Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales 310
Nerval's Lobster writes "Most of the time, Facebook allows its users to hawk goods or solicit donations on Pages or Timeline postings, comparing such activity to placing a physical note on a bulletin board at a supermarket. Now it plans on regulating users who rely on this method to sell what it calls 'regulated' items, which includes firearms. 'Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18,' Facebook announced as part of the new rules. The social network will also prevent users from posting any sort of items 'that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law,' which means no offers to sell firearms across state lines or without a background check. Presumably, Facebook will have filters in place that allow it to scan for such content. Facebook is a private network, of course, and not (despite its ubiquity) a public utility — meaning it can do whatever it wants with regard to Terms of Use. But that likely won't stop some people from complaining about what they perceive as the company overstepping its boundaries."
..or without a background check? (Score:5, Informative)
It's expressly legal for private inviduals to sell to other private individuals (without crossing state lines) without a background check; indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.
Now you may have some sort of state/local law that requires checks between inviduals, but sheesh.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
True, but it's definitely NOT legal to sell a gun to somebody you know, or can reasonably be expected to know, can't legally buy one. So, if your buyer says "I'm a convicted felon," definitely not legal. If your buyer says "you're not going to require a background check, are you?" you're on very shaky ground, since that's very close to an admission that, were there to BE a background check, the buyer wouldn't pass. Remember, willful blindness isn't a defense.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not necessarily true.
I can pass a background check. I have passed a lot of them.
I still understand how someone could like the idea of the government not having a record that they own a gun.
BTW, that's what opposition to "Universe Background Checks" is about. It would create a backdoor registry.
LK
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
As I said, the fact that someone is trying to avoid a background check isn't per se an indication that the sale would be illegal, but it does raise the risk for the seller.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Another question that works just as well is
"No sales tax, right?" private sellers don't charge sales tax either so there's pretty much a one to one relationship between background checks and sales tax.
Solves your dilemma, right?
LK
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.
You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.
It's not even that. You say it later:
that information is no one's business.
There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public records, and then modified the process so current ones are not.
It is not impossible that anti-gun zealots may try to get background check data covered under public record laws and what used to be a "secret" between a gun buyer and his government would be public knowledge. It's nobody's business, and let's keep it that way.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Yeah but your life would suck hard if those guns were used to kill anyone important. Regardless of your rights you would become a person of interest and potentially slapped with an abetting charge. You have no record of the sale so no proof that you did not supply the weapons specifically to have your alleged accomplice commit the crime. Just imagine the Feds showing up to let you know that your firearms were involved in the killing of a US Senator and the suspected you of belonging to a pro-gun militant group, etc etc.
Enjoy those thoughts.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
... indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.
There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:4, Informative)
Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.
A background check is defined that way only for FFL's. IOW, the only way a FFL can legally sell a firearm is by clearing the buyer through the NICS. Private citizens may perform a background check on a potential gun buyer (through the usual private channels) if it suits them. There is absolutely no federal law against doing so. The post I originally replied to suggested otherwise.
But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )
Try "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm for an FFL is through the NICS," and that "required" check is not usable by non FFL for checking buyers, so it's illegal for a private seller to do that "mandatory" (for FFL) background check.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Simply put... (Score:2)
Facebook should just post an alert that reads "It is against Federal law to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This includes felons, those dishonorably discharged, etc."
Re:Simply put... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simply put... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
Re:Simply put... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you REALLY just cite Venezuela as some kind of utopia brought about by gun laws?
That's a special kind of stupid you got going there.
Re:Simply put... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simply put... (Score:3)
have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high*, while they have utter strict gun law.
Right! And since the US, Australia, and UK are absolutely identical in all other aspects of their society, it can only be down to the gun laws!
Wait...
(*not true in the case of the UK)
Re:Simply put... (Score:3)
Much more interesting is the discussion on the whole 'perpetual felon' idea. In my book you are a felon while serving your punishment or on parole, but once your debt is paid, you're a free man and should have all the same rights as anyone else, which include the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Only exception to this rule should be sex offenders who should be registered and pedophiles should be banned from working with children and living near schools and similar child-dense areas.
The felon restrictions doesn't make sense in themselves. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you're still allowed to buy new cars and to re-acquire your drivers license, but a felon cannot own firearms or vote for life even when all they did were fraud, counterfeiting or similar non-violent while-collar crime.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".
It is? Even though the Second Amendment forbids the federal government this sort of power?
So you are objecting, indicating that it's federally illegal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state? If that's not what you are saying, then why are you objecting so strongly to a statement you agree with?
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't. The only thing a database provide is for gun confiscation by an authoritarian state. This objective is the real objective of nowadays anti-gun movements, complete disarmament of law abiding citizens. Cf. the behavior of the RCMP in Canada during the High River flood, they used the then-illegal former long gun registry to invade homes an cease guns. They are doing the same now with the recent prohibition of the Swiss Arm Classic Green, and the CZ-859.
It was also rather fun in the intro scene of the original Red Dawn to see the invading force get all the 4473 form to cease gun from citizens.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
This is the classic flawed "if it's not 100% effective at stopping gun violence, we shouldn't do it at all" argument. It's been beaten to death.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Outside of a database, how else do you effectively and in a reasonable amount of time identify someone who is unfit to buy a weapon at a point of sale? Give them an ad hoc mental examination? Ask them nicely if they have a history of criminal violence? Lie detector test? A database is more effective than anything else to do this.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:5, Insightful)
We should have laws for things that are inherently wrong, like murder. Owning a gun is not inherently wrong, and therefore should not be prohibited since the attempt to do to won't prevent criminals from getting guns illegally anyway.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:5, Insightful)
No - laws should punish things that are actually wrong. Theft, rape, murder, etc. Anything that it is claimed simply facilitates the breaking of another law without causing direct harm itself should not be illegal.
In the terms of this site - the DMCA is wrong, because (as is obvious) the pirates are gonna pirate stuff regardless. The law only prevents legitimate uses.
Banning guns or complicating the process is wrong, because murderers are going to get guns and kill people anyways.
Put simply, laws do not PREVENT crime. Never have, never will. All they do is define what crime is, so that we can identify those that have done society wrong and punish them accordingly.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?
You seem to be confusing the database for background checks, which most certainly does exist, and which is run on me whenever I purchase a gun, with a national gun registry. The former may be reasonably expected to prevent gun violence at some level, and most gun rights advocates that I know don't object to it. The latter has no logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Actually, I should clarify. I don't agree with the OP's idea of a database to track gun owners. I'm all for databases supporting background checks, like NICS.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
If it's so dangerous for people to have guns why stop at just those who already have them. I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.
Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?
Speaking as someone living in a country with pretty strict gun control laws... the former ain't happening. (And even if it did, it's certainly possible to fight back with improvised weapons at least long enough to start seizing guns from the oppressive agents.) The latter is happening to you anyway, regardless of the fact that so much of the population is armed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:2)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
Re:..or without a background check? (Score:3)
This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.
You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.
Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does not want people discussing). The bans stick method of censorship has been used for a couple years already. Censorship is not only happening there, Reddit had a nice article about the same thing [washingtonsblog.com], and Slashdot could suffer similar problems to Reddit and Digg.
In all of the yelling about 2nd amendment we should not lose sight of the real problem which is censorship and conditioning.
Encryption... (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I were to try to promote the use of encryption in private communications, would that be "a willingness to evade or help others evade the law?"
Nothing to hide, and all that...
Selling assult weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
I can sell assault weapons for cash all day long in my state to private people without even getting their name. and "GASP" most of my "DANGEROUS ASSULT WEAPONS" are unregistered as well..
Oh the horror....
That said, the last place I would sell them is to twits on Facebook. Cripes even ebay twits are not worth dealing with. There are plenty of great private gun selling sites that have people that understand the values and have clues...
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.
However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:
Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.
Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Funny)
I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
That definition did not work out so well when applied to people. Nothing makes me think that it will work much better here.
After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.
LK (A big black guy)
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.
That would be so funny if it wasn't so moronic.
h77 (A big liberal guy)
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Pride, when poked becomes petty.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Racist!
I guess this means that my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers isn't an assault weapon... wheew!
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
I believed him without pictures. They'll slap Hello Kitty on EVERYTHING.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.
Well, the conservatives in Canada have just banned [www.cbc.ca] a green one, so it looks like we'll need to broaden it a little bit.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.
"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.
"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.
A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!
So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
A quick review [imageshack.us] is in order.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
The simple definition:
An assault rifle is an automatic (including select-fire and burst-fire) rifle in a small caliber (either a short 7mm-class round like the AK47/M14, or 5mm-class round like the AK74/M16, although really anything below 12.7mm is an assault rifle). They are similar, but distinct, from the light machine gun (a squad-level weapon designed for sustained fire, using rifle-type ammunition usually from a drum or belt), the sub-machine gun (fires pistol rounds, usually smaller than an assault rifle), and the personal defense weapon (an overpriced SMG with proprietary ammunition, developed mainly for lucrative defense contracts).
An assault weapon is any gun that looks scary to uninformed people, generally defined based on some "points" system involving forward pistol grips, folding stocks, and the like. I'm pretty sure one could modify a Lee-Enfield No. 4 to be an "assault weapon", despite it's maximum rate of fire being under 40 rounds per minute.
To put is simpler:
An assault rifle is a military weapon. An assault weapon is a gun that looks like a military weapon.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
To be pedantic a 7mm would not include an AK47 unless you fail to round properly. 7.62mm rounds to 8mm, not 7mm. You correct that later by mentioning a 50 caliber size round.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
True - I originally had it written as ".30" but decided to use metric and didn't think it through all the way. Although to be pedantic I never defined "7mm-class", which could very well mean 7.00-7.99mm (Wikipedia provides precedent here [wikipedia.org] - it seems the people in charge of gun classification *do* fail to round properly).
However, we are quickly approaching recto-cranial levels of pedantry, so perhaps it's best if I just stop now.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles, you see them all over the place with these guns in the street. They paint Converse logos on them, and get them gold plated to match their spinner rims YO! The Gangers love big guns that attract attention and are expensive as hell!
Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun while you walk the streets looking for targets. I now offer to sellers getting them engraved with "thug life" and gold plating the Uppers.
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun ...
I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Obligatory Full Metal Jacket link. [slashdot.org]
But, didn't that chant have a second part as well? I thought it was something like "This one's for women. This one's for tanks. This one shoots bullets. This one shoots blanks."
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.
Doesn't it scare the horse and make it pull the buggy into the ditch?
Re:Selling assult weapons (Score:2)
FB is lying, yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FB is lying, yet again (Score:2)
... And Nary a Thing Will Change (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number [armslist.com] of sites [slashdot.org] cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.
You can't stop the signal.
Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change (Score:2)
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number [armslist.com] of sites [slashdot.org] cropped up for just that purpose
Forgive my stupidity, but why did you link to the very article to which you responded? Was it to get me to click endlessly in a loop, never to actually post? Because it almost worked.
Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change (Score:4, Funny)
Nonsense. (Score:2)
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales (Score:3)
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
This is not news, because it's not new.
Re:Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales (Score:3)
Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".
This is not news, because it's not new.
But is nice bait to stir up the gun-nuts.
What's the big deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
They are a private company and can (or should be) allowed to impose whatever rules they want... Its only the federal government that is required to adhere to the bill of rights. So until the Constitution gets amended, we can argue about how illegal background checks, waiting periods, and registration by the federal government are - but there is absolutely nothing you can say about FB doing whatever they feel is right.
Peter.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3)
And we other gun owners are free to mock you for being idiots.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3)
Meh. The NRA does /not/ speak for me, those people are batshit crazy. My rifles are for target shooting and hunting; nothing like blowing the shit out of a recalcitrant printer with eighty rounds from one's Mosin-Nagant.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
In fact it was a Laserjet 4L. I might have put in a few more but the bolt was getting very sticky at that point, so I satisfied myself with some desultory bayonet thrusts and called it a day.
Not just 5 rounds at a whack, but without stripper clips. Me and that printer, we had history.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I've got a Limbsavers rollover butt pad, so I don't feel a thing anymore. Beats the hell out of my M44's steel buttplate.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American would sell out to a sleazebag liberal corporate-whore advertising goat-raper* like Facebook. In fact, I'm not even sure why this is on slashdot, since - based on most FB stories - almost nobody here is even signed up for the service.
*not my words, just repeating what I've read about FB on /.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American
Likewise. It would be interesting to actually analyze the "ads" that Facebook has actually removed. My bet is they fall into three categories; thug life types passing around $50 zinc belly guns, the fabulously stupid, and all of the above. Competent gun owners don't resell guns on fucking Facebook.
Anyhow, precious few of us will be the least bit upset about Facebook's little manufactured controversy. Corporate anti-gun grandstanding is about as novel as Guardian stories on Israeli "crimes."
Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." (Score:4, Interesting)
FORTUNE [cnn.com]: When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO...Zuckerberg's new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: "I just killed a pig and a goat."
Re:Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." (Score:2)
According to today's press release [momsdemandaction.org], "Facebook will provide public education ad space targeted at users interested in firearm-related content to ensure they know about the laws related to gun sales." Perhaps among those targeted by Facebook for education will be Facebook's own CEO - FORTUNE indicated Zuckerberg was interested in firearms [cnn.com] ("Zuckerberg has learned to hunt, according to people close to him. He got a hunting license and recently shot and killed a bison.")
Won't work (Score:2)
Wrong way of looking at it... (Score:3)
Facebook does not want to be hounded by the anti-gun/do-it-for-the-children/omfg-i'm-scared lobby.
Re:Wrong way of looking at it... (Score:2)
I think they would prefer to be hounded by those, as opposed to the NRA. If the recent events have shown anything, it's that anti-gun petitions and demonstrations are significantly less numerous than pro-gun ones - simply because most people who are vaguely for stricter gun control don't care all that much about it (not enough to get their ass off the chair and do something, basically), while a significant proportion of gun owners will treat gun control as a very serious issue and are willing to invest a considerable amount of time and money fighting against it.
Heck, it's a very simple number game even on Facebook itself. The biggest pro-gun lobby/propaganda org is, doubtlessly, the NRA. The two most prominent anti-gun lobby/propaganda orgs are Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action. So, looking at their Facebook pages:
MAIG [facebook.com] - 20,000 likes
MDA [facebook.com] - 150,000 likes
NRA [facebook.com] - 3,000,000 likes
Who would Facebook rather piss off?
Comment removed (Score:3)
I have a little legal news for FB (Score:3)
There is no legal requirement to run a background check for interstate sales of long guns. Period. Interstate sales of handguns must go through an FFL dealer. There is no legal requirement to perform a background check or go through a dealer for INTRAstate sales from person to person. That's the law. If Facebook doesn't like that, who the f*ck are they to make their own laws that supersede federal laws? Imagine how ugly things would get if someone decided that a photo ID was required to vote. Oh, wait, that did happen and the feds stomped all over it. Bottom line is that if someone wants to get a gun without going through legal methods, they are going to find a way. Criminals don't care how many laws they break.
Beyond this issue, this is an illustration of Facebook thinking it's important.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Actually selling firearms is mostly legal. Some States have certain regulations you have to comply with but generally compliance isn't that difficult. I don't know why they'd use Facebook though as there are much better places to advertise their wares that are known to people interested in buying and selling firearms. This is just a lot of hysteria as people who like to bitch are looking for an excuse to be offended. Facebook is privately owned and can ban pretty much anything they want.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why bother with Facebook? (Score:2)