I actually applaud Google’s anti-violence stance. Alternatively, it does seem they are deploying it in a rather hypocritical fashion in this case, if in fact the other gun ads on his site are google ads. That…i’m not so sure I’m down with.

Of course, to The Unc, anyone who doesn’t obsess about guns 24/7 is anti-gun. I mean, I own several guns, myself, but I think they’re about the most boring thing to talk about. I’d sooner start a power drill blog.
.

I mean, I own several guns, myself,

So much for that whole thing about crazy people not being allowed to have guns.

Ain’t America Great™?
.

(of course, it’d really be a pip if libertarian KatCo were to petition the government to take my guns, would’t it?)
.

His final reply to them makes no sense. He tells them they should put their “no gun sites” rule in their printed policy, but in his own quoted section from the policy it rather clearly states “Sales or promotion of weapons or ammunition” (my emphasis).

Whether or not that is a good policy is hardly something I have a strong opinion on, but his assertion that this was some willy-nilly decision by Google is wholly inaccurate.

“I actually applaud Google’s anti-violence stance.”

Me, I prefer SayUncle’s anti-violence stance. Namely, if a criminal tries to perpetrate violence on you or your family, take your gun and shoot him. Almost any other form of so-called anti-violence is just posturing.

Namely, if a criminal tries to perpetrate violence on you or your family, take your gun and shoot him.

That’s not anti-violence. That is violence.

Argue that it’s necessary if you want, but don’t claim that “tak[ing] your gun and shoot[ing]” somebody isn’t violence.

Fair enough, but in that situation violence is the only answer to violence. Decreasing net violence is not a worthwhile goal if it means that good people can’t defend themselves against violence from bad people.