[AnklePocket]

2nd Letter down. And what's everyone got against Idaho?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/opinion/local1/5220312.htm

Move, stay, move, stay, move, stay, move, stay, move, stay, move, stay, move, stay,...

And where would we be today without the potato (damn sure hope I spelled that correctly)?

[geekWithA.45]

The only people in this state who want people next to them in the grocery store or at their child's soccer game to carry a concealed handgun are the dwindling number of pro-gun extremists.


(If anyone has better figures, please speak up!)

In Shall Issue states, about 5% of the population has carry permits.

Let's say your average movie theater seats 200 people, and has about 10 screens.

That means that every Saturday night, in every theater in shall issue states, (such as PA, where there is no restriction on theaters) there are about 100 armed citizens sitting with their friends and loved ones.

Hmmm. That's funny. You'd think that if there was anything to the anti's delusions of fear, PA theaters would be continually awash with blood.

Let's say that there's about 200 people in the grocery store on a crowded day. That means 10 people with g g g g guns!

Listen! Are there any calls for blood cleanup and decontamination in aisle 10? No? Amazing!

Let's say there's 1000 people in the mall. I guess that means there are 50 bloodthirsty armed citizens just waiting for an excuse to re-enact the wild west.

Nope. I didn't hear any gunfire last week.

So, Nancy, you may not WANT me next to you in the grocery store, the soccer game, the mall, or the movie theater, but here I am, or someone just like me. And don't worry. I won't hurt you. Someday, you might even be glad I was there.

[AnklePocket]

Gary:
Please submit that one for print. Maybe change "population" to "eligible population" and note that only a fraction of those with permits actually carry on a regular basis so the numbers are probably closer to 2% if not lower. And that the vast majority of the remaining 98% are glad that we have these 2%ers that are exercising their Constitutional Rights (or at worst, have not nary a problem with it). Only a small fraction are Nancies.

[Boats]

New Jersey isn't Idaho?

No, it is a much more dangerous place, run by corrupt scum.

[Tamara]

Is The Sopranos about a family in Idaho? No? I rest my case.

Move, AnklePocket; the barbarians have captured the citadel, the walls have fallen, get out now before they erect a fence at the border.

[MonkeyMan]

I keep going to gun shows just to see a good gun fight.:( Thirty-five years now and I've never even heard a pop. Sacre Bleu! Ow iz zees possible?:confused: All of those evil nasty guns just lying there taunting people, casting their spells of bloodlust and mayhem hither and thither and everyone just ignores them.

:banghead:

You can stun them with logic but you can't make them think.

Me.

[Blackhawk]

In Shall Issue states, about 5% of the population has carry permits.I think that's WAY overstated. In my county of my shall issue state, less than 1% have carry licenses.

[CZ-75]

Joizy ain't Idaho; I'd actually WANT to live in Idaho.

Boise's bettah than Joizy.

[geekWithA.45]

1%? 2%?

Does anyone remember Lott's numbers, offhand?

[El Tejon]

geek, actually I believe that "population" percentage that Lott lists should be smaller. For example, of those that have licenses to carry, how many carry every day or "just when they think they have to"?

In my state, I know several individuals who have little pink cards, but only carry: if going to the range, going to Indianapolis (said in a whisper), going to the gun shoppe to pick up a new pistol and avoid the background check. I would assume this would be the case in a certain percentage of that small percentage that do possess licenses to carry in every state.

[Tamara]

For example, of those that have licenses to carry, how many carry every day or "just when they think they have to"?

The obverse of that is "How many that carry every day even bother to get a permission slip?". :eek:

[El Tejon]

Tamara, I don't know, but I can look at my jail list and find out if you want me to.

[AnklePocket]

"The obverse of that is "How many that carry every day even bother to get a permission slip?".":eek:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

If we have another girl her name will be Tamara, definitely.

[Gusgus]

Sorry, guys. This is New Jersey, not Idaho.

Let's just be thankful that Idaho isn't New Jersey. Sorry folks, but these are the bliss ninnies I live among. Yeap, Nancy is a typical Jersian. She believes all the lies in her letter, therefore, they must be truth. Damn, I can't wait to get out of here. :fire:

[Tamara]

Tamara, I don't know, but I can look at my jail list and find out if you want me to.

Catch 'em all up there, huh, El T? Is that because of the prodigious powers of Law Enforcement in IN, or because Hoosiers who tote sans slip always get brain seizures that make them brandish in front of cops? I'd imagine the percentage of folks toting off the books (both good guys and bad) that gets bagged is significantly less than 100% outside Lafayette. ;)

I ain't advocating it by any means, it's just that over the years I've known plenty, from old WWII vets who felt that they shouldn't need anyone's permission to tote the 1911 they were issued on Iwo to cranky libertarian types who just didn't dig asking anyone's permission to exercise their rights. If I've known a few dozen, I'm assuming there're more (especially in states where it's a just a nuisance misdemeanor offence, anyway...).

[El Tejon]

Tamara, catch them all?:D As you suspect, the answer is no.:rolleyes:

Do not know/remember how you factor either way (legal and don't carry vs. illegal and carry) in in computing the stats. It has been a few years and stats was not my fave class (a shocking lack of the young and nubile).

[Tamara]

I wonder if there's also a correlation between the difficulty of obtaining a permit and the frequency of packing?

[jimpeel]

Did anyone else notice that the letter gave the e-mail addy of the writer, Nancy?

Be nice, but firm, in any responses you write to her at: naxelrod@comcast.net

She is an obvious HCI, or their ilk, hack who gives the "... infamous "survey" by Gary Kleck showing an incredibly high number of defensive uses of guns. Kleck's methodology has been discredited." argument but is likely totally accepting of everything that Kellerman has ever written.

Here is what I have written to her:

Dear Ms. Axlerod,

Need I remind you that the victims of the Long Island Railway shooting finally disarmed the shooter using the only arms they are allowed to bear in NYC; the ones attached to their shoulders?

I also wonder; do you believe that the people on that train were glad that there was noone on the train who was armed besides the shooter -- as they watched him reload time after time -- while they cowered waiting for their turn to be shot?

The (il)logical answer to the possibility of a person, other than the criminal perpetrator, being armed on that train is that it would have only "increased the level of violence"; and the defender "might have hit an innocent person" during his/her attempted defense of themselves and the other passengers.

The only difference between yourself, and those who use a firearm to take responsibility for their own protection, is that you are willing to wait for men with firearms to come to your location to protect you.

You may state that the police in your neighborhood have a response time under two minutes but two minutes can be one Hell of a long time when someone is swinging a baseball bat at your head once every 3 seconds.

I pray that you never have a need to wait that 2 minutes.

Respectfully,

Jim Peel
Kimball, NE

[AnklePocket]

Ruh-Roh.
Just found this from February 6, 2001 which was in response to one of my funfests:

Efforts Target the Irresponsible

A writer It was me, I was the writer that she's talking about (Jan. 9, "Solid Constitutional Foundation") rightly stated that neither gun owners nor non-gun owners wish to "increase restrictions on responsible ownership." Without doubt, those of us seeking to strengthen gun laws care little to affect responsible owners; it is irresponsible and illegal owners we "aim" hey, that's pretty funny for.
We seek to reduce unintentional shooting of children by requiring handguns to be childproofed. We seek to destroy the illegal trafficking of handguns by limiting sales to each buyer to one per month. We seek to close off the source of guns for felons and the deranged by closing the loophole that allows prohibited purchasers to buy at gun shows, no questions asked.
The dirty little secret of the gun lobby is that it wants the public to believe that we in the gun-violence-prevention movement see responsible gun owners as our target and enemy. Not true. None of the above initiatives has serious consequences for the responsible. But these initiatives have dramatically negative consequences for irresponsible owners and prohibited purchasers (children, felons, insane).
The writer's that would be me again claims about the Second Amendment ("keeps hostile foreign forces foreign and keeps our government from becoming hostile") are just so much wishful thinking. He me, I say, it's me should read the judicial history of this much-misunderstood measure. He I'm not going to say it again would discover that the courts have ever and always found that the Second Amendment confers no private right to own or purchase a gun.

DRUM ROLL PLEASE.

Nancy Axelrod
Haddonfield

Good Lord, Nancy, please do something about this that's going on right in your backyard (from today's paper):
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/5229117.htm

[geekWithA.45]

Geek's opinion, not to be taken too seriously, but perhaps informative for folks who aren't from this neck of the woods:

----------------------------------------------------

Haddonfield NJ is populated with elitist snobs who are intolerant liberal Main Line wannabe's.

(The Main Line is is a series of Philadelphia suburbs, and is the biggest geographical concentration of monied people on the planet)

The town forms a sick nexus of insular, cliquesque mentality that has settled around monstrous social mores.

It is one of the few places I have ever been where the natives have ever had the ill grace to openly harrass me. (in this case, for not wearing the gang colors of the Neuvo-riche (sp) WASP. )

Many years ago, I was actually illegally kicked out of town, by the police.

:what:

Yes, the police actually escorted me to the town line in a crippled automobile for the crime posessing long hair, and having the gall to attempt to repair said auto in the street in front of one of these fine citizen's mansions.

:fire:

A year prior to that, my wife and I where followed by an employee through a shop, who didn't deign to offer to help, but watched us like hawks, fearing we might steal something.

:fire:

2 Years prior to that, before I met her, my wife lived in an apartment building on the main street for a few months, until she could no longer endure the snippy BS she encountered on a daily basis.

:fire:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
News Flash, Haddonfieldians:

(Not all of ya, but you know who you are)

You might be impressed by where you live, but I'm not. Monstrous income and a mansion doesn't make you decent human beings.

I have travelled the world over, spent my time among the rich and powerful, and the poor and destitute, and nowhere did I encounter the level of disrespect and lack of basic human decency that I found in Haddonfield, New Jersey.

Shame, shame, shame upon you all.

[Don Gwinn]

That's the second time today I've heard some idiot say "the courts have never found that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right."

B.S.

That's the only finding SCOTUS ever has made--and there was a time when they actually did hear cases on this issue and everything.

The only time they ever failed to state explicitly that the 2nd confers an individual right was in Miller, and that one, despite multiple lies told about it over the years, did NOT embrace the "collective rights" garbage. It simply tied the individual right to the suitability of the weapon for militia service. It didn't even imply that one actually had to be a member of a National Guard or the like, only that the guns you owned as an individual had to be suitable for a militia member's military purposes in order to be protected by the 2nd.

In plain language, Ms. Nancy is lying through her smelly yellow teeth.

[AnklePocket]

One of the hard-chargers at NJCSD.org just posted this:
http://www.sussexcountyjustice.com

[jmbg29]

Idaho is heaven. On those occasions when I'm lucky enough to be there, I just carry on my hip. If I wanted to conceal, I could, since Idaho also recognizes my WA CCW permit.

One could walk down the street in Idaho with a grocery bag full of cash with $ bills sticking out the top, and be safe.

Having lived in N.J. in my misguided youth (move west young man/woman) I can unequivocally say that one could never do the same in Joisy.

:cuss: Joisy!:fire: :fire: :fire: