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."

Comments

That org is garbage

[nyet]

Everytown for Gun Safety has no interest whatsoever in "gun safety".

Re:That org is garbage

[Patent Lover]

Sorry, but if someone walks up and shoots you Chicago style, it doesn't matter if you're armed.

Re:That org is garbage

[Kohath]

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

[Patent Lover]

Agreed. What I meant to bring to the table was that people don't kill each other because they have guns. They kill each other because they're willing to do so. We need to change that.

Re:That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Arming yourself is the best way of ensuring that you and your loved ones are never more than a couple mistakes away from being shot when a weapon accidentally discharges.

Just because you, and the NRA, don't understand the statistics, doesn't make it any less true, You're, far, far, more likely to be killed by a firearm kept in the home for defense than you are by an armed intruder. Literally 10s of thousands are killed every year and that's not what the NRA focuses on, they focus on the relatively rare occurrence where you're confronted by a criminal with sufficient time to arm yourself and take the shot. In practice, people rarely have that time. Anybody with a knife within a 20ft diameter around you can easily murder you before you even have the chance to fire on them.

With guns, the radius is a bit wider and for bonus points, if anybody misses they have a bonus opportunity to hit somebody that has nothing to do with the situation.

Bottom line here is that only morons and dickless cowards buy into the NRA's notion of self-defense.

Re:That org is garbage

[ArchieBunker]

You mean making handguns illegal in Chicago didn't stop shootings?

Re:That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA has made that point without any data, while the DoJ has data that proves the NRA wrong.

Re:That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been proven so many times that the progressives literally had to stop keeping stats on how often a life is saved when a legal gun is either brandished or fired in self defense.

Complete and utter horseshit detected.

Re:That org is garbage

[Solandri]

Because dividing it by state doesn't tell you who is consuming those social services. You're falling for a classic statistical fallacy called Simpson's paradox. When you divide a sample into groups, the trend within each of those groups can contradict the overall trend. The best recent example was the 2016 Presidential election. Clinton won more popular votes than Trump. But because the votes are grouped by state, Trump ended up winning the election.

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.

i have no problem

[arbiter1]

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. After sandy hook shooting they tried to pass laws to increase back ground check's(which there are already are checks) but it was one those feel good liberal that's that make them look good and pushed on emotion but when you look at the law would never stopped what happen from happening again. Want to see what stupid gun legislation gets you, well you get Chicago. People that are law abiding citizens have to bend over backwards to buy a gun but everyone else that don't give 2 craps about the law gets them in 5min.

Re:i have no problem

[rossz]

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:i have no problem

[JustNiz]

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:i have no problem

[misexistentialist]

how about locking up the disturbed individuals? oh, forgot "equality" means that the insane must be treated as if they are sane and the sane treated as if they are insane, foreign migrants like citizens and citizens like disenfranchised foreigners, etc.

Re:i have no problem

[Gravis Zero]

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: Best way to defend yourself

[lucm]

Next time a nutcase breaks into your house and rapes your wife and children, make sure to let him know that you're not violent, that should solve the problem.

Re: Best way to defend yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how paranoid that is? Around here that might happen a couple times a decade across the entire county. You're much, much better off just buying a security system and reinforced doors than you are bringing a gun into the house for that sort of thing.

Bottom line here is that accidental discharges and suicides are a much more common occurrence than the specific crime you're referencing.

Some of us are just not the kind of horrible people that you 2nd amendment people are.

Re:And this is interesting because?

[Bartles]

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: Best way to defend yourself

[SirSlud]

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.

Re:facts vs sterotype

[JustNiz]

> 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: Best way to defend yourself

[drinkypoo]

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.

statistics are hard

[doug141]

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!"