The idol is much, much older than previously thought — about 11,500 years old — meaning it was constructed just
Washington, D.C. – An unpublished study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s claims from his 1990s study that indicated there were more than two million defensive handgun uses (also known as DGUs) per year in the United States.
Breitbart reported that “since the early 1990s, Kleck has maintained that there is a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually. That is his low estimate; Kleck and research partner Marc Gertz have contended the actual number is closer to 2.5 million.” Although Kleck conducted what some have called the most thorough survey of the subject during the 1990s, his findings were disputed. In February 2015, Kleck doubled down his findings and noted that while there were plenty of critics of his work, none have been able to counter his findings with empirical evidence.
While the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is prohibited from using Congressional funding on research that aims “to advocate or promote gun control,” during the 1990s the CDC engaged in research that examined the frequency of innocent Americans using guns for self-defense, and the level of harm from guns used by violent criminals. Kleck recently announced that he has found unpublished data from the CDC.
Kleck’s controversial claims that there were more than 2.2 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) in the United States each year, has now been bolstered by the previously unpublished CDC study. Nonetheless, NPR, citing the National Crime Victimization Survey’s lower estimate of around 100,000 DGUs annually, revisited the DGU controversy last week, apparently oblivious to the existence of the CDC surveys.
In Kleck’s latest research paper, titled “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?”, Kleck claimed that in 1996, 1997, and 1998 the CDC specifically asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
Kleck summarized in his paper:
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states.
Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas.
Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data
from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S.
as a whole, CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more
common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.
A report from Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC study; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”
The post Unpublished CDC Study Supports Claim Of Over 2 Million Yearly Defensive Gun Uses appeared first on Ben Swann's Truth In Media.
Article source link :
Facebook’s chief operations officer, Sheryl Sandberg, recently sold $23 million in the company’s stock on Wednesday as governments in the EU move to quickly implement new online privacy laws that would significantly limit the social network’s advertising practices and thus its income.
Sandberg is arguably one of the most powerful and influential women in technology. As Mark Zuckerberg’s COO and the head of the company’s advertising operations, she has been recently blasted by experts for her role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. She has since profusely apologized once news of her involvement was made public. However, despite usually being comfortable in the spotlight, Sandberg has retreated from center stage amid the legal probes Facebook is currently facing, resulting in Mark Zuckerberg’s solo appearance before Congress last week.
In a string of appearances scheduled before the congressional hearings, Sandberg— the social media site’s 2nd in command— affirmed that Facebook’s main source of income comes from advertising. In other words, collecting data of its users is how and why the service remains free.
”The service [Facebook],” Sandberg reminded the public in an interview last Friday, “depends on your data.” Completely opting out of data-based targeted ads, she asserted, would have to be a paid option.
Experts have been quick to analyze and point out the aggressiveness of Facebook’s data collection practices, especially surrounding shadow profiles, which can collect data on users even if they don’t have an account with the social network. Before Congress, Mark Zuckerberg flatly denied any knowledge of the shadow profiles, even though the practice has been well-known since 2013 when the company’s data collection on non-users was revealed during a similar data-mishandling ordeal.
Regarding the responsibility of the current misuse of data and future regulation regarding people’s privacy, Sandberg has been almost overly apologetic. However, it is still unclear what steps the company has taken since the story first broke in March.
“We know that we did not do enough to protect people’s data. I’m really sorry for that,” she’s said. In a separate instance she apologized yet again saying, “This was a huge breach of trust. People come to Facebook everyday and they depend on us to protect their data, and I am so sorry that we let so many people down.” She couldn’t promise that data was complete safe for now, adding that “We are going to find other things” and “there will always be bad actors.”
Sandberg would not comment about if anyone had lost their jobs at Facebook because of the scandal, saying that “We don’t talk about this publicly and we’re not going to; we don’t think it’s the right thing to do.” Hired in 2008, the former Google advertising chief joined the social network precisely to consolidate the company’s ad-based business model. Facebook’s then 20-something Mark Zuckerberg, who was reclusive and struggling with investors, brought Sandberg on to be the mature face of the company.
Analysts are still in disagreement over the immediate financial future of Facebook, whose stock price took a sharp dip after the harrowing news about personal data leaks. On Wednesday, Sandberg sold 163,500 shares of Facebook stock for a total value of just over $23,000,000. Over the course of 2017, Sandberg sold $316 million worth of shares, with over half that amount being sold in the first half of the year, according to CNBC. Sandberg has sold shares on a consistent basis over the past several years, yet the future of the company remains uncertain in light of dramatic changes and controversies.
A report from CNBC on April 10 highlighted a claim from Brian Wieser, a senior research analyst at Pivotal Research Group, that predicted a role shift for either Sandberg or Zuckerberg. “The company is not well managed,” said Wieser, also claiming that “one of Zuckerberg or Sandberg will not be in the same jobs in 12 months time.”
Most recently, Facebook has seen a modest uptick in active users, as it was reported April 25 that “Facebook’s daily active users in North America rose slightly last quarter to 185 million, a sign that the company’s News Feed algorithm tweaks and data privacy issues may not have deterred consumers.” This news may signal that the public is relenting to Facebook’s conduct; however, it may be worthy for these users to note that Facebook has declined an invitation to offer testimony at the upcoming “Examining Social Media Filtering Practices and their Effect on Free Speech” House of Representatives hearing that will discuss “what metrics social media platforms use to moderate content, how filtering decisions are made, and whether viewpoints have been silenced on some of the most popular and widely used platforms.”
Article source link :
The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.
The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.
Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.
That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.
Via The Federalist
Featured Image: aphrodite-in-nyc/Flickr
The post Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million appeared first on Intellihub.
Article source link :
Los Angeles, CA — While interviewing NRA TV host Colion Noir on his podcast the Joe Rogan Experience, the two discussed the the anti-gun “left-wing” Hollywood elite that make millions to billions of dollars on movies that often feature a heavy dose of gun violence. Rogan said that many of the same “liberal actors” publicly rebuking gun violence and advocating for gun control are protected by people carrying guns and wearing flak jackets.
After Noir finished discussing gun-free zones, Rogan asked Noir what he thought about arming teachers, prompting Noir to explain that “anything we hold valuable in this country is protected with guns.”
Rogan responded to Noir’s commentary by calling out Hollywood:
No one is more anti-gun than Hollywood. When you hear about any sort of crime or gun violence, the left-wing people in Hollywood are the most vocal, the most virtue-signaling, the quickest to jump on their pedestal. Meanwhile, what percentage of their f***ing movies involve gun violence? And if you look at the Academy Awards, did you see the security at the Academy Awards? You see all these left-leaning liberal actors being protected by people with flak jackets on. Carrying guns with fingers outside the triggers. I mean, dogs? It’s crazy.
Rogan, a strong civil libertarian, is no stranger to controversy as he is known for his refusal to comport to political correctness and has vocally waded into public discussion surrounding guns, mental health, liberty, tyranny and more on numerous previous occasions.
This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.
— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) January 27, 2013
During a podcast in 2016, Rogan gave his thoughts on gun control as it relates to the Second Amendment, noting that it largely relates to government tyranny, not crime, stating:
“The whole point of the law is you can’t let some tyrannical dictator decide who can and can’t armed. Because at the end of the day, what we really have to worry about as much as crime, is we have to worry about the government turning into a crime (sic).”
“An armed militia is in the possibility that it all goes wrong. That’s what it’s for. It’s not for when everything is going right, it’s for when it all goes wrong. To deny the possibility that it could all go wrong, to me, you’re lying. You’re lying. You’re pretending we’re better than we are.”
“To say that we’ve reached some utopian place where we don’t have to worry about the government turning into a tyranny – bull$#hit.”
Watch Rogan’s full interview with Noir below where he targets Hollywood’s collective position surrounding guns.
The post WATCH: Joe Rogan Blasts Hollywood’s “Hypocrisy” Over Gun Control appeared first on Ben Swann's Truth In Media.
Article source link :
After the Tennessee General Assembly voted last Tuesday to strip Memphis of $250,000 worth of funding for an upcoming bicentennial celebration over its decision to remove Confederate Civil War monuments located in the city, state Representative Antonio Parkinson (D-Memphis) called for the city to secede from the State of Tennessee.
“We are in what I consider an abusive relationship with the State of Tennessee. Maybe it’s time for a conversation about secession. Create a new state, maybe West Tennessee,” Rep. Parkinson told WREG-TV.
He added, “Maybe if the conversation [about secession] is being had, maybe it’ll wake those individuals up who have been taking Davidson and Shelby County for granted.”
“It’s very interesting but yes, it can be done,” said Memphis City Council Chairman Berlin Boyd according to WBIR-TV. “If we became our own state we could control our overall destiny, we could create a state income tax… You have to think about, would we want to be the size of Rhode Island? Or would it be more impactful of a larger portion of West Tennessee?”
While critics have said that separating from the state would completely disconnect the city from funds it receives from state tax coffers, such as the $517 million in funding it received this year for Shelby County schools, Chairman Boyd suggested that a newly-created state could raise its own revenues by legalizing marijuana or allowing casinos.
Shelby County Mayor Mark Luttrell said that he opposes secession from the state but called the General Assembly’s effort to punish Memphis for removing the Civil War monuments “a little bit of a stick in the eye.”
“We are different in many ways from the rest of the state, and I say that in a very positive way, and I think that we’ve just got to resolve to continue going forward and push the message that we are a very progressive, very growing, very vibrant community that needs the state’s help,” Mayor Luttrell added.
City Council Member Worth Morgan said he opposes the measure and told WMC Action News 5, “I think seceding from the State of Tennessee is an impossible and stupid idea and any time spent researching it is probably a waste.”
While it is legally possible that Memphis could secede from Tennessee, to do so would first require that a majority of Memphis voters approve the concept in a referendum, then the Tennessee General Assembly and U.S. Congress would have to pass legislation allowing it.
Rhodes College Political Science professor Stephen Wirls said that it is unlikely that the state would approve secession. “If they allowed Memphis to go they’re basically inviting every other part of Tennessee that has beef with the state,” he said.
The post Memphis Lawmakers Propose Seceding from Tennessee Over Civil War Statue Dispute appeared first on Ben Swann's Truth In Media.
Article source link :