Snapchat Wanted $150K To Not Run NRA Ads On Gun Control Group Videos (thenextweb.com) 377
New submitter bababoris writes: It appears that Snapchat's Rob Saliterman attempted to "encourage" Everytown for Gun Safety to advertise with Snapchat or risk having National Rifle Association (NRA) ads run during their Live Story promoting gun safety. The Next Web reports: "Everytown for Gun Safety is an advocacy group that focuses on gun safety and violence issues. According to Mic, it reached out to Snapchat in 2016 to inquire about an advertising campaign for its #WearOrange event, held on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. A Snapchat representative, Rob Saliterman, responded to Everytown with a quote of $150,000. This would allow Snapchat users to engage with the event using custom filters and lenses created specifically for it. Realizing that another department within Snapchat had undercut him, he fired off an email suggesting that Everytown pay up, lest National Rifle Association (NRA) adverts appear on their videos."
That org is garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Everytown for Gun Safety has no interest whatsoever in "gun safety".
Re: (Score:3)
> Everytown for Gun Safety has no interest whatsoever in "gun safety".
No, they're just another bunch of gun grabbing tyrants.
But, the topic isn't about them, and how much they suck. It's about whether it is at all ok for Snapchat to basically try to extort them by asking for cash or threatening to play a countermessage.
It's phrased cleverly enough to avoid any legal issues, probably- they simply mention that the NRA is talking about buying advertisement time- but that is clearly meant as a threat.
Anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Just google "everytown false". Slashdot is not getting more right wing, it is getting more liberal in the classical sense. It's your relative point of view that has changed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOL, Try not to project so much. Statistically, conservative right wingers (classical centrists who are for limited government and as much personal freedom as is reasonable) are the working middle class.
The liberal progressive Democrats are 25X times more likely to be unemployed (or maybe that's unemployable) and 7X more likely to be a criminal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
(If you can get past the spin at politifact, you can find the actual statistics there on criminals registering to vote.)
http://www. [politifact.com]
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
The liberal progressive Democrats are 25X times more likely to be unemployed (or maybe that's unemployable) and 7X more likely to be a criminal.
So why is it that the red states are the ones that consume the lion's share of the social services, even though California has the highest population and is often considered to have the most illegal immigrants living within its borders?
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: Civil War.
Basically, the Old South (the poorest part of the USA) was colonized because you could grow cotton there in huge plantations. The Civil War, and subsequent technological changes, led to the ruin of what passed for an economy in the South, with basically nothing to replace it (note the exception of the Barony of Iron Mountain (SCA), aka Birmingham, which sat on a helluvalot of iron ore).
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Dividing it by "red state" and "blue state" unfairly transfers the tax contributions of red voters in blue states into the "blue state" category, and the social service consumption of blue voters in red states into the "red state" category. Red voters on average have higher incomes than blue voters. And since we use a progressive tax system, higher income people pay more taxes. Hence for the country overall red voters are net tax contributors, blue voters are net social service recipients.
If you don't believe this is possible, here's a simple example. Imagine a country with two states. Blue State has 2 blue voters and 1 red voter. The red voter pays $100 in taxes, the 2 blue voters receive $40 in services each. Red State as 2 red voters and 1 blue voter. The red voters each pay $10 in taxes, the 1 blue voter receives $40 in services. So in this simplified example, every red voter is a tax contributor, every blue voter is a social services recipient. Yet the blue state is the net tax contributor and the red state is the net social services recipient. That is how little tax contributions by state are correlated to tax contributions by political affiliation.
Grouping it by states just takes advantage of an unrelated factor to create Simpson's Paradox, Rural states tend to vote red, urban states tend to vote blue. But rural states tend to consume more government money simply because it costs more to deliver the same government services to the same number of people, if those people are spread out over a wider area.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is getting more right-wing. Soon you'll be hearing about people who are kind of like Yuppies, but not exactly, and hear things like, "Greed is Good." And basic income will be lost in the noise. As soon as people realize Trump is not Hitler (a low bar, to be sure) they're going to flock to his side. It's like a game of football: the winners of the superbowl become super popular. Watch it happen.
Trump doesn't even have to be appealing in any way for this to happen.
Take a look at the two top DNC folks now, who are "the leaders" of what the democrats will be doing. Tom Perez Chairman, Keith Ellison vice-Chair. Google these guys and what they have been doing their entire lives, and compare that to what the "centrist" base of the democratic party might want.
The dems are DOOMED if they can't get control of their radical communist/progressive ideas.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It matters that Chicago police and Chicago government spend their time harassing innocent people instead of catching criminals or solving their social problems.
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Funny)
but if someone walks up and shoots you Chicago style
Yeah, that's why I always use MLA style.
Re:That org is garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean making handguns illegal in Chicago didn't stop shootings?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but if someone walks up and shoots you Chicago style, it doesn't matter if you're armed.
Handguns, especially in the calibers illegally carried by Chicago's typical ruffian are notoriously bad at actually killing the target. Likewise, a handgun isn't by any means a guaranteed hit to center of mass if it's more than a couple of yards away.
"The victim has no chance to use their own gun" displays a massive amount of ignorance on handguns and their typical effectiveness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That org is garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Happens quite a lot, even thou you don't want to believe it does:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-homicide-suspect-shot-by-patron-1.1370815
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17251517/churchgoers-subdue-gunman-at-spartanburg-church
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443
http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/12brfs-GUNMANKILLED_BRF.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print&_r=0
http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-26/news/25765866_1_andrew-wurst-john-gillette-science-teacher
And that is what I could find in a 2-sec google search.
Re: (Score:3)
Happens quite a lot, even thou you don't want to believe it does:
And then there's the fact that brandishing is illegal, so all the times when someone shows someone that they have a gun and stop a crime without even having to point it at the aggressor go unreported. As well, of course, as the times when they do aim, but don't shoot.
Re: That org is garbage (Score:4, Informative)
Happens quite a lot, even thou you don't want to believe it does:
And then there's the fact that brandishing is illegal, so all the times when someone shows someone that they have a gun and stop a crime without even having to point it at the aggressor go unreported. As well, of course, as the times when they do aim, but don't shoot.
"Brandishing" is illegal. This is what brandishing is: "display, indication or threat of use of a weapon for unlawful intimidation purposes"
Pulling a firearm out because two thugs flanked your car while you try to pump gas is not brandishing, and it's not illegal. Removing a pistol from a concealment holster and holding it pointed at the ground is legit self defense in the face of that kind of threat.
There are unreported defensive uses of firearms, quite a few actually if you believe the NRA, generally it's because well there wasn't much of an incident and what is there to say? The thugs will almost never report it, as the police are likely to know what they are and what they were up to or they have warrants already.
I know this stuff is outside your idiom, but would it really be such a burden to actually learn a few of the utmost basics on the topic before shooting your mouth off? It seems like that's the only thing you do here, shoot your mouth off.
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to consider how many more gun deaths/crimes occur because of the increased availability of guns
Re:That org is garbage (Score:4, Informative)
Arming yourself is the best way to have a fighting chance against anyone who's trying to kill you
"They're trying to kill me," Yossarian told him calmly.
"No one's trying to kill you," Clevinger cried.
"Then why are they shooting at me?" Yossarian asked.
"They're shooting at everyone," Clevinger answered. "They're trying to kill everyone."
"And what difference does that make?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And.......today I realized that Snowden is a character in Catch 22.
I see your clever rhetorical figure. Whereby Snowden integrally represents the USA.
Rather astutely the main issue is merely alluded to in unclear terms. Indeed there's no alternative when addressing bigots.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
[...] Arming yourself is the best way to have a fighting chance against anyone who's trying to kill you in a country where access to firearms is so ubiquitous, cheap and simple that every punk and their dog have one. [...]
FTFY.
From a European perspective, the US is just a tiny step up from, say, Mogadishu when it comes to gun-related violence. Over here, shootings usually make national news. That is how rare they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Arming yourself is the best way
to ensure you are a victim of gun violence. That being said, I own home protection weapons. I go the the range at least once a quarter and fire no less than 250 rounds to practice. If I aim at it, I want to hit it. If I don't aim at it, I don't want to hit it. And the next point is; I do own a .45. That isn't for home protection, it's because I like shooting it. For protection, I use a legal length sawed off pistol grip shotgun and a 9mm with frangible rounds. The idiot ammuno
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Remove suicide and illegal ownership by violent felons and gangbangers from those numbers and the statistic is pure bunkem. At worst there is less than a 3% increase in suicides due to gun ownership and even that is heavily disputed.
Re: (Score:2)
A large amount of illegal firearms in the USA consists of stolen legal firearms. The abundance of legal firearms and the irresponsible carelessness of their owners seriously helps criminals.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's not a problem for people who aren't suicidal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, suicide is painless.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Most gun deaths are by suicide.
Next up is accidental discharge,
After that, it's homicide by someone the victim knows."
See Hemenway, Private guns, Public Health, 2004 (more recent research may differ). Hemenway cites numerous scientific studies, explains his sources and methodology, points out weakness of the information, explains original research--such as going around to 50 States governments and acquiring as much raw data as possible/the states were willing to give in some instances.
His conclusions:
Suici
Re: (Score:2)
I also wonder how many accidental discharges were in case when a cop was aiming at an unarmed suspect...
Re: (Score:2)
So... let's outlaw suicide? Wait, it already is. We should outlaw plastic bags too... oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Untreated depression [suicide.org] is the number one cause for suicide.
Why didn't you look it up?
Re: (Score:2)
So get training. It isn't hard or expensive, and compared to police training, its orders of magnitude more effective.
Police are not a security force. They are not a peace keeping force. Their job is to catch criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Their job is to catch criminals.
No! Their job is to "prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment", as Sir Robert Peel rightly put it.
Every British, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand police officer is aware of this. The best time to stop a criminal is before the crime takes place, and the absolute best time is before someone becomes a criminal in the first place. This is such an obvious point that you'd think US police officers would know it too.
If you want to kno
Re: (Score:2)
You both are talking about different branches of police. Beat cops prevent crime and disorder, criminal investigation police (aka police detectives) solves crimes and catches criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
You as an amateur pull out a gun firing wildly, I hope a cop puts one into as fast as possible before they target the perp who will likely be firing less often needing to conserve ammo.
Before you get a big fucking hard-on for the police, you cop sucker, consider that there's no shortage of cops who can't shoot straight either [1911forum.com]. If I had to bet on who was a better shot, between a cop and J. Random hick in sticks gun enthusiast, I'd pick the hick every time.
Re: Best way to defend yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing that makes this so stupid is that you haven't made contingencies for the thousands of other terrible things that are far more likely to happen to you, your wife, and your children. This is what makes the "I'm prepared game" so fucking hollow.
Name 10 (Score:2)
I'm curious. Could you name 10 of those "thousands of terrible things" that are more likely to happen to my wife and children, and that should be addressed before doing something as complex as buying a gun?
Re: (Score:2)
Next time a nutcase breaks into your house
If that's a common problem for you, perhaps you live in a different country, because that isn't a common problem in the US.
Of all murders/rapes during a home invasion for 2014 (the last year on which records are available) there were 128. Out of a population of over 380,000,000.
Now, think of the number of gun suicides or family violence. Much larger number than 128.
If you like guns, I don't have a problem with that. Most liberals do not have a problem with guns per
Re: Best way to defend yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
This is a shit argument because it is disingenuous, and you are being a hypocritical asshole because you know it is disingenuous. First, the breech-loading rifle existed at the time. They didn't ban it, even though it was essentially the assault rifle of its day. Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon. The entire point of the second amendment was to avoid the need for a standing militia. That meant that all the military weapons were meant to be in the hands of the people, and specifically as a hedge against tyranny. The authors and proponents of the 2a also believed in the right to self defense (a basic tenet of common law) and made that point very clear in their writings on the subject.
TL;DR: the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
Re: (Score:3)
On both sides, so armed citizens were on an equitable basis with government troops. Private ownership of the big weapons of the day, heavy cannon, wasn't uncommon (privateers).
Now you're arguing that although the weapons available to the government have improved, those available to citizens shouldn't.
Of course, also at the time, there were no electronic communications, no high speed printing presses, no photography, etc. So by
Re: (Score:2)
Mis-clicked mod. Undo that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them
I think if I was to consider suicide that's the one solution I'd pick because maybe, if the robbery is a success, I would give up on the second part of the plan and escape to Mexico or some other place where I could spend the rest of my life living like a king. Or at the very least, go to Vegas and have one hell of a nice weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to make a principled and nuanced use of violence.
Great. What is your principled and nuanced approach to dealing with people from Al-Qaeda who will behead you if they get a chance unless you accept to live according to their interpretation of Islam? Or how do you propose to deal with those Mexican drug cartels who intercept buses in rural areas and force male passengers to fight each other to death while the female passengers are being raped and tortured?
See, you remind me of that movie, Demolition Man, where a future, peace-loving society has no way to de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have 1.3-1.8X knife homicides than the UK has total homicides. During the 10 years post Port Arthur, US homicides fell by 5-10 percent farther than Aus homicide rates depending on exact dates used.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way that makes you safer is because statistically you will be shot with your own weapon and either end up nice and safe in hospital, or a hole in the ground permanently safe from harm.
What do those stats look like when the suicides are removed?
Never mind, I'll tell you, if you ARENT suicidal and you have firearm, it goes back to being much more dangerous to bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Most of the money is in government contracts, which the NRA doesn't give a damn about. Sales to civilians amounts to less than Bloomberg's bedside change drawer.
Uhmmmm... no.
A few gun manufacturers do sell more to military and police contracts (Berretta, Glock, Sig) most others don't And those that do sell like that, still have huge private sales.
Look up the numbers some time, some states field the largest standing army on the planet during the deer hunting season. Since the 90's when the last bs number was created, the 350 million or so "firearms in the US" number has gone up by half, or a million per month. The US has somewhere between 500 million and 750 m
Everytown everywhere (Score:2)
Terms of Service? (Score:2)
WearOrange day? (Score:2)
With Snapchat lenses?
I can see how this could really go wrong. [ebayimg.com]
Article & its source fail to ask key questions (Score:3)
The NRA is a deeply controversial and polarizing gun advocacy group. While some argue that it exists to vigorously defend the Second Amendment, others argue that the NRA has stifled any meaningful attempt at reasonable gun control reform.
Can't both arguments have merit, simultaneously?
What is the metric for whether a proposed gun control measure is "reasonable"? That is a highly subjective term.
Furthermore, what is the standard rate for this type of advertisement? Is $150k USD the going rate for 3x 10-second ads for an event of this nature, or is the price here being inflated simply due the diametric natures of Everytown and the NRA?
I do like how Mic (who originally received the emails regarding this story) fails to address these questions entirely. Mic is garbage, as is TheNextWeb for running a [basically paraphrased, rehashed] story without asking pertinent questions.
Re: (Score:2)
The most immoral act it seems was to sell ad space to the NRA, who represent about half of the households in the US (45 million households own firearms) and then turn around and try to stifle their voice by offering to kill the ads for a fee. I am pretty certain that this would have been illegal if it were radio or broadcast TV airtime because of the rules around selling ad space.
If the position of Everytown is well reasoned and sourced, it seems that the NRA adds should be welcome, seeing as the NRA is es
Re: (Score:2)
The US uses a precedent-based court system. It's a pretty good system in most aspects, but one drawback is that it tends to polarise political issues because of a fear of incrimentalism. The NRA is obliged to oppose any form of gun control, no matter how reasonable, because once courts say that much gun control is allowable it becomes a great deal easier to then pass stricter gun control, and even stricter after that. The same thing goes on regarding abortion: Even pro-choice activists rarely support full a
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court is also part of the problem. The stability of the court is both a benefit and a curse. It's a curse because once appointed, justices serve for life which means the court is glacially slow to turn over. In most cases, the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to either pass a constitutional amendment or appoint new justices with predictable ideological biases who then overrule past rulings.
Since amending the constitution is practically impossible, partisans have realized that by l
Re: (Score:2)
There's another consequence of the stability of surpreme court decisions too: It leads to a lot of indirect laws, where legislators try to find creative ways to achieve indirectly things that they cannot achieve directly under the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court. This often leads to some really strange and convoluted laws, including laws that are intentionally impossible to comply with.
Re: (Score:2)
the NRA has stifled any meaningful attempt at reasonable gun control reform.
The anti-gun crowd keeps changing the definition of "reasonable gun control". At one time the NRA backed extensive gun control laws and those laws passed. Then the anti-gun people moved the goal post. They keep moving the goal post. So the NRA finally said "enough is enough".
Re: (Score:2)
Alt-right is the latest pejorative of the weak minded liberal progressives who have become progressively shrill over the last 6 months as their paper thin arguments have been shredded in the truth filters of millions of Americans. 50 years ago they redrew the political spectrum because they were left wing nutjobs arguing against conservative centrists, and it was hard to get people to take them seriously arguing against the center from the far left.
The original political spectrum looked like this:
- Left Wi
Their mistake (Score:2)
Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
Re:And this is interesting because? (Score:5, Informative)
What if we aren't haters and don't hate the NRA? What if we don't have a phobia of guns? Why is this "stuff that matters"?
I don't have a "gun phobia", I own 3 - a rifle, a shotgun (which I use for hunting), and a handgun (which I use for fun -- i.e. target practice).
But I do think guns are way too easy to obtain (both legally and illegally), and gun owners should hold more responsibility for securing their weapons so they aren't stolen and resold on the black market. My gun safe cost as much as both of the long guns that are locked inside it.
Companies that sell ads sell ads. BFD.
It's not the ad sale that's the story, it's the extortion.
Re: (Score:3)
Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".
Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.
If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.
Re:And this is interesting because? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Snapchat was telling everytown that it would sell advertisements as usual, unless everytown purchased the ad space. The submitter and the journalist are playing fast and loose with the phrasing of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
After Sandy Hook & Isla Vista, it should have become easier to keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals, even if Sandy Hook may not have been stopped by such legislation. Instead it's become easier which is, frankly, as insane as anyone being able to go on a shooting spree with legally obtained firearms because one of the voices in his head told him so.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that once such laws are passed, it becomes very easy to expand that whitelist...rapidly expand it. The fact that schools are being targeted by their own students might suggest they are part of the problem. Of course, that will never be explored because it scrutinizes the state-run school system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that humans are just inherently a little crazy. They have to be, or else they would just freeze up or throw themselves off the nearest bridge when confronted with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then how about a law that holds the family criminally liable if they suspected that the person was mentally ill but did not report it and the person goes on to commit a murder. If the mentally ill person gets access to a family members firearm, that family member would be charged with whatever crimes the mental patient commits, since they were the responsible party.
Once a patient is reported, you have psychologists evaluate the person, and if the psychologists find that the patient is mentally ill, the
Re:i have no problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Or look at California. If you put a flash suppressor on your gun, it's now an assault weapon because it is 10 times more deadly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OR the stupidity of the law that says you can carry a gun for protection in your car, but you have to lock the ammo in the trunk and the gun in the glovebox.
Re: (Score:2)
OR the stupidity of the law that says you can carry a gun for protection in your car, but you have to lock the ammo in the trunk and the gun in the glovebox.
No, that law effectively says you can't carry a gun for protection in your car, you can only transport it. It is a clear violation of the second amendment, but then, any laws which prohibit carry are that, and California is therefore one of many states which wipe their arses with the constitution in a variety of ways.
Gun control was never about safety (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is we don't have really effective gun control law because we never really tried to. Now, I don't think we ever will and I honestly wish the left would drop the issue entirely. It's a losing issue (and noticing that was the only thing Clinton got right). But it does irritate me to see folks like you saying gun control doesn't work. No shit Sherlock that a bunch of laws designed to keep guns out of oppressed minorities didn't have much effect on gun violence...
Re: (Score:3)
Not the 70's or 80's
Long before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The stated purpose of gun control laws today is to reduce homicide. (The actual purpose is to take power away from the citizens and give the guns and the power to the state). The facts indicate that strict gun laws or confiscation dramatically increase crime rates. Homicide (all homicide, not just looking at gun homicide) jumps up dramatically when guns are banned (the UK saw an increase in homicides and a 100% increase in violent crime after they banned guns). This is also borne out in Australia after
Re: (Score:2)
Well, part of the "problem" here is that your chance of being murdered by firearm is already very low; you're about 3x as likely to die in a car accident in any given year as to be shot to death.
This doesn't mean that these are not problems; it's a matter of knowing where to get the next marginal increment of safety. If there were some new widget you could bolt on to cars (e.g., like a seatbelt) you could do a straightforward cost benefit analysis. But gun violence is both rarer than automobile deaths, an
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. You still need data.
Look, science doesn't work because scientists are impartial. It's the adversarial process of science itself that is impartial.
Re:i have no problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:i have no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem promoting gun safety but what i do have a problem with is stupid law's that are just these feel good laws usually by liberals that claim to work to attack gun violence problem but reality do NOTHING to stop the problem.
Reduced accessibility to guns will ultimately result in fewer attacks being carried out using guns. How many attacks are there with high-grade explosives? Not many because they are tightly regulated.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing that is consistent is that all those cities have been run by Democrats for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it called a Federal Background check, and isn't the ATF a federal agency? Maybe we could get there if we had sanctuary cities for firearms purchases. Sounds like a good idea. What other federal laws could we circumvent with sanctuary cities? How about tax law?
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why background checks without actual regulation with teeth are... ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you've never been to a gun "fair". ATF doesn't have the constitutional power to regulate private sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:facts vs sterotype (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We already have federal background checks, and every lib who says guns are too easy to get should be forced to go through the process of getting one (you don't have to actually buy one, just go through the process). Your ignorance is apparent to the rest of us who have. Liberals are just conservatives who haven't experienced enough of the real world yet. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a gun or you think that someone can just "buy a gun" at a gun show without a background check, you hav
Re: (Score:2)
statistics are hard (Score:4, Insightful)
One doesn't need to "poll the majority" to be able to make statistically sound assertions about a group. Do you think 50% of manufactured hard drives are run to failure to determine MTBF?
claim: "a majority of people are right handed"
naïve rebuttal:" WHOA there... we gotta individually count 4 billion righties before you can make that claim!"
Re: (Score:2)
Background checks should not be required for people who already own a gun purchased with a background check, nor should there be a waiting period.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic you should be able to confiscate their gun at some point in the future, but you can't, unless they are a convicted felon. So your argument is not valid.
At a minimum, it should be offered as an option, like a frequent flier card or drivers license or hunting license to get a certified background check to buy guns for like 3 or 5 years, so one does not have to pay $60 or more each time a gun is purchased... They could pull the license if you are convicted of a crime or become a mental patient.
Re:facts vs sterotype (Score:4, Insightful)
> I also think it's fucked up that anyone who's been to prison for more than a year is denied, regardless of whether they've ever used a gun in a crime. For their whole life. It's unamerican.
I agree with your point but not because its unamerican, but because it just enocurages cirminals to get them illegally.
I've always thought it was stupid the way that in the US, once you have a criminal record you basically remain marked for life. Its pretty much encouraging people to be lifetime criminals once they have a record, since its often much harder for them to get a job.
I prefer the UK approach that is once you've done your punishment its considered that you've paid your debt to society and you get a fresh start and your record wiped. I'm not sure of the details but I think employers aren't legally allowed to discriminate against ex-cons and often can't even tell if they ever had a criminal conviction. Obviously there are a few exceptions, such as, (I guess) allowing convicted paedos to work with kids, and probably multiple offenders, but it generally allows people to resume as functioning members of society so less of a chance of repeat offending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First off, any honest, informed person will tell you that politifact is full of shit and a shill for the liberal progressives. They spin and twist and build straw man arguments rather than doing what they purport to do, namely, fact check things.
Secondly, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. Flying commercial is not. You can't infringe a constitutional right without a felony conviction or a finding of mental incompetence. Period full stop. The no fly list does not have a jury of your peers
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are male, under 45, and have the courage to join the National Guard. Try actually reading the thing some time instead of the Ollie North Hezbolla version.
How about we get back to the NRA instead of spouting their propaganda designed to make a poorly regulated rifle club look like something George Washington said we should all join.
Re: (Score:2)
This exactly, and were I the NRA, I might also review my contract to see what legal recourse I could take for bait and switch or breach of contract. At minimum a few heads should roll over at Snapchat.