Google has long been unfriendly to firearms related websites. They don't allow their ad server to be used by them, or for adsense to be shown on them.
For example, my own site, http://bisonballistics.com, cannot use adsense because it links to sites that sell firearms parts. I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal.
I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this, but I'd love to hear it.
Entrepreneurs have filled the gap with specialized ad networks, just as Gunbroker did when ebay pulled similar antics.
EDIT: a couple of you have taken issue with my definition of ethics - fair enough. The broader point is that google just doesn't like firearms, no matter how they are used.
Google also doesn't accept advertisement for pornography, religion, and a whole bunch of other things that might be controversial to certain people under certain conditions. I don't think it's necessarily singling out weapons, it's rather staying out of lines of business that might cause Google more harm than benefit (I assume there'd be a lot of money to be made from pornography ads).
That's kind of my point. Google seems to find firearms to be as offensive as gambling, prostitution, illegal drug sales, and criminal activity. I would suggest that that is a rather limited, urban hipster point of view, while their business is global.
> I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal.
Oh c'mon. Let's not get there. As someone in the gun community you should be more than aware that "ethics" are extremely subjective to one's opinion. There's no global truth for ethics. Respect other's opinion's and you won't be shocked if there's a good reason for this. The good reason is: some people don't actually agree with you.
Let me rephrase. I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this other than "google doesn't like guns."
As for ethics, I would go as far as to say that punching holes in paper from 100 yards away is about as benign an activity as one can imagine. But perhaps environmentalists would take isuse, so I'll retract that as well.
I actually have no problem with Ebay's decision. The regulation in firearms sales is indeed complex and uncertain. At the time Ebay dropped gun sales, gun control was a hot topic politically. And online auctions were new enough so that one could imagine ebay getting caught in the middle of something bad.
But google is a mystery. Their TOS seem to indicate that they simply have a distaste for the shooting sports industry. But they send me tons of traffic. They could just drop shooting sites from the index. That gives me hope that there is some arcane legal reasoning behind their thoughts, but I suspect it's just a choice they've made, and that they cannot stomach the backlash they would incur by dropping huge legal categories from their results. I would love to hear from someone who has some knowledge on this, as it's been confusing me for years.
So it's OK if a moderator on this site deletes your comment because he doesn't agree with it? Your comment contains no profanity or anything that might be construed as obscene. That sort of censorship wouldn't bother you?
One reasonable explanation from a business perspective would be a PR one. If someone used Google to find and eventually purchase a gun used in a horrific crime, that would do much to tarnish Google's image.
Your website might be informative and completely ethical, however advertising weapons could easily be deemed as unethical. Weapons are designed to end lives.
Weapons are tools to be used for many purposes. They are also designed to save lives. They are also designed to feed people. I'd venture a guess that 99%+ guns have never been used to kill a person. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I think the issue is that they're changing Google Shopping from a search engine to be only paid listings. They were okay with listing weapons before because they didn't make any money off them, but now all listings will be paid. They don't want to earn money from weapon listings.
eBay has the same policy. I don't agree with the policy personally but I certainly have no problem with a private company doing things like this.
ebay can at least make the argument that the legal headaches/uncertainty with enforcing interstate gun laws may not be worth the money they get from gun auctions.
Living here in India it's surprising to see the mostly unregulated Gun sale in the US. I believe it's a right the constitution of US grants to its citizens. But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. It seems like common sense to us here that allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence.
Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too.
A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least.
Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status.
[Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1).
Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well.
1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it
That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..."
The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood.
The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.
The whole country started when common people picked up weapons and forcefully overthrew an occupying government they no longer wanted around. Self-defense against criminals is very nice to have, but it's not the reason it was written into the constitution as a civil right. The reason is that legitimate government exists only at the consent of the governed, and so the people deserve the power to revoke that consent by any means necessary, or at least to defend themselves against government oppression.
When you talk about self-defense, even here in India one is allowed to own a gun if he gets a license. It's not impossible to own a gun here, it is just more regulated. That way not every Tom, Dick and Harry can own a gun.
Criminals can get hands on weapons in one or the other way. But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. It's better to work towards a better Law and order system.
And, don't make statements like 'You are wrong'. These are issues our and your forefathers have been trying to solve, there is still no absolute right/wrong yet.
> But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution.
Actually, it's an excellent one. It creates a disincentive to committing crimes. If there's a higher chance of getting your head blown off while robbing someone, you're less likely to rob someone. It's that simple.
In fact, that's how things have worked for thousands of years up until guns show up. Who ever heard of sword control? For some reason, governments all around the world are now busy trying to restrict your property rights. A truly sad state of affairs.
Sword control and gun control is a terrible comparison.
Replace the guns with swords in crime, do you think equal numbers of people would die? Obviously not, guns are far more easy to kill with, less physically demanding and ranged.
With a sword pretty much everyone has a good chance of running away, a massacre isn't really possible.
If you want to carry a gun in the US, you need to go through a background check and there is often a training requirement as well (regulations vary by state, with AK and VT requiring no permit to carry a concealed handgun).
One problem with "regulations" is that they become very restrictive and then only the elite are able to obtain them. NYC is a great example. If you have a lot of money or sway with the mayor's office, no problem, here is your CCW. If you're just a regular joe? Sorry, not gonna happen.
The criminals in, for instance, the UK aren't really getting them anyway. At least not to the extent that someone in the US could obtain a gun illegally. The reason that criminals in the US would be able to get them tomorrow if guns were outlawed today is because there are so many guns. And there are so many guns because production and sale has been legal and easy for so long. So while it's true that the short-term result of outlawing guns means that only criminals can get them (which is kind of a tautology), eventually, the ability to illegally acquire a firearm would get much more difficult, like it is in, for instance, the UK.
That said, I do not support all firearms being outlawed. I think they should be heavily regulated and some should be entirely illegal, but mainly I'm disagreeing with the argument that I tend to hear so often.
While the rate of crimes committed with a gun may be lower in the UK, violent crime as a whole is much higher. Five times higher than my home of NYC. You can easily attribute this to a lack of guns. If there's less of a chance being shot, you have a higher incentive to commit crime.
> Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US
Not true. It is illegal to use a firearm for self-defence in Canada -- pointing a firearm at another person is an offence under the Criminal Code.
Except in the sketchiest of gang-infested neighbourhoods, one would not assume that urban home-owners would have guns, so there's no psychological deterrent there.
Even the idea of using possibly lethal force to defend property is not really mainstream here.
Protect you from what exactly? A crazed lunatic coming to hurt your family? How realistic is this situation exactly?
I imagine the most likely situation they would be used in defence is for home robberies. The safest thing to do when being robbed is let them have whatever they want. You would be an idiot if you added a gun into the equation and blood started being shed.
It's also common sense to see that allowing nearly everybody to purchase guns will result in reduced violence, because the potential immediate penalty for violence is higher.
It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it.
> It's up to you which you believe, and after making your decision I suggest you use google to find further justification for it.
This is exactly the wrong order to do things in.
Assuming you value truth, then it's not up to you which you believe. You have to look at the evidence first, and then believe whichever one is best supported. Ask questions before you shoot.
You don't have guns there because of crime, but rather because the Brits wanted to keep you disarmed in order to control your population better. Gandhi himself said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
I agree. Military fact: offense is always superior than defense (no tank is immune to rockets/artillery, there is no nuclear shield able to stop a missile etc). Same goes with guns: if someone wants to kill you, he will be able to do it, even if you have a gun with you (sneaking up on someone is not that hard). More guns indeed means more guns in the hands of violent people. Common sense (for me at least) says "this is idiotic"
Uhm, statistics don't really show that. North Dakota is one of the most gun heavy per population states in the union. 2008 had 4 murders, all of which didn't use a gun(1).
I would say your "gun not a defense" argument is also wrong as home invasions tend to be one area to research to show counter examples.
You're overgeneralizing. Let me overgeneralize in the same vein then, "Camping beats offense". In my house, in a home invasion, I'm a camper. I'd rather camp with a gun than a knife.
> But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US.
Explain what "cause" means. It's not like a gun can walk around and start popping people. I would say people are the "cause" for homicide, and we have many instruments at our disposal to use. What if violent movies and television caused violence? Should we ban television and movies?
> allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence.
What if I told you it took violence to take people's guns away and prevent them from having them? Then would you support banning guns? At that point you would be in favor of using violence to prevent self-defense.
In the end, it's Google's product and they should run the service as they wish.
However, this and the previously announced change of charging for placing listings in the service leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. In the end, I'll just end up using one of many alternatives.
This is also on the extreme end of hypocrisy. Google frequency complains about the censorship it faces around the world and then turns around, and censors results when it doesn't have to here in the US.
A part of fighting censorship is tolerating content you may not like. In fact, that's what being part of a tolerant society is. Putting up with shit you don't agree with.
Meh, discussing subjectivity and semantics is boring. Nowadays most swords are designed as cosmetic decoration, not "designed for serious harm and injury". You could interpret it either way, it's just semantics. Same for tasers. Anyway, boring.
I can do that with a kitchen knife also, and a knife is a pretty useful tool - heck - ask any worker who has to open boxes all day. The rules are really confused.
I'm upset by what I see as a sense of entitlement by gun owners who think that every retail outlet should be selling guns. Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns. Now they are complaining about Google. It's not like Google is the only way to shop online. Heck, it's not even the BEST way to shop online. Get over it and shop somewhere else.
Using the word "censor" is inappropriate here because it doesn't distinguish between two very different things:
1) government-imposed silencing of speech by force (this is what "censorship" should mean)
2) a private person or group refusing to be a platform for someone else's speech (the definition of "censorship" should not include this. If it did, you would be "censoring" all those whom you did not assist in being heard.)
Each of us has a right to say whatever we want, but not the right to force others to help us say it.
[This isn't relevant to my point, but I'm very pro-gun. I'm just not pro-force.]
For example, my own site, http://bisonballistics.com, cannot use adsense because it links to sites that sell firearms parts. I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal.
I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this, but I'd love to hear it.
Entrepreneurs have filled the gap with specialized ad networks, just as Gunbroker did when ebay pulled similar antics.
EDIT: a couple of you have taken issue with my definition of ethics - fair enough. The broader point is that google just doesn't like firearms, no matter how they are used.