Study Finds Mass Killings Not on the Rise Over Past Decade
Research by of University of Illinois professor has revealed a surprising trend about mass murder in the United States.
Contrary to what you might think, mass murders are not on the rise, according to computer science professor Sheldon Jacobson.
Jacobson said there were 323 such killings – in which four or more people are killed in one incident – between January 2006 and October 2016. The mass killings appeared to be evenly distributed over that time, meaning their rate remained stable over the past decade, and did not spike during any particular season or year.
The professor used a decade’s worth of data from USA Today that was cross-checked by the FBI. He said his analysis also found public shooting sprees like the Las Vegas massacre are not the most common type of mass killing.
“Family mass killings are over three times more likely to occur than a public killing. So what we just saw in Las Vegas is actually not the most common type of mass killing,”
I wonder if it makes any difference if he used three or more victims instead of four. Other people define it that way.
It’s a little early for Thanksgiving but…
Turkeys thrown from plane during Arkansas festival prompt FAA probe
The annual turkey drop in which a turkey is flung from a low-flying plane at an Arkansas festival has prompted a federal investigation.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced it is looking into whether the activity complied with regulations. The annual Yellville Turkey Trot has included the bird drop for about 50 years, according to the Southwest Times Record in Arkansas.
In the past, the FAA has said it has not intervened because the turkeys were not considered projectiles.
Aren’t you cute? Looks like someone hasn’t ever bought a gun before. They might not have bought a car either. What health requirements are there? They made me look into an eye test thing last time I renewed my license but no one asked if I was seeing a psychiatrist. Drivers’ ed was an absolute joke to anyone young enough to remember doing it. You don’t need liability insurance on your car; you might have to pay a fine but that’s not the same thing. You can buy cars without titles or tags, use them for demolition derbies or farm use or let them rot in your front yard.
Here’s what it would be like if cars were regulated like guns are:
- Requires passing a federal background check if bought from a dealer (or anybody if you live in a stupid state)
- Cannot buy a car for someone else and have them pay you back
- Can’t be under indictment for a felony, doesn’t matter what kind
- Can’t buy a car if you use drugs even if the drug is legal in your state
- Can’t buy a car if you’ve been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces
- Can’t buy a car if you’ve got any kind of restraining order against you
- Can’t buy a car if you’ve been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge
- If you’ve ever been charged with the above crime regardless of whether the charge was dropped or not, a dealer can refuse to sell you the car
- If the dealer doesn’t like how you look, he can refuse to sell you the car
- Can’t buy a car from a different state without having it transferred to a local dealer
- Can’t buy a car online except by having it transferred to a local dealer
- Can’t buy a car if you’re an “undocumented immigrant”
- Can’t buy a car if you’ve been committed in a mental institution even voluntarily
- Can only drive your car on private property; in public you have to have special training and a specific license to do so
- Can’t drive your car to or through certain states (Maryland, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc.)
- Can’t drive your car to federally owned facilities (Post Office, National Park visitor centers, etc.)
- In some states you can’t lend your car to anyone, not even friends or family
- In some states, you can’t fill your car’s gas tank up all the way and your car is mechanically restricted from going over a certain speed
- Can’t put on a muffler on your car without paying a $200 tax stamp, going through additional background checks, waiting six months to a year, and then being unable to cross state lines without permission from the DMV
Aren’t you glad cars aren’t regulated like guns?
Nobody needs a body language expert to tell us that Biden is a creep that you need to keep your kids away from. What’s interesting is the analysis of the people around Biden and how they behave. There’s a lesson to be learned from this: Assert yourself. Don’t submit. And, seriously, don’t let creepy guys put their hands all over you.
One of the problems with the Onion is that it’s really too true to be funny.
Entire Facebook Staff Laughs As Man Tightens Privacy Settings
All 1,472 employees of Facebook, Inc. reportedly burst out in uncontrollable laughter Wednesday following Albuquerque resident Jason Herrick’s attempts to protect his personal information from exploitation on the social-networking site. “Look, he’s clicking ‘Friends Only’ for his e-mail address. Like that’s going to make a difference!” howled infrastructure manager Evan Hollingsworth, tears streaming down his face, to several of his doubled-over coworkers. “Oh, sure, by all means, Jason, ‘delete’ that photo. Man, this is so rich.” According to internal sources, the entire staff of Facebook was left gasping for air minutes later when the “hilarious” Herrick believed he had actually blocked third-party ads.
Now don’t we want Zuckerberg to be president?
It’s early in the game yet but having Simon and Schuster’s motion to dismiss refused is good.
After a video clip surfaced in which Yiannopoulos appeared to defend pedophilia, Simon & Schuster looked to extricate itself from a book deal with the right-wing provocateur. The book publisher sent a letter to Yiannopoulos in February, telling him that he didn’t need to return an $80,000 book advance and that it was terminating the contract. According to Simon & Schuster, when Yiannopoulos didn’t respond, it represented full satisfaction and discharge of its own obligations under the publishing agreement.
In a $10 million lawsuit, he accused Simon & Schuster of breaching the deal to publish his book, Dangerous, over fear of repercussions from progressives.
Simon & Schuster called the suit a “publicity stunt” and argued that by accepting payment without contemporaneous protest, the lawsuit was barred under the legal doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
After losing its motion to dismiss, Simon & Schuster will now have to answer the lawsuit. After the next discovery phase, it’s possible that with new evidence, the publisher will revive arguments that Yiannopoulos had intent to accept termination. Or Simon & Schuster may attempt to convince the judge that it had no obligation under the contract to actually publish his book. Based on the implication of certain statements at Thursday’s hearing, the coming answer could also potentially bring counterclaims against Yiannopoulos over his decision to self-publish.
I always have my doubt about any kind of expert who comes along and claims to be able to interpret things that other people can’t see, but this is fascinating: