UPDATE: Google has approved both “questionable” ads! Wahoo! Now all three ads are running across Google’s ad network. Let us know if you come across our ads in your travels!

Google doesn’t like “Guns” or “Weapons”, or, rather, Google doesn’t allow people to advertise “Guns” or “Weapons” on their ad network. That’s fine, and it’s one of the reasons we offer advertisements and sponsorships on our site.

One thing we don’t like is that Google blanket reject ads with the word “gun” or “weapon” in them. We’ve submitted two ads for their approval that have been denied, of course we’ve appealed them and they’re “Under Review”, but only time will tell if these ads (which more accurately describe our site) will be approved or not.

We’ll let you know if the two outstanding ads are approved or denied.

Today is a momentous day for us here at SittingDuckPolicy.com! For the first time ever, we’ve actually gone and spent some money on advertising!

We’re hoping this will help bring people who are looking for the following keywords to our site.

Let us know if you see our ads in your travels on the interwebs!

• self defense
• gun self defense
• self defense tips
• self defense tactics
• self defense weapons
• victim
• Self-defense
• self defense guns
• Disarmed
• gun control self defense
• Sitting Duck
• weapon self defense
• pistol self defense
• gun self defense statistics
• Gun Free Zone
• killing spree
• defenseless victim
• unarmed victim

Here are some examples of what our ads might look like when you’re using Google to search for related items.

In yet another example of how Gun Control Gun Rights Infringement policies don’t work. Ironically, instances of late have proven that they may have the opposite affect: places that are under rules, laws, or policies which imply “no guns allowed” disarm the law-abiding citizen and ensure that only those who disregard the law carry guns (or knives, or bombs, or axe, or whatever other tool).

Let’s play a little logic game

Let’s say for whatever reason you’re an angry person and want to carry out some violent act against another person.

• There is a law that says you cannot assault another person, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot kill another person, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot carry a gun into a school, but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot buy a gun without jumping through a whole bunch of hoops (to keep guns out the hands of people like you), but you disregard that.
• There is another law that says you cannot carry your gun into a particular state or city without getting a permit, but permits are hard to get, so you disregard that.

Why do we need all the additional laws? Shouldn’t the first law suffice? The one that says it’s illegal to assault another person? Why do we need all the others? Aren’t they covered under the first law?

Well sure, but criminals don’t obey that law, so we need to pass another law. The criminals will obey that law, surely! But they don’t, that’s why they’re criminals!

What about this scenario

You’re a bad guy in the middle of assaulting someone. You’ve got a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other.

Your target has a weapon as well. In order to realize your goal you must first disarm your target, otherwise you risk being injured yourself, and being unable to carry out your crime.

Disarming your target isn’t something you want to do, you might get hurt or killed in the process. But there you are, faced with a target that refuses to be a “victim” and now you have to deal with it.

It would be a much safer place for you to carry out your crimes of violence if your targets couldn’t effectively fight back. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had an accomplice? Someone that would disarm your target before you got there?

But who could this accomplice be? In cases like this it could be the school board or the school administration. Maybe it’s the city/county/state that have passed a law that disarms the law-abiding.

Wait a minute… don’t we have laws that make it a crime for helping a bad guy commit his crimes? Does that mean the school board or legislature should be charged as accomplices? Oh? Why not? They created the policy that disarmed the targets, turning them into defenseless targets. Sounds like they helped the bad guy out to me.

Here’s another thought experiment

Let’s say you’re a bad guy, and you want to hurt people, for whatever reason, it’s not important.

You were really mad at some school principal. Two schools sit right next to each other. You aren’t sure in which school the principal works, but you’re so angry/frustrated at principals in general, you don’t really care.

The two schools are identical, same layout, same number of students, same number of faculty.

The only difference: on one school there are signs on every door that say “No Weapons Allows” and has a picture of a gun with a “no” sign through it; the other school has a sign that says “all faculty members are armed”.

Which of the two schools do you go into to carry out your violence?

You’d pick the place where you were less likely to have someone stop you from carrying out your plans, right? So do criminals.

Someplace with a “no guns” policy tells would-be criminals that beyond that sign they’ll find a “defenseless victim zone”.

If we truly want to reduce massacres wouldn’t we want to train and arm as many law-abiding people as we can, then incentivize them to carry their self-defense weapons with them in as many places as possible?

Unless Gun Control Gun Rights Infringement Laws aren’t really concerned about reducing crime at all.

Related Articles:

• http://www.freep.com/article/20091110/NEWS07/91110026/1398/CNN–Gunman-puts-N.Y.-school-on-lockdown