Google Censors Guns, Ammo & Accessories from Shopping Results

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

by TDL • 14 years ago

33 46 14 years ago

citricsquid2• 14 years ago

Seems to be down, pastebin mirror: http://pastebin.com/5RWeF5qQ or google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sugexp=chrome,m...

vibrunazo4• 14 years ago

OT, how exactly do you find the google cache link, when this kind of thing happen? I looked it up earlier but didn't find it.

citricsquid2• 14 years ago

Either search "cache:[url]" via google or you can do it via the address bar in chrome.

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

SoftwareMaven• 14 years ago

Take the original URL and prepend "cache:" in the google search box. In this case:

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

rogerchucker• 14 years ago

Good

superxor• 14 years ago

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.

louischatriot• 14 years ago

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"

protomyth6• 14 years ago

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.

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

sixbrx• 14 years ago

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.

protomyth6• 14 years ago

You might actually want to look at what kills people in the US statistically. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf [PDF]

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.

gzavitz• 14 years ago

People have access to many types of lethal weapons. To me it seems silly to try and regulate everything, so why even start with guns?

badclient• 14 years ago

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

You are correct that this is a very polarizing issue.

to3m2• 14 years ago

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.

JabavuAdams• 14 years ago

This isn't really true since people and especially small-time violent criminals aren't especially rational actors.

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

philh• 14 years ago

> 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/

smokeyj• 14 years ago

> 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.

shawndumas• 14 years ago

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

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

----

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

RyJones• 14 years ago

Almost. The full quote has "act" capitalized[1], along with a better explanation of what he's on about.

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

mgarfias• 14 years ago

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."

protomyth6• 14 years ago

"Google AdWords doesn't allow the promotion of weapons or devices designed to cause serious harm or injury."

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

vibrunazo4• 14 years ago

My guess is it has something to do to the amount of crimes with knives vs with swords.

protomyth6• 14 years ago

They might want to rewrite their intro then as it does not match the table. Also, tasers aren't exactly safe.

wickedchicken• 14 years ago

A knife is easily concealed, letting you walk right up to somebody late at night and pull it out before the victim can run. A sword not so much.

protomyth6• 14 years ago

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.

damoncali6• 14 years ago

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.

vibrunazo4• 14 years ago

> 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.

maratd2• 14 years ago

> There's no global truth for ethics.

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?

damoncali6• 14 years ago

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.

TomGullen2• 14 years ago

Your website might be informative and completely ethical, however advertising weapons could easily be deemed as unethical. Weapons are designed to end lives.

clarky07• 14 years ago

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.

Nitramp• 14 years ago

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).

damoncali6• 14 years ago

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.

legutierr• 14 years ago

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.

staunch• 14 years ago

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.

damoncali6• 14 years ago

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.

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

maratd2• 14 years ago

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.

mindrag• 14 years ago

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.

damoncali6• 14 years ago

Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns...Get over it and shop somewhere else.

I think that's what they're doing.

maxharris• 14 years ago

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.]

Google Censors Guns, Ammo & Accessories from Shopping Results

Related Stories