SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
YouTube expands firearms restrictions, more gun videos to be banned
"Some gun-related channels are already feeling the heat."
YouTube is placing more restrictions on weapons-related videos, focusing on guns with new, forthcoming policy changes. According to a Bloomberg report, YouTube intends to ban videos that "promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories," including bump stocks, beginning this April. The new policy will also prohibit instructional videos that detail how to build firearms.
These restrictions come over a month after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida and just a few days before the March for Our Lives rally organized by the student survivors of the Parkland shooting. YouTube took similar action after the Las Vegas shooting last year by banning gun-modification tutorials.
"We routinely make updates and adjustments to our enforcement guidelines across all of our policies," a YouTube representative said in a statement to Bloomberg. "While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories."
[...] While some may see YouTube's new firearms policy as ambiguously worded, it's the forthcoming implementation that will get the most reaction from firearms channels. Plenty of YouTubers have seen their content demonetized or removed due to the way YouTube's algorithm and moderators filter out potentially offensive content and content that goes against Community Guidelines. It's possible that gun-related videos that do not explicitly violate the new rules will get caught up in the first rounds of YouTube's upcoming purge.
[...] With the upcoming policy, YouTube will join the bevy of other companies, including Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart, that have instituted new restrictions on the promotion or sales of firearms in the wake of the Parkland shooting.
Gun videos migrate to porn sites as YouTube cracks down
THERE is a bunch of unusual videos turning up on porn streaming sites as America's gun advocates cry foul.
YOUTUBE is going to start banning videos related to the sale or manufacture of guns next month, so as a way to make up for it, firearm aficionados are jumping ship to Pornhub — where they can post pretty much any clip they'd like.
Gun videos migrate to porn sites as YouTube cracks down
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday March 26 2018, @06:46AM (11 children)
No firing pin block, or in other words, no safety. SA revolvers (that is "Single Action, for you Hoplophobes and alt-right types) were required to introduce a hammer interlock, so that the weapon could not fire if dropped. For some reason the Glock, with only a little thingy on the trigger, that would indicate, "yes, I do intend to shoot my own self in the leg" passed muster, due to massive lobbying by the manufacturer. If it was up to me, I would declare all Glocks unsafe, along with the Remington 300, and the AR-15, just because these are unsafe weapons, and the manufacturers have avoided liability for the same. The vast majority of LEO firearm accidents have been due to Glocks. It is an unsafe weapon! And, seriously, if you do not know guns, you should not be posting on a topic like this. Just saying.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @08:01AM (10 children)
Philosopher, educate thyself. [glock.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday March 26 2018, @08:40AM (9 children)
Back in my day, when we dealt with σκορπιδία, we were very careful about accidental discharge. But Glock puts their firing pin lock on the frigging trigger? What kind of madness is this? We "lock and load", only now with no ability to "lock". Glocks are unsafe at any speed, and anyone familiar with weapons at all would realize this. Stay away from company propaganda.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-owens-glock-accidents-20150508-story.html [latimes.com]
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/glock-trigger/ [gunsamerica.com]
Who do you think you are talking to , Tenderfoot?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:09AM (8 children)
Someone who does not realize that a trigger is not an ottoman for your booger-hook.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday March 26 2018, @09:17AM (7 children)
If you cannot tell the difference between a semi-autoloading pistol, a foot-rest, and an early 20th Century Empire, I would suggest that you are not qualified to participate in this discussion. But you have already proven that. I suspect you masturbate into a sock, instead of cocking a Forty Millimeter? Or do you play games, sponsored by Microsoft? Think about that, "micro" and "soft", with the combination "game". Does not bode well for your future as a real man. If you are a man. But unless you are Tomi Lauren, how could you not be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:24AM (4 children)
Far be it from me to object to the qualified judgement of someone who cannot get his basic facts straight [soylentnews.org] in regards to which safety systems a certain type of pistol has or does not have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday March 26 2018, @09:45AM (3 children)
That little lever on the trigger may be connected to an alleged "firing pin block", but it is more a "trigger verification level" than a safety. Glocks need to be sued, recalled, and dumped into the trashbin of history as a very, very bad idea. The point of a safety is that it has to be more difficult to disengage than pulling the god-damned trigger. This is why Glocks have no real safety, and thus no real safe carry mode, unless, as you and any sane person would, keep the chamber empty. I mentioned SA revolvers, like the original Colt Dragoon. People figured out very quickly you left one chamber empty, and put the hammer down on that empty chamber. Now the Remington 1875 came up with the innovation of having a notch between caps, to rest the hammer on. Better, perhaps, but an empty was safer.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-guns/131714-glock-accidental-discharge.html [defensivecarry.com]
And this is why semi-autos are just wrong. You can have a decent safety, like the 1911 or the Beretta, actual guns that actual soldiers have carried. But they are just too prone to going off at the wrong time. I suggest only single shots, or at the most double barreled guns. Cuts way down on the, wait, Glock has a special term for this? Not "accidental discharge", but "negligent discharge"? as if it was not their stupid design that was at fault? Oh, dear! This is why we cannot have a decent weapons discussion on SN, too many ammosexuals and company shills.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @09:53AM (1 child)
But now what are you going to try to do with your other sabot [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday March 26 2018, @10:41AM
Why, sabotage, of course. This is why the Cosmos gave us two feet. But you must be also aware that a "sabot" is casing that holds a projectile until it clears the barrel of a firearm, often used with smoothbores like shotguns for slugs for hunting deer or other medium game. But they are also used by riflemen to avoid having groove "fingerprints" being inscribed onto their projectile, and thus evade forensics. So, like silencers, sabots are almost universally the tools of poachers and assassins and ammosexuals; criminals to not put too fine a point on it. Which one are you? (Yes, trick question, there is only one.)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @03:42PM
There's a bunch of different safeties for a bunch of reasons -- historically, the most important reasons seem to be concerns about pocket carrying pistols or snagging long guns on brush (both related to not having holsters protecting the trigger) and that most firearms have not been drop-safe when ready to fire, thus a manual safety selects between "drop-safe, but doesn't work" and "dangerous, but ready to fire".
Both double- and single-action revolvers have generally been considered to not need manual safeties, even with all chambers loaded, ever since the adoption of drop-safety arrangements (rebounding hammer or transfer bar), with the assumption that they will be carried with the hammer decocked. Glocks and similar striker-fired pistols are not very different from double-action revolvers; while the striker is partially pre-cocked with the gun at rest, it's essentially decocked in that it doesn't have enough stored energy to actually detonate a primer if released from this position. And while the drop-safety details are mechanically quite different from a double-action revolver, they're no less effective.
The lever on the trigger doesn't even connect to the firing pin block -- it only contacts the trigger proper, and the frame. Seriously, look at a diagram or animation of the mechanism you're criticizing.
The safety lever in the trigger serves one real purpose -- it blocks the trigger from moving rearward during a muzzle-up drop, or any other sharp impact to the back of the slide. It's of course engaged by light spring pressure, but also designed with most of the mass above the pivot, so that the inertia of the lever during a muzzle-up drop tends to more firmly engage it, rather than to disengage it.
The firing pin block is a plunger in the slide. It's actuated by the trigger bar moving backwards -- until the trigger itself is depressed, the firing pin block is not disengaged, and the firing pin cannot contact the primer. This provides safety against most possible drops, either muzzle-down where the forward inertia of the firing pin might break the sear, or lateral impacts that might dislodge the sear engagement.
The remaining vulnerability that the firing-pin block alone can't handle is the muzzle-up drop, where the inertia of the trigger, trigger bar, and striker carries them all to the rear against the striker spring. Naturally, as the trigger bar travels rearward, the sear releases the striker just as during a normal trigger pull. And naturally, since the trigger bar has moved to the rear, it has already disengaged the firing pin block -- a Glock with no safety lever in the trigger would thus fire (just like a pre-upgrade Sig P320) if dropped muzzle-up on a hard floor. The safety lever stops this whole process at the beginning -- if the trigger can't move, the trigger bar won't move, the sear will remain engaged, and the firing pin block won't be actuated. The striker can still travel rearward, but when it returns the sear will be in position to catch it, and if it does override the sear, the firing pin block will definitely stop it short of the primer.
Glock apparently realizes this is too hard to explain (or perhaps their marketing department simply can't understand it?), so their marketing materials don't even try; they pretend it's about keeping the trigger from being accidentally depressed by non-finger objects. Well, that's kind of silly -- clearly, while it may help with some objects coming in at a weird angle, some objects will make contact with the safety lever, allowing them to pull the trigger and fire it anyway; half a safety is worse than no safety at all, and treating it as a "non-finger-object" safety serves only to give an unwarranted confidence, and encourage reckless handling. But as you said -- stay away from company propaganda. Once you understand the actual function of the Glock fire control group, you understand that it's there only to provide drop safety, and it serves that purpose quite well.
The solution to non-finger objects pressing the trigger is to keep those objects out of the trigger guard -- with a well-fitting holster when carrying the gun, and by paying attention on the rare occasions where you actually have it out to use.
Not Glock's term. That's a relatively recent phenomenon where pedants are concerned that the old term "accidental discharge" implies a complete lack of fault. In this new pedantic classification, if a mechanical failure caused the gun to fire when the trigger isn't pressed or the safety is engaged, it's accidental, but if you let the safety get disengaged and the trigger get pressed when you don't want it to fire, it's negligent. And they apply this new(ish) term equally to all guns, whether they do or don't have manually safeties.
Honestly, it's not a bad distinction to make, but the fundamental point is misguided; those who refuse to take responsibility for their gun going off in their hand will refuse to do so no matter what terminology you adopt.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Wednesday March 28 2018, @02:14AM (1 child)
If those are the two choices, it will almost certainly be the sock. Because a 40mm is going to require a crew of perhaps 5 to operate and a truck to tow it with. That's a bore of about 1 1/2 inches, designed to shoot at airplanes. He's not going to be concealed carrying that. Perhaps you were thinking of 40 caliber, which is a he-man pistol size.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 28 2018, @03:35AM
Go big, or go home, I always say! Maybe it was all those people referring to a 5.56mm NATO round as a "high-caliber" weapon that caused me to over compensate. I meant, a 20mm, anti-aircraft gun! Obviously.
Oh, for the days when firearms were measured by balls to the pound! Both smooth and rifled bores were "gauges". I prefer about a 28 gauge. With a proper hammer-tumbler deep-notch safety!