Customer Reviews

The Rifle

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

Paulsen is a good writer, and I enjoyed several of his other books. This book, however, is based on the most absurd idea -- that being that the powder charge in a black powder rifle would still fire after decades. Paulsen shows that he has little knowledge and less care for the facts, but he clearly has an agenda...

I did like the description of the making of the gun, I thought my son might like this book because of that. Then the propaganda starts.
The people who like the gun or any guns are portrayed as stupid, callous individuals , (obviously never to have checked the gun to see if it held a ball was not to bright.)
Fear mongering (your neighbor could have a gun on his wall that will kill you), This book is aimed at preteens and teens.
I will not be buying it ,(read a library copy), or recommending it to my son or anyone else.
I didn't realize Gary Paulson was into propaganda.
The cryptic ending where the gun is almost human waiting to inflict more harm was pretty annoying.

I started off enjoying this book, and ended up wanting to throw it in the garbage. Since it came from the library, I couldn't do that. So I'm writing this instead.

After lovingly describing how an 18th-century gunsmith created a "sweet" rifle, then showing its heroic use during the Revolutionary War, Paulsen begins the process of deconstructing his own narrative. He feints to the right and makes you believe that HE believes the old canard that guns are essentially tools of freedom. Then he feints to the left and shows his true colors.

When a near-impossible twist of fate -- the accidental firing of a flintlock weapon that had been loaded over 200 years before -- results in the death of a young boy, Paulsen concludes that guns are evil, and cause nothing but pain and misery.

If readers REALLY want to know about the role of guns in civilized society, they should instead read either of John Lott's books, "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns." Lott is an economist who fills his books with facts, not fiction.

My wife brought this book for me to review for the school library. I will definitely give it a thumbs down. Unfortunately, it's probably the perfect addition to any public school, which is (of course) a "Gun Free Zone." (And by "Gun Free Zone," I mean that anyone but a law-abiding citizen is free to walk in and begin executing people at will, with no fear of retribution from lawfully armed citizens.)

Our boys are 8 and 9. We have read to them or listened to the Tuckett Series and the Brian series and found them excellent for the boys and fascinating for us. However, we began to listen to the Rifle on tape; found the narrative about the making of the gun wonderful.....then came the story of the boy who eventually was shot and killed by the rifle. The graphic description of the trajectory of the missile was horrifying. I did not let the boys finish the book. Luckily, I ran the tape to preview the end. We live on a farm; they understand about things dying--to the extent they can at their age--; and they have respect for guns but cannot handle them. I was not prepared for this level of anti gun material from Mr. Paulsen. We are liberal democrats and though not members of the NRA crowd, we do respect the desire--not the need or right--to possess guns. The age of the reader really needs to be taken into account when recommending this book.

I liked this book a lot. Very exciting with lots of action. Byam, the main character, is brave and creative. I am in 5th grade and recommend this book. Enjoy!

I found The Rifle quite an interesting read. It gave me a unique insight into the propaganda written by the anti-gun lobby in this country. I find it truly unfortunate that such a fine writer as Gary Paulsen would spend the time writing such a ridiculous story, all at the expense of smearing the reputation of law abiding citizens who support the second amendment. This country would not exist today if the revolutionaries in the British colonies had not gathered together to fight against tyranny by the British government. Gary wishes to brainwash our children into believing that a tool or instrument that has been created by a talented individual such as the gunsmith "Cornish" has a life of its own, and poses a threat to our society. Motor vehicles, hair dryers and, electrical outlets also pose a threat to individuals who are not concerned about using mechanical implements safely. I wonder whether Gary Paulsen will write a book about the sinister motor vehicle parked in our driveways waiting to run over the next unsuspecting pedestrian.

This book is an ingenious form of propaganda disguised as children's fiction.

Read with care,

Sunderkris

Paulsen writes wonderful stories about teen boys overcoming hardships in physically and emotionally challenging situations. In The Rifle there is a major change. The main character is not a boy at all, but a rifle. Not an ordinary, modern one. This is a revolutionary-war-era handmade "sweet" gun. Its making is described as carefully as the gun itself was made. Its history is documented up to 1993, when the plot twists...

Another sure fire winner from Paulsen just waiting to be read a loud. It can easily spark discussion on gun control, and the right to bear arms if you need a catalyst.

I'd like to write a little more on this book, riddled with far too many inaccuracies. Despite what Paulsen says about the powder staying dry as a result of oil hardening in the vent (incorrectly called a touchhole in the novel), moisture would still come in via the rifled grooves. Remember that unless you're firing a hexagonal bullet (not designed until the 1850's), there is still space between the bullet and the rifled groove. Another thing Paulsen says about muzzloading rifles that is incorrect is that "the only safe way to check whether a muzzleloader loaded or not is to know how far the ramord sticks out (about 2 inches) when the gun is loaded". I found out first hand that this is incorrect. The way to know whether an old muzzleloader is loaded or not is to first stick the ramrod down the barrel, and then line up the ramrod with the end of the breech outside of the rifle. If the end of the ramrod is in the same place it was while it was in the barrel, the gun is unloaded. If about an inch higher, the gun is loaded. A very simple technique. Also, the fact that "Tilson" has the gun in his closet "waiting" is ridiculous. If he could disassemble and clean a 224-year old flintlock rifle, then he would know if and when it was loaded or not. As for portraying Tim as a person who believed that the men of the 7th Cavalry "died with their boots on", it's true! Custer was a blithering idiot who misled his men. And the men knew that the Indians wouldn't let them surrender (book talks about US soldiers trying to surrender; simply made up). Several soldiers, in fact, were found after the battle with .32-30 bullets in their brains--self-inclicted wounds. They'd rather shoot themselves than be tortured and be hacked to pieces (the Lakota-Sioux even today admit to doing this to captured prisoners). Paulsen also gave the impression that a pro-gun person like myself would only care if a hero died in battle. I don't know one person in the local NRA, of which I'm a member, that doesn't think that General John Buford, a Union Cavalry commander during the Civil War, is a hero. He probably saved the United States from shattering when his regiment held off wave after wave of Confederate soldiers who would've marched on Washington if they defeated General Buford at the Battle of Gettysburg. He died during the war of disease that was rampant in Army camps. IMHO, the point of this book is to prove that guns are abominations, no matter how "sweet", and that guns (which are inanimate objects) are somehow evil and go off by themselves. Aside from the point that the gun going off would be physically impossible due to inescapably wet and degraded powder and a ball turned to lead oxide and rusted to the barrel, I just think Paulsen has an axe to grind with guns, and just hates them. If you want to learn the real stories, take your kids to the West Point Museum, buy them a history book about sharpshooters in the Revolution, or maybe take them shooting with an old muzzleloader, as opposed to reading this piece of closed-minded hatred.

I can't decide if Paulsen's point was that guns are no longer treated with the respect and care that they once were (in which case I believe he missed the mark), or whether he set out intentionally to write a liberal-minded anti-gun piece.

Paulsen belittles those who believe that "guns don't kill people, people do", but misses the point of that statement entirely. The rifle, when treated with respect and care, was a prized instrument and posed no threat, except to the British officers. In the hands of owners who did not use the same care and respect, it became dangerous. The gun's function did not change over the years, the actions of those responsible for it did.

This may seem a fine point, but it is at the heart of the conservative/liberal debate. A conservative would say that the gun owners failed in their responsibility to ensure that no one was endangered by the rifle. A liberal would argue that if there were no rifles (or hammers, or hot cups of coffee), then no one would ever get hurt. A conservative chooses to take responsiblity for his actions and expects to be treated as an adult. A liberal believes that he has no responsibilty for his actions and hopes that the goverment will protect him as if he were forever a child.

I have been a police officer in a major US city for 23 years, and before that I was in the Marines for 6 years. I've carried a gun virtually every day of my adult life. Along the way, I've seen numerous people who were shot, and more than I would ever want to see that were dead from gunshot wounds. In fact two horrible instances involving juveniles killed by firearms that I personally dealt with stand out. Both involved shotguns. In one instance the shotgun was hanging on the wall when a kid took it down, pointed it at another kid, and pulled the trigger. A rifled slug entered the 14 year old victim's head just behind his left ear and took most of his head with it as it exited out the right corner of his forehead. The scene was horrible beyond description. In the other instance, two 8 year olds were playing in a wood pile when they found a shotgun apparently discarded or hidden by someone with criminal intent. One 8 year old pointed it at the other, pulled the trigger, and a double ought buck round hit the victim in the stomach at nearly point blank range. He ran about 25 feet and died on the driveway in front of the house.

With all that as my foundation, I bought this book with a rough understanding of the plot, thinking I would give it to my 12 year old son. In my house, we don't "treat every firearm as if it is loaded". There is no hypothetically loaded gun. Every firearm IS loaded. Always. Forever. World without end. Simple. Don't point it in an unsafe direction, ever. I figured this would be a fine book to hammer that point home a little deeper for my son.

Luckily, I read it first. This book misses that objective mark completely. By my way of thinking, in order to really have a good book, there needs to be an element of credibility, some degree of genuine believability. There is no credibility in this book.

I think it's ironic that Paulsen paints the NRA member as being so unintelligent. That is the same level of intelligence I would expect of someone who takes this book seriously. I have never seen a situation that involved a gun going off without being controlled by a human being. Never heard of any situation like that either.

The story takes off on a wonderful trajectory in the description of the rifle's creation, but degenerates into a stupid horror movie with a gun that kills everyone it comes in contact with, then hides in the attic until it gets one last victim. It seems like Paulsen was so intent on writing something that generated fear of guns, fear of people who possess guns, his brain slipped a cog. Maybe he was drunk. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

I wish it hadn't taken such a ridiculous direction. I thought it had potential when the plot was roughly described to me.

My son won't be reading this at 12 years old. Maybe when he's 14 or 15 I'll revisit the idea, let him read it then as an example of anti-gun propaganda.