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

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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: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

[phantomfive]

but if someone walks up and shoots you Chicago style

Yeah, that's why I always use MLA style.

Re:That org is garbage

[Bartles]

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:That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:That org is garbage

[ArchieBunker]

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

Re: That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

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:That org is garbage

[drinkypoo]

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: That org is garbage

[jafiwam]

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: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.

Re:And this is interesting because?

[hawguy]

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: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:facts vs sterotype

[GeorgeAaronHeath]

There is a flaw in the above statement. The NRA keeps it's member lists secret therefore one can not reliably poll the majority of the NRA members other than the NRA. The polls used to support this claim are usually biased towards getting results that support gun control measures and interestingly enough recent political polls have proven that polling on a political issue can generate false results (the recent presidential election being one example). The poll cited by this article used a sample of one hundred sixty nine NRA members out of over four million members the NRA had in 2013. Consider the sample of 169 from 4,000,000 represents less than .005% of the NRA membership and the four million number is under-representing the NRA's membership claim.

Gun control was never about safety

[rsilvergun]

it was about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trolling. In the late 70s early 80s manufacturing finally made guns affordable by minorities. That's also around the time gun control laws started making it through legislatures. If you ever want to seem the funniest thing in your life looks up a story about a bunch of anti-muslim rednecks who took their AR-15s to go harass worshipers at a mosque unaware that the Nation of Islam are a little more than just peaceful worshipers.

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:i have no problem

[phantomfive]

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.

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: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

[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!"