Percent of Adult Population with concealed handgun permits in Florida, with one county having about 18% of population with permits

The number of permits issued for Florida is from November 30, 2013.  1,045,551 Floridians have concealed handgun permits, that is almost 7 percent of Florida's adult population.  Santa Rosa is the 30th largest of Florida's 67 counties.  It has 17.7% of adults with permits.  That makes committing a violent crime in Santa Rosa a lot more dangerous.  
While I don't put much weight on purely cross-sectional data, Santa Rosa may be somewhat more populous than the median country, but it has the third lowest violent crime rate (157.7 per 100,000).  That is much lower than the rate for the rest of the state.  The average rate across counties was 418.3 and the median was 363.8.  Indeed, its violent crime rate was very similar to the rates in the two less populous counties that that had lower violent crime rates.
WUFT has also done a study relating permit issuing rate and Stand Your Ground cases, but they can't find a correlation between the two.
A county-by-county analysis of concealed weapons permit ownership shows no correlation between the two. When the eligible population for permit ownership is compared to the county’s population, the counties with the most dominant permit ownership are clustered in the northern part of the state. 
Conversely, the counties with the most stand your ground cases are clustered in the southern part of the state. 
WUFT reached a close approximation of the eligible population by calculating the population over 20 in each county (you must be 21 to obtain a permit, but neither the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services nor the Census Bureau report the over 21 population) and by subtracting each county’s inmates. 
The result shows that Dixie County has the most permits with 15 percent of its eligible population owning a license, followed by Okaloosa County with 12.3 percent and Jackson County with 11.4 percent. . . .

Labels: ,


People waiting in long lines to register guns in Connecticut with only one week left before new laws go into effect

This rule will impose big costs on gun owners and produce no new safety benefits.  From WFSB-TV Channel 3 in Hartford, CT:
There are only five more days until the new gun laws go into effect for our state, that means a dash to register assault weapons or high capacity magazines.
A long line of people stood outside of the Public Safety Building in Middletown all day Thursday to register firearms.
Specifically, anything the state considers an assault weapon or a high capacity magazine must be registered before Jan. 1, 2014.
"If they were trying to make them illegal, I'd have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that's fine with me," said Charles Gillette, who was registering magazines.
"I understand why they're doing it, but I don't think it's constitutional," said Scott Boccio, who was registering guns. . . .
None of the people Eyewitness News spoke with thinks this is going to reduce gun violence. They believe it's only hurting law abiding citizens.
"If people are going to do things illegally, they're not going to be here registering their gun," said Jared Krajewski, who was registering guns. . . .


By 2-to-1 margin Americans don't think that tighter gun control laws will prevent criminals from getting guns, 4% more Americans think armed school officials better than more gun control in stopping school shootings

A new survey from Reason-Rupe that was conducted December 4–8, 2013:

Labels: , ,

Toby Keith restaurant in Virginia posts ban on concealed carry guns? Keith has strongly supported Concealed Carry in the past

Back in 2011, Toby Keith was quoted as having quite strong views supporting concealed carry laws.
 “I’m all about good people, licensed and trained, carrying a concealed weapon,” Keith said. “The bad guys are always gonna be carrying guns. There are so many guns in the US and so many bad people that do harm with ‘em. If just one percent of the non-felons would go get their concealed weapons license and carry a gun where they can, one percent puts you in a pretty good position of being somebody that could save a bunch of people’s lives.”   “If somebody asked me ‘Why do you have one? What are you afraid of?’ I’d say, ‘I ain’t afraid of nothing. I carry so I don’t have to be.’”
Yet, Keith has a new restaurant chain where he has a "NO GUNS PERMITTED" sign at the door.  From Fox's DC affiliate:
A big country star opened a huge, new restaurant last week in Woodbridge, Va. But a house rule for the new establishment is roiling some Virginians: no guns are allowed inside.
Toby Keith is not only a hugely successful country star (and actor), he also has personally opened a couple of restaurants, and through other companies, has now expanded those establishments into about a dozen cities.
The latest Toby Keith restaurant opened in Woodbridge. Prominently displayed on the front door is a sign saying: “NO GUNS PERMITTED.”
Virginia happens to be a gun-friendly state, where it’s quite permissible for citizens to strap on a weapon and go into a bar or restaurant, as long as the weapon is clearly visible. State law is silent on the issue of drinking while openly carrying a gun. (State law does prohibit most citizens who are legally carrying a concealed weapon from consuming alcohol, but they, too, are allowed to go into a bar or restaurant.) . . .
Might this simply be because Keith hired someone to run the restaurants for him?

UPDATE: A couple of days after the original post, the restaurant offered an explanation for their policy:
The Facebook page of Toby Keith's I Love This Bar and Grill in Woodbridge posted on Saturday:

"While we understand and respect every person's right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith's I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provided a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff."
This type of posting is extremely unusual.  I have lived in Virginia for some years now and I can't recall a time when I saw such a posting. That is important because it gets to the perceived risks. Why is Toby Keith's restaurant so different? The statement issued doesn't really explain this difference in any way.



When police disappear, people forced to defend themselves: Josephine County, Oregon

People in one Oregon county are substituting private for public provision.  From Fox News:
. . . The government in Josephine County, where nearly 70 percent of the land is owned by the U.S. government, had long relied on federal timber subsidies to pay the bills. When the feds terminated the funds, county officials scrambled to pass a May 2012 tax levy to make up a nearly $7.5 million budget shortfall. 
However, the county's residents voted against the levy, and as a result the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office was gutted. The major crimes unit closed, dozens of prisoners were released from the county jail and the department reduced operations to Monday-Friday, eight hours a day. 
The Sheriff’s Office then issued a press release announcing their deputies would only be responding to what they deemed “life-threatening situations.” 
Ken Selig -- who was the longest-serving law enforcement officer in all three local agencies when he was forced to retire from the department due to cuts -- told FoxNews.com he found the sheriff’s declaration unacceptable. And he felt compelled to guard his community’s vulnerable members. 
“Who else is going to protect you when your government can't?” Selig said. . . . .  
Selig's community watch group, looking to fill in the law enforcement cracks, now meets once a month to discuss crime and teach its approximately 100 members about personal safety. The group also has a trained “response team,” which consists of 12 people who will respond to the scene of a reported non-life-threatening situation if called. . . .

Labels: ,

Obamacare is producing unaffordable health insurance in more than 50 percent of the counties in 34 states

Obamacare means that more than 50 percent of the counties in 34 states don't have affordable health insurance plans, meaning that they cost more than 8% of household income -- even the least expensive bronze plans.  The prices are going up a lot.  Some are getting at least some subsidy ($47,780 for an individual or $61,496 for a couple), but for those who don't get a subsidy those higher prices may mean a lot stop getting insurance.  Some high population counties face real problems (Bergen County, N.J., and Philadelphia and Milwaukee counties).  From USA Today:

. . . The number of people who earn close to the subsidy cutoff and are priced out of affordable coverage may be a small slice of the estimated 4.4 million people buying their own insurance and ineligible for subsidies. But the analysis clearly shows how the sticker shock hitting many in the middle class, including the self-employed and early retirees, isn't just a perception problem. The lack of counties with affordable plans means many middle-class people will either opt out of insurance or pay too much to buy it.
The prices of exchange plans have shocked many shoppers, especially those who had plans canceled because they did not meet the ACA coverage requirements. But experts are not surprised.
"The ACA was not designed to reduce costs or, the law's name notwithstanding, to make health insurance coverage affordable for the vast majority of Americans," says health care consultant Kip Piper, a former government and insurance industry official. "The law uses taxpayer dollars to lower costs for the low-income uninsured but it also increases costs overall and shifts costs within the marketplace." . . .

Labels: ,

Try stealing a $20 bill the way that this BitCoin was stolen

Apparently, it is pretty risky to show you Bitcoin QR code on TV.  A viewer scanned the Bitcoin QR code from his TV screen and stole the $20.  That is surely one problem that you don't have with a regular $20 bill.On the other had, you can use a Bitcoin electronically in a way you can't use a $20 bill.  The example discussed on Bloomberg can be seen here.


Do men buy impractical Electric Car as a way to fix their "anxieties and inadequacies"?

Here is a MarketWatch article claiming that “Women car shoppers tend to be more pragmatic."  More details are provided here:
Though it’s hard to make generalizations about consumer taste, Men appear to choose their cars as they would choose a watch or cologne, Henry says, based on how it makes them feel and the image it presents to the world. For instance, brands with a rich heritage like Lincoln, Buick, Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz particularly draw the attention of older men, Henry says. (Men are 17% more likely than women to shop for a Lincoln, KBB’s study found.) Many of them grew up with the automaker as an aspirational luxury brand, he says. Perhaps less surprisingly, brands that promote themselves as being “rugged” in advertising campaigns draw the interest of men of all ages, he says. 
Women, on the other hand, tend to choose cars based on fuel-efficiency and price. Some 72% of women say they’ll consider affordability in their next purchase compared with 50% of men, according to a survey by Kelley Blue Book, while 67% of women are more likely to consider fuel-efficient cars — such as Kia, Mini, Mazda and Honda — versus 48% of men. And women appear to prefer less flashy colors: They’re 9% more likely to choose silver or brown models, while men are 12% more likely to go for cars in red and orange, according to an analysis of buyers by used-car dealing site iSeeCars.com. . . .
So are men buying electric cars because they like impractical cars that make them feel better about themselves and make up for their perceived inadequacies?  A Tesla or a Fisker may just a way to make men feel better about themselves in the same way that a Maserati and Lotus solve their emotional problems.


Turkey becoming a very corrupt country, removing police and prosecutors in corruption probe, imprisoning journalists

Turkey seems to have given up on the rule of law.  The question is when this corruption in courts will undermine investments in the country.  With charges of corruption spreading, Prime Minister Erdogan removes police and prosecutors from the case, replacing them with his own loyal people.  The attack on foreign powers adds a nice touch.  From Foreign Policy:
Erdogan, characteristically, responded by going on the offensive and hurling accusations at his opponents. He attacked the action as a "dirty operation," the goal of which was to smear his administration and undermine the progress that Turkey had made under his leadership. He alluded to a dark conspiracy launched by terrorist gangs, both foreign and domestic that were operating a state within the state. While insisting that Turkey was a democracy, not some two-bit banana republic, he proceeded to engineer within a day the sacking of more than 20 high-level police officers in Istanbul and Ankara, including those directly in charge of the units that carried out the raids. More heads seem almost certain to roll. Rumors that the lead prosecutor supervising the investigations had also been removed were vehemently denied -- though two new prosecutors were suddenly (and mysteriously) added to the probe. Howls of political interference in an ongoing judicial matter erupted. The crisis deepened. . . .  
. . . it's about Erdogan and the intensifying megalomania that has become an increasingly prominent feature of his governing style. The man now appears more or less incapable of brooking any challenge to his authority. Egged on by an inner-circle of sycophants who live in fear of his wrath, Erdogan appears genuinely convinced that his personal interests and agenda, and those of the Turkish nation, are now largely synonymous. What he wants is, ipso facto, what the Turkish people need. Anyone who disagrees with him is resisting the popular will. Anyone who criticizes him is attacking Turkey and constitutes, by definition, an enemy of the state, a traitor that must be broken and neutralized. . . .
More detail on the police that were removed from their positions is provided in the WSJ.
Before quitting as interior minister, Mr. Guler had purged about 100 security chiefs from top posts in the police department, accusing them of having failed to notify superiors about the probe. Mr. Erdogan also pushed through a measure that bars prosecutors from conducting investigations without informing their superiors. . . . 
Mr. Erdogan also sharpened his criticism of the West, singling out the U.S. and the media. He called the bribery case the work of foreign powers uncomfortable with Turkey's rising economic and political clout. . . .
From the New York Times:
Reports emerged in the Turkish news media on Wednesday that prosecutors were pursuing other high-level officials, but that new police officials installed by the government had resisted pursuing them. This essentially highlights a power struggle within state structures. . . . 
Meanwhile, the Turkish government is making sure that the media isn't reporting on all the problems.  Turkey has the notable achievement of being worse than other unfree countries such as Eritrea, Vietnam, Syria, Azerbaijan, and Ethiopia.  From the Associated Press:
For the second consecutive year, Turkey jailed more journalists than any other country, with Iran and China close behind in an annual report released Wednesday by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. 
"Jailing journalists for their work is the hallmark of an intolerant, repressive society," CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said in a statement accompanying the report. 
The CPJ found 211 journalists were behind bars in a snapshot survey taken on Dec. 1. The report noted the figure does not include many journalists who were imprisoned and released throughout the year. The CPJ said this was the second highest number of journalists jailed in its survey, topped only by the 232 in 2012. 
Other countries on the list of the top 10 worst jailers of journalists were Eritrea, Vietnam, Syria, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uzbekistan. . . . 

Labels: ,

Florida University won't appeal court decision that universities regulations guns on can't supersede state laws

The recent Florida Appeals court decision allowing guns being stored in cars parked at universities will make it possible to take guns with them to and from school.  The News Service of Florida:
The University of North Florida will not appeal a court ruling that struck down a policy preventing students from storing guns in their cars on campus. 
Sharon Ashton, the university’s vice president for public relations, sent an email Friday to students, faculty and staff informing them of the decision. 
“Earlier this month, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that UNF can’t prohibit students from keeping securely encased guns in cars parked (on) our campus and we have decided not to appeal that decision,’’ Ashton wrote. “Students still cannot carry a gun onto or on our campus, but can now legally keep a gun securely encased in their vehicle parked at UNF.” 
The appeals court ruled Dec. 10 in favor of a UNF student and the group Florida Carry Inc., which challenged the policy. 
Florida Carry Inc. Executive Director Sean Caranna said the university contacted the group’s attorneys Friday afternoon with its decision. . . .
From CBS Miami:
. . . The appeals court decision stated that FSU, along with the University of Florida and the University of South Florida had regulations identical to UNF. A spokeswoman for Florida International University said Monday that the Miami-based university also had rules that prohibited keeping a gun in a car. 
Officials with UF and USF did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Brittany Davis, a spokesman for the Florida Board of Governors, said that the State University System has not distributed the ruling to the universities. But Davis noted that not all universities have gun policies similar to the UNF policy. 
Florida law currently makes it illegal to possess or exhibit guns at schools and universities and permits school districts to prohibit guns from being stored in cars. The court rejected arguments by UNF attorneys that universities, like school districts, could ban guns in cars. . . .  

Labels: , ,


Despite AOL paying $315 million for Huffington Post 3 years ago, it has yet to earn a profit on the website

How much patience will AOL have with its left wing experience with Huffington Post?  From Yahoo News:
. . . When The Huffington Post was sold for $315 million nearly three years ago, Huffington told her new boss, AOL Inc Chief Executive Tim Armstrong, that they had to uphold the tradition she started when she launched the site in 2005 and personally selected sweaters for her handful of employees. 
By the time of the February 2011 takeover, The Huffington Post had 200 employees and was known as a leading source for left-leaning political news. . . . . 
With AOL's backing - it has injected tens of millions of dollars into the website - The Huffington Post has been able to do much more than give out cardigans every year. Its audience has more than tripled from 25 million people before the AOL deal to 84 million at the end of October, according to comScore data. It has branched out to cover lifestyle, entertainment, business and technology, mushrooming to 60 vertical sites from about 20. 
But The Huffington Post has yet to turn a profit for AOL, falling far short of Armstrong's projection at the time of the acquisition that the unit would post $66 million in operating profit in 2013 on $165 million in revenue. . . .
BTW, after analyzing Fox New's news coverage, here is Erik Wemple's take on the fluff that makes up MSNBC's shows.
The highlight of the MSNBC daytime programming on Friday, Dec. 13 concerned not relations with Iran, not the Republicans’ intra-party warfare, not the budget, but chickens. Afternoon host Tamron Hall did a segment on the trials of J.J. Hart, a 3-year-old autistic child in DeBary, Fla., who enjoys playing with chickens in his back yard. . . .
MSNBC’s daytime stuff brims with softness . . .
The March 2013 findings of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism in March weren’t kind to MSNBC. A content analysis conducted by Pew determined that programming on the network — over a three-day sample — followed an embarrassing split of 85 percent commentary to 15 percent reporting. Competitors fared far better . . . .

Choose your explanation as to why MSNBC doesn’t seed more of its coverage with such reporting and scale back the volunteer lefty blather:
1) Volunteer lefty blather is cheap;
2) Volunteer lefty blather appeals to the base;
3) Volunteer lefty blather is cheap and appeals to the base;
4) Serious reporters don’t engage in cheap and indulgent lefty blather;
5) Serious reporters deliver too little differentiation with arch-competitor CNN. . . . 



Support for Obamacare in new CNN/ORC poll falls to record low: 35 percent in favor, 62 percent opposed

Support for Obamacare has never been high in these CNN polls, only getting as high as 43 percent.  But with only 35 percent in favor, they are hitting a new low.  There is no difference between men and women in terms of support.  Independents oppose Obamacare by a 65 to 33 percent margin.  Of all the breakdowns, only Democrats and liberals have a favorable impression of the law.

Click on screen shot to make it larger.

Just as interesting, only 16 percent of Americans think that they will be better off due to Obamacare.  It is pretty clear why Obama isn't calling the Affordable Care Act by the name "Obamacare" any more.  Sixty one percent think that they will be able to keep the same doctors that they currently have.