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

[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

[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

[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: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: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

[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.