More Guns, Less Crime<\/em><\/a> by John Lott this is not a substantiated argument backed by evidence, it is something of an opinionated rant. However, a rant by Stephen King holds weight due to his unique history with the subject matter. Also, he is Stephen King.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAlthough he’s an outspoken liberal, Stephen King is a gun owner. He understands the true nature of gun control, as most actual gun owners do, but believes that semi-automatic weapons can only be used to promote violence and should be banned. There are many obvious counter-points to his assertions but these aren’t addressed, perhaps due to the brevity of this essay. Because of this, it felt like an incomplete argument, but that could be because I judge Guns<\/em> in the context of More Guns, Less Crime<\/em> which I also read recently. Guns<\/em> is a superficial look at the issue while John Lott’s book is a deep dive into the actual facts and figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAs you’d expect, this book is written exceptionally well. However I feel that if you’re going to address the issue of gun control in a published work, you have a responsibility to to address all angles of the argument to do the subject matter justice. Guns by Stephen King doesn’t quite meet that standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n