OPEN this book on the Saturday thread UPDATED
Published in 1976 by Leisure Publishing
Back in the 1970s, Roanoke was home to a beer-guzzling pool hustler who moonlighted as a three-times-a-week columnist at The Roanoke Times.
His name was Mike Ives and long after the newspaper fired him he remained “my favorite columnist” to legions.
A copy of Ives’ infamous collection (left) was delivered to me Friday in the newsroom by Beth Handley, a former copy editor who will always rank high on a short list of the best the paper ever had.
Among other acts of journalistic derring do, Ives launched the sportswriting career of my pal Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, whose only qualifications were that Mudcat was jobless and they were drinking buddies.
Ives arranged for Mudcat to get an interview with Bill Brill, then the newspaper’s sports editor. Ives also coached Mudcat how to lie his way through it, convincingly.
What clinched the job was Mudcat’s absurd claim that he could type 132 words a minute. The truth was he couldn’t type at all. So for months afterwards, Mudcat wrote his sports copy longhand on legal pads and Ives typed it on the sly.
(The paper fired Mudcat, too, when an editor caught him “covering” the Patrick Henry – William Fleming basketball game with his chin on the bar of The Coffee Pot, a glass of whiskey inches from his nose and a transistor radio pressed up to his ear.)
Mudcat went on to cover the NFL. But his sportswriting career later crashed and burned when he was banned from the Baltimore Colts locker room by Johnny Unitas for asking this question:
“Johnny, why do you always dry your privates with that towel before you dry your head?” Years later, Mudcat got into politics, and ended up writing for Simon & Schuster.
Anyway, the editors here have ordered me to take off two weeks (with pay, of course) to study this volume and brush up on my skills. Otherwise, they warned, I would lose that vacation.
There are columns through Tuesday and some other stuff scheduled to show up on this blog, and I’ll be popping in here now and then, but probably not nearly so often.
Have a great Christmas, folks. I know I will, especially with this book.
Thanks, Beth!
P.S. Rumor has it that Richard Wells, publisher of The Roanoker, still has a basement full of unsold copies of “Give Me a Break. Buy This Book.” Or you can buy it used on Amazon.com for $10.95 – $21.50. It’s cheap either way.
——————————–
Update — Dave “Mudcat” Saunders responds via email:
“I love this…Sorry it took so long for me to see it.
I am in Haiti with some Hollywood people working with Father Rick Frecette, the doctor and humanitarian. Once I get back, we need to get together.
One thing for sure…I have learned a lesson on gratitude. Until you come here, you have no idea how bad things really are for the Haitians. At least, I had no idea.
Merry Xmas. I’ll be back on Thursday unless I catch the cholera.
Thanks, Mud”
December 17, 2011 - 11:30 AM
Mike Ives was one of the all time leading characters in Roanoke Folklore.
Most of the stories told about him over the years are true. And some of the more outlandish ones you can probably take and multiply by two and still be close to the truth. He was one of several colorful characters
who graced the pages of the RT during those days, especially the sports staff. Amac, Doughty and the boys are efficient at their jobs but they
don’t come close to matching the off beat style and fun that was the
RT in the 60′s, 70′s, and early 80′s. The newspaper world has changed, like everything else, but in many ways, not for the better.
As this appears to be an “Open” thread, I’ll post the comments for which I’ve been waiting for “Open” thread here.
Congratulations, Kristen and Dan. You have succeeded, where Suzie failed. You have run me off the blog – as a regular contributor.
I have reflected on my reaction to Kristen’s glee as she exploited the death of a good man in order to advance her hoplophobic magical thinking in the following taunt / troll, “Ok gun advocates…let’s hear it today.” — Comment by Kristen — December 8, 2011 @ 1:22 pm on http://tinyurl.com/7mno6vv
I took the bait. However, Ron’s cool wisdom quickly prevailed, for me.
See: “…We can debate gun issues later. Right now we need to keep the family of the officer who died today and the family of the shooter in our thoughts and prayers.” — Comment by Ron — December 8, 2011 @ 7:31 pm Also see, “I totally agree on debating later. You are right “[r]ight now we need to keep the family of the officer who died today and the family of the shooter in our thoughts and prayers.” — Comment by Dave Hicks — December 8, 2011 @ 9:17 pm
Thanks Ron. I needed that. Wish I had seen your comment before I replied to Kristen’s pathetic politicization of the tragedy.
OTOH, during the week that I have followed Ron’s advice, Dan has had a number of threads exploiting the emotion of the tragedy — ignoring Ron’s sage advice.
That same day, Dan blasted forth yet another of his fabricated “straw men” clutching at a “red herring” – namely asserting that:
1) “The victim was armed. Tragically, there goes the prime argument for concealed carry on campus. [Emphasis added]” — Comment by Dan Casey — December 8, 2011 @ 3:27 pm and
2) “…The police officer’s being armed didn’t prevent him from getting killed.” — Comment by Dan Casey — December 8, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
I know of no supporter of human-rights, civil-rights, freedom, and the RKBA who has posited that being armed would prevent one being killed (or would guarantee that one would not be killed) in a confrontation with an armed criminal – must less in an assassination by ambush.
To the best of my knowledge, VCDL has not put forward such nonsense as an argument (prime or otherwise) for discreet carry of a self-defense sidearm on campus. I have not said anything like that. I do not remember anyone else posting or saying it on this blog. IMHO, it was a pure fabrication – nothing more. Rather akin to Dan’s idol Mudcat’s “absurd claim that he could type 132 words a minute. [When t]he truth was he couldn’t type at all” — pure fabrication.
The “straw man” metaphor for Dan’s fabrications suggests that his attack of the counterfeit position he alleges are his opponents’ “prime argument” is out of his desperation. Once again Dan creates weak “straw men” arguments in faux fights rather than deal with his opponents’ actual positions. He repeatedly puts forward “straw men” counterfeit positions. Why? Because it is easier for him to proclaim victory over his counterfeit “straw man” rather than to deal with a flesh-and-blood thinking person. This is no accident. Ignoring the real arguments and allegedly defeating weaker counterfeit positions is part of what makes the fallacy so tempting to commit — especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. See: http://tinyurl.com/76mkzzl It’s a very good read as to how badly Dan and company are losing.
No one enjoys a good logical debate more than I do. However, this continuing juvenile taunting of the “Your mother wears combat boots” / “Yay, Yay, Yay” / “I win, I win” type of sandbox shouting match has sucked me in. I took a good hard look at what I have let this blog do to me – first I dropped to Suzie’s level of name-calling, and then I was baited into a debate before the bodies were cold. Didn’t like what I saw. Doing something about it.
I’ll likely drop in from time-to-time. But I’m out of here as a regular.
FWIIW, given the veracity and ethics of Dan’s idols (as reflected in the OP for this thread) it seems an appropriate time and place to distance oneself from the blog.
Ya’ll play nice now.
I have that book. I bought it when it first came out. I loved Mike Ives.
I remember Mike Ives when he was a Times sports writer and wore a coat and tie. I think he was one of the most talented feature writers and columnists I ever knew. I have his book of columns. Great stuff! As Brando might say, he could have been a contender. He now lives in Florida. He is a sailor. He visited us on the Northern Neck last summer and we went sailing. Still an interesting guy.
Jack Chamberlain, Roanoke Times, retired
I have that book too. There are two stories from that book that I remember well. The one about Muhammad Ali and the one about Ed Clark, The Stonega Stallion.
Ali did an exhibition in Roanoke in November, 1972. Ives’ story was about Ali’s visit to the PAL gym on Campbell Ave. the night before. It is IMO, the best story ever written about Ali. If anyone reading this blog is an Ali fan, it would be worth buying the book for that story alone.
Ali was paid to do an exhibition and didn’t have to do anything else. He came to town early, visited the gym, radio stations, the clubs on Henry St.(1st St. N.W.), etc, to build interest in the exhibition. He went far beyond what he had to do. Ali had just fought Bob Foster a week previous to the Roanoke exhibition, and had been cut for the first time in his career. He still did the exhibition and put on a great show.
The Stonega Stallion, Ed Clark was a football legend at Appalachia High School who played football at Purdue. He is the uncle of Thomas and Julius Jones who played at U.Va. and Notre Dame respectively and both played in the NFL. Ives found him while he was visiting the coal fields. It was a “where are they now” type story. Interesting story, don’t want to give anything away to anyone who might buy the book.
Dan I remember his column well…Had forgotten about him
Never met the guy but would love to get a copy of that book.
Would be quite nostalgic for me.
Dave Hicks, I don’t know if you’ll see this, since you may not be checking back, but I just want to say that I really respect the level headed thinking in your posts. I hope you will want to resume some participation sooner rather than later.
The one point that I might make about the VT tragedy and subsequent gun discussions, though, and this applies to anyone reading this, is that if we automatically say it’s “too soon” after a tragedy to discuss these policies, then we are faced with an unsatisfactory choice. We must either be willing to ONLY apply the “too soon” rule to gun violence tragedies within our own awareness and ignore those elsewhere, or else we must never discuss gun policies at all, since there are gun violence tragedies at such a rate in this nation that virtually any discussion will be occuring within a short time of another one. In fact, any discussion you’ve ever had on the topic has occured within hours of another gun tragedy, but it hadn’t impressed on your conciousness, and so it didn’t seem as inappropriate a time for discussion as it might feel after a publicized local tragedy.
I can accept one’s sincerity in feeling that those affected by gun violence deserve time to grieve. Of course they do. They will do so in their own ways, which may or may not include exposure to public policy discussion forums. We must understand their needs and their pace of mourning, across the spectrum of reactions. For others not directly affected, intellectual honesty compels us to admit the role that our personal awareness plays in allowing us to EVER think that a particular time is without gun violence sufferings in our country. If one feels pained by a particular episode, it is valid to remove oneself from spheres that might increase one’s pain. For others, given the rate of gun violence in our society, if we are equal in our respect for ALL gun violence victims, whether we know about them or not, then we either will never have a time for discussion, or we must acknowledge that the pain of the victims stems from the violence itself, and separate policy discussion from reflexive, NIMBY-ish invocations of “too soon”.
How splendidly and narrowly sensitive of you, Dave Hicks. Enjoy life in the BobH corner.
And of courses he’s reading this.
We’re glad you’re feeling better, Dave Hicks. Happy holidays.
THANK YOU PRES. OBAMA FOR WITHDRAWING OUR OCCUPATION FORCES FROM IRAQ.
I wonder if there’s a number anywhere of how much money we’re saving getting out of Iraq.
When you mentioned Mike Royko the other day, I thought of Mike Ives and went looking for my copy of his book. Sadly, I seem to have misplaced it. Guess what’s on my Christmas list now?
He was fabulous! They just don’t make them like Mike anymore, do they?
Have a great Christmas, Dan!
Kristen,
A Brookings Institute report published in Nov. 2011 documented slightly more than $800 Billion in expenditures on Iraq. Additionally, we have spent more than $550 Billion on Afghanistan. Grand total of 1.3 Trillion dollars. Leaving Iraq will save $100 billion per year. Getting out of Afghanistan would save $55 billion per year. 10 year savings totals $1.5 trillion.
Beyond the monetary savings, why should we leave? First, we don’t understand middle eastern societies. Iraq itself has several different cultures within its boundaries. Those cultures have been fighting each other since the days of Alexander the Great and before. Afghanistan is even more fractured culturally.
If our original intent for going into Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein we could have paid Israel a few billion dollars and they would have gladly taken care of that. We would be in no worse shape then as now when we are leaving. We would not have lost 4000+ soldiers lives and 30,000+ soldiers wounded and countless others suffering from PTSD. Think of the savings.
Afghanistan is no better. That’s where Al Quaida was and where we should have gone after 9/11. Frankly the only reason we went into Iraq was the oil fields in Basra and Kurdistan.
As I said in an earlier post on an earlier thread, we need a rational discussion in our country about the appropriate use of U.S. military power beyond our borders. We haven’t had that since Vietnam and I’m not sure that discussion was particularly rational.
That’s enough of a sermon for now.
Below is a link to the Brookings Institute studies. The first is the Iraq report and you can find a link to the Afghanistan report within this report.
http://usliberals.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usliberals&cdn=newsissues&tm=5&gps=319_189_833_352&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&st=10&zu=http%3A//www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
Dave Hicks,
Don’t give up on us completely. Hope you continue to feel better.
Dave Hicks,
I hope your self imposed exile is a short one, as I always looked forward to your unique perspective to current events. You are obviously an extremely well read person, a trait I admire in anyone but find increasingly rare in conservatives nowadays.
We all have opinions but the ability to tolerate contrarians, up until this point anyway, always seemed like one of your strong suits, at least until you had to suffer the handful of troglodytes that somehow escaped natural selection and ended up on Dan’s blog.
Have a Merry Christmas and please reconsider your rather rash response to others equally passionate expression of their 1st amendment rights. Out of all the knuckle headed CCW lot, you always seemed like one of the few that I am confident would not have ever shot their foot off.
Your participation here will be missed.
4,474 that we know of; what a colossal waste of America’s greatest resource.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-iraq-the-last-to-fall-david-hickman-the-4474th-us-service-member-killed/2011/12/15/gIQAgwl00O_story.html?hpid=z1
This, boys and girls, is why friends don’t let friends vote republican.
You know libs have really crossed the line when another libs gives them a good smacking. I think a bit of contrition from Kristen and Dan is in order.
Mike Ives was by far the best columnist Roanoke ever had. He didn’t get obsessed with one or two topics (can anyone say gun control?) He wrote about a wide variety of interesting characters. The runner up to best Roanoke Times columnist is Joe Kennedy. He also wrote more about people than politics. Joe’s stories about his family were his best.
Enjoyed myself at the C&E gun show in Salem today. Checked out lots of nice handguns…Glock, Walther, Sig Sauer, S&W, HK, etc…signed up to the VCDL, and went home with a nice 1911 from Sig Sauer, after all checks were completed. A thoroughly pleasant way to spend the day. I hope to pick up another nice rifle soon as well, and then log a fair bit of time at the range. Tis a pursuit I find most enjoyable, and my wife too.
Sorry to see you go, Dave Hicks…though I understand your feelings, as I am inclined to follow suit, and in many ways I already have. See you around, perhaps.
Thanks, Dan. Ives was quite the character.
Dave Hicks, I always enjoyed reading your posts and found them very informative. I like the fact that you were always pushing news that we need to know in front of us that we otherwise might miss. I hope you will check in frequently and come back soon.
11:41pm Saturday Night, I guess this is re-runs, I’ve been out visiting extended family for the season, I am jumping with joy and so happy our military mission in Iraq has come to a close. I wish all those boys and girls who will be home for Christmas a heartfelt WELCOME HOME and THANK YOU for all you have done for US. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
ha! i have a couple copies of “Give Me a Break,” one i had signed in .. Dec. 1977 (9 yrs old, folks!) and one that seems to’ve been withdrawn from the Roanoke Public Library (why?). though he was from D.C., Ives had a true appreciation for Southwestern VA / wasn’t obsessed with trying to turn Roanoke into a 3rd rate someplace *else*.
Dave Hicks
We will miss your usually well reasoned and informative posts and I’m sure we’re all pleased that you seem to be recovering from your illness.
However I musy say that I found your post to be overly sanctimonious
and not in keeping with your own posting history on this blog. I often agreed with your thoughts or at least respected them, including the ones on the gun issue. Those I most often didn’t agree with but nobody agrees on everything. And I don’t think anyone here ever meant any disrespect to the family or friends of Officer Crouse. I saw nothing but dismay at the tragedy that occurred both from people who are avid gun rights advocates
and from those who believe that lax gun regulatioins contribute to the high instance of gun violence in our country.If anything would deter me from posting here, it would be more the language of disrespect, racism,
and outright bigotry and lack of compassion exhibited by some bloggers.
The profane refeences to people with whom we disagree and the litany of racially mocking references toward the President and people who are poor, handicapped, or otherwise unable to care for themselves is a far greter transgression to my way of thinking.
25 Dave,
Are you equally dismayed at bloggers who made unfounded against a 100% black candidate? Does that kind of racism bother you? Or is your outrage selective?
Frank Luntz commissioned this poll to prove people believe every one is entitled to a firearm…except…wait for it…
not even the NRA members agreed!!!!
“NEW POLL BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS NRA-MEMBERS AND OTHER GUN OWNERS SUPPORT SENSIBLE MEASURES TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.”
82% of NRA Members and 86% of Non-NRA Gun Owners Support Prohibiting Suspected Terrorists From Purchasing Guns
69% of NRA Members and 85% of Non-NRA Gun Owners Support Background Checks for all Gun Sales at Gun Shows
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr012-09.shtml
This thread has had me thinking back nostalgically to the many characters that inhabited the sports staff at the RTWN during that time I got to know many of them during the brief few years that I worked as a part time sports writer. I remember Newton Spencer, Scotty Helton, Bill Cate,
Bob Adams, the immortal Harold “Soup” Wimmer and of course the stogie smoking , beer drinking Bill Brill and his counterpart on the World News side, Bob “Guts” McClelland. And the best writer of the bunch was a guy who didn’t stay very long named Lee Mueller. I often wondered what happened to him. All a different day and a different time!
Those were also the halcyon days of a popular joint on Franklin Road,
The New Wood. It was “the” place to go for Roanoke’s party crowd and Mike Ives was known to spend a fair amount of time there. The New Wood was owned by a personable and popular hustler by the name of Johnny Joplin.
He bought the old church and renovated it into a night club after enjoying several years of success with another joint called the Driftwood.
Legend has it that Joplin won the title to the Driftwood in a poker
game, a story that was highly believable to people who were acquainted with him.
“Suzie says:
Dave,
Are you equally dismayed at bloggers who made unfounded [accusations? allegations?] against a 100% black candidate? Does that kind of racism bother you? Or is your outrage selective?”
No one is 100% any race. We’re all ‘mutts’. Yes, even you.
And Dave’s outrage is as selective as yours.
Hillary-
“82% of NRA Members and 86% of Non-NRA Gun Owners Support Prohibiting Suspected Terrorists From Purchasing Guns”
Everyone, liberal or conservative, pro gun or not, should be disgusted with this. What they are talking about is barring anyone on any number of terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms. The problem is that most of the people on these lists don’t even know it, aren’t terrorists, and there’s little if anything they can do to get off. This proposal is yet another attack on due process, which maybe shouldn’t be surprising since both the current and previous presidents have taken whiteout to the fourth amendment.
“69% of NRA Members and 85% of Non-NRA Gun Owners Support Background Checks for all Gun Sales at Gun Shows”
I don’t think too many people would be against this. But it would end up highlighting what we’ve been trying to say all along: it’s not a gun show loophole. It’s perfectly legal to buy a gun from a private, non FFL holding seller just about anywhere. So if you didn’t want to do the background check inside the gun show, you could literally walk out to the parking lot and legally complete a sale. So closing this so-called loophole would be another feel good policy that does nothing to prevent crime.
I notice that the right wingers have pretty much rejected the “100 percent” African American guy. No surprise there.
#28 I used to bowl on a team with Newt and bowled against Brill. Man that guy was insufferable when he beat you.
Dave Hicks – I hope you get the distance and perspective you need and then return! Everyone has buttons here and we’ve all had them pushed at one time or another. May your button get re-set and enjoy the holidays in the meantime. Take care!
Firstly, thinking of regulating sales of firearms usually begins the inflammatory and nonsensical argument over 2nd Amendment rights. The argument is a red herring. Good public policy should reflect the rights of sportsman and women, allow for personal protection, but, also control who gets to purchase a firearm. Ronald Reagan would not have had a near death experience if John Hinkley Jr had not been able to buy the weapon in a pawn shop – “a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol – purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.” Ronald Reagan (March 29, 1991). “Why I’m for the Brady Bill”. The New York Times. Even Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill.
Saying that, “you could literally walk out to the parking lot and legally complete a sale” is no rationale for not beginning some type of control on the purchase of a weapon.
One step at a time Jason will eventually get you where you want to go.
Ronald Reagan was big on gun control. So, at one time, was the NRA. So were the founding fathers. And the founders imposed the first individual mandate in this nation’s history — a requirement that households own guns (that was the well-regulation militia).
More of this fascinating stuff from The Atlantic.
Hillary-
“One step at a time Jason will eventually get you where you want to go.”
The question isn’t whether or not it’s a good idea to control who gets guns. I don’t want criminals getting them anymore than anyone else. The issue is whether a given policy will be effective or is feel good nonsense.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that less than 1% of convicted criminals surveyed bought their guns at gun shows. Want to make NICS checks available to non FFLs at gun shows? Great, knock yourself out. But most criminals already get most of their guns from other sources. Even granting that you’ll prevent X number of criminals from getting guns at gun shows (which you can’t, because they can use straw purchasers there), you still haven’t prevented them from getting a gun. You’ve merely forced them to go to another source.
Imagine if there was a law that said Wal-Mart was no longer allowed to sell milk. How many people would be prevented from buying milk?
Having said all that, I’m in favor of a law designating what a gun show is and then requiring private sellers to use the NICS system at them. My support for such a law is out of pure political pragmatism. This is a chance for the pro-gun side to “compromise” and support “sensible” gun laws. The beauty of course is that such a law would have little if any effect on anyone. It wouldn’t hinder law-abiding people or criminals, but would garner positive PR.
#31 Even though I generally wish this country didn’t seem to have the need or desire for so many guns, I have to agree that the whole “suspected terrorist” list thing is a joke.
gdad
Bill Brill could be insufferable anytime He loved to win. I played poker and bridge with him from time to time and he still loved to win. But he was also one of the most genuine people I ever knew. You didn’t have to guess where he stood on anything. And he was generous to a fault, and a good friend when you needed one.
As a person usually in wild favor of any and all gun regulation, I have to say that absolutely nothing should be based on what looks like the “No Fly List”.
No one wants to see terrorists here walking around with guns,but I’m not sure actual terrorists have anything to do with what’s considered a “suspected terrorist” these days.
#37 Some of your arguments are the same used by Pawn Shop owners years ago about the “loophole”. If we are forced to use the NICS, the pawn shop owners said, – (a.) “we could lose sales, and (b). the guy is only going to go “to another source”. So where would you stop pushing for some controls on weapons? Should we have simply listened to the “we can’t do that” crowd and left the pawn industry to peddle their wares without any controls? What about automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Should those have no restrictions? Those Individuals with right-to-carry permits or permits-to-purchase and had background checks through NICS are not the groups legislation is targeting.
As to your other point, “The problem is that most of the people on these lists don’t even know it, aren’t terrorists, and there’s little if anything they can do to get off.”
Firstly, I don’t care if they know or not know if they are terrorists! Homegrown terrorists have easy access to weapons, and I’d like to see both international and homegrown not find it so easy to purchase weapons in the US, which by the way is the most armed country in the world. Secondly, the following disproves your point:
“Police disrupted a number of such plots, such as the one allegedly organized by members of the Hutaree Christian militia last year in Michigan, who authorities said planned to kill a police officer and later ambush the funeral procession. During the investigation of this group, LAW ENFORCEMENT SEIZED MACHINE GUNS and a variety of explosives.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hutaree-christian-militia-plotted-kill-cops-top-general-jesus-christ-fbi-article-1.163041
Can we stop every purchase by someone with ill-intent. The answer is no. Should we stop trying? The answer is no.
Dan, I stopped by Leisure Publishing today thinking I might buy a few of Ives’ books for Christmas gifts. They don’t have them – the person I talked to said he remembers the books but hasn’t seen any in a long time.
VRWC,
Did you check with Richard Wells himself? Last I heard (and I can’t remember who I heard it from, honestly) he had boxes full of unsold copies in his basement.
Update: I just called Richard Wells. He’s not sure if they’re still down there or not. He’s going to check and get back to me.
Update #2: Richard Wells reports he has them no longer. “You tell the guy Mike had a sellout,” he said.
Better luck on Amazon.com (they start at $11 + $4 for shipping)
Dan, no, I didn’t talk to Richard Wells. The guy I talked to (the receptionist called him out of his office)said the basement at the business has been cleaned out a few times over the years. He remembered Ives and the book. The receptionist said I was the only person who has called or stopped by to ask about the book. If you happen to find out that Wells does still have copies, let me know by email or here. Thanks.
Dan #43, just saw your new updates. Thanks for checking. Hope you are enjoying the book.
Hillary-
“Some of your arguments are the same used by Pawn Shop owners years ago about the “loophole”.”
This isn’t a relevant comparison because the only people who would be affected by this would be private sellers, not people who make a living selling guns. And those people would still have the option of selling their guns anywhere but gun shows.
“So where would you stop pushing for some controls on weapons?”
It’s not quantity, it’s quality. I want gun regulation (and really broader social and criminal policy) that WORKS, that makes sense.
“What about automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Should those have no restrictions?”
What about them? Automatic weapons are already very tightly controlled. You have to go through a lot of red tape, background checks, a signature from local law enforcement, months of waiting, and then have to be willing to spend new car money to buy them. Since the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, only two have been used in crimes, both by policemen.
And do you understand what a semi-automatic weapon is? I ask because you seem to think of them as something apart from most guns, when the reality is that the vast majority of guns sold today are semi-automatic. You almost have to go out of your way to buy a handgun that isn’t.
“Those Individuals with right-to-carry permits or permits-to-purchase and had background checks through NICS are not the groups legislation is targeting.”
But they are the only groups that the legislation significantly affects.
“As to your other point, “The problem is that most of the people on these lists don’t even know it, aren’t terrorists, and there’s little if anything they can do to get off.”
Firstly, I don’t care if they know or not know if they are terrorists!”
So you are ok with the government secretly putting innocent people on a list that restricts their rights? No trial, no hearing, no nothing?
“Homegrown terrorists have easy access to weapons, and I’d like to see both international and homegrown not find it so easy to purchase weapons in the US, which by the way is the most armed country in the world.”
Closing the gun show loophole will do nothing to prevent them from getting guns. Won’t even inconvenience them.
“Secondly, the following disproves your point:
“Police disrupted a number of such plots, such as the one allegedly organized by members of the Hutaree Christian militia…”
Which point does that disprove?
“Can we stop every purchase by someone with ill-intent. The answer is no. Should we stop trying? The answer is no.”
Wrong question. The question is, should we enact policy that has no effect on crime for the illusion of safety?
#46 Jason
“IT’S NOT QUANTITY, IT’S QUALITY. I WANT GUN REGULATION (AND REALLY BROADER SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL POLICY) THAT WORKS, THAT MAKES SENSE”.
You’ve indicated what you think doesn’t or won’t work. What is your suggestion of legislation that would? You’ve suggested gun laws aren’t effective – then what’s your solution? Although I agree laws need to work and make sense, the existing laws only work sometimes, because of the glaring loopholes, like gun show “parking lots”. I don’t think the existing laws are so much ineffective, as lacking in monitoring and regulating gun sales – all gun sales, whether at shows, pawn shops or “parking lots”. So, dithering over wordage, and not moving forward on legislation to regulate both semi-automatic and automatic weapons [yes I know the difference, one you can shoot Bambi with, the other, not so much] at ALL points of sale. Splitting hairs over pawn shops vs gun shows is not the point. The real danger is to continue to ignore the violence and mayhem caused by unregulated firearm sales – different laws in different states. Each regulation is simply a stepping stone towards getting it right. You cannot get to a fair and functioning set of laws and regulations without these small steps that you call “illusionary”. Without the Brady Bill for example, other steps to gun control would never have happened. Of course with the money from the NRA and the ignorance surrounding the 2nd Amendment, gun control legislation will be an uphill battle.
“AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE ALREADY VERY TIGHTLY CONTROLLED”
Well of course, since that is basically a machine gun. My point regarding semi-automatic weapons, which you claim, “the reality is that the vast majority of guns sold today are semi-automatic” is just that. The majority of the guns doing the damage are semi-automatic, especially those with a large capacity clips. Who needs to fire off 15 or more rounds without reloading? You might have to pull the trigger for each shot, but only reload after firing off those 15 shots. The semi-automatic weapon used in the VA Tech shooting was just such a gun – also the preferred weapons used by gangs – semi-automatics with large capacity clips.
“BUT THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUPS THAT THE LEGISLATION SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS.” Nothing stops those who can legally purchase a firearm from doing so. What’s the problem?
SO YOU ARE OK WITH THE GOVERNMENT SECRETLY PUTTING INNOCENT PEOPLE ON A LIST THAT RESTRICTS THEIR RIGHTS? NO TRIAL, NO HEARING, NO NOTHING?
What “lists”? Law enforcement has spent years investigating individuals and groups for a variety of reasons. Remember the “mob”? They were constantly under surveillance for their illegal activities. The homegrown groups [Timothy McVeigh was part of one] often went unnoticed in the past – but because of McVeigh, law enforcement or homeland security have become more vigilante. The point of the previous citation [Hutaree Christian militia] was to show there are groups stockpiling “legal semi automatic” weapons to perpetrate violent acts. And yes, if that means putting them on some “list” – go to it. It has nothing to do with “No trial, No hearing, No nothing.” When these individuals were arrested, they were provided legal representation, had their hearings in open court, so what’s the problem? You may be confused with the “terrorists” at Guantanamo, which is another topic.
CLOSING THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE WILL DO NOTHING TO PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING GUNS. WON’T EVEN INCONVENIENCE THEM.
I’m not sure you’re correct with this statement. An overhaul of the background-check system for gun purchases [whether pawn shops, gun shows or dealers] may prevent such mentally ill people [VA Tech shooting; the Gabby Giffords shooting in AZ] to so easily obtain weapons. Incorporating Gun Show’s into background checks should help deter the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Your premise of “illusion of safety” defies common sense – the regulations already in effect have prevented many who shouldn’t have guns, from getting them. The more lax the gun laws, the more likely that dangerous people will acquire weapons. Gun control is imperfect, needs to be improved, but going forward in small steps is still going forward – no illusion.
THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE ENACT POLICY THAT HAS NO EFFECT ON CRIME FOR THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY?
No, the question is do we sit around and wait for that perfect, “quality” piece of legislation that will never come, or make the necessary small steps? Giant leaps will never get through a Congress with a long list of representatives bought and paid for by the NRA.
Hillary-
“You’ve indicated what you think doesn’t or won’t work. What is your suggestion of legislation that would?”
You’ve asked me this question before, and I answered it. Crackdown on straw purchases, enhanced sentencing for use of a gun in a crime or illegal possession, and better social policy to reduce poverty and crime overall (reforming educational funding, ending the drug war, better social safety nets).
“Although I agree laws need to work and make sense, the existing laws only work sometimes, because of the glaring loopholes, like gun show “parking lots”.”
You aren’t paying attention. I told you, criminals rarely and I mean VERY rarely, get their guns at gun shows.
“…legislation to regulate both semi-automatic and automatic weapons [yes I know the difference, one you can shoot Bambi with, the other, not so much]”
Semi-autos can be and are used for hunting.
“Splitting hairs over pawn shops vs gun shows is not the point.”
You’re the one that brought up pawn shops, I’m the one that said it was a bad comparison.
“The real danger is to continue to ignore the violence and mayhem caused by unregulated firearm sales”
Who is ignoring it? That’s a false dichotomy. Being opposed to ineffective and oppressive laws does not mean you are ignoring the problem.
” – different laws in different states. Each regulation is simply a stepping stone towards getting it right.”
No they aren’t. Take the Assault Weapons Ban. It was in place for ten years, had no effect on crime and was allowed to expire. It’s termination has not, surprise surprise, had any effect on crime. So each law isn’t a step. An ineffective law doesn’t “step” anywhere, it stands in place or even falls backwards.
“You cannot get to a fair and functioning set of laws and regulations without these small steps that you call “illusionary”.”
See above. And yes, an ineffective law provides the illusion of safety.
“Without the Brady Bill for example, other steps to gun control would never have happened.”
You have no way to prove this and history says it’s nonsense.
“Of course with the money from the NRA and the ignorance surrounding the 2nd Amendment, gun control legislation will be an uphill battle.”
If it’s bad legislation, it should be uphill.
“Well of course, since that is basically a machine gun.”
Then why did you bring them up!?
“My point regarding semi-automatic weapons, which you claim, “the reality is that the vast majority of guns sold today are semi-automatic” is just that. The majority of the guns doing the damage are semi-automatic, especially those with a large capacity clips.”
Oh god, here we go with the magazines again.
“Who needs to fire off 15 or more rounds without reloading?”
Cops like large capacity magazines. Regular shooters like them for range shooting and competition. Most importantly, again you are proposing a regulation with no evidence it would work, and plenty of evidence that it wouldn’t. The vast majority of gun crimes involve far fewer than 15 shots, usually a low enough number that a revolver would have done the same job.
“You might have to pull the trigger for each shot, but only reload after firing off those 15 shots.”
That situation involves a tiny minority of gun crimes.
“The semi-automatic weapon used in the VA Tech shooting was just such a gun – also the preferred weapons used by gangs – semi-automatics with large capacity clips.”
So pro-gun people shouldn’t use Virginia Tech as an example of a typical event, but anti-gun people should? VT was an aberration, creating broad policy based on it is ridiculous, whether it’s pro or anti gun.
“What “lists”? Law enforcement has spent years investigating individuals and groups for a variety of reasons.”
Ok, you literally don’t know what we are talking about. We are referring to federal “watch lists”. These are names of people who, for often ridiculous reasons, are considered more likely to be terrorists. A good example was when the late Ted Kennedy was held up at an airport because someone with a similar name was on one of these watch lists.
Again, placement on these lists is done in secret. You don’t get to dispute whatever “evidence” they used, you don’t get a lawyer, they don’t have to go before a judge, nothing.
“I’m not sure you’re correct with this statement.”
Given that gun shows are already not used for guns used in crimes very often, I think I am.
“An overhaul of the background-check system for gun purchases [whether pawn shops, gun shows or dealers] may prevent such mentally ill people [VA Tech shooting; the Gabby Giffords shooting in AZ] to so easily obtain weapons.”
No it won’t. Cho and Loughner passed all of the background checks. Neither purchased their guns at a gun show or in a parking lot. The only thing that might have stopped him them is greatly expanding the definition of “too mentally ill to own a gun”. That policy is VERY dangerous. Who decides which mental illness or what severity determines the restriction? How do you deal with doctor/patient confidentiality? Does garden variety depression get you disqualified? If not, what is the threshold?
“Incorporating Gun Show’s into background checks should help deter the mentally ill from acquiring firearms.”
How? For the 100th time, guns used in crimes are very very rarely acquired at gun shows. Cho and Loughner didn’t use them. Gun shows are inconvenient in many ways; a mentally ill person is going to get a gun in the easiest way possible. Which usually means a freaking gun store, not a gun show.
“Your premise of “illusion of safety” defies common sense – the regulations already in effect have prevented many who shouldn’t have guns, from getting them.”
The regulations already in place prevented those people from getting guns *legally*. Just because they failed a background check doesn’t mean all of them stopped trying. Straw purchases neatly get around that.
“The more lax the gun laws, the more likely that dangerous people will acquire weapons. Gun control is imperfect, needs to be improved, but going forward in small steps is still going forward – no illusion.”
Nope, bad laws that don’t make you safer are illusory. Your infatuation with gun show laws is a great example. They will not move the needle even a tiny bit.
“No, the question is do we sit around and wait for that perfect, “quality” piece of legislation that will never come, or make the necessary small steps?”
Your “small step” theory doesn’t work. A law that accomplishes nothing is not a small step. It is worthless. It wastes time and sometimes resources just to make people feel better.
Hillary-
When I said that I had given you my “solutions” before, I think I confused you with Miriam. My apologies.
I agree to disagree with you on almost all points…
Thank you for your participation.
Jason, thank you for your efforts.
Jason – thanks for the well thought out exchange of ideas/information. Hope you have a peaceful “whatever-you-celebrate” and happy new year.
I found my copy of Mike Ives Book at my mom’s house this weekend. It’s stuffed full of yellowed copies of some of his oclumns. I’m looking forward to rereading them.
Make the columns.
Even in correcting a typo, I screwed up.
My seond comment should have been, Make that columns.
Don’t sweat the small stuff Debbie!!
No sweating, Ron. Just laughing at myself.
One of the columns, I had stuffed in the book was his last one. At the end of it, it said this is Mike Ives last column. He is no longer employed by the Roanoke Times and World-News.
The column wasn’t all that great, but I guess I saved it b/c it was the last one.
Debbie, can you send me a copy?
–dan
Sure, Dan.