Maine. No different than any Canadian reference that has us saying "Eh."
Though I beg to differ on the about/aboot cultural references :)- bagelmaster, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1No, the about/aboot thing is true. It's more in western Canadians though. You know, those ones that live in the middle of ***** no where.
- Jibberwalk, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5I tried to explain it. It was a nice long informative post. And then I hit submit and Digg ate it. So you get a shortened version with much less explantion:
It's umm... it's tough. Think of it as a conjugation of "Oh Yeah". If you were to pronounce it as "eye-uh" you wouldn't be that far off. It's quick though... not drawn out, almost like a simple sound. It's tough to explain, because it almost has a back-of-throat/nasal origin. You don't hear it much around Portland... but you head anywhere else (primarily north and east of Lewiston/Auburn), and if your listening for it... you'll hear the majority use it, whether they're aware or not. It's a word that you don't have to have the typical "Mainah" accent to use commonly.- Jibberwalk, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2SIde-note: If you want to hear a Northern New England accent: http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary/sound/englis ...
The narrator uses ayuh, but verbalizes as a story device with emphasis so to show understanding. In normal converstation, it's much quicker. He does highlight the nasal-ness of it decently though.
It should be noted... that's a thick accent. The bulk of us don't speak with such drawl. Short of my aunt and uncle and some older folks, I don't know that many people who sound so... off.
Someone who sounds like they have no accent, will on occasion however, use "lobstah," or "cah" for example. I've been guilty of "Yuh, my cah's right ovah theyah."
- Jibberwalk, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2SIde-note: If you want to hear a Northern New England accent: http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary/sound/englis ...
- bitterbug, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Don't digg them down! It's a valid question. King has included that specific verbal tic in any book set in Maine. No different than any Canadian reference that has us saying "Eh."
- getrdone656, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Finally another person from Maine.
I was beginning to wonder is I was the only one xD
- xs11ax, on 04/06/2008, -6/+4how do you pronounce ayuh???
- bossm4n, on 04/06/2008, -2/+82Stephen King is Jack Thompson's worst nightmare.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -10/+1Jack Thompson couldn't give a damn about Stephen King. King has no political clout at all.
- CatalystGhost, on 04/06/2008, -1/+5Yeah, but King DOES have a *****-ton of people that read his books. All he has to do is include a "character" that has many "resemblances" to a certain lawyer, (or really anyone for that matter) and oh *****, now he can do anything he wants.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -0/+0And that *****-ton will make any difference. Yeah. I'm sure Michael Moore would agree with that. He's still smarting.
- CatalystGhost, on 04/06/2008, -1/+5Yeah, but King DOES have a *****-ton of people that read his books. All he has to do is include a "character" that has many "resemblances" to a certain lawyer, (or really anyone for that matter) and oh *****, now he can do anything he wants.
- NeoCortex, on 04/06/2008, -0/+27He's a lot of people's worst nightmare. He's Stephen King. That's what he does.
- girlpirate, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1those wind up chattery- teeth toys still creep me out to this day.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -10/+1Jack Thompson couldn't give a damn about Stephen King. King has no political clout at all.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 04/06/2008, -2/+47Your hair is winter fire,
January embers
My heart burns there, too.- wontstoptalking, on 04/06/2008, -2/+11Oh my god! Ben wrote that for Beverly! You just made my day. I am so surprised anyone remembered that little detail from that book. I wish I could digg you up 7 times.
- wontstoptalking, on 04/06/2008, -1/+23He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts
- Maynza, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8We all float down here. :c)
- jasonsalas, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2The soil of a man's heat is stonier, Louis.... (I know, not from "It", but one of King's most memorable quotes.)
- DarKnight90, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Thats from a book far better then IT.
- 911Guy, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Late last night and the night before, Tommyknockers Tommyknockers knocking at the door, I want to go out, dont know if I can,'cause I'm so afraid of the Tommyknocker man.
- montroller, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1thank you now I will have nightmares for a week.
- eyefork, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3"Yarr I'm an evil clown. Now I'm some spider-thing,"
- plup, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0*****, this is my childhood. Damn, never thought I would see this on Digg.
- wontstoptalking, on 04/06/2008, -4/+10He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts
- lickmylovepump, on 04/06/2008, -26/+3nice double post there idiot. posting the same thing in a reply that you post to start a new thread means that you need to shut your filthy whorish mouth.
- MonkCanatella, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7Man, "Lickmylovepump" seems to be very angry today. Would it be the giant stick up your ass?
- davidamerland, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7naaah, maybe there simply was no one available to lick his love pump, all at stick-fetching classes today.
- MonkCanatella, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7Man, "Lickmylovepump" seems to be very angry today. Would it be the giant stick up your ass?
- lickmylovepump, on 04/06/2008, -26/+3nice double post there idiot. posting the same thing in a reply that you post to start a new thread means that you need to shut your filthy whorish mouth.
- wontstoptalking, on 04/06/2008, -2/+20I am in the middle of reading The Stand. Stephen King, you're a god.
- evodude, on 04/06/2008, -0/+11He really is. When you're done with that, read the Dark Tower series, if you haven't already.
Join the cult. We have jackets.- mablung, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Damnit I never got a jacket... although the darktowercompendium guy tried to sell my art on mugs and pillows. Maybe I wouldn't have been as mad if it was on jackets.
- Scarfy, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2The Dark Tower is the single greatest thing I have ever read.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -7/+1You mean that wonderful novel that condemned science and reason as the bane of mankind, and touted mindless faith and irrationalism as the way forward?
- Krzysean, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2It's a work of fiction.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0Which reflects the mind of the author. Of course, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but I don't have to respect it.
- graemee, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure it wasn't the novels about the vampires or werewolves or that IT that steals away and eats kids.
- Krzysean, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2It's a work of fiction.
- Xcel, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I read that when I was about 12 or 13 years old. An amazing fictional read. Stephen King is brilliant.
- TheNorinator, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I'm in the middle of The Stand as well. And the dark tower series are my favorite books ever.
- zwaldowski, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1The Stand was awesome.
- evodude, on 04/06/2008, -0/+11He really is. When you're done with that, read the Dark Tower series, if you haven't already.
- Zera, on 04/06/2008, -9/+181Here's the whole interview minus the blogspam: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502,00.html
My favorite Stephen King interview quote (not from this article)
Q: So, having written so many popular horror books, what scares you?
King: Religion.- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8Actually I believe he said:
"I'm afraid of everything. It shows in my work. Elevators. Cars. One of the things ... the thing that started the new book was basically a combination of an accident that I had and a truck that was backing up, and the beeper was broken and somebody said, "Look out!" And a whole big long novel came out of that. But I'm with Frank on this, and that's one of the reasons why I love this movie, because it was a little bit like having somebody scratch a place on the middle of my back that I couldn't reach myself."- kolinkoolface2, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1Nice, way to give the actual story.
- Zera, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Well, the Interview that I saw was a part of the ESPN NFL Halloween weekend, where Stephen King did a number of segments and interviews with them. I looked for a transcript or video of the interview but I cannot find it.
Here's his NFL Sunday Countdown segment: (does NOT contain that quote, but neat if you like the NFL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOQOh4YKqU
The interview I saw he answered the question unequivocally with: Religion, and he went on to explain (he was promoting the Myst movie at the time last fall) how the characters in that movie who work themselves into religious fervor act to intensify the fear and the sense of panic in the movie. And if it helps anyone in their search, I think the interview I'm remembering was on the "Budweiser Hot Seat" chunk of sportscenter.... hehe... no idea why I remember that.- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2What year was this? I'd like to try and find the quote.
In the interview that I quoted, he went on a couple paragraphs later to talk about religion.- Zera, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, I found the one you quoted in my own search, this was this fall, Halloween 2007, the same day that clip aired. I am very interested to find it as well.
- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2What year was this? I'd like to try and find the quote.
- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -0/+25Another quote from Stephen King:
"I am a religious man. Well, I'm a spiritual man. I certainly believe in God, and I meditate on a regular basis, and try to stay in touch with the God of my understanding. But I haven't been through the doors of the church, I don't think since my mother-in-law died. And I certainly don't have anything against churches per se. I'm not a vampire type, when somebody shows me the cross or something like that. But organized religion gives me the creeps." - cjshamrock, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2That woukl explain "The Mist".
- smartguy4932, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1Fail.
- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8Actually I believe he said:
- fool13, on 04/06/2008, -2/+16Nice to see Stephen King gets it. When you take an already unstable person and give them something like Counterstrike or The Shining that may fuel said person's anger and help them to make that decision to pull the trigger. The problem is billion's of people read those kind of books, watch those movies and play those games - and they don't run out and shoot people. It's a damn shame when people don't understand that, I just watched the Shining last week and it hasn't forced me or instigated me to do anything violent. People need to focus on the mental health and gun control of this country.
- bratterscain, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Video games help fuel anger? I always felt they were an emotional release and a way to keep the reflexes and cognitive skills up. I don't think people play games to get angry. It's an ignorant statement unless you misconstrued it.
- skoubydoo, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2"It's a damn shame when people don't understand that, I just watched the Shining last week and it hasn't forced me or instigated me to do anything violent."
Anything violent....yet - fool13, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2Well to clarify, you take a kid who's alone, bitter and angry at the world. He get's confusing thoughts of possibly doing something like Virginia Tech where he will 'show them all' and get revenge. He spends days and nights playing lets just say an FPS type game killing people over and over. Eventually that's not good enough, he wants the real thing. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying they're to blame by any means but I do believe they can help push someone over the edge.
- bratterscain, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Umm, just who's side are you on? So you're blaming them because they can help push violence along in people but you say you're not blaming? That they're like a gateway drug that leads one with aggressive feelings into being more aggressive? I'm a fairly aggressive person, I'd say, but the time I do get to play, if anything, it's more of a release whether I win or lose, just the same I get when I workout.
- fool13, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2I'm not really on anyone's 'side'. Video Games/Violent movies aren't causing people to go out and randomly kill people. I'm saying that they can contribute to someone who is already right on that edge and just needs a tiny push to snap. We aren't talking about an aggressive person who when given a few beers and some Survivor in the backround is going to go on a rampage. We're talking about a seriously disturbed individual who fantasizes about killing people and lives vicariously through video games. Eventually that isn't enough and the anger goes beyond a virtual world and they snap. It's not the video games fault, as in we should blame them - it's clearly the person's. All I'm saying is that they can contribute. Do you really think someone who plays Counterstrike 60hours a week is balanced?
- bratterscain, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1There's plenty of competive gamers who sometimes play at least 8 hours a day, do you see them on a killing spree? Also, if, for the sake of argument they cause or train people to kill, is that really such a bad thing? Do you realize how many hours soldiers are trained to kill? Figures of people are used for bayonet training, silhouettes of people used for target practive. You're often put in scenarios where you have to imagine killing people to survive just as in video games. Been there, done that. Do you realize the line between murderer and hero is very blurred in society?
But just drilling you to make the distinction. You seem to have the generic, lonely kid, bitter at the world stereotype in your head as some others do who argue against some FPS games. I've played hunting games as well. Doesn't mean I'm going to be impulsed to go out and kill a deer if i feel like it. - theWrkncacnter, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1bratterscain you're supporting the other side, that playing videogames can indeed serve as training for serial killers, just as similar techniques are used for the military.
Actually you both seem to be arguing the same thing - that the vast vast majority of people who play games are balanced and continue to be so. It's really the fault of the individuals who aren't balanced, and of society for allowing them to kill people. - fool13, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1It's not a stereotype for everyone that plays these games, hell I play counterstrike from time to time. But from what we have seen most of these kids who have shot up schools tend to be loners and spend a large amount of time playing video games. It's a comfort, they don't feel the alienation and isolation that they SHOULD feel to encourage them to go out and make friends. Instead they stew in their own resentment. I'm not attacking gamers on a whole, I play a fair amount of video games myself and some of my friends would call themselves gamers. Theres a difference between playing games for fun and living vicariously through them. As I said before I play Counterstrike, it's amazing how when you kill someone in that game they will flip out start yelling either through text or a microphone and the amount of anger many of these players have is amazing. It's not that games are causing the violence but playing 8hours a day as you said is certainly unhealthy and can cause problems
- bratterscain, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1There's plenty of competive gamers who sometimes play at least 8 hours a day, do you see them on a killing spree? Also, if, for the sake of argument they cause or train people to kill, is that really such a bad thing? Do you realize how many hours soldiers are trained to kill? Figures of people are used for bayonet training, silhouettes of people used for target practive. You're often put in scenarios where you have to imagine killing people to survive just as in video games. Been there, done that. Do you realize the line between murderer and hero is very blurred in society?
- Kristijan12, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1Thank you mister King!
- bauermill, on 04/06/2008, -15/+5So it's okay for King to defend games but rip guns? As much as I want to commend him for defending video games, he is being obviously partisan. Yes, he defended the Right's whipping bay, video games and pop culture, but he bastardized the Left's whipping boy, guns. If King is going to come out and say things like this, he should build some credibility by supporting both sides, not just the side he likes more. In fact after reading the article, I think that he doesn't care about video games, he just wanted some publicity.
- tschau, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6People always support the side they like more. It's not "partisan," it's just his opinion, and of course it's okay for him to state it.
- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1"It's not "partisan," it's just his opinion" I laughed at that. His opinion regardless represents partisan thinking.
"If I know anything, I know scary. And giving this president and this out-of-control Congress two more years to screw up our future is downright terrifying. Thankfully, this national nightmare is one we can end with--literally--a wake up call.
My friends at MoveOn.org Political Action are organizing pre-Halloween phone parties this weekend, Oct. 28th & 29th. We’ll be calling progressive voters in key districts who may not turn out unless they get a friendly reminder or two."
From King. I do believe that the man is really a partisan political figure at this point.- caketank, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1And you believe that video game violence is a partisan football? This particular non-issue is about as bipartisan as it gets.
- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1"It's not "partisan," it's just his opinion" I laughed at that. His opinion regardless represents partisan thinking.
- 1o23r, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2Partisan or not. Media is intended to entertain. Guns are intended to cause physical harm.
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -0/+0Tell that to biathlon practisers.
- sporad1c, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1So your solution is to ban them? That worked out great for drugs. Made a whole bunch of criminals really rich. People like you are the ones who will call for a ban on knives 3 years after you get your gun ban.
- Kakemonster, on 04/06/2008, -3/+1And your one of those that will likely kill someone cause your retarded...
- Pixelante, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0Your poor grammar skills prove that you're the retarded one. Ignorance of basic language skills denote very low intelligence, a common trait among internet kids. Since there is no hope to better your condition, I suggest you take the easier and less painful way out.
- sporad1c, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0Your right I must be an idiot because I choose not to use perfect grammar when posting on the internet. Mind you I am extremely proficient with multiple weapons, have no record, a top secret security clearance, and an honorable discharge from an airborne unit in the United States Army. If you checked my profile you would discover that I am in fact 25 years old and am in fact not an "internet kid". Anyways I was taking your side Pixelante.
- Pixelante, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0I was answering Kakemonster. Please let's not begin to take offense at posts aimed at others.
That said, I wish Digg had a better targeting system. - Kakemonster, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Did you comment on my "cause" and not Because?
- Kakemonster, on 04/06/2008, -3/+1And your one of those that will likely kill someone cause your retarded...
- caketank, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3"He should build some credibility by supporting both sides"? Is that where you think credibility comes from?
We're doomed. - SuperMoses, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6He was stating his opinion. This isn't partisan either. Besides.. it IS okay to defend games but rip guns. How many people have video games killed?
- Viriatus2, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1that guy from South Korea or China that played CS or WOW for several days in a row?
- SuperMoses, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1He killed people with games? Did he chuck them at their heads? I could have sworn he used a gun.
- Viriatus2, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1that guy from South Korea or China that played CS or WOW for several days in a row?
- tschau, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6People always support the side they like more. It's not "partisan," it's just his opinion, and of course it's okay for him to state it.
- bardo77n, on 04/06/2008, -14/+9Wow, I had no idea that he was such a jerk. I mean, I don't think video games are a problem, but neither are guns. People kill other people; not video games, movies, guns, or anything else. In fact, if there was an armed, responsible janitor in the Virginia Tech incident, than he or she could have ended the situation much quicker with far fewer deaths.
- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -3/+2(Notes crime rates in the UK), without the evil that are guns of course.
ex.
* New York has a population of 8 million, London 7 million
* London's crime rate is about 7 times that of New York
* Police budgets are comparable
* New York has 40% more cops on the beat
Interpol, rate per 100k (violent crimes)
4161 - US
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
9927 - England and Wales- kolinkoolface2, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2well documented. Bad guys are bad guys. They will always have guns. Why not let everyone have them. And aside from this take the guns away, lets not forget why we have the 2nd amendment...
They are not for going hunting or killing animals or each other for that matter. They are suppose to be used by us the citizens, to protect us from the government.- Kakemonster, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3But what if a citizen gets really drunk or angry and has an easy reach for a gun at that moment. Don't you think he will use it or atleast give it the thought?
- rushiku, on 04/06/2008, -1/+3Why stop there?
Someone might get fat: ban all foods with more than 5% calories from fat.
Someone might drown: Ban all pools, ponds and rivers - post guards every 50 feet on all oceanic coastlines.
Someone might get run over: Ban all vehicles capable of going more than 5 miles per hour.
Someone might get carpal tunnel syndrome: Ban all keyboards
Someone might have fun: ban all mind altering substances and liquids.
Someone might question why: Ban all schools and books
Point is, yes, someone might use a gun to kill someone else, but the vast majority of gun owners don't and won't. Anyway, if I want you dead, you'll die. I don't need a gun, I can stab you, smash your head with a rock, or simply place my hands around your throat and squeeze. Do you propose to take those away as well?
As to video games, they need to be banned: no one ever killed anyone before there were video games. - Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2Guns can be used to hurt other people. I'de like to see you use a Whopper to rob someone. What you're talking about the government trying to protect us from ourselves, which most people would agree they have no business doing.
Asking a modern society to protect its citizens from harm by criminals isn't that far fetched.
- rushiku, on 04/06/2008, -1/+3Why stop there?
- Kakemonster, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3But what if a citizen gets really drunk or angry and has an easy reach for a gun at that moment. Don't you think he will use it or atleast give it the thought?
- kolinkoolface2, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2well documented. Bad guys are bad guys. They will always have guns. Why not let everyone have them. And aside from this take the guns away, lets not forget why we have the 2nd amendment...
- ralph123, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Wow, I'd really, really love to see the source of your numbers, as every other statistic I can find disagrees with the numbers you posted.
Thanks in advance.- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Ex.
"Overall experienced crime rates are rising in most countries, for instance with violent crimes like Assault tripling in England and doubling in France during the nineties (ICVS). The US is one of the few exceptions to this trend, In fact, Interpol statistics show sharply reduced murder rates in the US (albeit from a high level). Among the five most violent crime categories in the Interpol statistics : (i) murder, (ii) serious assault, (iii) aggravated theft, (iv) robbery and (v) car theft, France had already overtaken the US by 2002 for the last three crimes, and looked like overtaking the US by 2004 for murder and assault as well. According to Interpol, England had fewer murders, assaults and robbery than France, but was also rapidly converging with the US. (Teaser, which Interpol member states had most to hide under continued publication of Interpol comparative statistics, the US or EU countries like France ?)"
Link. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1758
There are many more, including official Interpol documents if you take the time to look.
- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Ex.
- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -2/+4Now here are some facts with an actual source to back them up, I used the same countries as you did, and all data is from 1989.
Percentage of households owning any kind of firearm:
USA: 48%
France: 22.6%
Germany: 8.9%
England & Wales: 4.7%
Homocides WITH A GUN per 1 million people
USA: 44.6
France: 5.5
Germany: 2.0
England and Wales: 0.8
Suicides WITH A GUN per 1 million people
USA: 72.8
France: 49.3
Germany: 13.8
England and Wales: 3.8
SOURCE: http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/u ...- Tebixan, on 04/06/2008, -1/+5Whoops, source got cut off, here it is again: http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/u ...
- sweetholymosiah, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1well done Tebixan, thank you for the source
- mirunit, on 04/06/2008, -3/+2(Notes crime rates in the UK), without the evil that are guns of course.
- exomni, on 04/06/2008, -1/+6*slow clap*
- mlrigsby, on 04/06/2008, -7/+3Meh. While I agree with the spirit of what he's saying, he's making just about the most superficial and easily countered arguments possible. And I certainly wouldn't say this piece is "brilliant", unless your definition of brilliant includes recycled arguments that can be found on any video game message board internet.
- Ouze, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2you shut you whore mouth when Mr. King is speaking!
- crzdmn, on 04/06/2008, -0/+20I'm surprised, out of that whole article the part that stands out the most was:
"And if there's violence to be had, the kids are gonna find a way to get it, just as they'll find a way to get all-day shooters like No Country for Old Men from cable if they want. Or Girls Gone Wild, for that matter. Can parents block that stuff? You bet. But most never do. The most effective bar against what was called ''the seduction of the innocent'' when this hot-button issue centered on violent comic books 60 years ago is still parents who know and care not just about what their kids are watching and reading, but what they're doing and who they're hanging with. Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable...and then explain why it's being forbidden. They also need to monitor their children's lives in the pop culture — which means a lot more than seeing what games they're renting down the street." - Steven King
The legislation he's talking about is primarily supported by soccer moms and grand parents. Grand parents think nobody is raising their grand children, and the soccer moms just don't want to find out what their kids are doing. They prefer to pretend that their child will always be innocent and anything that can ruin that should be banned, not blocked by them but banned by our government.- neio, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2In Africa not a lot of people have access to violent video games yet the murder rate is some of the highest in the world. How does Jack Thompson explain that?
- Railz, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Obviously they're killing each other to get the games.
- neio, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2In Africa not a lot of people have access to violent video games yet the murder rate is some of the highest in the world. How does Jack Thompson explain that?
- esqurred, on 04/06/2008, -8/+1thank you mr king. that is all.
*continues the slow clap*- Ouze, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2that wasn't the right moment for a slow clap. When your moment comes... you'll know.
- Arcae, on 04/06/2008, -1/+4Eat it Jack Thompson.
- Kregg17, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Slam Dunk there. Way to go King.
- mrhedges, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1Does anyone else find that that picture of him looks like the G-man?
- LusikkaMage, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I don't know why you were dugg down. This is the first time I've seen him and that's what I thought, too. Especially with those light blue eyes.
- nrt25, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Wow someone outside of the gaming community who gets it.I almost died from shock.
- petebot, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Anyone with common sense gets it.
- wearesc, on 04/06/2008, -9/+2Buried for being posted yesterday
- 1o23r, on 04/06/2008, -7/+1Dugg for the fact that Steven King references Snoop and Fifty Cent.
- Fallout911, on 04/06/2008, -3/+3I was reading one of those "Celebrities born on your B-Day!" lists one day and I found out that I was born the same day as Stephen King.
So yeah...- MaskedSlacker, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Too bad you'll never be as awesome as him.
- crashingechelon, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2I'm in agreement with King on this issue, but I have an off topic comment to make. Have I gone crazy or has like the majority of the fonts on digg become italicized?
- crashingechelon, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah it was just me, for whatever reason everything on the page was in italics. It did look pretty cool though!
- caketank, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2No, it wasn't just you. It's been happening to me, too, off and on. Started about the same time all the "please reload" errors started. I'm guessing somebody screwed up some javascript.
- crashingechelon, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah it was just me, for whatever reason everything on the page was in italics. It did look pretty cool though!
- joot2112, on 04/06/2008, -1/+43Yesterday I was flipping channels and stopped on "Cops" ... a belligerent lady with a knife was going at the cops and they tackled her. When they tackled her, she landed on the ~8-inch knife -- it was in her gut to the hilt. I was not expecting to see something like that on local (non-cable) TV. And that was REAL ... for any kid to see on a Saturday afternoon. I think I'd rather see them play Grand Theft Auto.
- LimitedReality, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2for those sick like myself and want to see it for themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=&v=ifRFPwimlts
- LimitedReality, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2for those sick like myself and want to see it for themselves:
- sporad1c, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3Blaming anything for a persons actions, and then consequentially banning it to "solve the problem" is, at best, an idiotic concept. Society itself is to blame. It's not the video games that cause our kids to be violent, but the fact that parents don't play them with there kids. TV doesn't corrupt kids, the fact that they watch it for 8 hours a day does. Guns don't kill people, the fact that someone thinks it is ok to kill does. If every gun and TV disappeared tomorrow I guarantee people will still kill people and kids will still do dumb *****. We need to wake up and realize that we are the problem not guns, video games, music , comic books, TV movies, etc. Just because the TV can raise your kids doesn't mean it should.
- xs11ax, on 04/06/2008, -4/+0i love the books but the movies are proper messed up! except for green mile. both the movie and the book are class.
anyone know any other movies like green mile?- mattvander, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1stand by me
- mrzack, on 04/06/2008, -6/+1First person shooters are brainwashing the Youth of Amerikkka. Coupled with Evil pharmaceutical anti-depressant drugs and easy access to irisponsible feckless gun sellers, all add to unfortunate school shootings which will result in a police state and metal detectors and cameras everywhere...
- Splint7700, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0Paranoid much?
- madfrogurt, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1How could I tell you were a Ron Paul supporter? It amazes me how large the crazy paranoid demographic is here on digg.
- lisaawesome, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2I practically grew up reading Stephen King's work as he is my mom's favorite author. His books are far more gory and graphic than anything I have ever seen in a videogame and on top of that he likes to ***** with your head.
- girlpirate, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1same here. I doubt many parents would be cool with letting their 8 year old have free run of the Stephen King collection. I love my mom.
- basic0, on 04/06/2008, -2/+7Dear EW.com,
Your site works fine in Firefox 3 on Linux. Someone obviously went to a lot of work to ensure cross-browser and cross-platform compatibility, so you can stop warning me that my browser is "unsupported" when I visit your site. - MutatedNantuko, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Re-reading the entire Dark Tower Series, and Roland agrees.
- xs11ax, on 04/06/2008, -0/+0long days and pleasant nights gunslinger!
- likesoy, on 04/06/2008, -3/+12I'm a huge Stephen King fan, and a former gamer (just no time now), but I have to raise an (IMO) important factor that gets missed when comparing games to more passive entertainment. In a game, *you* are pulling the trigger, hacking with the dagger, or whatever, and that's got to chip away, if ever so slightly and incrementally, at your natural instinct not to do such things in real life.
There was a point when the US military had a problem that a large percentage of new soldiers, trained on "bullseye" targets, could not bring themselves to pull the trigger on another human being. Once they introduced the now-familiar "silouette" targets, the problem went away. I've got to believe that kind of conditioning happens when people play FPS, especially in true-to-life scenerios. There's a bunch of contributing factors and most of us will never be negatively effected, but ...- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5Hey guys there's a lot of truth in the above statement. In WWII I think something on order of over 50% of the men never shot their rifles, even more so on their first day of combat. These were men that were farmers, auto workers, lumbermen, etc that didnt grow up with video games, movies like We were soldiers... etc. Last year in Iraq I never saw one of my guys hesitate to act, and that's a common trend.
- Hetman, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5@ruger. Their are way more variables than that though. It could just be the fact that sense we now have an all volunteer military, that the people who join the military now have certain attributes that make them more capable of handling military combat. In every society their has always been some type of warrior like class. And men in these classes seem to be mentally a physically more able to handle the stress of combat. But when you draft people as mentioned above you get more people that would have never hurt anyone as a civilian but are forced into combat.
- Splint7700, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Thats actually a pretty good point, I never thought of that.
The main problem here though is not the conditioning. It's the ability for unstable people to get guns that easily. - Biohazard6601, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3while your argument is rational, it has no base. ive been playing video games for 11 years and im not a homicidal maniac (GOW, COD, Halo, GTA... the list goes on for shooters) neither are any of the people i know. while there have been incidents where gamers did something, the fact that they are a gamer is a very far stretch from the actual reason (they are either stupid or psychotic.)
- selrahc, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3I don't think his argument is baseless at all. Reread the second paragraph, if silhouette targets make a difference realistic FPS's would almost certainly have a similar effect. Of course it's not going to turn you in a homicidal maniac. But it will probably make you slightly less likely to hesitate when when you have a human shaped target in your sights than a guy who has only shot at bullseye targets. It's really not a problem for the vast majority of people, and I doubt it's even a very large contributing factor for psychotic ones, but it does have an effect on people, however slight.
- leetdood, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1The fundamental difference is that the soldiers were willing to shoot in the first place. Just because a gamer becomes able to shoot humans when he wants to instead of freezing up, does not mean said person will actually attempt to kill or harm people.
- usingpond, on 04/06/2008, -4/+13While I applaud him for defending video games, his argument didn't really make any new points.
- Durthalion, on 04/06/2008, -0/+6Yes but we got a respected voice to convey them to the public.
- blorguehad, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5I liked how informed Stephen King was. Dugg for "Fiddy and Snoop"
- VII7, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2gg steven
- johnmearns, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1So the video game boogie man is just media hyped hysteria with no basis in reality used as a tool by politicians. But guns aren't? I guess he half way gets it
"If he'd been stuck with nothing but a plastic videogame gun, he wouldn't even have been able to kill himself."
Of course, guns are the only way to kill.- Splint7700, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I think the gun helps.
- wordglue, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1i think you halfway get it
- Cerebron, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Anyone see the Mist? Remind you of any video games? (Half Life, Dead Rising?)
- samw1ns, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0the mist is one of my favorite books, and the movie wasnt bad either.
- Ouze, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3I think what you mean here is, didn't Half Life and Dead Rising incorporate many of the ideas found in the story Stephen King wrote over a decade before either game was released? Skeleton Crew (which contained the short story The Mist) was published in 1985. Half-Life was released in 1998.
- wickensworth, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Reminded me of Myst
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 04/06/2008, -9/+2Yeah Stephen King, blame gun control! Let's blame McDonalds for Rosie o'Donnell being fat! French fries are too easy to get in this country! We need legislation to make it harder! Also, lets definitely restrict driving at night, because so many fatalities happen at night on the roads, all those people would live! IDIOCY. You want gun control move to England, because in this country it's a constitutional right to own them. I'll fight for your right to spew your ignorant babble, but try and restrict MY rights and I'll use my GUNS to defend them.
That said, I love most of your books. hah!- ireland88, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1From my cold dead hands.
- pnmoore, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Our country is so full of contradictions like the one King is talking about (legislators being OK with guns but against video games). For example, the same people that speak out so loudly against abortion, saying it IS murder, are rabid supporters of the death penalty, which they say IS NOT, AND the ones rabidly for abortion, saying it IS NOT murder, are the same ones speaking out so loudly against the death penalty, saying it IS murder.
I personally think both things have a time and place where appropriate and disagree with the radicals on either side of both issues, but think it is funny that such diametrically opposed viewpoints exist in both groups.- petebot, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I don't think I've heard of anyone being rabidly for abortion. You're thinking of people who are for the right to have an abortion.
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
- petebot, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I don't think I've heard of anyone being rabidly for abortion. You're thinking of people who are for the right to have an abortion.
- dustinjr1993, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1even though some people think hes crazy, he has some sense
- Hetman, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1II believe in the second amendment. I believe every law abiding citizen should have the ability to own one. But their should be a data base of people who are in therapy and or on anti-depressants. "if they just increase the chance of suicide that should be enough to not allow these people to have them." If we do not allow felons to buy guns legally why would we allow people that have the potential to harm themselves and others the right to buy a gun legally.
- Zeldafreak104, on 04/06/2008, -1/+27There was a problem completing your request. Please reload the page and try again
There was a proble