It has never been, and never will be against the law for two private parties to sell to one another without the government becoming involved. Facebook- go ahead and ban these transactions. Instead of happeneing in the open, they will happen in the homes of those that want to conduct trades. Facebook- you are now irrelevant, and my personal trades (however infrequent they may be) will happen somewhere else.
2
Thank you so much for doing this. You most likely have saved quite a few lives already!
1
This was nothing but a big show to make Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook look like good guys. Meanwhile they sell our privacy out every way they can.
Nobody needs or cares to sell guns on Facebook. You can setup an online marketplace in 2 days on the internet. This doesnt solve anything.
Nobody needs or cares to sell guns on Facebook. You can setup an online marketplace in 2 days on the internet. This doesnt solve anything.
2
I suspect sellers and buyers will just change the terms and pictures for such objects: "Looking for a fully functioning finger-like object without fingerprints"
"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." So much misinformation in this section. Sales of long rifles in PA can occur without background checks. So, yes, Facebook does make it easier for that to occur between PA residents. Sales of hand guns have to go through an FFL (they don't have to, but you're stupid and breaking the law if you do otherwise). Long guns or hand guns shipped to another state HAVE to go to an FFL who then performs a background check. Many collectors have FFL03's for Curio and Relic firearms. Firearms that are classified as C&R can be shipped to a person who has an FFL03. Again, people who do not send the firearm to an FFL are stupid and are breaking the law. I've had a few situations where people have asked me to send the rifle to someone else, who they could then pick it up from--a "ghost purchase". Of course, I've turned those people down. Since we do have a 2nd Amendment in the United States, and since we do pay taxes, it would be nice if the government did provide us with a means to do background checks on individuals who want to buy long guns in state...but the government does not provide that service with our tax dollars (go figure). So, in state long gun sales are left to a person's "best judgement". If anybody wants to get mad, get mad at officials who do not provide tools for us to exercise our rights responsibly.
2
Why goop up something as shallow as social media with a market for objects which never stop increasing value over time.
Yes!!!!! Great move fb
1
If FB is doing this for the better of the community, how about fixing a bigger problem with FB that has been going on for years. How about fix the problem of young kids getting lured into the hands of pedophiles using fake accounts, or adults being kidnapped or killed with fake accounts. While this happens a small amount of the time, it is the same with private gun sales on FB, while it happens, the actual number is very small. The way to help reduce gun crimes is not to punish law abiding citizens, they way to help stop gun violence, is put pressure on your prosecutor's, judges and government officials to enforce current gun laws that are on and have been on the books for years, no more plea bargains.
3
New York Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman, has joined up with Facebook to [hopefully] do just that, as well as spread out on amber alerts to bring missing kids home,
Let's see... let's promote the safety of others (the limit the sale of guns from private individuals) and yet encourage those that are psychotic (Outing or refusing to allow us to use the FB services because they insist on us putting ourselves on the chopping blocks with real names... ) FB is NOTHING but a contradiction of themselves ...
2
The great thing about the United States is Facebook is a private company and can restrict anything they want. If there's a big demand for a social networking gun site, it won't take long before there are several. No government involved and everyone wins - Facebook builds goodwill with customers by doing these things, and online gun sellers will have many alternatives.
Kudo's FB! My grandson is now in New Zealand. you know what he wrote me his first day there, "I'll raise my children here in New Zealand." You know why? Extremely strict gun laws, low crime and people haven't forgotten how to be nice to each other. Oh and they don't allow GMO food products into the country. I used to think of my country, USA, that way, I don't anymore. I'll keep the airlines in business flying to New Zealand to see my grandson and his children one day and not have to worry about the yahoo in the car near me have road rage and start shooting.
2
Well if you like how they have things there, you should just move there rather than supporting someone who is taking away the right to free speech.
1
'Yahoo'? That's pretty degrading. Plenty of educated people own firearms. And what exactly makes you think that this silly FB nonsense will ever prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm? Only liberals believe such nonsense.
4
It doesn't matter, since this is Facebook's choice. If you don't like it you can make a gun selling social media site. Also, I recommend looking up what liberal means before using it as an insult. It loses all meaning when you do so.
Why? I'm 100% pro-gun control, but as long as private sales are legal, why should it matter to facebook if people are negotiating guns as opposed to bunny slippers?
1
A very long time from now, this moment may be seen as the high water mark of the NRA. The real challenge for them is cultural change, and FB is a major avatar of the culture. Even as most Americans still respect gun rights, more and more of us see the gun-worshipers as at best eccentric and possibly dangerous.
I say that both as one who does not use FB, founding it banal and pointless in my life; and as a lifelong gun owner who sees the NRA for what it is, a sucker net for the GOP.
I say that both as one who does not use FB, founding it banal and pointless in my life; and as a lifelong gun owner who sees the NRA for what it is, a sucker net for the GOP.
1
This is a good move but will it make much difference? It seems to rely on FB users ratting out gun sellers or have I missed something? The site really needs to put somebody or some entity (I'm a Luddite about such things) in place to really prevent gun sales.
I've got to say I've never missed not having a gun. I can't really understand the need for one.
I've got to say I've never missed not having a gun. I can't really understand the need for one.
1
I wish every company followed. FACEBOOK Thank you!!
3
Most are working to expand and not alienate patrons. Do you for a second believe MZ has no armed security around him 24/7? Tell me it is a ridiculous notion.
Thanks Mark. You are a brave person who stands for what you believe in. I hope every public figure comes forward to support this and discourages people to owning assault weapons and banning gun sales without thorough background checks.
My hope is one day lobbying and criminal organizations such as NRA will be banned who have bribed politicians hungry for votes and reelection. Presidential candidates as puppets in hands of NRA is saddening.
I wait for the day when politicians are brave enough to stand for the good of people and smart policies. The party politics has hurt this country more than ISIS ever will.
My hope is one day lobbying and criminal organizations such as NRA will be banned who have bribed politicians hungry for votes and reelection. Presidential candidates as puppets in hands of NRA is saddening.
I wait for the day when politicians are brave enough to stand for the good of people and smart policies. The party politics has hurt this country more than ISIS ever will.
1
do you ever consider the possibility that many Americans actually favor gun rights, or do you lull yourself to sleep at night with the fantasy that the NRA by itself has bought Congress?
2
If you want to start banning companies that have used money to buy their way into approval by the American government the list will be long and the NRA will be far far down the list. Do your research before you make these types of comments. Thanks.
1
Comparing the sale of guns to marijuana and other illegal drugs is asinine. The sale of guns over the Internet is not an unlawful act in and of itself. Every page I have seen on Facebook that deals in the sale of guns goes out of their way to state that all sales must take place via lawful channels. No one wants to got to jail just to sell a gun. It's in the sellers best interest to force a background check where it is required by law. Facebook should keep their politics out of the gun debate and just allow local law to dictate policy. Why alienate a substantial portion of their base?
2
The hell they should. I appreciate corporations, businesses, whatever that take a social stand. Which is more than I can say for the NRA, the gun lobby and the addlepated in this country.
Why is FaceBook banning legal gun sales to people who have passed background checks? There could be one or two sales where a background would help but the vast majority are ok.
Will this rule be only in some states or for the whole world, as FaceBook is world wide?
Why not ban only sales to those who are felons or those who should not have guns? A better more inclusive system is needed.
Will this rule be only in some states or for the whole world, as FaceBook is world wide?
Why not ban only sales to those who are felons or those who should not have guns? A better more inclusive system is needed.
2
What a “tempest in a tea pot.” Facebook is a private corporation and if they want to ban the lawful trade of guns on their site they should be free to do so. All that will happen is that another site will facilitate these sales. America is at its best when it allows the widest range of freedom and we are all better off when we demand a high standard of proof before allowing even minimal infringements on our rights. This is especially true for both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
2
When you sell your car to someone, the car registration has to be changed over to the new owner's name, the new owner still has to get insurance, etc. We need to make person-to-person sales of guns, a potentially lethal weapon, follow the same gun licensing requirements that exist for commercial sales. Just because it's a private sale doesn't make guns less potentially dangerous.
3
What you don't understand is that crminals will always continue to engage in illegal gun sales and trading regardless. Do you seriously think criminals will follow your pie in the sky recommendation for person to person sales? You cannot drive a car on the road for long without it being registered with the state. A gun is completely different. Anyone who doesn't care about the law can acquire guns illegally and carry them around. Your silly laws only affect people who actually care about the law.
Thank you, FB!
6
It's a private company. Mark Zuckerberg owns it and can do what he wants. Kudos to him. It's pretty sad that the politicians (many who I believe are owned by the NRA) refuse to do anything because they are more concerned abut keeping their jobs than they are about the American people.
5
Facebook is not a private company and Zuckerberg does not own it. He is only the largest shareholder, with less than 50% ownership of stock..
A fine and positive gesture, but it amounts to hand washing.
So long as Federal changes are not implemented, such as every gun, new and old, being licensed, liability insured, registered, a way around will be made. For example, what's to stop the gun nutters, under free speech, to make their own sites?
So long as Federal changes are not implemented, such as every gun, new and old, being licensed, liability insured, registered, a way around will be made. For example, what's to stop the gun nutters, under free speech, to make their own sites?
1
Any measure that make it more difficult to put lethal weaponry into the wrong hands the better. Guns are too available, in abundance, that's the problem.
Who even knew you could purchase guns via Facebook. Makes one wonder what other nefarious business is transacted there. We seem to be a click away from just about everything today.
Who even knew you could purchase guns via Facebook. Makes one wonder what other nefarious business is transacted there. We seem to be a click away from just about everything today.
7
You can't purchase a gun via Facebook. You could potentially arrange a private sale if that is allowed in the respective state but it would still be subject to all local and federal laws.
1
this whole thing is silly. so I can talk to someone on FB about buying a gun. Big deal. If the guy is in TX as I am, theoretically, we could meet up and do the sale without a background check. So what? Criminals do this stuff all day long - buy/sell/trade/steal guns illegally. That will never change no matter what Suckerberg does.
I'm amazed on how authorities are tackling the whole gun violence issues. Even Harvard, the country's most respect university has concluded that 'Countries with HIGHER gun ownerships had LOWER murder rates. Countries with extreme gun bans has the highest murder rates, up to 10 times the average. What murders people? Social, economic and cultural factors, not the mecanism.
3
Post a link or two from a reputable source and I am bound to open my mind up to your argument (as are many).
3
Those are symptoms, a gun in the "final" solution. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
This has been de-bunked hundreds of times. Poor try!
This has been de-bunked hundreds of times. Poor try!
5
This is a powerful statement and is a clear win for those of us who do not need a gun to feel safe, for those of us who love America and do not wish to take up arms against our own nation. If you love America then man up and put down your gun.
7
If you love America, then "man up" and read the constitution. If you choose not to own a gun, that is your right just as it is my right to own one if I choose to.
2
Careful, an unarmed nation is a nation at risk.
1
Tell it to the criminals, pal. I'm sure they'll listen.
There is a huge amount of difference between the sale of Marijuana, pharmaceuticals, and other illegal items on Facebook, and the sale of guns between law abiding citizens. Drugs are illegal. The private sale of a firearm between two law abiding individuals is 100% legal. Quit being scared of inanimate objects. The fact that so many of you are scared out of your minds at the very thought of freedom is alarming.
4
Don't you find it rather obtuse to describe a gun as an inanimate object as if by it's virtue of being inanimate makes it harmless. The drugs/painkillers you speak of above are also inanimate objects.. As are nuclear bombs. Some inanimate objects are capable of killing many at long or short range. Some inanimate objects are doritos. But you knew that, didn't you but you are using the only angle where you can claim it to be "logical" because real logical arguments are one by your opposition.
2
Maybe so many are "scared out of their minds" because sometimes law abiding citizens get shot and killed by stray bullets while sitting in their homes. Or shot dead while shopping or watching a movie. Maybe they're scared of freedoms lost because of illegal guns.
7
No one is afraid of "freedom." We're afraid of being shot by some random ticked-off person. In terms of bystander safety, I'd far rather have them allow marijuana sales than private gun sales. None of my friends' stashes ever went off by accident.
7
With a billion plus subscribers a positive move.
Instead of just implementing this policy, however, perhaps the Owner showed step up and publicly editorialize on its behalf.
Instead of just implementing this policy, however, perhaps the Owner showed step up and publicly editorialize on its behalf.
Bravo Facebook! This is a great example of how business can help address problems that government can't or won't solve.
8
I find it hilarious that the very people who're constantly wailing about that debbil government telling companies what to do and cheering for capitalism's unlimited liberty are now wailing that Government Needs to Do Something about a company's deciding what they want to sell and not to sell.
Is this some sort of weird chicken sandwich and wedding cake thing, or just plain old extreme cognitive dissonance?
Is this some sort of weird chicken sandwich and wedding cake thing, or just plain old extreme cognitive dissonance?
8
Brilliant, thank you. Social media with a social conscience.
8
Thank you Facebook for trying to make our world a little safer. Wish our Congress felt the same way.
7
This is yellow journalism at its worst. NYT and all the plutocratic oligarchy builders are trying to ensure that martial law can be imposed by an unhampered military in cases where the government wants to enforce unconstitutional and dangerously totalitarian mandatory vaccines, quarantines, regulations that have not been legislated but are imposed by filthy rich people who believe that they can solve all the problems of the world by disempowering citizens.
This article does not even attempt to point out that criminals can always get a gun and that gun background checks are done by the receiving FFLS to whom the guns are mailed.
Also, guns do NOT cause violence and banning them increases it.
This article does not even attempt to point out that criminals can always get a gun and that gun background checks are done by the receiving FFLS to whom the guns are mailed.
Also, guns do NOT cause violence and banning them increases it.
4
You left out Benghazi, Area 51, Jade Helm, floridation, the Lost Continent of Atlantis, and the faked Moon landing.
Honestly, and you call yourself a patriot?
Honestly, and you call yourself a patriot?
15
Sorry, but gotta call you on your lazy assertion: "...that criminals can always get a gun..." You can't make a universal statement, such as this, when all that has to be done to disprove it is to find a gun transaction where a criminal DIDN'T get a gun. Then your statement would be proven false, because it would no longer be universal. Now, if you'd said instead this: "...that criminals, most of the time, can get a gun...", well, then you'd have been correct. Putting it that way gives you wiggle room for the chance they could/or could not obtain a gun. Thanks for reading.
2
"To do the right thing" according to Watts, is to cripple the entirety of honest people who own legal guns from being able to sell them to prevent the statistically rare (she cites a single example) instance of a prohibited person from buying a gun. The irony here is that private owners selling legally held guns are prohibited by LAW from performing a background check! But that's not what this article says. The implication is that there's dishonesty and dodging going on here. There isn't. Facebook is pandering, and not one life will be saved as a result of their action.
8
When honest, responsible gun owners start taking a stand against ownership of guns by people intent on using them for threat and intimidation of the general public, then we can believe what they say.
5
"Not one life will be saved..." Oh, and how do you know that exactly? How would you even measure such an assertion? It's possible this private company policy will save lives, or maybe it won't. We don't know. YOU don't know. So your claim is rejected, as it's based on nothing (but emotion, likely).
5
Nobody is "crippled" for heaven's sake. People have managed very effectively to buy and sell guns long before Facebook existed.
1
A private company, Facebook, has decided that it will ban the lawful exchange among private individuals of a legal object and as long as NYT readers dislike the legal object the ban is perfectly fine. Does that mean when another private company bans the sale of a legal object, one that NYT readers like, it will also be perfectly fine?
If one doesn't fight for one's freedom is it really worth having?
If one doesn't fight for one's freedom is it really worth having?
5
You DO know that FB didn't ban gun sales, yes? They banned sales by private owners, the sales that often don't come with background checks.
1
As a private company, FB has every right to allow or ban any activity it wants. That IS one of the definitions of freedom. Just as you, as a patron of FB (if you are one) have the right to petition them to change their policy or to no longer patronize them if they enact policies you dislike.
8
Calm down, and see what's in front of you. Your 'freedom' is STILL there, as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Facebook, a private business, is making a choice on how run its business here. That's it. You have no 'rights' being thwarted by this business decision. Now go defend liberty and freedom in places where it might be in danger, perhaps overseas.
10
This is all well and good, but will FB have a way people can easily report these prohibited gun sale posts when you see them? FB's current options for reporting concerns to FB are really obfuscating when it comes to reporting unsafe or dangerous items in posts.
2
Not really - it takes two clicks to report a post.
3
Well, this is a great way to thwart gun sales easily and get some sanctity into this nefarious activity. For people brandishing the Second Amendment, this is one way where no one is impinging on anyone's right to arms. Facebook which is a private entity can refuse because of the First Amendment ( after all Corporations are People!! ). I just hope other Corporations follow suit because this is a surefire way of bypassing the NRA Lobby and the corrupt legislators who are their stooges.
10
FB still allows FFLs to use its site. FB is a private company. It has every right to set its own policy; making a statement about not wanting to be associated with private sales that do not use the NICS system is a fair one.
I suppose if someone wants to post a gun for sale there are other places to do it such as Armslist or Gunbroker. Those sites are specific to buying and selling guns and generally post the rules and laws prominently.
I suppose if someone wants to post a gun for sale there are other places to do it such as Armslist or Gunbroker. Those sites are specific to buying and selling guns and generally post the rules and laws prominently.
7
What about those who maged groups and sales where everyone HAS to use an FFL, like the California compliant groups?
Oh wait, we don't count or matter, because of "the children".
Oh wait, we don't count or matter, because of "the children".
DC2 said:
"Whether or not you like the idea of banning gun sales in an informal setting like Facebook, we should all be very concerned about these new. unelected and very authoritarian legislators. Do you really want Facebook deciding serious social issues?"
That is indeed a tricky issue. My own personal opinion with respect to firearms sales on Facebook is that it is the prerogative of a company not to participate in black market transactions that carry serious ethical concerns, in this case involuntarily facilitating the acquisition of a gun by a criminal. I also feel that the NRA should make it one of its priorities to identify such illegal transactions wherever encountered and work with law enforcement to get the criminals behind bars. So, if Facebook and the NRA were working together to achieve that goal, that would be ideal in my view and ensure that the rights of law-abiding citizens are preserved. The goal has to be to abolish gun violence not guns per se. However, I also realize that I am very much alone with that view, especially here in the NYT.
What I am much more concerned about is how Facebook is working with foreign governments to curtail free speech. Few of you will know that Facebook has several hundred people working with German authorities to delete posts that are critical of Angela Merkel's refugee policies.
By doing that, Facebook has stepped over the line and now actively manipulates public opinion.
That is what is really intolerable!
"Whether or not you like the idea of banning gun sales in an informal setting like Facebook, we should all be very concerned about these new. unelected and very authoritarian legislators. Do you really want Facebook deciding serious social issues?"
That is indeed a tricky issue. My own personal opinion with respect to firearms sales on Facebook is that it is the prerogative of a company not to participate in black market transactions that carry serious ethical concerns, in this case involuntarily facilitating the acquisition of a gun by a criminal. I also feel that the NRA should make it one of its priorities to identify such illegal transactions wherever encountered and work with law enforcement to get the criminals behind bars. So, if Facebook and the NRA were working together to achieve that goal, that would be ideal in my view and ensure that the rights of law-abiding citizens are preserved. The goal has to be to abolish gun violence not guns per se. However, I also realize that I am very much alone with that view, especially here in the NYT.
What I am much more concerned about is how Facebook is working with foreign governments to curtail free speech. Few of you will know that Facebook has several hundred people working with German authorities to delete posts that are critical of Angela Merkel's refugee policies.
By doing that, Facebook has stepped over the line and now actively manipulates public opinion.
That is what is really intolerable!
4
Be it Facebook or an Internet service provider, no company is under any obligation to help its customers buy something it wants banned. Are we forgetting the terms of service that private companies have the right to set? If you want to buy a gun and there's no one in your nearest back alley to sell one to you, companies that operate on the Internet do not have to help you. Good move, Facebook.
12
Instead of buying lead for our guns, maybe we should just insist that gun owners drink water soaked in ammunition...or maybe they've already been doing this, because any common sense seems to elude them, maybe they have lead poisoning. I do not think Zuckerberg has has our best interests top of his list, but I applaud this decision. Everyone else should step up to the plate.
9
Well its OK not to sell over facebook, but prohibition is dangerous too.We have a war in Croatia, and seems its took too long years, to involve international community to stop the european's wars.Today we witness that the WAR GAMES like something like ATTACK THE EUROPE or WAR IN EUROPE use to be popular, at the FACEBOOK in european version, croatian version facebook. Also through facebook is selling Marijuana Oil (Canabis Oil) with a no problem.Why is that so ?!They treat it like the cure for some sort of cancer.
2
Are you really suggesting that Facebook function as a go-between for arms traders to illegally provide guns for internal wars in Europe? Wow!
7
Ah, the voice of support from the wilds of Albany:
"New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has pressed for restrictions on illegal gun sales on Facebook and other sites, praised the company’s move."
Albany is a place where on most any given day one may find monkeys flinging poo. And today we are not disappointed in the show or the stench. The wherewithal to enforce the law being completely absent from Herr Schneiderman's toolkit it seems NY state's chief law enforcement officer did not notice the irony of hoping for a restriction on something that is already illegal, because he knows that is really what fixes things. This method of law enforcement popular with a certain political class clings to the notion that something being illegal holds no weight unless it is supplemented by an additional and redundant law (or battery of them) , restrictive proclamations, banishments, tearful speeches, brightly colored warning signs with fonts selected with great deliberation by committees true to the cause, and subjection to inquiry by Anderson Cooper. And when all of that doesn't work simply repeat it.
Anyways, I like brass bands and have enjoyed no small amount of time smashing a drum with all the energy I could muster while playing in one. But the disarranged cacophony rising from this motley procession of moralistic posers is an atonal rambling that serves to drown out constructive discourse. It is also the funeral dirge of our founding documents.
"New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has pressed for restrictions on illegal gun sales on Facebook and other sites, praised the company’s move."
Albany is a place where on most any given day one may find monkeys flinging poo. And today we are not disappointed in the show or the stench. The wherewithal to enforce the law being completely absent from Herr Schneiderman's toolkit it seems NY state's chief law enforcement officer did not notice the irony of hoping for a restriction on something that is already illegal, because he knows that is really what fixes things. This method of law enforcement popular with a certain political class clings to the notion that something being illegal holds no weight unless it is supplemented by an additional and redundant law (or battery of them) , restrictive proclamations, banishments, tearful speeches, brightly colored warning signs with fonts selected with great deliberation by committees true to the cause, and subjection to inquiry by Anderson Cooper. And when all of that doesn't work simply repeat it.
Anyways, I like brass bands and have enjoyed no small amount of time smashing a drum with all the energy I could muster while playing in one. But the disarranged cacophony rising from this motley procession of moralistic posers is an atonal rambling that serves to drown out constructive discourse. It is also the funeral dirge of our founding documents.
4
Moses,
Yes it does.
Kinda like the Party of NO! voting 63 times to repel the ACA.
Or, voting to defund Acorn 10 yrs. after their demise.
Or.... where did I put my drum...?
Yes it does.
Kinda like the Party of NO! voting 63 times to repel the ACA.
Or, voting to defund Acorn 10 yrs. after their demise.
Or.... where did I put my drum...?
2
There is no way to stop gun sales or anything else from being promoted on Facebook. This is a typical pr move that means nothing. Anyone who thinks there is any way to prevent anyone from purchasing a gun is as ignorant as those who believe the war on drugs stopped anyone from getting them.
7
I hate to break this, but monitoring what goes on Facebook is easy as pi. Easier, in fact.
3
I don't think you can prevent a really determined ex-felon from getting a gun to shoot his ex, her daughter and himself, as described in the article. But why should FB want to make it so easy foe him?
2
Facebook is going to ban the sales of firearms but do nothing about terrorists using Facebook to recruit members. I do believe terrorist groups have killed more people then a firearm bought privately from one person to another through Facebook.
5
In my home state of Iowa, a private seller of a handgun must ask a private purchaser of that handgun for either their permit to purchase, or for their permit to carry - which both require a background check to acquire. This means background checks *are* taking place for private transactions in our state. It is already a crime to privately sell a firearm to a felon. I really wish anti-gun groups and the people that comprise them would educate themselves on the current laws surrounding firearms. This is just one examlle of many instances in which gun-control advocates have no idea what they are talking about.
6
Noted, and in principle you are right, of course. Unfortunately, there are just too many holes in the system to prevent the flow of guns finding their way into criminal hands.
The biggest failure of the NRA in my opinion is that it is not standing up to the challenge of coming up with effective and creative ways of preventing that. That includes working actively - not lip service only - with law enforcement, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to identify criminals and illegal transactions. I would gladly pay double dues if the NRA would make that its priority, besides ensuring that my rights as a gun owner remain protected.
The biggest failure of the NRA in my opinion is that it is not standing up to the challenge of coming up with effective and creative ways of preventing that. That includes working actively - not lip service only - with law enforcement, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to identify criminals and illegal transactions. I would gladly pay double dues if the NRA would make that its priority, besides ensuring that my rights as a gun owner remain protected.
4
The problem is that Iowa is not the only state where these purchases are occurring. They can occur anywhere. Not all states have good laws. Some don't.
4
Minor technical detail: most of the guns used by criminals were originally purchased legally, and resold by individuals who act as firearms dealers without background checks.
Moreover, it looks like about 5% of gun stores, and a lot of the people selling at gun shows, simply ignore the laws, aided and abetted by politicians who make enforcement difficult.
Moreover, it looks like about 5% of gun stores, and a lot of the people selling at gun shows, simply ignore the laws, aided and abetted by politicians who make enforcement difficult.
4
Facebook has done the right thing, period. I question the morality or objectivity of anyone who objects.
9
Technically an interstate purchase of a firearm must employ a FFL in the state the weapon is sold and a FFL in the state of the purchaser. Many states require a permit for purchase (which requires a background check), even between private sellers. Granted there are exceptions but if you really researched the issue, the number of illegal gun sales facilitated by FB is minuscule. But hey, how about that ISIS recruiting being facilitated by sites like FB and Twitter?
What this article does and what your response shows is a fundamental lack of knowledge on the laws currently in place governing firearms. You are being willing mislead. FB's move is nicely crafted PR to make you feel good.
What this article does and what your response shows is a fundamental lack of knowledge on the laws currently in place governing firearms. You are being willing mislead. FB's move is nicely crafted PR to make you feel good.
1
BeaconofLight,
"Granted there are exceptions..." So you admit that illegal gun sales do transpire on FB. But they should do nothing about that because....something else might be worse.
Just as your willing disregarding that I can go out and buy a gun from a guys trunk on the corner of LA., laws in place or not. You are willingly misleading.
"Granted there are exceptions..." So you admit that illegal gun sales do transpire on FB. But they should do nothing about that because....something else might be worse.
Just as your willing disregarding that I can go out and buy a gun from a guys trunk on the corner of LA., laws in place or not. You are willingly misleading.
1
Of course it can! Facebook is a private enterprise.
I demand our representatives bring gun violence discussion to the floor of Congress. Long guns are fine for hunting. Shotguns and hand guns may be good home defense weapons as long as they stay at home. No Americans need military-style assault weapons, particularly semi-auto versions that can easily be made into automatic guns. No Americans need to carry weapons in the public square; that is only necessary for law enforcement.
If you doubt that statement, ask yourself this - if you're a police officer responding to gun violence in a public setting; do you want to walk into a crowded setting with all unknown people carrying guns wondering who the 'bad guy(s)" are?
People who carry loaded weapons in public can be either "good guys" or "bad guys". That subjective term is defined only by when and why they pull the trigger.
Arming more people in public does not make the public square safer; it makes policing harder for law enforcement. And unless members of the public who open (or closed) carry receive law enforcement training, then accidents of bad judgement are likely. The NRA supposes a myth that "John Wayne" shooting a "bad guy" is possible but life is not the movies. There have been very few if any "John Wayne's" compared to those who are the mass shooters.
President Obama's speech was accurate. Congress should debate and try.
I demand our representatives bring gun violence discussion to the floor of Congress. Long guns are fine for hunting. Shotguns and hand guns may be good home defense weapons as long as they stay at home. No Americans need military-style assault weapons, particularly semi-auto versions that can easily be made into automatic guns. No Americans need to carry weapons in the public square; that is only necessary for law enforcement.
If you doubt that statement, ask yourself this - if you're a police officer responding to gun violence in a public setting; do you want to walk into a crowded setting with all unknown people carrying guns wondering who the 'bad guy(s)" are?
People who carry loaded weapons in public can be either "good guys" or "bad guys". That subjective term is defined only by when and why they pull the trigger.
Arming more people in public does not make the public square safer; it makes policing harder for law enforcement. And unless members of the public who open (or closed) carry receive law enforcement training, then accidents of bad judgement are likely. The NRA supposes a myth that "John Wayne" shooting a "bad guy" is possible but life is not the movies. There have been very few if any "John Wayne's" compared to those who are the mass shooters.
President Obama's speech was accurate. Congress should debate and try.
14
" No Americans need military-style assault weapons, "
What would you want to defend yourself and your family from multiple home invaders or rioters, a shotgun or an AR-15 with multiple 30 round magazines. As several combat vets have told me, "You can never have too much firepower or too much ammunition".
What would you want to defend yourself and your family from multiple home invaders or rioters, a shotgun or an AR-15 with multiple 30 round magazines. As several combat vets have told me, "You can never have too much firepower or too much ammunition".
6
And I don't need you deciding what rights I "need". Fortunately Michigan is an open carry state and a "shall issue" CCW state. And it will likely remain so.
4
Charles W, fortunately I don't live in Somalia. I worry about things like tripping on the front steps or getting T-boned by stop-sign runners. Both are infinitely more likely than your scenario, and neither is prevented or solved by owning an AR-15.
This is a step in the right direction. Now if only everyone else in the country would stop selling guns, and if the 50 States and/or Feds would all have gun buyback programs, and subsequent to that our authorities disarm like most police are unarmed in England, maybe these weekly shootings and dramas would drop to reasonable levels to like only a handful of shootings per year nationwide and we'd become a civil society?
3
How convenient you pick a country with low firearm usage but ignore the dozens of other countries with much stricter gun control then england that has murder rates ten times that of the US. Maybe we should ban drugs in this country which destroy many more lives then guns. Oh I forget we already do that, see how well bans work.
3
Secret groups abound on Facebook. As much as I applaud this change, it will simply engender some shape shifting and the Facebook-facilitated arms race will continue. Social media companies rake in the profits while serving as conduits for illegal activity. They may not be involved in the transaction. They're still the host for these parasites. It is time this young generation of profit makers invent a way to monitor the evil themselves.
3
Now if we can get our Presidents administration to quit selling them to the drug lords in Mexico we'd be headed for more success...
3
Unlicensed gun sales should never have been permitted in the first place on any public social media site period.
7
As I replied to another comment on the opposite side of the issue, FB is a private company and they have every right to allow or disallow any activity on their site.
2
How bout those terror claims, comments and communications, as well as plans to kill Jews ,Americans ,Christians ? Not good enough Zuck....
3
Thank you Facebook.
Now can any other companies try doing the right thing?
Now can any other companies try doing the right thing?
4
I've long since ceased to be surprised when Facebook does something stupid and evil that makes it less useful to its customers. But what the hey -- I trust the market. Sooner or later something with a higher ratio of utility to nonsense will come along and replace Facebook.
2
I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg's new status as a father helped bring this about. Having a baby makes one see how precious life truly is.
11
It's a good start, and I hope it goes *way* further.
Up front... I own a couple of guns. A target rifle (a .22 that many would call a "plinker") and a hunting rifle that I (rarely) use for hunting deer,
No firearm or explosive device of *any* kind should EVER be any less identifiable by ownership and history (all the way from manufacture to 5 minutes ago) than any motor vehicle of the same vintage.
Is that clear enough?
Up front... I own a couple of guns. A target rifle (a .22 that many would call a "plinker") and a hunting rifle that I (rarely) use for hunting deer,
No firearm or explosive device of *any* kind should EVER be any less identifiable by ownership and history (all the way from manufacture to 5 minutes ago) than any motor vehicle of the same vintage.
Is that clear enough?
11
Facebook, you have improved my impression of your company today. Thank you.
7
If you think any of this will stop criminals from getting ahold of firearms, I'd like to hear your logic. What you don't understand is that criminals won't buy guns online, not smart ones anyways. You think they want to leave that evidence out there? And 90% of the people I have bought from either ask for a CCP (concealed carry permit), or a gov't ID card (CAC, for example) to prove that you can legally own a firearm. You're going after the wrong people here.
3
Why make it easier for those who can't pass a background check to get guns? It's upsetting that 10% of the people you've bought guns from didn't ask for either a CCP or ID.
6
"New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has pressed for restrictions on illegal gun sales on Facebook and other sites, praised the company’s move."
Thank goodness that someone is finally restricting something illegal. Not something we see very often. But of course the real problem is the gun show loophole.
https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8
Thank goodness that someone is finally restricting something illegal. Not something we see very often. But of course the real problem is the gun show loophole.
https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8
5
Whether or not you like the idea of banning gun sales in an informal setting like Facebook, we should all be very concerned about these new. unelected and very authoritarian legislators. Do you really want Facebook deciding serious social issues?
2
I appears that private companies have been deciding serious social issues for years. An example is Hobby Lobby.
3
Facebook is a private business. They can decide what tey want to do, if you dont like it, seek out another product. What scares me is you equate having a gun with freedom and the treat of a downed democracy if taken away. Its not about having a gun, its about being RESPONSIBLE when using it and offering checks and balances to ensure no lives get lost.
2
If you don't like Facebook, you are certainly free to use some other service.
1
Any avenue that cuts off regulations for the purpose of gun sales need to be pursued.
It is not a loss of liberty but for preventing loss of lives.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
30 January, 2016.
It is not a loss of liberty but for preventing loss of lives.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
30 January, 2016.
7
Looks like an ideal business model for a Facebook analog, one without the restrictions..
1
Yawn. Facebook's not a gun store. Kanye West is kinda self centered. So is Donald Trump. The sky is blue. What else?
3
Bravo!!! Thank you FB.
2
Way overdue! How did Facebook ever get to be a portal for gun sales in the first place?!
4
Is it odd that most sites that carry this article require a facebook account to comment?
If you are a reader and subscriber to the NYT you don't need FB to sign in, you simply sign in using your NYT account. Only non subscribers without a NYT account who want to post a comment need to sign in using FB or some other social media site. It's why there are so many troll comments from nonreaders/subscribers, who in many cases, obviously haven't fully read the article.
3
Hearty congratulations to Mark Zuckerberg for taking this bold step. You are bound to take a lot of flak, but its a major step to stem the flow of sales of firearms and will save lives in the long run.
4
Thank you Facebook. This will have an enormous impact. And hopefully the American consensus will one day dictate that Facebook no longer allows even licensed gun dealers and gun clubs on its site. This gun culture that we have in America is atrocious.
4
Actually this will have no impact. You don't understand how firearm sales work in the United States in general. Maybe you missed the article in the Chicago Tribune last year that interviewed current inmates and excons on where they got their guns. Not one mentioned Facebook. Your level of nativity is almost incomprehensible, but so many of your fellow posters who applauded this article are equally ignorant.
Facebook denies 1st and 2nd amendment rights They also deny the 4th and 5th. Burn the constitution Mark just burn it to ashes.
2
The Bill of Rights states what the Federal government cannot do to its citizens. It says nothing about what private enterprise can do.
3
Yes! The Constitution was written to prevent Mark Zuckerberg from taking away your guns! Genius!
It is irony that people with zero understanding of American laws are the most paranoid and likely to "need" guns?
It is irony that people with zero understanding of American laws are the most paranoid and likely to "need" guns?
5
You took sides with the government to assure your freedom of the press while you write to take away our freedoms. Even if you don't post this, it's glaring to many.
2
Which freedom? The freedom of someone who can't pass a background check to own a gun, or the freedom of someone to sell a gun to someone who can't pass a background check?
2
And why would you want to take away the freedom of a business to choose which goods and services it offers to the public?
Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for injecting a small bit of sanity into the howling maelstrom of American gun craziness.
4
Looks like Craigslist has a ban on weapons listings as well.
But then there are sites like this:
http://www.armslist.com
I think, ultimately, we'll come to a better place in this issue.
A compromise that, seemingly impossible now, brings rational people on all sides together.
Anti gun people will realize that responsible ownership is something they can live with and that they need to be flexible.
Gun owners of good will and sound thought will realize that they do themselves a favor if they are less rigid about strange ideas and dogma around regulation.
No one is coming for your gun.
And if they do, well, that's part of why you wanted a gun in the first place. Good luck fighting off an "evil" government with all the weapons it can use. But this scenario fantasy.
Better to allow a nation or state registration of weapons and then put anyone caught with a then illegal, unregistered weapon away for 20 years. That would be a great deterrent.
So, you can buy your registered weapons legally and when the bad guys inevitably get caught with unregistered guns…bye, bye.
Makes us safer and doesn't infringe your ability to buy a legal weapon.
Repeat, no one is coming for your gun.
250 years of America, hasn't happened.
And if ever they do, you won't be able to match their firepower anyway, so stop obsessing.
Tighter regulation (the word is in the second amendment)
and tighter, harsh punishment for bucking that regulation.
But then there are sites like this:
http://www.armslist.com
I think, ultimately, we'll come to a better place in this issue.
A compromise that, seemingly impossible now, brings rational people on all sides together.
Anti gun people will realize that responsible ownership is something they can live with and that they need to be flexible.
Gun owners of good will and sound thought will realize that they do themselves a favor if they are less rigid about strange ideas and dogma around regulation.
No one is coming for your gun.
And if they do, well, that's part of why you wanted a gun in the first place. Good luck fighting off an "evil" government with all the weapons it can use. But this scenario fantasy.
Better to allow a nation or state registration of weapons and then put anyone caught with a then illegal, unregistered weapon away for 20 years. That would be a great deterrent.
So, you can buy your registered weapons legally and when the bad guys inevitably get caught with unregistered guns…bye, bye.
Makes us safer and doesn't infringe your ability to buy a legal weapon.
Repeat, no one is coming for your gun.
250 years of America, hasn't happened.
And if ever they do, you won't be able to match their firepower anyway, so stop obsessing.
Tighter regulation (the word is in the second amendment)
and tighter, harsh punishment for bucking that regulation.
5
Nope. No national registration. We aren't going to go for that. And with 300 million guns in private hands there's nothing you can do about it.
2
Good for private companies that refuse to become accomplices in the easy acquisition of guns by people who shouldn't have them. Capitalism at its best!
4
Ok, if transactions occur by IM and if FB does not screen content of messages, how exactly will gun transactions be detected. They mention member reporting, but I cannot see the messages sent and received by others. So, how are others to know what is happening in a private message between two other users? The whole thing seems a farce.
7
I think the main issue is advertising. You won't be able to post a gun for sale on your local used-stuff-sale group.
2
A true profile in courage.
No doubt they will lose many users, but they will have gained my respect and will perhaps save a life or two. That makes it more than worthwhile.
No doubt they will lose many users, but they will have gained my respect and will perhaps save a life or two. That makes it more than worthwhile.
25
Wow, that's "courage" in 2016? The times have changed.
2
Thanks, Mark. At least you have Kevin's support. Another billionaire "pirate" that knows what's best for me. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Search fakebook for me, doh ! You know why I'm not there ? I don't sell out to soccer moms and Obama supporters.
"Profile in Courage" might have applied if they had taken a stand on this years ago. Facebook and other social media moguls have stood too long behind the excuse of freedom of speech as a reason for not taking a stand on important social issues. I'm glad they've done this, but not terribly impressed and certainly would not describe this as courageous.
Real courage would be taking a stand that the company does not tolerate guns sales of any kind. No promotion of guns of any kind on Facebook. Period. Now that would send a message and that would be courageous.
But they're not that brave... they would lose too many customers. This current stance panders to both sides. A typical token political gesture by a tech giant.
Real courage would be taking a stand that the company does not tolerate guns sales of any kind. No promotion of guns of any kind on Facebook. Period. Now that would send a message and that would be courageous.
But they're not that brave... they would lose too many customers. This current stance panders to both sides. A typical token political gesture by a tech giant.
1
Congratulations to Facebook, I wish that other companies will follow and one day, the entire country will ban the selling of weapons, unless the buyer has an impeccable background, and just for certain weapons for civilian use, not those used by the Army or the Navy in wartime.
36
Buying assault weapons, like the select-fire M16s and M4s we use in combat, has been banned since 1968.
3
I understand that guns are fun. It's cool to hold one and fire it off. I love Call of Duty. But if my hobby was killing significant amounts of people a year I'd be ok about putting some restrictions on it. Hey I love golf but if me not playing or playing with a background check meant a few hundred less people die a year I'll roll with it.
22
My hobby doesn't kill anyone.
2
You live in New Jersey. Your point is moot.
About time. Now step it up for cyber bullying and screens for people who publish violent, racist screeds and photos of themselves with lots of guns.
17
Yes! I had no idea how prevalent this was until I began playing a game regularly. These amazing pictures of people brandishing weapons would come up. I mentioned it in the online forum & got totally jumped on, called all kinds of names & insulted. Essentially branded unAmerican for daring to question a gun owner's image.
Yea...because who cares about the 1st Amendment.
3
And there we have it... the slippery slope
3
Thank you Facebook. To bad our government doesn't have the guts to do what is right.
53
maybe thats becasue what he is doing isnt right.
5
@ken: you seem to be outnumbered here. Most of us are all in favor of what our President is doing and feel great about this.
3
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the US Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
Time to read the Constitution, dont you think?
Stop listening to the likes of the NRA, the GOP and Fox News.
Maybe FB got tired of seeing little kids getting killed.....
1st Amendment to the US Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
Time to read the Constitution, dont you think?
Stop listening to the likes of the NRA, the GOP and Fox News.
Maybe FB got tired of seeing little kids getting killed.....
1
This raises a wider issue of censorship and public dependence on unregulated privately-owned media. Sure, if one favors gun control, this would be a positive step. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent these companies from restricting or misreporting political speech and silencing unpopular views.
8
And that would be their right -- because it's their site, their speech. However, if they really engaged in a lot of censorship of opinions, I suspect they would lose a lot of popularity.
(they do however censor any sort of nudity, and this angers many people)
(they do however censor any sort of nudity, and this angers many people)
2
Re: "On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent these companies from restricting or misreporting political speech and silencing unpopular views."
As far as I know, there's nothing LEGALLY restricting them, but if Facebook, for example, wants customers it's probably not a great idea. Facebook's company decisions aside, if Americans don't want people shooting each other or having to risk being shot themselves, they will get laws passed and enforced legally restricting these sorts of gun transactions, on Facebook and everywhere else. It's really pretty simple.
As far as I know, there's nothing LEGALLY restricting them, but if Facebook, for example, wants customers it's probably not a great idea. Facebook's company decisions aside, if Americans don't want people shooting each other or having to risk being shot themselves, they will get laws passed and enforced legally restricting these sorts of gun transactions, on Facebook and everywhere else. It's really pretty simple.
3
Privately owned media have the right to set limits on what their users may post. Freedom means that you can open your own site, with your own rules.
1
How many guns that have been purchased on social media have actually been used in crimes and what about states that do not require any paperwork for a person to person transfer?
Not every state is as the People's Rebublik of California. Quite a few of are still free.
This sounds a lot to me like the non existent gun show loophole.
Which even Obama himself misstated during his town hall meeting.
Not every state is as the People's Rebublik of California. Quite a few of are still free.
This sounds a lot to me like the non existent gun show loophole.
Which even Obama himself misstated during his town hall meeting.
8
Did you read the article? A felon barred from owning weapons bought a gun theough FB with no checks and used it to shoot and wound his ex-girlfriend, then to kill her young daughter and himself.
How many crimes should it take before a private company decides not to facilitate such bloodshed? I've owned a web business, and if it were my company, I'd say one such tragedy was more than enough.
How many crimes should it take before a private company decides not to facilitate such bloodshed? I've owned a web business, and if it were my company, I'd say one such tragedy was more than enough.
9
Should we just control the purchase of weapons that have already been used in crimes?
It sounds to me you have made up your mind for life and will bend any reality to fit. Here's a private entity deciding not to provide a specific service, and you're off to fight straw men and, of course, Obama...
I'm all for data-driven decision-making. Let's allow research into gun violence, shall we?
It sounds to me you have made up your mind for life and will bend any reality to fit. Here's a private entity deciding not to provide a specific service, and you're off to fight straw men and, of course, Obama...
I'm all for data-driven decision-making. Let's allow research into gun violence, shall we?
2
What Facebook isn't understanding is that many states allow private sales, and so long as both parties are non-felons, there's nothing illegal going on.
Rifles and shotguns in PA can bet transferred person to person with no oversight. Pistols must always go through an FFL and to be honest, pistols are used in 90% or more of gun crime, so those who are chanting "universal background checks" like it's somehow the answer to all crime (it's not) should be pretty darn happy with that already.
As this ban happens, state specific firearm forum sites will continue to be a good place to sell your guns to other private citizens. Soon Facebook will simply be a place to share pics of your cat or your food. No speech contrary to the goverment, only certain sports allowed to be talked about because obviously, if we now can't trade guns, we soon won't be able to talk about competition shooting, hunting, self defense training or any of they myriad of legal things that can be done with a gun.
Facebook is about to marginalize itself out of the mainstream. Another Myspace. Their fault. Too bad, so sad.
Rifles and shotguns in PA can bet transferred person to person with no oversight. Pistols must always go through an FFL and to be honest, pistols are used in 90% or more of gun crime, so those who are chanting "universal background checks" like it's somehow the answer to all crime (it's not) should be pretty darn happy with that already.
As this ban happens, state specific firearm forum sites will continue to be a good place to sell your guns to other private citizens. Soon Facebook will simply be a place to share pics of your cat or your food. No speech contrary to the goverment, only certain sports allowed to be talked about because obviously, if we now can't trade guns, we soon won't be able to talk about competition shooting, hunting, self defense training or any of they myriad of legal things that can be done with a gun.
Facebook is about to marginalize itself out of the mainstream. Another Myspace. Their fault. Too bad, so sad.
12
They just don't want to be a part of it. It's bad for their corporate image. It's their free decision not to get involved because they wanted nothing to do with your hot mess.
They just stated revenue of over a billion dollars yesterday. If they ever become irrelevant it's not going to be because they decided not to enter the gun market. What a moronic statement.
They just stated revenue of over a billion dollars yesterday. If they ever become irrelevant it's not going to be because they decided not to enter the gun market. What a moronic statement.
33
Some people have the guts to do the right thing, and other people criticize them for it.
21
@Shawn: Good Riddance!!!!!
Look, we live in an immoral society that supports racism, unequal rights for everyone not male or white, income inequality that gives those with more money more rights and opportunity than those with less. I don't care who tries to address these issues or how, until the US wakes up to its own human rights violations and addresses them in a pro-active democratic manner, I support those who make their best attempt. Our history on theses issues is no better than anyother nation. We practice fiction and propaganda as well as Russia, China and every other dictatorial nation. And we have done it for more than 300 years.
12
Every word you say is true. It's true of every human society of more than a few thousand individuals that has ever lived on this planet. It's who we are and HOW we are.
I have no solutions to improving the entire evolution of the most dominant species presently alive (over 7.5 billion and counting) without eliminating a lot more than half of them just to *start* with... do you?
I have no solutions to improving the entire evolution of the most dominant species presently alive (over 7.5 billion and counting) without eliminating a lot more than half of them just to *start* with... do you?
To equate America with an authoritarian kleptocracy and a communist dictatorship is ridiculous. The "we're no better than..." arguments are always so stupid. We're a thousand times better than they are. If you don't think so, I invite you to live in one of those two countries—enjoy your new home.
1
Meh.
People will just find other means, the market will sort it out.
People will just find other means, the market will sort it out.
7
So cynical. You're probably for guns for everyone.
It's best to stomp out all venues. Stomp on one large venue, then the next and next, so that people who want this will get stomped out!!
It's best to stomp out all venues. Stomp on one large venue, then the next and next, so that people who want this will get stomped out!!
3
By that logic we should distribute free bazookas at every street corner.
Sigh.
Sigh.
5
Yep. The market will sort *everything* out. And when the market finally figures out that this planet can't support more than half a billion humans "forevever"... how many of *YOUR* granchildren (for 30 generations) will be among the 50 billion who have to die of starvation to figure it out?
2
I hope Mr. Zuckerberg has steeled himself for the onslaught of vile abuse and death threats that he is bound to receive from "patriots"--good "christians" one and all!
84
It won't happen and especially not here. I have no trouble believing your sensational comment was posted while mine were rejected. NYTimes true to form. This is not a Newspaper.
5
looks like your comment made it through.
Can Facebook survive being unfriended by Wayne LaPierre?
121
You bet it can. As long as there's sheeple like you to pad the pocket of a guy that stole an idea and made billions off a couple twins. Hopefully you liberal Yankees keep your unconstitutional values up north. Rest assured, there will be a day when a few good men remind the rest of this dysfunctional Country why the "2nd" is vital to survival. Keep giving up your rights, one step at a time. After all, " it's for the good of all".
Yes but if it save one life it must be worth it! After all what are personal right and liberty's anyway. haha
1
Very well indeed.
What people don't realize is that social media has actually made it HARDER to get a gun if you're a felon or otherwise prohibited. The alternative sites, like Armslist have no peer influence on who a buyer or seller might be. Where on Facebook, as soon as someone either underage, or convicted etc. posts an ad or replies to one, members POUNCE. Checking his facebook page, his friends, etc and comment within minutes on what they found. It's no different then responding to a newspaper ad, or craigslist ad selling a firearm, or anything for that matter, you have no idea who you are meeting. Where on facebook, you have connected friends that help vouch in a way for a buyer. Taking that away from us will not curb the guns to criminals, it will make it easier, since there will only be one set of eyes looking at them. Your own.
8
I know a lot of people say limiting weapons is pointless, there's already too many of them out there, etc. But I think we can learn from the anti-choice people: bit by bit, make it harder and harder and harder for anyone to do the thing you want them to do. We may never stop it, but we can slow it down--bit by bit. This decision by Facebook is a step in that direction.
Oh, and for all of those who think that there should be no limits of guns: would that include planes? Because planes are one place where no one can bring a gun, and no one has been shot on a plane since that law was so strictly enforced. That's right, NO GUNS, NO GUN DEATHS. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Oh, and for all of those who think that there should be no limits of guns: would that include planes? Because planes are one place where no one can bring a gun, and no one has been shot on a plane since that law was so strictly enforced. That's right, NO GUNS, NO GUN DEATHS. Coincidence? I don't think so.
115
1. There are definitely guns on planes. In 2003 the federal government created the flight deck officer program to arm pilots. Current and retired police officers are also eligible to carry guns on planes whenever they fly if they get certified by TSA, and police can carry guns on planes every time they fly on duty, such as when escorting a prisoner.
2. How did that no guns thing work out on 9/11, back when there really were no guns?
2. How did that no guns thing work out on 9/11, back when there really were no guns?
6
Actually, you can fly with your gun, it just has to go in checked baggage.
Regardless of security, people do get shot at airports from time to time, and if you think nobody has ever had a gun on them in the cabin, you're fooling yourself. So looking at society, what would you like to see? A metal detector outside of everyone's home with a police officer stationed so they must pass through and verify that they are unarmed before going to work?
Guaranteed, people would still be killed. Even if there were no guns on the planet, people would still be killed, because that's the evil side of human nature. In the UK they now blame the "knife culture" for stabbings. When someone drives drunk and kills a family on the freeway we don't sue Toyota, we go after the drunk. Same should be for gun crime. It ain't the tool, it's the operator.
Regardless of security, people do get shot at airports from time to time, and if you think nobody has ever had a gun on them in the cabin, you're fooling yourself. So looking at society, what would you like to see? A metal detector outside of everyone's home with a police officer stationed so they must pass through and verify that they are unarmed before going to work?
Guaranteed, people would still be killed. Even if there were no guns on the planet, people would still be killed, because that's the evil side of human nature. In the UK they now blame the "knife culture" for stabbings. When someone drives drunk and kills a family on the freeway we don't sue Toyota, we go after the drunk. Same should be for gun crime. It ain't the tool, it's the operator.
5
Sure didnt stop some high jackers with box cutters to take over a plane and fly it into a trade center, or maybe people have forgotten about that... just saying
This is great--admirable that this organization is sharing in the responsibility to keep citizens safe.
He has answered a call for the best of the U.S. A. to help save lives from guns.
Bless
He has answered a call for the best of the U.S. A. to help save lives from guns.
Bless
25
Perhaps instead of completely banning private gun sales between individuals, Facebook should instead conduct background checks on the people that use their website and remove all the criminals beforehand. Most of the people who use Facebook to buy, sell, or trade firearms, are not criminals. This is exactly the kind of argument firearm owners had against gun control, that we, citizens who are legally allowed to own firearms and have committed no crimes, are now going to suffer because of those few who DO commit crimes instead. I completely agree that these people (criminals) should not be allowed to own firearms. I also think that they shouldn't be allowed to do other things that the law-abiding citizens can, like buy a car. What happens when these people use the car in a robbery? Are they going to ban cars? No, because it happens all the time already and nothing gets done about it. When you take guns away, you're only taking them away from law-abiding citizens, meaning that the criminals keep theirs. They don't buy guns at gun shops. They don't buy from authorized dealers. They buy them from someone else, like a gang member. They're going to continue doing so even after you end up banning all the firearms in the U.S.
1
Do you realize how expensive it might be for Facebook to conduct background checks of all its users? And what a violation of their privacy that would be? There might be lawsuits, and all sorts of controversies. And why should they when they can avoid this problem altogether? They just want nothing to do with gun sales. Now they have one less thing to worry about. I think it's a smart move.
1
Many times the person who buys a gun is not a criminal, but becomes one after purchasing the firearm. So selling a gun to a previously law-abiding individual does not guarantee that the gun will not be used in a crime by that same individual. In fact, selling the gun to a law-abiding individual could be the enabling act to the commission of a crime.
3
Your choice of the word "suffer" is interesting. I think "slight inconvenience" might be more accurate.
this is messed up i understand that they want to keep people safe but banning it is not ok, its up to the seller to ensure that the person buying is able to own one. its up to the person buying to ensure that it registered properly not the seller. this in my opinion is a violation of rights, no one can tell someone else they cant sell something. again i know its just to try and protect people but to me it a violation of rights.
3
No one has a right to advertise selling a gun. This is a private company that allows people to advertise at their discretion.
Just because a person wants to do something dosen't make it a right.
Just because a person wants to do something dosen't make it a right.
16
"no one can tell someone else they cant sell something"
Yes they can, if its being done on their private property. Kind of like Walmart telling kids they can't sell lemonade on Walmart property. Or, in this case, on their private-but-publicly-accessed network. And since corporations are now legally considered 'people' (thanks SCOTUS!) FB has a 'personal' right to ban whatever they want.
Yes they can, if its being done on their private property. Kind of like Walmart telling kids they can't sell lemonade on Walmart property. Or, in this case, on their private-but-publicly-accessed network. And since corporations are now legally considered 'people' (thanks SCOTUS!) FB has a 'personal' right to ban whatever they want.
6
Violation of rights? It's a private company. You can't post pornographic images on their either. Do you think Facebook is violating you freedom of speech? Your comment is utter nonsense.
5
I'm from Texas and one reason I would move to another state is because the stupid gun laws here. I think banning guns all together is the right thing to do.
That said, I don't agree with FB move. They can try to lobby congress to change the law. Until then, censoring a legal activity is censorship no matter how you put it. This felt like MZ is applying his personal believe arbitrary.
That said, I don't agree with FB move. They can try to lobby congress to change the law. Until then, censoring a legal activity is censorship no matter how you put it. This felt like MZ is applying his personal believe arbitrary.
2
Then boycott facebook. The owners of Hobby Lobby and chik-filet have no problem imposing their morals on their employees. I assume you have an issue with them, right? I boycott both. Those facist, bible thumping hypocrites will never get a penny of my money.
13
Censorship has to do with speech, not commercial activity. FB is not here enaging in censorship.
9
LanceDal: Re: "This felt like MZ is applying his personal believe arbitrary."
It may feel that way to you, but I would be very surprised to discover it is that way. I'd wager that Facebook concluded it would be to its financial advantage to try to offer its customers a sane, civilized, safe environment. I'm convinced it made an economically sound decision.
It may feel that way to you, but I would be very surprised to discover it is that way. I'd wager that Facebook concluded it would be to its financial advantage to try to offer its customers a sane, civilized, safe environment. I'm convinced it made an economically sound decision.
2
If we are going to enforce morality (of the relativism kind) vs. legality let's just sweep all vices from view. I guess an offer to transact or even give a firearm away should fall in the same category as binge drinking party pics, alcohol ads, or an invitation to a social event where alcohol may be present. Better yet, any scantily clad men and women causing us to objectify one another and potentially lead to an assault. Welcome to the 21st century where everyone is in denial and the whitewashing has begun. I for one am not ashamed of the ills we face as a country nor do I seek to limit the rights of the many in response to the evils of the few. Too much good takes place in our United States to be fed this nonsense. People make choices good or evil. If anyone thinks social norms as dictated by elites in Silicon Valley's uber wealthy bubble reflect the cultural status quo in our diverse nation good luck to you. I for one trust my fellow Americans to make the right decisions in regard moderation, protection, diet, firearms, sex, and speech. It's not an epidemic when 30,000 die (more than half from suicide), it just sucks, that's all. Embrace a less fortunate person and inquire about their needs. I promise you, they aren't worried about firearms. Political capital would be better spent on alleviating poverty and civil injustice which provide the framework necessary to place a hand on a firearm with malicious intent as the motive.
7
When I speak to the less fortunate in my community, particularly parents, they often talk about their abject fear of the gun violence wreaking havoc in their neighborhoods. Your promise that they aren't worried about firearms is ridiculous, and seems almost willfully ignorant. Talk about living in a bubble.
12
Guns are not a vice.
3
It's true guns are not a vice. They are a fetish.
3
Re: "Facebook already prohibits people from offering marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs for sale, and the company said on Friday that it was updating its policy to include guns."
Because, as we all know, it's much easier to beat to death a large congregation of people with a spliff than it is to injure anyone with a machine gun. How many mass shootings did we need to suffer for it to finally occur to Facebook that something was maybe slightly amiss?
Because, as we all know, it's much easier to beat to death a large congregation of people with a spliff than it is to injure anyone with a machine gun. How many mass shootings did we need to suffer for it to finally occur to Facebook that something was maybe slightly amiss?
19
HOORAH for Facebook!
40
Facebook banning private gun sales?
Well duh(!). Why did they ever allow it?
Well duh(!). Why did they ever allow it?
36
How about because it is as legal to sell firearms privately between two parties as it is legal a lawnmower privately between two parties?
2
Refresh my memory. How many people have been robbed, murdered or committed an act of terrorism using a lawn mower? This is about gun safty. What do you have against background checks? If someone has a gun for sale, advertise it somewhere else. Try E-Bay, Craigs List, or Kijiji. Facebook is under no obligation to facilitate the sale of anything. I'm sure -guessing really, i'm not a gun owner- there are gun shops that would sell weapons on consignment.
6
Lawnmowers aren't used to kill 30,000 Americans every year.
6
Best news I've heard today.
14
Now the GOP can blame Obama for ruining FB.
20
Thank you, Mark! Thank you.
9
Private sellers...not private dealers...private dealers still have to use the FFL paperwork and back ground checks. Words have meanings.
2
Excellent leadership from Mark.
21
Good move.
19
This is indeed good news!
16
My appreciation of Facebook has gone from slightly negative to highly positive - thank you, Facebook!
44
Bravo a good start
31
Great! Thank you Facebook.
10
Good. One down, about a million to go...
6
Why are they restricting a perfectly legal activity? This is a particularly horrendous thing to do . . . . allowing a PERSONAL opinion to influence hosting a perfectly reputable activity!
3
I see we are unacquainted with capitalism, as it was inevitable some would be.
Okay, Cap 101: my house, my rules. Sorry and all.
Okay, Cap 101: my house, my rules. Sorry and all.
11
They are a business that provides social media content. They can restrict whatever content they want. It doesn't matter if it's legal. Don't like it? Start your own Facebook!
10
Again, like my comment to the above similarly confused person. Who said ANYTHING about using governmental force to MAKE him publicize these sales? All I asked is WHY he would restrict one legal activity while permitting others. It seems to be an ETHICAL violation; I never insinuated it was a LEGAL one!
This is a terrible idea!
What's screwed up about this is that if they were worried about community safety, they've just made things less safe. People aren't going to stop selling their legally owned guns, so if the market for private gun sales goes back to armslist or backpage, then it creates a needless danger. At least on facebook you can know who you're dealing with. I've seen posters not go through with sales because they see the guy's profile and realize it's probably not a good idea. Anyway, as with just about any attempt to control firearms... the controls often do more harm than good.
What's screwed up about this is that if they were worried about community safety, they've just made things less safe. People aren't going to stop selling their legally owned guns, so if the market for private gun sales goes back to armslist or backpage, then it creates a needless danger. At least on facebook you can know who you're dealing with. I've seen posters not go through with sales because they see the guy's profile and realize it's probably not a good idea. Anyway, as with just about any attempt to control firearms... the controls often do more harm than good.
19
Hi Roy Harden,
Please cite the hard evidence that "the controls often do more harm than good." Show why actual civilized countries have had outcomes much different than you glibly claim.
Gunless Mark
Please cite the hard evidence that "the controls often do more harm than good." Show why actual civilized countries have had outcomes much different than you glibly claim.
Gunless Mark
34
Psst...in captalism, companies get to sell and advertise what they want.
Of course, you are more than welcome to argue that in the publc marketplace, one is obligated to serve the public.
Because then, your cake shop WiLL be baking that cake for me and Roger's wedding.
Of course, you are more than welcome to argue that in the publc marketplace, one is obligated to serve the public.
Because then, your cake shop WiLL be baking that cake for me and Roger's wedding.
17
This is a classic argument from the NRA playbook: that the demand for guns, and the number of guns available, is so great that Facebook's measured and sensible policy change is ill-advised because people will find less savory ways to obtain guns. It is similar to the argument that there are so many guns on the street that it is futile to impose any gun controls at all. It is the sort of argument that has persuaded Congress to do absolutely nothing despite overwhelming public support for reasonable limits.
10
YES! I would also like better screening for hate groups. I have brought attention to some, but FB rarely removes such things as lynching Obama and other horrible memes and group comments. This is a good first step to help the people who have no business getting a gun a little bit harder to do in our world.
11
It is social media so what did you expect, Tolstoy, Brahms and Rembrandt?
1
This call for the suppression of unpopular speech is a good example of the problem with the dominance of privately-owned electronic forums. There is nothing to prevent face book, google, insta gram or any of the others from silencing unpopular speech. This new policy may seem like a step forward to some of you, but remember, the worm turns.
1
Selling guns online is not political speech. Selling guns is a commercial transaction. Commercial transactions of all kinds, including those involving guns, are regulated by law.
3
Not a Facebook user. Never have been. Never will be. But now I'm a big fan. Smart, responsible move. Thank you!
16
Kudos to Facebook for demonstrating corporate social responsibility.
Others, like Visa and MasterCard that operate online payment gateways, need to follow the lead.
Since corporations are like individuals according to the Supreme Court, shouldn't they carry social and moral responsibilities like we expect from citizens?
Others, like Visa and MasterCard that operate online payment gateways, need to follow the lead.
Since corporations are like individuals according to the Supreme Court, shouldn't they carry social and moral responsibilities like we expect from citizens?
162
Facebook banning legal trade on their site is one thing; they don't have a monopoly on communication. Visa/MC/Paypal do have a virtual monopoly on digital payment. It would be unethical at best to ban the use of their networks for legal trade.
exactly!
Good for Facebook! I'd like to see then develop something to block sociopaths from accessing the site, in general.
This makes me happy, it really does. But I'm so disheartened over the many failed attempts to curb inappropriate gun sales and decrease the horrific, increasing level of gun accidents and directed violence that I'm not as hopeful about this as I should be.
Will this really make a difference? At this point, can anything reverse this inexorable tide?
Will this really make a difference? At this point, can anything reverse this inexorable tide?
2
I guess we have no choice but to try.
2
Thank you Mr. Zuckerberg, Dr. Chan, Ms. Sandberg and the rest of the folks at facebook.
Second Amendment notwithstanding, this wild west, free for all continues to be a public health issue and while the politicians choose to be spineless on this issue it is nice to see that one of the biggest names in business has stepped up.
Second Amendment notwithstanding, this wild west, free for all continues to be a public health issue and while the politicians choose to be spineless on this issue it is nice to see that one of the biggest names in business has stepped up.
9
I buy and sell mine on more serious internet venues. Facebook is a big time waster.
1
In California, "private" gun sales are illegal. Any private seller must leave the gun in the custody of a licensed gun dealer, who holds it for ten days while a background check of the new buyer is performed. So Facebook, do we still get to promote the sale of guns in California?
2
Not to burst any bubbles, but are there any facts to go along with this? Does Facebook have any statistics on the types of gun sales they are talking about? I'm wondering if this is even any kind of an actual marketplace for guns, or whether Facebook is just making a PR statement.
2
Did you read the article? A guy barred from owning guns because of his record bought a gun in a private FB sale with no background check, and shot & wounded his ex-girlfriend, then killed her young daughter and himself.
How many statistics should it take for a private company to decide not to facilitate such tragedies? One would be more than enough, if it were my company.
How many statistics should it take for a private company to decide not to facilitate such tragedies? One would be more than enough, if it were my company.
11
Wonderful! Together we can change this gun culture, a bit at a time.
8
Well, high time! I also think that we'd be a much better society without Facebook.
7
Wonderful. Glad somebody had the guts to say this!!
1
Conservative warning: The ban on private gun sales through Facebook is an Obama conspiracy. Next step? Government is coming for your guns.
I would wager a bet. That will soon, if not already, be trending in the conservative world. And it's that kind of extremest thinking (planted/encouraged by the self-serving gun lobby that needs to be challenged and changed) that's at the very core of the unpenetrable wall that prevents any kind of gun reform that could save thousands. In the meantime, this brave private sector action by Facebook is a good start.
I would wager a bet. That will soon, if not already, be trending in the conservative world. And it's that kind of extremest thinking (planted/encouraged by the self-serving gun lobby that needs to be challenged and changed) that's at the very core of the unpenetrable wall that prevents any kind of gun reform that could save thousands. In the meantime, this brave private sector action by Facebook is a good start.
17
Gun licenses are up 8% here in liberal Massachusetts in 2015. Gun sales are through the roof. Obama is the best gun salesman ever. PC efforts to restrict legal transactions will just drive more donations to the NRA.
2
One step towards sanity! Facebook could and should do so much more. Next up should be banning ISIS propaganda.
63
Right on. All sales should require background checks.
146
God, is there no end in Americans' desire to own weaponry? Are we all going nuts?
88
Great news! I belong to a couple of local for sale groups (vintage furniture adn furniture) and while both of them have already banned guns, I'm happy to see it extended across the brand. Good job, Facebook. One more small step.
37
Unless Facebook provides actual data on the number of "person-to-person" guns sales, this story may just be more about "fluff than substance"....
From the last paragraph of the article it seems the journalists are trying to passively make the reader believe that because Facebook has 1.59 billion monthly visitors there will be a significant drop in gun sales.
"Facebook pages that advertised guns for sale. At the time, the social network was one of the world’s largest marketplaces for guns. Facebook has 1.59 billion monthly visitors."
From the last paragraph of the article it seems the journalists are trying to passively make the reader believe that because Facebook has 1.59 billion monthly visitors there will be a significant drop in gun sales.
"Facebook pages that advertised guns for sale. At the time, the social network was one of the world’s largest marketplaces for guns. Facebook has 1.59 billion monthly visitors."
2
.
.
This is fantastic news, if Facebook follows through. Private commerce in guns is hazardous to our society.
Also hazardous to our society are false assertions about candidates, issues, and governance itself. Facebook is not bound by free-speech principles (which were not intended, anyway, to facilitate the spread of falsehood). Perhaps by 2020, Facebook will restrict the spread of "memes" containing falsehoods such as "Bernie Sanders can't win", "Hillary Clinton is just another Republican", "carrying a loaded weapon is a Constitutional right", or "individuals are entitled to occupy Federal lands".
In 2016, many are recognizing that the statements of Donald Trump -- "Immigration endangers Americans" -- are worse than mere words. I am very very pro-free-speech. But Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies gain nothing if they ignore the societal impact of false or demagogic speech.
.
This is fantastic news, if Facebook follows through. Private commerce in guns is hazardous to our society.
Also hazardous to our society are false assertions about candidates, issues, and governance itself. Facebook is not bound by free-speech principles (which were not intended, anyway, to facilitate the spread of falsehood). Perhaps by 2020, Facebook will restrict the spread of "memes" containing falsehoods such as "Bernie Sanders can't win", "Hillary Clinton is just another Republican", "carrying a loaded weapon is a Constitutional right", or "individuals are entitled to occupy Federal lands".
In 2016, many are recognizing that the statements of Donald Trump -- "Immigration endangers Americans" -- are worse than mere words. I am very very pro-free-speech. But Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies gain nothing if they ignore the societal impact of false or demagogic speech.
13
Recall how long it took drug store chains to stop selling tobacco products.
47
Since the issue is paralyzed in Congress, we may as well have the private sector jump into the fray. Private businesses have staked positions on both sides of the gay rights issue in the past. Let the issue of guns in America get the same treatment. As always, I'd like to know whether the businesses I can choose to support have acceptable moral standards.
If the NRA doesn't give Mark Zuckerberg an A rating, that's just fine because Facebook doesn't have to get reelected.
If the NRA doesn't give Mark Zuckerberg an A rating, that's just fine because Facebook doesn't have to get reelected.
123
It's paralyzed because many Americans don't favor action on the matter. That's kinda/sorta how Congress works, you see.
This is unprecedented and sickening. Lumping lawful discourse in with illegal drug sales is a clear departure from Facebook's principles as a social media site. I would never in a million years have a need to sell a gun through Facebook, but the fact that the site now prohibits lawful exchange among private individuals makes Facebook a governmental shill. This is a sad day for freedom and will be a huge boon to the NRA--an organization that I detest. And Facebook--your days are clearly numbered. People engaged in lawful conduct won't put up with your judging them, based on political or social pressure. What's your next target--condoms? Large sodas?
28
What's screwed up about this is that if they were worried about community safety, they've just made things less safe. People aren't going to stop selling their legally owned guns, so if the market for private gun sales goes back to armslist or backpage, then it creates a needless danger. At least on facebook you can know who you're dealing with. I've seen posters not go through with sales because they see the guy's profile and realize it's probably not a good idea. Anyway, as with just about any attempt to control firearms... the controls often do more harm than good.
1
Facebook is a private, non-governmental. business. It has the right to manage and even sensor content. If people don't like it, quit using Facebook.
68
As long as people in many, many, far, far outposts of the world use FB to stay in touch as part of their daily lives (as they indeed do), sorry to rain on your parade, but FB's days are NOT going to be numbered just on the basis of this issue. You might wish it so but I highly doubt it.
Cheers to Mr. Zuckerberg and his fb crew!
Cheers to Mr. Zuckerberg and his fb crew!
21
Dang it, I will not have my rights infringed. I'm switching to MySpace.
3
I guess republicans will have to go back to using MySpace.
87
So, they start of gun sales censoring, what's next? The freedom of the internet is slipping away, bit by bit.
6
Your concern for "freedom" to extend to the sale of weapons makes the concept meaningless, for life itself is ended with their use, human life and that of game animals.
6
Facebook is a private enterprise. If it wants no part in selling deadly toys, that is totally its business — and a great show of leadership in trying to restore sanity to the US.
15
how dare they, makes me want to puke
like those cops always wanting you to wear seat belts
i mean, who exactly are they to tell me what to do ...
like those cops always wanting you to wear seat belts
i mean, who exactly are they to tell me what to do ...
4
It's encouraging to finally see momentum towards a less-armed society.
11
only 299,999,999 to go
Imagine the topic of dinner discussion tonight at the homes of Facebook's public relations executives.
They are probably feeling bittersweet for maintaining such a hideous secret for so long, under the pretense of a supercilious empire.
They are probably feeling bittersweet for maintaining such a hideous secret for so long, under the pretense of a supercilious empire.
4
How is this going to be enforced?
So private sellers will no longer be allowed to negotiate sales or advertise over FaceBook.
Not a big deal, but, since private sales are legal, (so long as they are not out-of-state, which would violate Federal laws), this change will not affect illegal gun dealing at all.
Nice piece of image engineering, but meaningless in the "big picture."
Not a big deal, but, since private sales are legal, (so long as they are not out-of-state, which would violate Federal laws), this change will not affect illegal gun dealing at all.
Nice piece of image engineering, but meaningless in the "big picture."
12
But a step.
3
It's a statement and an example; hopefully it resonate with other companies to do the same. I'd liken it to smoking bans...smoking was the norm in planes, buses, restaurants, stadiums, beaches and bars. People thought it couldn't be outlawed but non-smoking is now the new normal.
5
Thank you Facebook for taking this heroic step. Now other media giants should follow their lead. Google should make it very hard to search for assault weapons; Amazon should not sell guns through third parties, etc. If the Republicans continue to block sane gun regulation, lets hope more progressive tech companies will help stop the gun mania that infects America.
183
Was Hobby Lobby heroic for standing up for their values?
1
I'm not so sure it was a "heroic" step. Why didn't they do it far sooner??
2
Good question. Has a felon ever committed a domestic murder-suicide with an IUD or morning-after pill? Is it heroic to prevent employees from buying the form of birth control they find most appropriate for themselves because the employer has an unprovable, uncorroborated belief about it? What if I sincerely believe STD's are God's punishment for sin? Would it be heroic for me to exclude treatment of STD's from my employees' coverage?
“Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.”
Why always the Silicon Valley double-speak nonsense? Why can't they just say, "We don't want people selling guns on Facebook"?
Why always the Silicon Valley double-speak nonsense? Why can't they just say, "We don't want people selling guns on Facebook"?
28
Excellent lead by the private industry! Reminds me of when Walmart and other stores discontinued selling the Confederate flag. I'm sure the Obama administration and people that support common sense gun laws are enjoying this piece of news.
49
And do you think that Wal-Mart's ban on Confederate flag sales will stamp out the Conferate flag, or will it simply make some liberals outside of the South happier?
It will be interesting to see how FB will monitor, police and enforce this.
What if the prospective sellers and buyers choose to call guns, say, cellphones in their FB posts?
The real issue at hand is that these United States are swimming in an ocean of various sorts of guns. Unless there is a comprehensive Australia-like effort to address the issue, any and all of this is mere window dressing.
What if the prospective sellers and buyers choose to call guns, say, cellphones in their FB posts?
The real issue at hand is that these United States are swimming in an ocean of various sorts of guns. Unless there is a comprehensive Australia-like effort to address the issue, any and all of this is mere window dressing.
4
Window dressing can still move the needle.
1
That's great. But why would Mark Zuckerberg want to profit off any gun sales?
10
That's not the point. Facebook is a company, not just Mark Zuckerberg. The leaders of that company (no doubt including Zuckerberg) have made a statement about their values. It's a broader group than one person, and a more important thing than what they may or may not profit from. That's to be commended.
83
I'm guessing because Zuckerberg wants profit.
You know the day that it's reported that a gun bought and sold on Facebook was used in some horrific shooting, the clamor will be loud.
3