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.
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.