Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent Journal Review)   Guns don't kill people. People who Google guns kill people   ( divider line
    More: Asinine, Google, AdWords, gun owners, Google Product Search  
•       •       •

2202 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jul 2012 at 5:20 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-11 01:53:56 AM  
2 votes:
So if a business does not allow the sale of guns on it's premises (real or virtual) that's "banning constitutionally protected firearms"?

So if my grocery store doesn't sell me a gun....

What the hell?
2012-07-11 03:10:04 PM  
1 vote:
Subby, you dumb bastard. It's not Googlers, it's this guy:
2012-07-11 12:21:51 PM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

If you had read the article in question, nowhere does it mention government coming in and regulating businesses. It even explicitly denounces that:

Google can do whatever they please, so long as it is legal, seeing as the Constitution protects them in the very same way it protects our right to bear arms.

If anything, it's an indirect call for a boycott of Google, using the power of the pocketbook to make a company change its ways, not a legislative hammer.

Try again.

Legislative Hammer is the name of my Judas Priest cover band.
2012-07-11 11:20:55 AM  
1 vote:
Google deletes speech it doesn't like even when its not hate speech...this is just par for the course.

Google is a corporation....why do people give some corporations a pass....they are all evil.
2012-07-11 10:27:28 AM  
1 vote:
This is what Google bans for Google Shopping...

•Guns, ammunition and knives
•Tobacco and cigarettes
•Traffic devices (Learn more)
•Products related to casino and gambling
•Products or digital goods that require additional software installation in order to be purchased.
•Products bundled with service plans. (Note: The only products that are allowed to be submitted with a service plan are mobile devices.)

What is funny, I can find books on how to smuggle cocaine. (searched for cocaine)

I can find an apron made of fabric featuring the winston cigarette logo. (searched for winston cigarettes)

But my search is empty if I look for remington, colt, sig sauer, rifle scopes, holster. In fact the category "Weapon Sights and Scopes" is entirely empty. According to their new policy, only firearm parts are not to be sold. Accessories are acceptable in the US. Not sure why nothing is popping up. I can completely understand not wanting to deal with actual hardware. You can't buy receivers and what not on Amazon either (buy you can buy hand guards and the like).

This all looks to be part of the change of Google Shopping to an Amazon like storefront.

In the end, I don't really care because Google shopping still sucks. Adwords and search results don't seem to be impacted, so you'll still be able to find where to buy a new lower receiver. In fact, "AR-15 lower receiver" still had nearly one million hits on a plain google search.
2012-07-11 10:12:48 AM  
1 vote:

SpectroBoy: Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.

That's because there have been instances where gun bans have been put into effect (see: DC handgun ban, Chicago handgun ban, national Assault Weapons Ban, various state versions of the AWB that didn't sunset like the AWB).

As for G. Ray Arnett, he doesn't even have credibility with the anti-gunners:

When G. Ray Arnett was ousted from the NRA leadership in May 1986, among the reasons cited were: "Mr. Arnett has made personnel decisions on the basis of his personal interest rather than the interests of the Association." These charges stemmed from Arnett's relationship with NRA staffer Tracey Attlee. Attlee was a frequent Arnett travel and shooting companion. In 1986 Arnett promoted Attlee from the public education division to international shooting with an unauthorized salary increase of more than $13,000. This, coupled with Arnett's dismissal of the remaining public education staff, resulted in the NRA board's removal of both Arnett and Attlee. -VPC May 1995 press release.

As for his point, well, that's true of all organizations. While Arnett might be speaking from a position of sour grapes (after all, the NRA fired him and his lover because of his misconduct), it is true that organizations, like living organisms, don't like to die.

If you think about it, though, the NRA's reaction to proposed gun legislation is actually pretty rational. The NRA wasn't all that radical until the 'leadership coup' in 1977. It wasn't actually a coup, it was a vote by the membership to be more proactive in protecting what was much later vindicated by the Supreme Court as their individual right to own guns, and to remove the leadership that they felt wasn't doing enough to protect that right. The "old" NRA was accused of just caring about the rights of white guys to target shoot and deer hunt, and to a certain degree that's a fair criticism.

The memory of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was still fresh, and they still had to put up with some of the worse parts of it (this is before FOPA '86). Washington DC had just passed a complete ban on handguns (those already registered were 'grandfathered'). The only pro-gun viewpoint you'd see on TV would be from the likes of Archie Bunker. The idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right was laughed at by almost all constitutional scholars, and judges found intellectually dishonest ways of denying that it was an individual right. This was the heyday of organizations like the National Council to Control Handguns (later Handgun Control, Inc., and now the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"). There were actual calls for national bans on handguns, and they weren't necessarily pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

In other words, the NRA became radicalized because it *HAD* to, or it would have been hammered into irrelevance eventually, ending up like the shooting organizations in the United Kingdom.

Not that things immediately improved because of their stance: Yeah, we did get the FOPA in '86, but because of an illegal voice vote overseen by Charlie Rangel, machine gunners got thrown under the bus. Cop-killer bullet bans, which would have banned deer rifle ammunition had not the NRA stepped in and righted that one*. Brady law which enforced a national waiting period on handguns, AWB, etc. It took a *LONG* time and a lot of effort to just stop the progress of anti-gun legislation, and to start rolling it back. Then we had incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco, where it was perceived (rightly or wrongly) that the federal government had overstepped it's bounds to persecute gun owners, and ended up killing innocents in the process.

It was, however, an external event that tipped the balance: 9/11.

Rational or not, a large number of people felt they needed to be able to protect themselves, and they also saw that the worst terrorist attack on US soil, one that resulted in more deaths than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, was perpetrated by 19 guys carrying box cutters. It just seemed stupid to be arguing about banning guns at that point.

Quietly, behind the scenes, the legal scholarship about the Second Amendment had changed: Whereas in the 1970's it was a radical idea among constitutional law scholars that the Second Amendment might protect an individual right, enough research had been done so that by Y2K, the idea that it protected an individual right was being termed the "Standard Model". The judiciary had yet to catch up, but by the early to mid 2000's, we started seeing court cases that stated the Second Amendment protected some sort of individual right.

Then, in 2008, we got Heller which recognized it as an individual right federally, shortly followed by McDonald which incorporated that right against the states.

If you look at the NRA with just an eye for the last few years, you very might well wonder why they are seemingly paranoid about every last little perceived incursion against gun rights. But when you consider the NRA in the light of the last 40+ years, you will understand that paranoia has been come by honestly: There really *WERE* people out to get them, and to a lesser extent there still are, but the breaks have been mostly going their way for the last decade or so.

*All deer rifles can penetrate the most common "bullet proof vests" worn by the police, as those vests are designed to stop common pistol bullets which have much less energy than a deer rifle.
2012-07-11 09:32:42 AM  
1 vote:

SpectroBoy: Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.

The NRA's problem is that they won. DC v Heller is to gun rights advocates what Roe v Wade is to Pro-Choice advocates. They're still going to stick around, like NARL does for instance, but the bottom line is that no one is going to be able to ban either guns or abortion any time soon.
2012-07-11 09:20:45 AM  
1 vote:

Sid_6.7: For a bunch of manly men, gun owners seem to have some of the whiniest little b*tches representing them.

If you're so rugged and independent, why not create your own online marketplace, guys?

They did back when ebay kicked them off a decade ago, it does pretty brisk business. Still it's not nearly as well trafficed as Google.
2012-07-11 08:42:24 AM  
1 vote:


2012-07-11 08:17:07 AM  
1 vote:

tomWright: Sim Tree: Um, it seems to me that each state has very convoluted and different laws concerning the transfer of gun ownership, especially accross state lines, and google does not want to have to deal with it.

As long as they were playing craigslist/ebay the feds were okay with it, but if they start taking credit card payments and putting up storefronts for people, it gets harder to argue that google is not a facilitator of the gun transfer, which puts certain legal requirements on google proper. It's far easier for google at that point to just say fark it, and ban gun sales through google wallet altogether.

It's not some grand illuminatiesque conspiracy, merely a lack of bother for google to have a full-time employee monitoring a product line that makes up 0.000002% of sales. You probably can't buy booze or cigs though google wallet, either, for similar reasons.

Bububut unregulated gun sales! Loopholes! Unlicensed dealers! People can just walk into any store and buy a 50 caliber AK47 tank killer cop killer sniper killer killer rifle! And it looks all scary and stuff!

Actually, what you say is probably a big part of it. The numbers and types of laws and regulations placed on dealers by the feds and the states, not to mention some local towns are ridiculous. One of the largest internet dealers for ammunition is in N.J., yet they will not ship in-state due to N.J. laws. I suspect at least some of it is politics, not that Google is making a stand, they just don't want all the crap the anti-gunners will dish out. The pro-guners will biatch and moan a bit, and then most likely accept it so long as Google explains it without politics, and doesn't start preaching anti-gun stuff.


The article I read about this last week intimated that the so-called ban was on anything firearms related, meaning you couldn't search for a holster or Colt tee shirt or anything, even once you went through all the proper channels to purchase the a actual firearm. That could be a bunch of bs, I didn't investigate it too deep-I doubt I've ever used Google to search for anything firearms related personally.
But, I'd also suspect the remark about Google wanting to create a "safe, family environment" is irritating to many gun owners who do not see an innocuous firearms related item like a holster or tee shirt being unsafe or anti-family. Maybe if it was a tee shirt of someone shooting at a family or something.
2012-07-11 06:22:28 AM  
1 vote:
No knives, you dangerous cooking freaks!

Good thing, too, because they have no venison, pheasant, rabbit, nor duck.
2012-07-11 05:50:33 AM  
1 vote:

Doctor Jan Itor: Don't make me Bing for guns! You dicks!

You know, maybe this is the biggest argument the article could've used.

People will have to use Bing, and it will be on YOUR hands, Google!

/Posted from my Zune
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.