Do you think the book was one-sided or fair?

[JuliaKay]

I think this book was one-sided for the most part. It kind of paints a picture of most gun owners being violent or being prone to violence in certain situations. It was very clear what the authors opinion was on the matter. I did think that with Vince and Trudi and their conflict over whether or not to get a gun added a little more fairness. They were two people who were initially opposed, and then violence towards their persons and fear caused them to see another side to the situation. I actually would have liked to seen more senior citizens with guns mentioned in the novel who received their Final Notice and did not respond with violence or revenge.

[Amystl26]

The book was definitely left-leaning, but it’s really sad that the “right” doesn’t see the importance of this issue. The author is aware that the book is one-sided. In the author’s note he mentions that he is probably “preaching to the choir.” I wish that he would have created a character that would have appealed more to the gun lovers out there. They need this novel more than anyone.

I agree, throwing in a character that is pro-gun would have added some richness to the novel! Atleast the author is aware that the novel is one-sided.

[crediblereading2]

The book promotes gun control which is a left-wing doctrine.

[Shrabastee]

I find the book one sided with respect to gun use, but the author does present the opposing ideas, and worries of common people about not being able to defend themselves in Vince's reflections. And we should not forget that even though the book shows clearly the disastrous effects a fatal weapon can have in hands of untrained and/or immoral people, the story addresses several other important issues like terrorism, racism, self defence in aged persons, health hazards, a possible way to gain knowledge about impending death and its uses/misuses. In this respect I would like to quote what the author says in the foreward:

My initial intent was to call attention to the way that senior citizens are perceived and dealt with in the United States, mixing that with our seemingly insatiable appetite for guns. Driving that appetite is our political process, feeding our fears and hunger for guns;so I felt compelled to bring that aspect into the story

[Richard Whitehead]

I haven't finished reading, so I have yet to decide. However so far I think it is a little bit one sided

Yes the book is one sided from its beginning.

[Richard Whitehead]

The book is quite left-leaning since the author majorly speaks about the negative side of gun-ownership. He appears to be turning a blind eye towards the positive side of the same topic.

[uyky]

It is one-sided and the author acknowledges that. Since I am on the same side so it was OK with me, I get it though that it could put someone off.

[maggiechap]

While i never saw the book declaring Left leaning or Right leaning it was definitely one sided, which was a huge turn off for me. I wanted to see true discussion from various different perspectives, which I don't think the author succeed in very well

[gen_g]

The author is definitely upfront about his political leanings with regards to guns; however, I believe that people with right leanings will still be able to take away something from the book - it never hurt to attempt to gain a better understanding of the person who holds contrary views. The fact that the author did not deny the novel's one-sidedness is also important, as it displays a maturity and open-mindedness to move towards the start of a conversation between the two opinions (either right or left-leaning)

[FilmStar]

I believe it was too much to the left. While I tend to take a more right-winged position, luckily I can keep an open mind where I am not quick to turn away from an opposing viewpoint. I feel like this book took a cruel stance of Republicans in belittling them and making them appear evil. This book should have shown both sides of the debate and not treated it like the answer was to get rid of guns. There are a lot of factors to shootings and we cannot be blind to all of the factors just for the sake of focusing on one.

[teacherjh]

I don't mind that the author was using a novel to express his political views. It's a good way to make issues personal to the audience. What I minded was when he got 'preachy' and put his politics ahead of the plot. For instance, at the first dinner party scene the character Vince is given a lot of air time to express the author's political agenda. Some of it did not fit the plot up to that time.
Also, name-calling is a hot button for me. I'm not sure calling anyone "low-functioning morons" (Ch. 22, Mobile, Alabama section) even if they are racist and violent does much to help your agenda.

[Isabelleva]

I think that all stories like this should show at least some of both sides. It is unfair and does not allow the reader to form a full opinion if it is one-sided. While I personally lean left I think that there should be both sides shown. You learn in school to show a counter-argument in essays and I believe it should hold true with books too. Not that the entire book needs to be balanced but maybe more of a reference.

[paigegreenpurba]

This book touched on many political topics which are relevant to me. I am pro gun control, a career-woman, a scientist, the spouse of a US immigrant, and I have no particular political leanings. Given all that, this book was so one-sided that I was entirely put-off.

The author described every doctor, scientist, or stereo-typically "smart" person as left-leaning, and every right-leaning person was either an idiot, a bully, or both. The one Republican who was described in any positive way was ashamed of his Republican party and ridiculed by his fellow party members. This book was laughably close-minded.

[corndog12]

The author makes his leftist leanings quite clear from the outset of the book. His disdain for Fox News and "Brightfart" made me grin, despite my personal mild conservatism. I do not necessarily share the author's strong anti-gun stance, but I do appreciate it. While I am a gun owner I do not advocate private citizens being armed better than the military. And I anticipated the book's final climactic scene at the NRA gathering, realizing that such a scene could realistically play out in real life--thus the reason guns were banned from the NRA gathering where both President Trump and Vice President Pence spoke. The irony of both the fictional situation and the real-life one was glaring.

I do wish the book had been less one-sided just to show that there can be individuals who own guns responsibly. It did not escape my notice that one character, a sweet old lady who was a gun owner, turned all of her guns in at the police station upon receiving her Final Notice. While that was responsible under her personal circumstances, the message that guns are bad was still evident. Not all gun owners dream of seeking revenge using their guns. Most, in fact, do not want to hurt anyone. I'm sure the author realizes this, but simply wanted to convey his personal beliefs in his writings--as all authors do. And isn't that what writing is all about anyway? There's certainly nothing wrong with that!

[Jgideon]

Although I am yet to read the story, the reviews that I have read show that the book is one-sided. However, the author is entitled to his own opinion just like everyone else.