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.

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.

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.

That's just a wild-ass-guess. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

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?

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.

Google won't even allow you to link to Cabelas.

Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too.

Homicide is down at 15th and had been going down for a number of years. So increasing gun ownership is not tipping the balance up.

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.]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.h...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7331099.stm

Anyone in a sword-based society? Legal restrictions on sword ownership weren't exactly rare.

Just for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt

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.

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.

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crim...

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.

2. Citation?

Only being taxed by duly elected individuals is a founding principle of the US. The American revolution was literally about that issue.

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.

~ Mahatma Gandhi, My Experiments with Truth (1927) [1]

----

[1]: http://notableandquotable.blogspot.com/2008/02/gandhi-on-gun...

[1]: http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/

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.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/

The more likely outcome is ongoing gang/tribal violence and blood-feuds, as we've seen throughout history.

You are correct that this is a very polarizing issue.

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.

1) http://www.ag.state.nd.us/reports/bcireports/crimehomicide/M...

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.

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.

Swords are allowed?!? Which sword is not designed to cause serious harm or injury? Allowing swords and then disallowing knives is just weird.

I think that's what they're doing.

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.]

cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-re...

  cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html