Google also doesn't accept advertisement for pornography, religion, and a whole bunch of other things that might be controversial to certain people under certain conditions. I don't think it's necessarily singling out weapons, it's rather staying out of lines of business that might cause Google more harm than benefit (I assume there'd be a lot of money to be made from pornography ads).

That's kind of my point. Google seems to find firearms to be as offensive as gambling, prostitution, illegal drug sales, and criminal activity. I would suggest that that is a rather limited, urban hipster point of view, while their business is global.

> I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal.

Oh c'mon. Let's not get there. As someone in the gun community you should be more than aware that "ethics" are extremely subjective to one's opinion. There's no global truth for ethics. Respect other's opinion's and you won't be shocked if there's a good reason for this. The good reason is: some people don't actually agree with you.

Let me rephrase. I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this other than "google doesn't like guns."

As for ethics, I would go as far as to say that punching holes in paper from 100 yards away is about as benign an activity as one can imagine. But perhaps environmentalists would take isuse, so I'll retract that as well.

Aren't there legal hurdles that vary by country and state? Perhaps that's why it is better to have specialists sites (like Gunbroker).

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

I actually have no problem with Ebay's decision. The regulation in firearms sales is indeed complex and uncertain. At the time Ebay dropped gun sales, gun control was a hot topic politically. And online auctions were new enough so that one could imagine ebay getting caught in the middle of something bad.

But google is a mystery. Their TOS seem to indicate that they simply have a distaste for the shooting sports industry. But they send me tons of traffic. They could just drop shooting sites from the index. That gives me hope that there is some arcane legal reasoning behind their thoughts, but I suspect it's just a choice they've made, and that they cannot stomach the backlash they would incur by dropping huge legal categories from their results. I would love to hear from someone who has some knowledge on this, as it's been confusing me for years.

> 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?

Wouldn't bother me, I'd just go somewhere else. Or build my own damn site.

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.

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.

Feeding people isn't the design of a gun, lethally killing is the design.