Slashdot Mirror
Snapchat Wanted $150K To Not Run NRA Ads On Gun Control Group Videos (thenextweb.com)
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."
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.
Neither addresses the problem which is there are people out there, for whatever reason, that are willing to kill.
I reject your claim that the NRA doesn't address this problem. Arming yourself is the best way to have a fighting chance against anyone who's trying to kill you, and the NRA has made that point countless times.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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?"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If you think Chicago is bad, in California we have politicians who are anti-gun because legal gun sales conflict with their illegal gun-running business.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
"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:
Suicides account for around 55% of gun deaths
Accidental discharge only accounted for a few hundred out of around 28-31,000 total gun deaths in his book (number varied over years, averaged around 29,000). Yes, subtract suicides
Being shot by someone else would have been around 14,000
Comment: this is only the number of people who were confirmed gun deaths. It would not include people who's bodies were subsequently destroyed, never found, or the cause of death not determined. The actual number killed by guns would be higher. I don't know by how much. Probably more than 100 and less than 2,500, just to take a wild guess. I don't know if bodies found years later were added to 'yearly' totals (and due to inconsistent state laws/regulations, that may vary).
Comment: Hemenway is very pro gun regulation. However, the largest section of the book is looking at studies to determine the effectiveness of particular regulations. He overtly states in so many words, a regulation that is not effective may make some people feel good, but why bother at worst and at best don't bother.
Example: in domestic violence cases it is common to require the accused to surrender any guns to law enforcement. He cites multiple studies and came to the conclusion that the evidence showed no difference in the rate the accused went on the kill their spouse between those required to surrender their weapons vs those who were not.
Comment to comment: Hemenway is reviled by the NRA type camp, but there is a lot in his book that shows a lot of specific regulations do not lower gun deaths. I suggest people use his evidence.
Comment: what about the number of shootings that were justifiable? Different states and police departments count things differently making tweezing that number out tricky. Counting dead people and cause of death by gunshot is easy. Most states simply do not collect a total on this. Maybe a $5-10 million to study this could come up with a reliable number.
What about the number of lives saved because someone was armed, and the bad guy backed down? The first thing is, there are no bodies to count, making it harder to get a head count than counting those who were shot. And, if it were me, and I showed a bad guy I had a gun and he ran away, and if I was pretty sure we would never see each other again because we are total strangers, I would probably not call the police and tell them, "Hey, I just waved a gun at some guy...." Google Aseem F. Ayoob, gun safety and training expert. Check out some of his writings, videos.
Conclusion: if you own guns, for goodness sake take a gun safety course, and take a refresher course ever few years or sooner!
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/...
(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/trut...
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.
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.