Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Expands Online Commerce Role, But Says "No Guns, Please"
The New York Times reports that Facebook's newly staked-out role as a site to facilitate local, person-to-person sales (ala Craigslist) has a new wrinkle: the site has announced a site-wide policy restricting firearms sales that applies to personal sales, though not to licensed dealers or gun clubs. According to the story,
Although Facebook was not directly involved in gun sales, it has served as a forum for gun sales to be negotiated, without people having to undergo background checks. The social network, with 1.6 billion monthly visitors, had become one of the worldâ(TM)s largest marketplaces for guns and was increasingly evolving into an e-commerce site where it could facilitate transactions of goods. ... Facebook said it would rely on its vast network of users to report any violations of the new rules, and would remove any post that violated the policy. Beyond that, the company said it could ban users or severely limit the ways they post on Facebook, depending on the type and severity of past violations. If the company believed someoneâ(TM)s life was in danger, Facebook would work with law enforcement on the situation.
The policy applies as well to private sales that occur using Facebook Messenger, though the company does not scan Messenger exchanges and must rely on user reports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
A list, state by state, showing the laws as far as guns go. Permit to purchase, registration, carry permits, and more--including background checks requirements for private sales. Most of the states on that list require absolutely no background check, license, transfer of ownership, paperwork, etc as far as face to face sales go. This is a state matter and 100% legal. What facebook is doing--that is, blackballing discussion of it across the board--is morally wrong, seeing as face to face sales are legal in most states. If they banned discussion by state residency, it would be justifiable. What they're doing, however, is publicly taking a stance *as a company* against gun owners, gun buyers, and guns in general. And while yes, it is their site and they make the rules, that doesn't make it any less of a shitty thing to do.
Easy access to firearms actually protects people.
Personally, I dislike being mugged, robbed, burgled, and assaulted in *minor* manners, but
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
If you were mugged or burgled, you wouldn't have a hope in hell of defending yourself with your gun; your assailants would have bailed you up long before you had a chance to get your hands on it, and any attempt of yours to get it would probably result in them killing you.
Seriously, I don't know what the hell is wrong with you Americans. The rest of the developed world is laughing at you. Our crime rates are considerably lower, our murder rates are lower, and yet you morons think your guns *protect* you from this. Get out into the world and have a look around. We have it much better than you.
It's a "problem" why? Because you say it is? Look, you may fall for the propaganda. I really don't care if you do. I will however correct this type of propaganda when I see it.
Fact: The areas with the highest number of legal guns per capita in the US have the lowest crime rate.
- Criminals don't follow the law, and there are more criminals than cops. Always will be, so don't slide down that slippery slope.
This is correct, My friend experienced a burglary where they came into his house and pointed guns at his head and took all his money and expensive things he had laying around (which I told him probably predicated the robbery to begin with). He wasn't able to get his gun to defend shit, because he let his attackers into his house before they did this, because he thought they were his friends. They weren't, but this underscores the problem we're facing:
The myth is that the burglars are going to wait until the dead of night, when you're sleeping, at home, to rob your house. Then, when you hear that creak of the window opening, you can immediately wake up, sneak downstairs, catch them in the act, and murder them, completely justifiably, end of dream.
But that won't ever happen, and if you believe it will, well, then you're a fucking retard. No one is going to rob your house randomly. I mean, think of the logistics. At the very least, they're going to case your house and learn your schedule, and wait until you're on vacation or leave a garage door open or something, but even then, we're talking about a high-functioning thief, or an opportunist. Not a random-house choosing murderer who is willing to rob a house with people inside.
No man, if anyone is going to take your expensive shit and cash you leave laying around, its people who already know you leave expensive shit and cash laying around. And if that is so important to your existence that you need to defend it with your life.. why don't you get insurance on it, or put it in a bank? Wouldn't that be infinitely more secure?
Another billionaire with 24/7 armed security doesn't understand why anyone would want a gun.
An informed argument is so refreshing. Bravo!
Firstly, you are citing news articles and not published research, and others might point out the gap in credibility between our arguments. For my part, I know that your sources reflect publish papers so it's all good.
The difference between our arguments is this: I claim that looking at *gun* deaths is misleading, because the vast majority of gun incidents resolve in favor of the gun owner and do not lead to death.
The statistic of measure should be the overall fatality rate (death from all causes), not the "death by gun" rate.
So for a counter example, note that the rate of "death by anaphalactic shock" shoots way up in areas that have lots of vaccinations.
Should we thus avoid vaccinations?
All of your sources are referring to gun deaths. We could ban guns in an attempt to reduce these specific types of death, but if it is at the expense of the overall fatality rate, it's not the prudent move.
That's not a fact. You better put up or shut up, a link that is.
I started reading the "study" you base your entire argument on and it seemed to be a suspicious jumble of cherry-picked facts, and thus more of a political polemic with an axe to grind than an objective scientific study so I did a search to find out more about the authors and discovered that either you were purposely misleading people here or you were misled yourself.
For example, Snopes highlights many of the flaws with the non-peer reviewed paper you cite as a "study":
Claim: A 2007 Harvard University study proved that areas with higher rates of gun ownership have lower crime rates.
FALSE
WHAT'S TRUE: Gun rights advocates Gary Mauser and Don Kates jointly authored a 2007 paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy arguing that higher rates of gun ownership correlated with lower crime rates.
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper in question was not peer-reviewed, it didn't constitute a study, and it misrepresented separate research to draw shaky, unsupported conclusions.
[...] Of primary importance is the subsequent, widely misapplied label of the word "study" with reference to the 2007 item in question. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy describes itself as "one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation's leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." Papers published in that journal are (while perhaps competitively sourced) in no way equivalent to peer-reviewed research published in a credible science-related journals as "studies." Use of the term "study" to refer that 2007 article dishonestly suggested that the assertions made by its authors were gathered and vetted under more rigorous study conditions, which didn't appear to be the case.
[...] In short, the purported 2007 Harvard "study" with "astonishing" findings was in fact a polemic paper penned by two well-known gun rights activists. Its findings were neither peer-reviewed nor subject to academic scrutiny of any sort prior to its appearance, and the publication that carried it was a self-identified ideology-based editorial outlet edited by Harvard students.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It's a right to own a gun, not to be a gun dealer. There is also no constitutional right that buying a gun has to be easy. Subtle but important difference.
Liberals decry restrictions the GOP dreams up on abortions designed to make it hard or impossible to use one's Constitutional right to Choice but applaud any restrictions the Democrats dream up on doing the same to the Constitutional right to gun ownership. The inverse is true for Conservatives. What is even more amusing is that each side recognizes the Supreme Courts right to interpret the constitution when it has ruled for them and slam it when is has ruled against them. Only the Supreme Court has the Constitutional right to judge what is a "14th amendment protection" and what "well organized militia" means on the 2nd