Racism is alive and well, in Cuba. That would probably come as no surprise to Milton Friedman, who understood the motivations of human beings better than most. Speaking of motivations, what must motivate the President to do a complete about-face, with no good explanation, on the topic of a particular bank.
While the title of the article is a bit disingenuous, we are provided with some useful data regarding guns, carrying and our cousins to the north:
Applications to carry handguns have skyrocketed in B.C. and Alberta in the past three years – likely driven by demand among people who work in the bush and want portable protection against wildlife.
What we do know is that more people are submitting these applications for “authorizations to carry” : The number of applications across the country rose from 386 to 564 between 2011 and 2013.
In that time period, they more than doubled in B.C.; in Alberta, they more than doubled from 2011 to 2012.
People in the territories submit far more application rates than the rest of Canada. The Yukon had 33 applications in 2013 – almost one for every 1,000 residents – while the Northwest Territories had 29. By contrast, Quebec’s 64 applications make for fewer than one for every 100,000 residents.
The Yukon had one application for every 1,000 residents. I think (IIRC) that during the same period, South Dakota had one issued permit (not an application) for every 10 to 15 residents. This is a remarkable difference. Let’s continue:
The number of applications and the authorizations issued are about the same, says Ontario’s chief firearms officer, OPP Supt. Chris Wyatt.
” If somebody applies for an ATC and it’s really deficient – they’re not a prospector, they don’t have a wilderness occupation, they just want it when they go camping –we just say ‘You don’t qualify,’ and they don’t pursue their application.”
Lovely. One has to qualify (kinda like needing a “qualifying event” to change one’s insurance status) by being a prospector or having a wilderness occupation, or some other job, one would surmise, that exists far away from civilization.
Who, then, is actually carrying in Canada these days? Apparently not this gentleman:
But “with brown bears, carrying a handgun is just absolutely stupid,” argues former OPP staff-sergeant Doug Carlson, who ran the gun control system in northwestern Ontario before his retirement.
“You’re dealing with such a humongous bear – you’ll have a hard time knocking it down with a handgun. You might get lucky, but more likely it would just bounce off his skull, or aggravate him.
Why would one be shooting the bear in the head? Perhaps Mr. Carlson thinks that all people defending themselves from bears would be as clueless as he.
Anyway, back to figuring out who is carrying:
Toronto mayoral candidate and former councillor Norm Gardner, who had a concealed carry permit for several years in the 1990s, said the weapon made him “very, very calm.”
Gardiner, a Metro councillor at the time who sat on the Police Services Board, was approved after talking to then-Toronto police chief Jack Marks, he said. For several years, Gardner carried a Glock 19, a compact handgun.
In brief, very few people in Canada are permitted to carry short weapons (handguns). One of the reasons is that those in charge of handing out permits think that handguns don’t really protect one very well from large, violent, furry creatures. And, it would seem that the politically connected are able to procure permits for handguns, regardless of the basis for that decision.
There are many things we can learn from Canada. How to foolishly prevent people from protecting themselves because some expert knows how to do it better is one of those lessons.
Does one pay the piper anymore? It seems as though someone’s been forgetting to:
Social Security paid out nearly $71 billion more to retirees and other beneficiaries than it collected in tax revenue in 2013. This is the fourth straight year the retirement and disability programs are running cash-flow deficits, as highlighted in today’s trustee report.
Deficits are only growing worse. The trustees project $80 billion in deficits in 2014, which will more than double before the end of the decade. At $110 billion in average annual deficits throughout the next decade, the combined programs are facing more than a trillion dollars in deficits just over the next 10 years.
Social Security’s reported long-term (through the end of 2088) unfunded obligation of $10.6 trillion is further exacerbated by the $2.8 trillion in IOUs in the old-age security (OAS) and disability insurance (DI) trust funds.
Simply put, the Social Security Accounts Receivable was $71,000,000,000.00 less than the SS Accounts Payable for last year. And that’s without even looking at the other years data.
So, what ought to be done? In most businesses (assuming they weren’t already bankrupt from such a differential) people would either need to increase revenues or cut costs, or both.
Increasing revenues to SS would have the nearly immediate benefit of constricting the economy further than it already is. Cutting costs involves telling people who have been paying into the system for years that their investments haven’t really amounted to anything.
As one of the people who will be losing his SS investment, I’m in favor of the second approach, despite the fact that it will be painful. Of course, it’s not as though I’m really losing anything.
For the most part, ignoring problems does not cause them to go away. Though, if we ignore problems for long enough, we end up going away and the problems are inherited by our children. Sounds kind of selfish, doesn’t it?
Bottom line? Nothing (materially speaking) is free. You and I are paying for it somehow. It had better be worth it.
Bill Whittle speaks to just how wrong the idea that “it takes a village” really is.
Anybody got a shovel?
It doesn’t truly make the world go ’round, but it certainly makes my head spin from time to time: money.
Charity says, “No, we won’t explain how we spent the $300,000,000 you all gave us.” It may be too late to get that money back, but I’d recommend giving elsewhere next time. In fact, don’t give to charity if you can give directly to a needy person (preferably through a person you trust so you can remain anonymous).
New head of the IRS is a miracle maker on the make. He’s going to restore something which has not existed for a number of years.
And finally, a brief treatise (if such can be true) on debt.
Visible here. Wow.
Our peripatetic president shared a few thoughts yesterday on shootings, violence and gun laws. In the space of less than 2 minutes, he managed to get at least the following completely (empirically) wrong. No, this is not a question of politics or perspective. It is a matter of hard data.
- Strike 1: “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts.” Except that the country’s own
Department of Justice has noted that gun violence levels were at a 20-year low last year. No reasonable person would find that view that as “off the charts.” Gun-related homicides dropped by 39% and gun-related crimes of other sorts dropped by 69%. Just what kind of chart are you talking about, Mr. President?
- Strike 2: “[We need everyone to wants to buy a gun to] go through a fairly rigorous process so we know who you are, so that you can’t just walk up to a store and buy a semi-automatic weapon.” Mr. Obama obviously borrowed that shotgun, rather than buying it, or he would be intimately familiar with a 4473: a form that everyone who purchases a gun from a dealer (aka “store”) must fill out before having a background check run on him/her by the federal government.
- Strike 3: “[Since they put a number of tough gun laws in place, Australians] haven’t had a mass shooting.” Well, the new laws went into force in 1996. In the time-honored tradition of the Clintons, we could argue about the definition of “mass.” Or, we could talk about the murders at a college in 2002. And another in 1999. Not to mention the mass slayings by non-gun methods (the most common seeming to be by fire).
Other than that, I though the president presented a well-thought out, cogent argument against citizens owning guns.
It’s decision day in South Dakota. I’ve not yet seen numbers from the primaries, but I’m guessing that this round of the battle for the senate goes to, well, enough said.
P&R has a very good question: “When Obama haggles with a car dealer, does he end up paying more than what the dealer initially asked?”
How did the EPA become more powerful than the average country? The same way a country becomes more powerful than its neighbors: it keeps doing stuff until someone tells it to stop. It’s time to put the brakes on the EPA.