An essay called “Guns,” completed by Stephen King a week ago, was published this morning as a Kindle Single, exclusive to Amazon.

It’s a thought-provoking commentary on our culture, the media and assault weapons, available as a 99 cent download for Kindle devices and apps. Compared with the lengthy process of publishing a traditional book, it’s also a notable example of just how much the publishing business has changed, and how Amazon is in the middle of it.

Here’s the quote from King in the Amazon news release: “I think the issue of an America awash in guns is one every citizen has to think about. If this helps provoke constructive debate, I’ve done my job. Once I finished writing ‘Guns’ I wanted it published quickly, and Kindle Singles provided an excellent fit.”

Kindle Singles are reviewed and published selectively by Amazon. This essay is the latest in a series of Kindle Singles published by King.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline


  • guest

    Amazon needs to stop working with pro gun lobbyists:

    • Guest

      When a company hires a man to do a job, the company does not assume the other beliefs of that man. I used to work with a man who had a bizarre attraction to Steve Ballmer. That doesn’t mean that our company endorsed such a belief.

      • guest

        I don’t want to see any money that I spend end up in the hands of the gun lobby. Amazon employs known gun lobbyists, who they pay with money that I spend at Amazon. Yes there is one degree of separation, but that is not enough for me.

        • Live

          The world you live in must be painful… having to investigate where all the money goes that you spend at every place. I’m sure there are over a dozen places you spend money that have some sort of association to guns, etc. Why be so unhappy and paranoid? Live your life.

    • YouAreNuts

      Yawn. You are nuts for repeatedly posting this garbage.

    • Howard Jess

      Maybe the NRA needs to stop working with anti-gun firms.

  • Paul_Owen

    King could get $25k at Vanity Fair or The New Yorker for this article. He will sell 40k copies on Kindle in a month and 60k copies this year to blow past the old journalism model. This is what disruption looks like.

  • Guest

    Thank you. Between this and the gun buyback scheduled for tomorrow, Amazon is doing great things for our society.

    • WakeUp

      You need to snap back to reality. If you think the gun buyback will even stop one gun related crime, you are living in an alternative universe. These gun buybacks do absolutely nothing.

      • Guest

        Gun buybacks are a crucial first step towards the disarmament of civilians in cities, a necessary transition towards a more peaceful existence. Among industralized nations, the United States has by far the highest level of urban gun violence. We, the residents of cities, have no need to discharge projectiles at one another and as such, the projectile dispensers shall be removed.

        Please note that guns are still permitted for now in suburban areas, where they are useful in resolving disputes among customers of Costco contending for the last pallet of Cheez Wiz, and in rural areas, where there is no civilization as such to protect.

        • NONONO

          Disgusting sheep. Educate yourself and stop letting others think for you.

          • Guest

            I have thought. I’m right. The statistics (things intelligent people use to back up scientific inquiry) back me up. Clutch your pistol to your heart if you wish, but you’re more likely to shoot yourself with it than you are to protect my liberty with it.

        • Jason Gerard Clauss

          “The disarmament of civilians in cities”

          I bet you think the government should have guns and we shouldn’t. I bet you really are that much of a soy latte-sipping chickenshit yupster.

          • Guest

            I do. Jason, you shouldn’t have guns in this city. The police and military should. You’re not going to battle the police and military yourself, so the only reason why you would want a gun is so that you can slaughter men based on your own snap judgment.

            With mentally unstable private citizens disarmed, I know I’ll feel safer. Wouldn’t you? *sip*

          • Common Sense

            What are you sipping?

            “battle the police and military… so that you can slaughter men based on your own snap judgment”

            Again, what are you sipping?

            I have a gun for my own personal protection in my home. I also enjoy traveling out to my cabin to do target shooting as well. Sorry to spoil whatever it is you’re sipping, but the vast majority of gun owners don’t fit into your very odd stereotype.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss

            I wonder what guest would do if he were attacked by a group of 4-5 thugs, none of whom had guns. Would he kick their asses Jackie Chan style? Is that how it works?

          • Guest

            I’d do the same thing you would do: I would be beaten senseless. In your situation, the first thug would sneak up behind you and strike you down. You’d hit the ground before you could even begin to reach for your gun.

            The worst part of your situation is that because you foolishly wandered the streets with a loaded gun, the thugs can easily remove your firearm. Now there is an armed thug in the community, and it’s your fault.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss

            LOL… they’re thugs, not ninjas, dude. Maybe your hearing isn’t what mine is…

          • Guest

            My hearing is excellent. You, meanwhile, left your earphones in and so the thugs got the jump on you. Very poor decision, Jason. You just lost consciousness, your phone, your wallet, and your gun.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss

            First off, no I didn’t. I don’t go out in public wearing earphones pretty much ever. Maybe if I’m somewhere where they are playing Justin(e) Bieber or Nickelback, but otherwise no. If someone is smart enough to get the jump on me, then they’re probably smart enough to go to school and get a real job.

            Second, if the notion of protecting yourself from a thug or five isn’t enough to compel you, then let me direct you to two contrasting stories. In LA back in 1992, there were some riots. You may have heard of them. Korean store owners protected their property from stampeding rioters with rifles. In London in 2011, wild rioters destroyed a whole section of town. Nobody was armed with guns, neither the citizens or the invaders. Untold damage was done. QED.

          • Guest

            Don’t change the subject, Jason. You went out, you weren’t paying attention, and a group of Ph.D.s who are doing postdoc work at the UW decided to beat the shit out of you. They won. As you lay bleeding from the head and chest, your firearm was stripped from you. Now the “Dangerous Docs” are coming for me, and they’re going to shoot me with your gun. Shame on you for arming these suspiciously well-educated men.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss

            Dafuq did I just read?

          • Guest

            Your behavior is acceptable. Recreational gun use in rural areas is permissible, and I assume that you live in a suburban, exurban, or rural area underserved by law enforcement. I live in the city, and here we have police who respond to my call within a minute. As a result, guns are not needed in the hands of my fellow private citizens.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss
          • Guest


            Maniacs wielding guns have slaughtered men with far more malice than those dirty cops have, and in far greater numbers. You’ll notice that the lawbreakers have been disciplined for their callous crimes; I endorse this punishment. I trust my local law enforcement more than I trust a bitter software developer who believes every cowardly screed he reads on Reddit.

          • Jason Gerard Clauss

            I hate to burst your smubble, but I did that research and made the image myself. Facts supporting a point are only a “cowardly screed” because you don’t agree with them. I took the stats straight from Brady and FBI. You can go look for yourself rather than sniveling like a punk:


          • Guest

            Nice! I’ll have my staff prepare a report in response later this week. I appreciate you doing that introductory work for me.

  • Guest

    I see. My stats have attributions and references. You have something that a dude whipped up in MS Paintbrush to win an argument on Reddit.

    Think, please.

    • Jason Gerard Clauss

      So, the FBI and the Brady organization (clearly mentioned in the link) are not attributions or references? The violent crime stats are from the FBI, and the gun law oppressiveness comes from Brady scores (higher score = stricter gun laws).

      Read, please.

      • Guest

        I’m sorry, but those are not sources. A source is “The FBI, in 2005 in a report entitled blah written by blah said that blah happened.” You can’t just say “FBI” and convince me.

        Ball’s in your court, Jason. Cite a source. Bing “How to cite a source” if you’d like some more training in basic scholarship.

  • Rick Carufel

    Here’s my essay in response to Stephen King’s essay, Guns. Unlike his emotional knee-jerk reaction to the recent tragedies mine is well researched and thought out.

Job Listings on GeekWork