Google in crosshairs over gun ban

Jul 04, 2012 by Rob Lever
Google has banned gun sales from its new shopping platform, a move drawing fire from hunters and weapons enthusiasts but praised by gun control activists.

Google has banned gun sales from its new shopping platform, a move drawing fire from hunters and weapons enthusiasts but praised by gun control activists.

Google made the change May 31 when it transformed its "product search," which had consisted of free listings, into "Google Shopping," which has paid listings and is governed by the tech giant's advertising policies.

In its shopping service, Google "doesn't allow the promotion of weapons or devices designed to cause serious harm or injury," the website said, describing its advertising policies.

The ban includes "guns, parts or hardware, ammunition, bombs, knives, throwing stars, and brass knuckles," it said.

Even though the policy was announced more than a month ago, it drew notice only in recent days after it was pointed out by a blog called Outdoor Hub, dedicated to "outdoor enthusiasts."

Blog contributor Edward Pierz said Google "" firearm searches, and linked to a petition to "Tell Google not to interfere with our 2nd amendment rights," a reference to the constitutional right to bear arms.

"If you wish to purchase a gun, you are required to do a background check and utilize an FFL (federal firearms license) holder to make the purchase regardless of whether you buy it online or through a gun shop," the petition says.

"The new policy will only effectively disable many law abiding citizens from acquiring legal weapons for legitimate purposes at reasonable prices, and hurt many many small business's income."

Other gun rights activists also poured criticism on the California tech giant.

A National Rifle Association statement said Google "has adopted a new and discriminatory policy with respect to the advertising of firearms, ammunition and related products."

"This appears to be a calculated political statement by Google at a time when most other large online retailers and search services are increasing the level of information they provide and the number of gun-related products they offer for sale," the NRA said.

"Fortunately, with so many other options available to consumers, Google's attempt to limit information about legal and constitutionally protected products will likely prove futile."

But Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, welcomed the move.

"We applaud Google for acting to restrict sales of dangerous weapons that would frequently occur without background checks," Vice told AFP.

"The Internet is a notorious source of guns for killers.

Vice said one recent study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns showed 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell weapons to people who could not pass a background check.

"It's so easy online to find guns and buy them without a background check, so Google's policy is more than reasonable," he said.

Bloggers in favor of gun rights were sharply critical, however.

On the Texas Bowhunter blog, one contributor wrote: "Google is shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended). I guess they won't mind the govt's attempt at censoring the Internet... 'in the interest of consumer safety.'"

A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the reasons for the policy. She said guns may show up on "an organic search" but not in shopping searches.

But the Shopping policies point out that Google "has a strong culture and values, and we've chosen not to allow ads that promote products and services that are incompatible with these values."

Matt McGee of the tech blog Search Engine Land said the change "certainly seems to be within Google's rights."

But he added it "seems like a slippery slope to use vague terms like 'culture and values' to determine who can and can't list products in Shopping Search -- a slope that's likely to open up to further criticism if it continues to apply that principle to other industries."

Explore further: Startups offer banking for smartphone users

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gun traffickers exploit differences in state laws

Oct 24, 2011

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

Google revising privacy policies, data use

Jan 25, 2012

Google said it is revising its privacy policies and changing how it uses data from users of its services to provide more personalized search results and advertisements.

Google hit by new anti-trust complaint in Europe

Jan 24, 2012

The French online shopping website Twenga has filed a complaint against Google at the European Commission, accusing the Internet search giant of abusing its dominant position to eliminate any competition.

Recommended for you

Startups offer banking for smartphone users

Aug 30, 2014

The latest banks are small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Startups, such as Moven and Simple, offer banking that's designed specifically for smartphones, enabling users to track their spending on the go. Some things ...

'SwaziLeaks' looks to shake up jet-setting monarchy

Aug 29, 2014

As WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange prepares to end a two-year forced stay at Ecuador's London embassy, he may take comfort in knowing he inspired resistance to secrecy in places as far away as Swaziland.

Ecuador heralds digital currency plans (Update)

Aug 29, 2014

Ecuador is planning to create what it calls the world's first digital currency issued by a central bank, which some analysts believe could be a first step toward abandoning the country's existing currency, ...

WEF unveils 'crowdsourcing' push on how to run the Web

Aug 28, 2014

The World Economic Forum unveiled a project on Thursday aimed at connecting governments, businesses, academia, technicians and civil society worldwide to brainstorm the best ways to govern the Internet.

User comments : 95

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
3.7 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2012
DuckDuckGo.com G00gle also killed Scroogle Scraper

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless the Bitter Clingers.

SatanLover
3 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2012
As a socialist or a social liberal, it works either way, i believe everyone has the right to defend themselves with fire arms and everyone ought to be trained in firearms and self defense.
This would put your country in a benefit when invaded by foreign troops and the crime rate would be lowered because committing a crime could mean someone uses their right to protect themselves with a firearm and that could mean death for the offender. Also then maybe the gov would serve the people instead of the corporations.
Ophelia
5 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2012
Google is not a government agency. Like any public corporation, it can choose what it wishes to market or not market, promote or not promote. Just as Target doesn't deal with guns and Wal-Mart does.

antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2012
Google has banned gun sales from its new shopping platform

Good for them. It's nice to see that they occasionally live up to the "don't be evil" slogan.

Just as Target doesn't deal with guns

I didn't know that. But it is sort of ironic.
Ophelia
4 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2012
Quite simply, think of the headaches Google avoids by not dealing with these items - potential lawsuits, security issues, reporting requirements, etc. If I was an investor in Google, I'd applaud the decision since it seems as likely to add headaches as it does to making any money for the company.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (27) Jul 04, 2012
"don't be evil"

Protecting your life and the lives of your family is evil?
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Protecting your life and the lives of your family is evil?

No. But if you live in a country where you need guns to do that then you have a social problem.
Putting more guns out there (in the hands of the protectors AND the hands of the ones you want to protect yourself and yours from) is not a solution.

They see this. I applaud them for it.

Maybe by just trying to foster a society that doesn't fear each other would such a move not be needed. But currently (in the US) making more guns available to everybody is certainly not solving anything.

stu_hallock_3
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2012
The point of the second amendment is to make sure that our inalienable right to defend our lives stays in place. It is intended to assure we are able to defend our other constitutional rights as well. It was not put in place because firearms and killing are fun. It was put in place because unfortunatley sometimes both are necessary to maintain our safety and our freedom. In a pefect world war, killing, weapons, etc... would niether exist or be needed, we unfortunately do not and will not be living in such a world within our lifetime. Banning guns would have a very bad effect as only law obiding citizens would submit to such a thing. This would leave only criminals, military and law enforcement armed. I have the utmost respect for our millitary and law enforcement personell in this country but they are "responders" and as such respond after the fact. As the old saying goes,"when seconds count,the police are only minutes away". Arm yourself, guns are not evil nor do they cause violence.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (26) Jul 04, 2012
But if you live in a country where you need guns to do that then you have a social problem.

"Members of infamous biker gangs such as the Hells Angels, Outlaws and Bandidos are known for violent turf wars, terrorizing entire cities in Germany. The police are now cracking down on them. "
http://www.dw.de/...,00.html

Five Dead in Karlsruhe Slaying
http://www.spiege...560.html

Of course a nation that attacked the world, twice, and was defeated, twice, has no social problems?
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (24) Jul 04, 2012
making more guns available to everybody is certainly not solving anything.

Crime is down where people have the right to defend themselves.
Problem being solved.
In hell, the Germans were the police, the French were the mechanics, the Brits were the chefs and the Swiss were the lovers and the Italians were the bankers, or something like that.

ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2012
I agree, Google has a right to restrict anything thew want.
We have every right to not use Google and encourage others not to as well.
But, Google should look at what happened the democrat politicians who support gun control.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (41) Jul 04, 2012
No. But if you live in a country where you need guns to do that then you have a social problem.
I thought you were a little smarter than to fall for the pan-euro antigun propaganda but I was in error. We all live in countries where bad guys also live. And the ONLY reasonable way to defend yourself in your home, is with a handgun. Obviously.

Everybody should have the right to personal defense. I understand you surrendered this right some time ago and now are not willing to fight to get it back. I suppose over there it is only important to people AFTER they have been victimized.

Had some of the people on that island been armed, breiviks spree might have ended early, and justly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (38) Jul 04, 2012
I agree, Google has a right to restrict anything thew want.
We have every right to not use Google and encourage others not to as well.
But, Google should look at what happened the democrat politicians who support gun control.
Google has a monopoly and can now victimize us. This is what typically happens when markets are free.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2012
"Members of infamous biker gangs such as the Hells Angels, Outlaws and Bandidos are known for violent turf wars, terrorizing entire cities in Germany. The police are now cracking down on them. "

And you think putting a lot more guns out there would alleviate the problem? Now read on what happened recently. They cracked down on them and a lot of chapters had to disband. Protecting the citizens is what police are there for - not vigilantes. In some countries this works, in others it doesn't.
Google has a monopoly and can now victimize us.

Google has no such thing. For everything it offers there are ample alternatives.
You might argue that Google does some things best - which makes them the go-to guys for e.g. internet searches. But as with any product: there's always someone who does it best. being good at what one does isn't a crime.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (36) Jul 04, 2012
Protecting the citizens is what police are there for - not vigilantes. In some countries this works, in others it doesn't.
That's the theory... Where were the polizei during kristallnacht? Cops didn't even give Rodney king a chance to call 911.
ryggesogn2
3.6 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2012
Protecting the citizens is what police are there for

The police in the USA are under no legal obligation to protect the lives of anyone. The Supreme Court has so decreed.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizen to DEFEND themselves.
The motivation of the opponents of the 2nd amendment is to remove ability of the citizen to defend themselves so the state can more easily offend the citizens.
Once again, the socialists are projecting their desires upon others. Socialists are conditioned to coerce and presume anti-socialists have the same desire and, like them, would use firearms to coerce, not defend.
Aren't all the Swiss armed?
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (37) Jul 04, 2012
"Everybody should have the right to personal defense. I understand you surrendered this right some time ago and now are not willing to fight to get it back." -Otto

Google has a monopoly and can now victimize us. This is what typically happens when markets are free.- Otto

I have a concealed carry permit, and use Bing. I can literally go to 5 stores within 10 miles and buy an arsenal if I wanted. Even without the permit, a person without a federal criminal record can walk into a sporting goods store, sign and pay, and pick up their weapon in 7 days. What right have been given up? Fast weapons shopping?

Any company should have the choice to offer what they want. There are so many places to buy a gun in America, don't worry, people will somehow find a way.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2012
The police in the USA are under no legal obligation to protect the lives of anyone. The Supreme Court has so decreed.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizen to DEFEND themselves.


Question is: is that the right approach?

I dunno about you, but I wouldn't feel safe in a country where everyone on my block packs a piece.

Even the most mild mannered person can have a really bad day (and occasionally people do develop mental/psychological problems).

But if you feel safe with everyone armed to the gunwales - that's your choice. I'm just stating the obvious (which you can read in any statistic about crime in the US): It's not working.
ryggesogn2
3.6 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2012
I wouldn't feel safe in a country where everyone on my block packs a piece.

I would.
I know and trust my neighbors. Too bad you don't. But if I did NOT trust my neighbors, I would certainly want to be armed, or move away.

It's not working.

Yes, it is.

"Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911"
http://www.youtub...xge7qcUM

"In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed. "
http://www.humane...-savers/
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (24) Jul 04, 2012
Question is: is that the right approach?

You trust the police to protect you?

In most countries, the police protect the govt, not the people.
The people must protect themselves from others AND the state.

This could be one of the problems faced by Germany and other countries.
A Turk could have lived in Germany all is life, his so could his parents. They may only speak German, but they are not accepted as German.
A recent immigrant from Turkey into the US who just received his citizenship and can barely speak English is considered an American.
Astoria
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2012
Google is not a government agency.
It's rather silly step, because the Google database records could be accessed with USA and other governments easily - and now they just lost the control over portion of gun market.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (22) Jul 04, 2012
"A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are suspicious of centralized federal authority, and reverent of individual liberty as extreme right-wing terrorists."
http://www.infowa...rorists/

"First they came for the ...."
PussyCat_Eyes
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Those with criminal intent will always have the opportunity to purchase or STEAL a sidearm, assault rifle or a knife. An unarmed law-abiding populace is always at the mercy of the criminals who believe that "might makes right".
Google can do whatever they want, and nobody is obligated to use their Google Shopping feature for the purchase of other things either.
My late husband was a gun collector and we regularly visited gun shows. Because of this, I am "armed to the teeth", which renders me a lot safer than those in a state which bans weapons for protection, but doesn't do anything to prevent home invasions and murders until the murder has been committed already, when it's too late. The problem with the police is that they can't arrest anyone for an "intent to murder", unless there are witnesses and lots of evidence to effectively put the perpetrator away. Any state that bans conceal carry is complicit in the murder of innocent people who can't protect themselves.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2012
You trust the police to protect you?

Of course. That's what they're there for. And they're doing a pretty good job of it.

These guys do a very tough, underpaid and thankless jobs. I've stood opposite them on protest rallys (e.g. when George Bush junior came for a visit and it cost the german taxpayer 1 billion euros to have him here for one day) and it was clear that they didn't want to be there.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2012
A Turk could have lived in Germany all is life, his so could his parents. They may only speak German, but they are not accepted as German.
A recent immigrant from Turkey into the US who just received his citizenship and can barely speak English is considered an American.

You know: in germany the turk can keep his nationality AND have german nationality (and I think a similar modus operandi is possible in the US)

Whether anyone feels at home and is accepted is up to the individual. E.g. three of the families in the house my appartment is in are turkish. We have a great relationship. Some of them speak only very broken german (but, on the other hand, that's way better than me - because I speak no turkish at all). So I really don't see your point. Whether you're welcomed is not determined by your nationality (well, in the US maybe if you're mexican, black, or of arab descent). But usually it's by just by how you conduct yourself.
PussyCat_Eyes
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
In many states in the U.S., especially California, New York and some others, the judges often sympathize with the criminal because he may be regarded as coming from a "disadvantaged" background which was his motivation to commit the crime. Many times, the financial conditions of the victim(s) are taken into consideration as motivating the criminal to steal the victim's wealth because the victim was so much more privileged and that drove the criminal to steal his wealth and kill him. Each case is usually different from others, but the basis for which the crime was committed are most often the same. A need to kill, steal, hurt, a psychological need to establish superiority or dominance over others, etc.
Background checks for legal gun owners most often weed out any troublesome psychological behavior. Those who slip through the cracks in the system are often found out before they hurt themselves or others. But conceal carry outweighs any disadvantages and saves lives.
Maat
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2012
I suppose over there it is only important to people AFTER they have been victimized.


Survivorship Bias
Argiod
3.1 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2012
Interesting: the article seems to suggest that, because it is a Constitutional right to bear arms, that somehow this is construed to mean that Google is legally required to offer firearms on their site, despite their own sensibilities... I didn't know our government could force a business to offer items that are against the moral fiber of the business owner.
PussyCat_Eyes
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2012
Not at all...Google has to please its investors and board of directors. If they lean left against the 2nd Amendment, then that's how it goes. It has nothing to do with governmental coercion, although Google MAY have been threatened with an IRS audit...who knows?
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
Google has to please its investors and board of directors.

Brin and Page don't own the majority of the stocks, but all their stocks is "A" stock (i.e. they count as 10 votes). Then there's the "B" stocks owned by major stockholders (which get 1 vote)... and "C" stocks which get no votes at all.

So while Page and Brin don't own the majority of the stocks they still have the control. 'Pleasing the investors' is therefore not entirely necessary on their part when making such decisions.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2012
Whether anyone feels at home and is accepted is up to the individual

Do Germans consider a Turks who are citizens of Germany to be Germans?
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
Do Germans consider a Turks who are citizens of Germany to be Germans?

Of course. What else would he be?

But you have to understand that nationality means very little to the overwhelming part of the population in germany. Most feel more european than german. The ones you hear from in the news are the tiny majority that want to cling to the past (and ultra-conservative values). These are the few who would actively pronounce to be 'proud of being german'

(In the US 'pride' in nationality is a very common thing. This may help you understand why we equate the common american mindset - even among 'liberals' and 'democrats' in the US - with that of our most radical rightwing minority)
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2012
These are the few who would actively pronounce to be 'proud of being german'

What is the difference between German and European? Both are socialists. Both support govt control over the individual.
US 'pride' in nationality is a very common thing.

That is because the pride is in an idea stated very simply in the Declaration of Independence. The idea of the inherent right of the individual to life, liberty and opportunity. NOT a right to use the power of the state to take those rights from others.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
German and European? Both are socialists.

The world is more than black and white. European countries (all of them) have a mix between capitalist and socialist policies (capitalist where it pertains to businesses - socialist where businesses would screw over the people otherwise)

The idea of the inherent right of the individual to life, liberty and opportunity

And the bizarre thing is that you have the none of these (or excel in the opposite direction where you do).

- You have a death penalty
- You have the highest percentage of people in prison anywhere on the planet
- You have one of the lowest social mobilities in developed countries (beaten only, barely, by the UK)
- You have a pervasive culture of fear, violence, religious intolerance, and homophobia.
- You wage constant wars.

It really baffles the ROW (rest of the world) how anyone could be 'proud' of that.

(OK, so you're internal PR/propaganda apparat is pretty good, I'll give you that
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2012
a mix between capitalist and socialist policies

How much evil is acceptable?
The state either protects property or takes it with force.
The state that takes property is called socialist. A little or a lot, it does not matter. The state uses force to take private property. Whether the motive is altruistic or not, does not matter. Govt force is used to take property.
How the socialist govt is decided does not matter. Whether a mob elects the govt to plunder or if a tyrant seizes power and plunders, the result is still plunder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (38) Jul 05, 2012
Any company should have the choice to offer what they want. There are so many places to buy a gun in America, don't worry, people will somehow find a way.
I am sure you know this is only because gunowners fought to maintain this ability. Depending on state (NJ) or jurisdiction (NYC) you may have to wait months to take ownership, if at all.
I dunno about you, but I wouldn't feel safe in a country where everyone on my block packs a piece.
This is ONLY because you have been taught to regard owning a gun as a 'packs a piece'. What other unfortunate catchphrases do you know?
armed to the gunwales
-Right.
Of course. That's what they're there for. And they're doing a pretty good job of it.
Average response time - 15 mins. Average time someone needs to break down your bedroom door after you call 911 - seconds. And be gone before the cops arrive.

You are naive. And deluded.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (33) Jul 05, 2012
Even the most mild mannered person can have a really bad day (and occasionally people do develop mental/psychological problems).
You bet. And the only way to protect yourself against the one standing in your living room with a butcher knife OR a gun, is with a gun.
(In the US 'pride' in nationality is a very common thing. This may help you understand why we equate the common american mindset - even among 'liberals' and 'democrats' in the US - with that of our most radical rightwing minority)
More propaganda. You watch too much Deutsche welle. The US, like europe, is absorbing large quantities of ex-nationals who have different perspectives.
It really baffles the ROW (rest of the world) how anyone could be 'proud' of that.
-And, really, who gives a shit about what the rest of the world thinks? From what you say it is pretty obvious you think what you are told to think. This is not news.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (36) Jul 05, 2012
- You have a death penalty
Yeah so? You say this as if there was something wrong with it.
- You have the highest percentage of people in prison anywhere on the planet We tend to keep people in prison longer. But the legal/penal system is BIG BUSINESS. It generates much Thruput. Supports many people.
- You have one of the lowest social mobilities in developed countries (beaten only, barely, by the UK)
I dont think so.
- You have a pervasive culture of fear, violence, religious intolerance, and homophobia.
More propaganda that you have absorbed. Obviously.
- You wage constant wars.
War is still Inevitable in todays world. If we (and our allies, including all of europe) werent doing this then someone else would have to. BLAME THE CAUSE, not the Remedy.

We are all fighting to eradicate the Cause; that being, the obsolete religionist cultures which have survived because they were better at outgrowing and overrunning everybody else.

We are the Good Guys.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (34) Jul 05, 2012
- You wage constant wars.
-And just to remind you, until only a few generations ago it was you guys who were locked in an unending Cycle of overgrowth and war.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (36) Jul 05, 2012
'But the cops they are our friends' -says the compliant euro
http://usnews.msn...deo?lite
PussyCat_Eyes
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
antialias said
"- You have a death penalty"
Victims of crime often pay the ultimate death penalty.

"- You have the highest percentage of people in prison anywhere on the planet"
A just response to a high percentage of criminality. Many are repeat offenders.

"- You have one of the lowest social mobilities in developed countries (beaten only, barely, by the UK)"
Lowest social mobilities? Can you explain that further?

"- You have a pervasive culture of fear, violence, religious intolerance, and homophobia."
I don't have to fear since I'm well armed. I believe in non-violence unless violence is justified and required. I'm very tolerant of religions except for any that involves killing of humans or animals. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. I just don't want to have to look at it in public places.

"- You wage constant wars."
Only as a last resort.
xen_uno
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
Otto - "But the cops they are our friends' -says the compliant euro"

Those cops need a beatin bad ... real bad. Criminals with a badge.

Got to love it when a german comments on the ill's of american society. Germany and Europe in general have NEVER had the ethnic and racial diversity that the US has had for decades. I don't need to tell you that with multi-culturalism, value systems of each group is different, and that subtle racism (and religious intolerance) exists in every society on earth. It as instinctive as survival, and cannot be eradicated until everyone superficially looks the same.

Google search still works well .. the shopping section sucks anyways, so no loss there. I am pro gun all the way. I don't care about statistics, they can be slanted any way you want to achieve some agenda. If someone violates my space and tries to take what isn't theirs, they will die that day. If everyone thought that way (especially soft headed liberals), we'd have a far safer society.
la7dfa
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Having guns in every home, only creates more problems.
The murder rate i USA is 3-4 times what we have in Europe.

I guess "soft headed liberals" are the really smart guys after all...
PussyCat_Eyes
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2012
http://www.thebla...yet-yet/

Another good reason to preserve the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution,

"Having guns in every home, only creates more problems."
Yes, problems for the criminals.
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2012
Maybe by just trying to foster a society that doesn't fear each other would such a move not be needed. But currently (in the US) making more guns available to everybody is certainly not solving anything.
I can't go there. Guns solve many problems very quickly in the hands of a skilled shooter. They are most effective used on the firing range. The greatest fear criminals have is an armed person who can use their weapon effectively. As a physics person you should infer that an equal and opposite reaction to violence is required to maintain equilibrium. Hardly a huge conceptual leap from basic kinematics.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2012
I guess "soft headed liberals" are the really smart guys after all...
But the degree of street crime is off the charts.
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (32) Jul 08, 2012
Street crime is lower than UK and others when considered per capita.
http://factsinsta...-capita/
http://www.nation...-victims
http://www.nation...r-capita
dtxx
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
This is just one of the evil things the "don't be evil" company does. I can't stand their egregious track record of privacy invasions either. If I weren't forced to support Google Apps I wouldn't have anything to do with this company.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
Guns solve many problems very quickly in the hands of a skilled shooter.

The problem of crime, fear, mental disability, psychosis, depression and whatnot is not one of being skilled or unskilled at operating guns.
Guns do not deter anything and they do not prevent anything - as they can be used by the aforementioned group just as well as by an honest citizen. All they do is up the ante

You may get a perp killed, but on the downside a honest citizen might get killed. Given that we value the life of a honest citizen more than that of a perp that is a VERY bad deal. Bringing guns into the equation just makes the overall outcome worse for society.
PussyCat_Eyes
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
"If someone violates my space and tries to take what isn't theirs, they will die that day. If everyone thought that way (especially soft headed liberals), we'd have a far safer society." - Xen_uno

I'm assuming that you mean if someone isn't invited into your home and property and finds a way to forcibly enter it to possibly murder you and/or your family, then you do have the right according to "Castle Doctrine" to end his life so that he cannot end yours. There are specific guidelines to memorize in the Doctrine that make any action(s) you take legal and lawful. But you must make sure that all the clearly specified areas of the Doctrine are met before you fire your weapon at the perpetrator so that you don't harm an innocent person. Generally, an innocent person is fairly easy to recognize, but it's imperative to know with absolute certainty that the perp is attempting to murder you or members of your family. Killing a burglar carrying away your TV isn't grounds for killing him.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
A Castle Doctrine (aka Castle Law or Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.
Typically, deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".
It's best to remember all aspects of the Doctrine and apply them to the situation since a full investigation will be necessary to ensure that the Doctrine was fully complied with, under the circumstances of the occurrence.
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle".
alfie_null
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2012
An observation: in the comments posted here, gun freedom proponents tend to cite single (usually visceral) data points in defense of their views. It shouldn't be necessary (in this forum) to point out these aren't useful information.
weber_kabbanet
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Thanks for the information and success. kabbanet.ro sitedesignnet.ro
alfie_null
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
One additional thought:
I note an antisocial attitude of many of the gun proponents who have commented here.

Rather than investing in something that will benefit society (figuring out why we have crime, fixing law enforcement), they express a desire to go at it on their own.

I see people who, while benefiting from living in a social organization, are not willing to contribute. Given enough people with this attitude, society stops working. We are social creatures. We couldn't live as we do without social organization.

Consider widespread reliance on personal firearms (and consequent reduction in the ability of the government to enforce the law). In the absence of government (law enforcement in this context), power will aggregate around something less useful to society as a whole (factions, criminal organizations, etc.) It makes more sense to invest in fixing whatever problems are perceived with government and law enforcement.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 08, 2012
Rather than investing in something that will benefit society (figuring out why we have crime, fixing law enforcement),

What more do you need to know?
Most 'progressives'/socialists don't like the answers which include promoting individual morality and discipline.
something less useful to society as a whole (factions, criminal organizations, etc.)

You forgot unions and socialist political parties.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2012
Gun control/banners like to establish gun free zones. Of course this just creates a place where a criminal is free to attack.
The Muslim US Army major was able to murder so many on an Army base because trained US military are not allowed to carry firearms on base.
The Congressman shot in Tucson was quickly subdued, but there was an armed private citizen in a nearby store who was prepared to step in an help.
And there are hundreds of accounts of how armed citizens defended their lives and stopped an attack just by being armed.
Socialists must attack the armed citizen because the socialist doesn't care about the individual, only state power, and to condition the individual to be completely dependent upon the state. We saw well that worked in New Orleans after Katrina.
alq131
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Please also ban knives, baseball bats, axes, hatchets, rope, frying pans, household chemicals, cars, chainsaws, etc that can also be used as weapons. (the argument that guns are ONLY weapons is false, so why not ban other dual use items) The argument that they remove themselves from liability is also false since you can sue for problems arising from these other products.

It's interesting how many corporate web blockers also ban stores like walmart, fleet-farm, etc because the company has "a no weapons policy and the site chosen violates company policy". In most cases they don't mean "no weapons" they mean "no guns".
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2012
Please also ban knives, baseball bats, axes, hatchets, rope, frying pans, household chemicals, cars, chainsaws, etc that can also be used as weapons. (the argument that guns are ONLY weapons is false, so why not ban other dual use items) The argument that they remove themselves from liability is also false since you can sue for problems arising from these other products.

It's interesting how many corporate web blockers also ban stores like walmart, fleet-farm, etc because the company has "a no weapons policy and the site chosen violates company policy". In most cases they don't mean "no weapons" they mean "no guns".

One mass murderer used a match. Were matches banned?
Gun bans are designed to protect the state, not the citizens.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (32) Jul 08, 2012
But you must make sure that all the clearly specified areas of the Doctrine are met before you fire your weapon at the perpetrator so that you don't harm an innocent person.
Yes this is why I keep a pencil and a checklist next to my firearm for just such occasions you carking dimwit. 'before I shoot you do you have time for a few questions please?' YOURE NOT REAL. STFU
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (33) Jul 08, 2012
Guns do not deter anything and they do not prevent anything
You are repeating lies you have accepted by rote. Guns deter, interrupt, and prevent crimes and abuse EVERY DAY. The news, though biased, is still full of examples.

And logic is all you need to tell you that this is so. The news IS full of evidence that there are people who will hurt you, take what you have, and enjoy doing it. The ONLY way to protect yourself and your family from people like this, is with a gun. There IS no reliable alternative.

A gun is a tool, no more and no less, despite what Hollywood and you gun nuts (fear mongers) might want us to believe; and unfortunately an essential one in todays world. You can only fail to recognize this if you choose to ignore all the unarmed victims of crime, and the advice of your own reason.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (32) Jul 08, 2012
Here is a site where you can read many examples of how guns DO protect people every day.
http://nraila.org...zen.aspx

-Go ahead, wince at the eagle and the acronym, but then read the facts. Your own media is full of such facts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (32) Jul 08, 2012
Here are some very good reasons why you may choose to own a gun in the Chicago area
http://www.chicag...ogallery
http://www.suntim...ent.html
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
"There are specific guidelines to memorize in the Doctrine that make any action(s) you take legal and lawful. But you must make sure that all the clearly specified areas of the Doctrine are met before you fire your weapon at the perpetrator so that you don't harm an innocent person." - PussyCat_Eyes

The key word in this paragraph is "MEMORIZE". This means that it is essential to commit the Law and Guidelines of Castle Doctrine to memory. IF the Doctrine is not followed TO THE LETTER, the "defender" could be held liable for the murder of the perp and will find himself in jail, most likely, and the inmates in penitentiary are NOT proponents of Castle Doctrine.

I am a member of the National Rifle Association. My parents, my brothers and my boyfriend are all members, as well. There have been many articles in magazines that are regularly published by the NRA regarding "Castle Doctrine". Not all states have this Law, and any deviation from its guidelines gives more ammo to its opponents.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
But you must make sure that all the clearly specified areas of the Doctrine are met before you fire your weapon at the perpetrator so that you don't harm an innocent person.
Yes this is why I keep a pencil and a checklist next to my firearm for just such occasions you carking dimwit. 'before I shoot you do you have time for a few questions please?' YOURE NOT REAL. STFU
- TheGhostofOtto1923

THIS comment above is a very good example for opponents of Castle Doctrine, Concealed Carry and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to pass a law to render innocent law-abiding citizens who own guns as "outlaws" due to obvious psychological aberrations as is evidenced by the above comment.
With that kind of aberrant rhetoric in their hands, they could push harder for further psychological evaluations of all present and future gun owners and then determine falsely that there are too many psychotics owning guns, then move to repeal the Second Amendment.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
Consider widespread reliance on personal firearms (and consequent reduction in the ability of the government to enforce the law). In the absence of government (law enforcement in this context), power will aggregate around something less useful to society as a whole (factions, criminal organizations, etc.) It makes more sense to invest in fixing whatever problems are perceived with government and law enforcement.
- Alfie_null

I don't know in which country you live, Alfie. but the U.S. is undergoing hard economic times. Firefighters and Police Departments are laying off personnel from the bottom on upward. Retired cops preferred to retire than be given a pink slip and new recruits may also have to go. We are under siege with not enough cops to protect the citizenry in many cities and even small towns have to cut costs.
It may be easy for you to condemn gun ownership, but it serves a purpose - that of protection from criminals in the absence of enough law enforcers.
xen_uno
2 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
Otto - "Here is a site where you can read many examples of how guns DO protect people every day."

Ya interesting cases in the link. I'm just sorry that in most of the cases, the perpetrators survived. Some had criminal records as long as your arm, and they're sure to get longer.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
Please also ban knives, baseball bats, axes, hatchets, rope, frying pans, household chemicals, cars, chainsaws, etc that can also be used as weapons. (the argument that guns are ONLY weapons is false, so why not ban other dual use items) The argument that they remove themselves from liability is also false since you can sue for problems arising from these other products.

It's interesting how many corporate web blockers also ban stores like walmart, fleet-farm, etc because the company has "a no weapons policy and the site chosen violates company policy". In most cases they don't mean "no weapons" they mean "no guns".

One mass murderer used a match. Were matches banned?
Gun bans are designed to protect the state, not the citizens.
- Rygge

Bad governments FEAR the law-abiding armed citizenry who know their Lawful Rights and can't be pushed around or intimidated. Next thing you know, they'll be calling us "anarchists" LOL
Yessiree - I guess I'm an American anarchist.
Estevan57
2.6 / 5 (34) Jul 08, 2012
Actually FYI, crime rates in the US have declined steadily since 1990.
http://www.census...tes.html
http://crimeiname...-states/
This article is old news. The use of the words "gun ban" and "has banned guns" is deliberately inflammatory for a common business decision that every online retailer has to make.
Methinks we have been trolled by Physorg to provide face time for the ads, which are by the way, sponsered by Google.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2012
"Actually FYI, crime rates in the US have declined steadily since 1990." due in large part to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and ConcealedCarry. "Gun ban" is still alive and well in NYC, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles and many other American cities where crime is still rampant in varying degrees. Months can go by without any murders and break-ins, then suddenly it can become like a war zone. My oldest brother is the town Sheriff here, and he runs a tight ship, so to speak. We have no crime here except for a shoplifting incident at a Walmart. But, of course, this isn't Philadelphia or Columbus or any other high crime city.

"Ho hum, look a negro is pointing a gun at me after he got out of school. I wonder what the weather will be like tomorrow."
http://skepticalb...-action/
@Estevan57
Perhaps this will somehow make up for the hated WhiteNationalism link.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
Google is responsible to its advertisers to bring in the customers. Once potential customers find out that Walmart is being discriminated against, a lot of people will forego the Google Shopping, since Walmart sells many other things besides guns...and at lower prices.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (30) Jul 08, 2012
THIS comment above is a very good example for opponents of Castle Doctrine, Concealed Carry and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to pass a law to render innocent law-abiding citizens who own guns as "outlaws" due to obvious psychological aberrations as is evidenced by the above comment.
Pretending to be a nurse is ok I suppose unless you do so in a medical setting, in which case it is a felony. And felons cannot own guns.

But as the flooding imbecile p/r/r/p is apparently a compulsive liar I suppose we can consider most anything they say a fantasy.
http://medicalxpr...cer.html

-Hey as I recall pirouette was also a widow -?

You will note that people who are trying to appear as someone else are the ONLY ones who post a lot of personal info. An obvious mistake.
Estevan57
2.8 / 5 (36) Jul 08, 2012
EW PCat,that is a nasty one. Those two sites should have a cage fight. I don't like race hate crap in any form.

There are many causes for the decline in crime during that period. I voted for some of them. Some of them just occur as a reaction to the crime itself, and some are independent of the crime but affect it.
Economy, criminal law, gun laws, political posturing, crack popularity declining, more money for education, economy, rehabilitation, etc.

With the added protection provided by the firearm availability is the dark side of accidental death. Particularly kids.
I have always believed firearms should be legal, but regulated more strictly than they already are. It is very easy to get a gun without a background check onlinein particular.
IMHO Google is wise to not sell weapons online, the bad press and liability arising from one murder witha "Google Gun" would be more than the sales of these items. Google Gun mmmmm catchy.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
@Estevan57....LOL I KNEW you'd like it. Both sites are extremely racist...only in opposite corners. Quite frankly, I and my brothers would never buy a weapon online. My late husband and I would go to most of the gun shows in our and surrounding counties. We could try them out before buying. It's important to try them first. We would go to the firing range and use up a lot of clips just to know that the weapons were perfect.
Google can sell whatever they please...or not. I don't use their service and never will.
Kids are what a gun safe is for...we didn't have any kids while he was alive, so we didn't really need a safe, but I have nephews who come to visit, so we bought a gun safe anyway.
xen_uno
3 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
Pussy - " Bad governments FEAR the law-abiding armed citizenry who know their Lawful Rights and can't be pushed around or intimidated. Next thing you know, they'll be calling us "anarchists" "

Well the more outspoken ones are already on the watch list of possible domestic terrorists. Now, instead of McCarthyism and Communists, we have Homeland Security and Terrorism. No one politically has the balls to reel in the scare tactics and bill of rights trampling brought on by the DHS and the Patriot Act.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2012
would never buy a weapon online


A firearm cannot be purchased on-line.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (38) Jul 08, 2012
People that will sell guns can be found online.
Some people need to be watched.
20 gun attempts on presidents so far.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (38) Jul 08, 2012
"Kids are what a gun safe is for... but I have nephews who come to visit, so we bought a gun safe anyway. Smart.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (36) Jul 08, 2012
http://www.budsgu...ndex.php
Bing gives 208,000,000 results for online gun shops.
Send me a PM with your e-mail and i'll sell you one.
Just kidding, but it's just that easy.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (16) Jul 08, 2012
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php
Bing gives 208,000,000 results for online gun shops.
Send me a PM with your e-mail and i'll sell you one.
Just kidding, but just that easy.

Read the fine print.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
Actually, I have all the guns I could ever need, but there's always room for one more. My boyfriend insists that I go with him to gun shows because he believes I know a lot about guns. I gave him some hints and he bought some very nice Barettas and Glocks. We took them out to the firing range and he was very satisfied with them.
It's important to keep all the paperwork in case something goes wrong at the firing range. It's also a good idea to take the weapons to a certified gun shop for evaluation. My Dad taught me how to shoot, then my brother took over when I was older. Being the only girl in the family, I was a spoiled brat...but it was only natural for me to learn how to aim and shoot, being surrounded by males. My Mom could shoot like Annie Oakley and she was my best role model. There is a Gun Club at our high school and I have volunteered a few times to teach the kids safe handling of guns.
Estevan57
2.7 / 5 (37) Jul 08, 2012
RYG,
So read the fine print and buy the gun online. There are certainly enough stores and brokers to sell you one. Or send me a pm... NOT.
Many online sale are person to person, not over the counter. Online includes illegal means as well as legal.

The point is that they CAN be purchased online. The bulletin boards and chat rooms of gun clubs are full of people buying, selling, and trading guns. Look it up yourself next time.
Look at more than one example too.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
OK...I checked out the gun shop site and it looks good...but it's in Kentucky. You might prefer a gun shop or gun show much closer to you.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2012
Also, make sure that the sight is lined up perfectly on the gun.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2012
One other thing that's very important when buying guns...the serial number. If there is any indication whatsoever that the S# has been filed or in any way damaged, don't buy the gun. It may have been involved in a hold up or another type of crime. You'd only be buying trouble.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (33) Jul 09, 2012
There is a Gun Club at our high school and I have volunteered a few times to teach the kids safe handling of guns.
Sure you did. Any high school would have a police officer do this. You know like your 'brother' the 'sheriff'? More evidence that pussy is just one more transparent construct of a very demented individual.
electedface
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2012
while part of the online gun purchasing process is to run a background check on the buyer, not all dealers actually do so. Senate Bill 436 has been introduced to require background checks for ALL gun sales, including those sold online by private sellers.

It's not like they are trying to prohibit the sale of guns, their trying to ensure the sales of guns are not going to be given to someone who isn't responsible enough to own or operate one.

read more on electedface.com
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012
Background checks are essential for all law-abiding gun owners. We don't have a problem with that. We sure don't want any nutcases going around with guns who don't want to follow the rules and aren't too concerned about harming innocent people.
The high school students that I have coached on the safe handling of guns are practicing with rifles and shotguns for hunting and target practice. They meet after school at the firing range and they also have to pass written tests. They are not allowed to use sidearms until they reach a certain age and then they have to go through the background checks and filling out forms, etc. just like the adults. They're all great kids and very conscientious of safety procedures so that they don't kill anyone. My boyfriend and I have taken a few of them out on hunting trips. One brought down a 13 point buck and field dressed it before we loaded the buck onto the 4 x 4. He was one proud kid.
:)
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2012
require background checks for ALL gun sales,

Except for those authorized by ATF to be smuggled into Mexico.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2012
http://www.rememb...rry.html

I thought it most important to know who was this man, Brian Terry, who gave the ultimate sacrifice anyone could give for their country. The link above describes his life as a young lad with his family and friends in the state of Michigan, and later on.
It seems that oftentimes, the best, the brightest and the most dedicated are taken from us. I wish I had known him. My life would have been so much richer for it.

http://www.thegat...hootout/

http://en.wikiped..._scandal

http://www.washin...n-terry/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (33) Jul 11, 2012
The high school students that I have coached on the safe handling of guns are practicing with rifles and shotguns for hunting and target practice. They meet after school at the firing range and they also have to pass written tests. They are not allowed to use sidearms until they reach a certain age and then they have to go through the background checks and filling out forms, etc. just like the adults. They're all great kids and very conscientious of safety procedures so that they don't kill anyone. My boyfriend and I have taken a few of them out on hunting trips. One brought down a 13 point buck and field dressed it before we loaded the buck onto the 4 x 4. He was one proud kid.
You will note that people who are pretending to be who they are not will tend to add excessive detail to their specious narrative (lies) in the mistaken perception that this will make it more believable. Obviously this is not the case. Any cop will tell you this.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
I guess if I ever decide to purchase ammunition or a firearm online I'll use a different search engine. It seems much ado about nothing, unless you feel like it's necessary for Google to agree with you on this issue for some reason...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (33) Jul 11, 2012
I thought it most important to know who was this man, Brian Terry, who gave the ultimate sacrifice anyone could give for their country. The link above describes his life as a young lad with his family and friends in the state of Michigan, and later on.
-Nor will disgusting phony emotionalism.
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
I guess if I ever decide to purchase ammunition or a firearm online I'll use a different search engine. It seems much ado about nothing, unless you feel like it's necessary for Google to agree with you on this issue for some reason...
- Modernmystic

MM...your local Walmart and some sporting goods stores online are good sources for ammo. But for a very good quality sidearm, I would suggest going directly to each manufacturer's URL to see what models they're selling. Sometimes, if they have a discontinued model, they might sell it a bit cheaper than newer models.
My two favorite sites are the following:

www.glock.com
www.berettausa.com

You might also want to pick up a copy of Guns and Ammo magazine for lots of information on different brands, features, calibers, etc.
Just make sure it fits comfortably in your hand and your finger can easily reach the trigger with enough room in front of the trigger. Each person's hand and length of trigger finger is different.
:)
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
"Charges unlikely against man who shot robbers"
http://www.gaines...net-Cafe
Go gramps go!
PussyCat_Eyes
3 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2012
@rygge
I enjoyed that story...it was great. The customers in that internet cafe were very lucky that Mr. Williams was there to defend them. From what I know of Ocala, it's known for its thoroughbred horse ranches and a few celebrities live there...like John Travolta and Kelly Preston. He owns several planes that he parks on his property, which is near the regional airport. I can't imagine him not having a concealed-carry permit, unless it's against his religion.