"FROM YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS..."
You'll have that pleasure as soon as you meet another gun owner.
Hunting is not a sport but an excuse to kill living things.
A basic sub human instinct.
Is that glass bubble nice this time of year?
Obviously, you don't get out much.
MMMmm...
Lets see.....
Sarcasm is for for the misinformed and misguided ones only...
Yes,my glass bubble is always very nice.
I carry my glass bubble with me to 97 countries around the world
while traveling due to my jobs demands.
I live at home only 3 weeks out of the year besides doing
voluntary work for the UN and UNESCO in under developed
countries all over the planet...
You are right....I don't get out much...I work too much...
I'm going to buy a gun and go pigeons or possum
"hunning" some where in rural USA...
May be I should take vacation in your home town...???
LOLOL..
;-))
Tell that to the many that have lost dear ones due to gun violence...
Yes,smart people hate guns.( At least until one of YOU don't blow our heads off...)
Smart people hate violence and those who who use it as a weapon of terror. Smarter people prepare themselves to survive in a world where such people exist. The rabbit is not smarter than the wolf, nor is the wolf smarter than the rabbit. However, in a conflict between the two one can only flee while the other will relentlessly pursue unless stopped. However, when one of those two creatures is forced to defend itself at least by being a wolf you have a chance to survive that doesn't include hiding in a bush and hoping all the bad things go away.
Melissa: a very smart and justified comment!!
Congratulations.
I suppose Ted Bundy was perfectly in his right mind no reason to protect your family from him and a likes of his kind
don't get crazy and mentally ill mixed up
Amazing, to me, that Charlton Heston said that just 10 days after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 when families were still grieving from losing their loved ones. On top of that, held the held a 3-day gun rally right there in Denver when the mayor (Wellington Webb) at the time told him not to come and he did anyway.
Yeah, he was basically a self serving idiot!
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Title: Urban-Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results
Publication Date: October 2004
What does it say?
This study looked at the difference in rates of suicide and homicide in urban and rural areas of the US. It was found that rates of intentional firearm deaths were similar in both rural and urban areas. Rates of suicide in the most rural communities closely resembled that of homicide in the largest cities. This runs counter to the general assertion that deaths as a result of gun violence are a bigger problem in urban cities.
The study concludes that: “Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.” Policies and laws that focus solely on the prevention of homicide and the association of firearm homicide with urban crime obscures the importance of firearm suicide in isolated rural areas.
A 2010 study found a similar pattern among young people (“Variation in Pediatric and Adolescent Firearm Mortality Rates in Rural and Urban U.S. Counties,” Pediatrics, June 2010). To read a summary of that study, click here.
How can I use it?
Firearms are the leading means of suicide. Policies that target rural populations, educate households that guns raise the risk of suicide, and emphasize safe storage of weapons could help save lives, as could the requirement that all gun sales be subject to background checks.
Citation
Branas, Charles C. et al., “Urban-Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results,” American Journal of Public Health, 94(10) (2004): 1750-1755
[1416]
All of those seem to be based on the concept that removing guns will remove the deaths that they "cause". Do you have any studies that support that, or can we reasonably expect that killers or suicides that can't find a gun will use some other method to accomplish their goals?
MISTRIAL FOR EX-EDITOR OF GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE
The murder trial of the former editor of Guns & Ammo magazine was declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict on Wednesday. A new trial for the former editor, Richard Erick Venola of Golden Valley, is scheduled for Feb. 26. He is charged with second-degree murder in the May 2 shooting death of an unarmed neighbor, James Patrick O’Neill, 39. The prosecutor, Rod Albright, said during the trial that BOTH MEN WERE DRUNK AND ARGUED BEFORE THE SHOOTING. Ron Gilleo, a lawyer for Mr. Venola, said his client shot Mr. O’Neill in self-defense, believing that Mr. O’Neill was going to get a gun to shoot him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/ar … .html?_r=0
Self-defense. Seems fair to me.
Watch out for those coyotes, Ralph!!!
Man Stabbed To Death Trying To Break Up Family Fight
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/22/ … -and-wife/
Man Stabbed Neighbor to Death With Scissors in Harlem, Police Say
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2012121 … ors-harlem
Lansing man stabbed to death; female neighbor arrested
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index … ath_f.html
Man Stabs Neighbor Over Reckless Driving
http://www.i4u.com/2013/01/over-driving … r-reckless
Ventnor Woman Stabs Neighbor to Death in Argument: Source
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc … 60941.html
Those evil knives. Do you want them too?
People with such a propensity will use whatever means are available.
People kill people. Not the weapons they use.
Sassy, I've come to the conclusion Liberals are suffering the Disney Effect. They think if Disney makes a movie where pots, cups, clocks, and candle sticks can think and talk, so can those evil, rascally guns.
OMG, I just realized my son has three deadly weapons in the trunk of his car!!! He's got to stop playing baseball and softball and get those bats destroyed!!!
The amount of misinformation , childlike debate of statistics that couldn't be further from accurate , the just plain immaturity of anti- gun nuts is forcing me to rethink my origional high estimation of hubbers who address these forums . I think that I'll liston to the refridgerator run for awhile ! My god.... ant- gunners are daft!
Sorry, I just wanted to know if you really need guns that badly, because I have none, nor my neighbors. I just wanted know if you really need them.
Better to have a thing that will never be needed than to need a thing but NEVER be able to have it.
This kind of thing is always fun for Europeans. We get to go 'they don't really think that, do they?', and 'Ok, this one is a genuine psychotic' and 'I always thought their constitution stood for human values?'
Mostly, though, we are just grateful to live in safe countries.
Yes , I am a gun collector , I am a woodworker....... hence I love the feel of a fine piece of American or European walnut wood in my hands , I grew up in the woods with family and friends that enjoyed the heritage of hunting , fishing , camping, target practicing .......yes , I need to have my guns....... for the honor of my memories and my family heritage . For the protection of human rights in our free world and to protect myself and others from the tyranny of an opressive goverment [s] as my family an millions of others of my country have done ! And for you who live in europe ......or any other place , you should know this more than even I !...........:-}
I certainly sympathize with people who live under the threat of a tyrannical government.
When democracy has completely collapsed and the whole political system is a failure, everyone has the right to press for something better.
Good luck. America!!! I hope you can get democracy working over there.
"protect myself and others from the tyranny of an opressive goverment [s] as my family an millions of others of my country have done !"
Good luck with that. The oppression isn't the kind that is susceptible to resistance by gun collectors. It comes from Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, for profit health care facilities and insurance companies and from warrantless spying on American citizens by U.S. government agencies. Wake up!
Very likely it was a put up job and as you say the two would surely have been armed. Was Hillary responsible for the security? If so perhaps the worry and anxiety of all of it made her ill. Bleeding in the head can come from intense anxiety.
Why is it the people like many of you here , demonize the guns..........perhaps - just as you do your veteran soldiers , when you don't need them ? ........Yet when you do , you call out the gun owners and users to save you from your own niavite' , how ironic!
As a veteran - I concur with your statement ahorseback. Another part of our community that is often demeaned is amateur radio operators (Ham Radio). Neighbors and communities call their antenna's eyesores and dangerous.They blame them for interference on their radios and tvs. But when there is a hurricane or other natural disaster. They come looking to the ham operator for help.
Will apse , You sir couldn't be more wrong about that observation !.....:-}
What a joke. Self righteous Hollywood hypocrites acting like they care.
More of the same
http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/mashup-o … creen.html
What gets me is they actually think this commercial sends a more powerful message than all the action packed gun blazing movies that they make millions of dollars off of.
Doesn't quite work, though, does it?
I think that it's quite possible that they are contributing, and not just a little, to the problem.
Ironic isn't it? It's a cultural issue and liberal Hollywood plays the biggest part. Not even the NRA could promote guns as efficiently as Hollywood does.
I'd agree however, so does the lack of any hands on parenting in our society.
"you want that rated M video game Johnny? Sure no problem."
"you want to see that violent rated R movie Susie? Sure no problem."
"I'm tired Billy. Go kill things on your video game."
"what's Sally doing? Oh I don't know. Something on the computer. At least she's out of my hair and quiet."
While I know this is not true of every parent, I strongly believe it is quickly becoming the norm.
Agreed.
I'm not sure that such things actually promote violence, but my gut and common sense says "yes".
Unfortunately neither is a very indication of reality and I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer to the question, just opinion based on little to nothing.
I don't believe they do promote violence all by themselves and I am in no way suggesting we shouldn't be allowed to make certain movies or video games. I mean, if you really think about it, old cartoons were violent. Road Runner vs the coyote, Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd, Tom & Jerry. But when were cartoon really on and we were watching them? Saturday mornings pretty much. Other than that we were watching such wholesome fodder as the Brady Bunch, the Cosby Show, the Partridge Family. Balance. Something that is lacking today.
Also, today, with I-phones and laptops, and tablets, everyone is doing their own thing. Most of the parents do not even know what their kids are being exposed to on the internet or in their video games. And there isn't anything balancing that out, in most cases.
AH Hollywood perfect fodder for those that blur reality and real life.
FACT: The NRA has financially induced (as in bribed) morally weak politicians to enable crazy people and irresponsible people in America to easily buy guns and ammo.
No matter how you choose to refute that fact, more people with more guns will only continue the slaughter of innocent Americans.
Too many gun advocates are in denial of their own irrational fears and insecurities. They believe more or more efficient weapons will provide them with the necessary protection against "the crazy bad guys."
What they refuse to recognize about this issue is that irrational fear, irresponsible behavior, misguided folly, petty resentments, anger, rage and lethal weapons is as much about themselves and their own beliefs as it is about the Adam Lanzas or Anders Breviks.
This issue is not about, hunting, survival or freedom; it's solely about immaturity, ignorance and ideology. So please stop the diversionary sophistry and the ideological BS!
Friends this will be my last post on the Gun/Crazy Person subject.
You can be just as dead when hit by a musket ball in 1776 or a 357 bullet in 2012. DEAD is DEAD
It's not a gun problem, gun quantity problem, gun type problem, gun access problem. It's a crazy person pulling the trigger problem. And if anyone here on hubpages can successfully address and eliminate crazy from society. I'm sure the world would declare the second coming. Until then I'm am done with this subject.
Denial ain't a river in Africa, baby!
It's the over-availability of guns of every kind in our culture and it's your last post because you can't admit the truth!
How much damage could a crazy person have done in a few minutes at Columbine or Newtown with a musket?
The firearm the very tool that allowed us the freedom to post in this forum, needed by the average
American during the revolutionary war.Having said that do we need them to the extent we do today,I don't know,but just because you use a hammer once does not mean you throw it away.
It took 90 minutes for the police to act in Norway when Breivek started his murderous rampage...no one in the area was armed but him due to highly restrictive gun laws. Of course he only got 21 years for the murder of 77 people.. with bombs and firearms.. so yeah..America has the market cornered on crazy compared to Europe. pfft.
A crazy man with a knife attacked and badly injured 22 children and one adult in china. This sort of thing has happened so often in China in the last two years that they did what America needs to do. They posted armed guards. Over twenty children have been stabbed to death by whack jobs in that country and 50 or more have been seriously injured.
"In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 98430.html
Who cares if a crazy man has a knife, a musket, or a full automatic belt-fed .50 cal attached to his hummer? Homicidal people don't give one happy crap about your desire to rid this country of guns.
Whether you think all guns should be banned or not does not change the fact that the guns currently exist. They cannot all be gathered and there is far too much open area to sneak more in. Ban all guns and ALL you have is ample opportunity to turn honest people into victims. THAT'S the truth some can't admit because it goes against their belief that ignoring reality is best.
Further, despite the over-availability of guns in our culture, the so called 'Assault Rifles' accounted for less deaths than bare hand kills in 2009. There were 348 people killed with rifles.. ANY rifles, of any kind that year. 801 were murdered with their killer's barehands. 611 were murdered with blunt objects. This means that 4 times as many people were beat to death that year than were killed with any rifle. Only a small fraction were so-called assault rifles. Nine states had NO murder with a rifle that year.
Yes, firearms accounted for 9,146 murders that year out of 13,636 but if you honestly and sincerely believe that the people who committed those murders would have NOT used an absurdly easy to obtain ILLEGAL firearm after a gun ban or just opted to take a machete to someone then I'm sorry but you're denying reality.
There are over 100 millions rifles in this country. If the reactionary gun banners were right about firearms making everyone that touches them turn into kill happy freaks then the sheer volume would mean more deaths. We'd have murdered each other to extinction ages ago. Only somewhere between 10 - 30 million of those rifles MIGHT be considered assault rifles depending on which person you asked and only around 5-10 million are Ar-15s. Out of at least 5 million Ar-15s only a tiny, tiny, fraction were used in any sort of crime. You know why? They're a lot easier to spot than a freaking handgun! You don't see jack-booted thugs walking down the mean streets prowling through the shadows with a freaking assault rifle. Yet so many want to ban them. Get real. If you want tighter HANDGUN restrictions then focus on that. Over 9,000 people were murdered with those in 2009.
Personally I'd like to see open carry become the norm. Yet, in many states if someone sees you with a holstered firearm they can tell a cop that they feel afraid and they'll lock you up for being 'at the terror of the public' despite having done nothing more than openly admit that you are carrying a weapon. The fact that most people have to hide a weapon that they legally possess via concealed carry and are authorized to wield by right of the second amendment is a great sadness to me.
If you do not wish to utilize your right to bear arms that is your decision. Despite your desires you do not have the right to ban these weapons simply due to the fact that each and every citizen is supposed to be able and ready to be called upon in a time of national emergency to defend this homeland.
We have a standing military against the original design of the constitution. You were all supposed to take up the burden of defending your way of life if it came down to it. That's what the 'well regulated militia' part was about. That is also why the supreme court ruled in 2008 that the second amendment DOES relate to private citizens.
Do you feel it is right to demand that an individual pass a firearm safety and marksmanship course before they can bear arms? I have no problem with that. It's part of being part of a well regulated militia. Do we need to screen for mental illness with greater efficacy? Sure, go ahead that's part of a well-regulated militia.
The truth of the second amendment isn't that it was designed to protect our right to wield weapons of mass destruction. It was designed to allow us to PERSONALLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFENDING OUR WAY OF LIFE. Remember that concept, antiquated as it is? Personal responsibility. It is NOT the responsibility of the police to safe guard your life, it is yours. The standing military in this country is only supposed to be for fast reaction while we gather our citizens to defend our states and our country.
The second amendment was first and foremost designed to protect the sovereignty of the individual states by way of arming and regulating the training of their citizens. Secondly this amendment was designed as a means of allowing uniformity in joint efforts to defend America. Lastly, when all else fails and should the government of our beloved Republic fall to tyranny it was designed to allow us to undertake the final charge of any free and able soul who loves freedom and despises servitude. That final responsibility is to take your firearm into your supposedly well-regulated and well trained hands.. join with your brothers and sisters... and defend your way of life. The second amendment isn't about your rights... it's about your RESPONSIBILITY.
Every single one of you who blames the weapon and ignores the evil in the hearts of thieves and murders, blames 'gun nuts' are slapping our forefathers in the face. They had the wisdom and sensibility to include that amendment. Do not think yourself more civilized and progressive for thinking that banning the ONLY thing that can equalize a world filled with disparity in size, strength, sex, and skill. Even though you delude yourselves into thinking that you are helping the only result of banning firearms or giving one political jack-a-ninny total control over which weapons are considered 'too dangerous to use' based on their personal opinion, you are not. Your well meaning insistence does nothing more that tighten the noose that will be used to strangle those you love.
That is my opinion, you all have yours. May you live in peace.
Here's an article on gun control by Eric Sharp, Michigan's best outdoors writer:
"AIM FOR GUN LAWS THAT WILL WORK"
"As an outdoors writer for two newspapers for 35 years, a hunter for more than 50, and an owner of handguns, shotguns and rifles, I'm at loggerheads with some gun owners because I believe the U.S. is in desperate need of new gun control laws.
"I'm also at odds with many people who espouse more gun control, because I see no point in passing laws that make the ignorant feel safer yet do nothing to avert future horrors like the massacre of 20 children and six teachers at a Connecticut grade school...." MORE--
http://www.freep.com/article/20130106/O … y=nav|head
Eric Sharp would be a much better spokesman for NRA than this guy:
deedsphoto
MORE GUNS = MORE KILLING
"Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. 'There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunda … ef=opinion
LaPierre plagiarized his claim that the "best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" from Archie Bunker circa 20 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
Now that's a really useful and relevant link, Ralph. Not.
There is no study done, no data collected. There is a link to the same studies I used in my own research, but that's it. No study, no conclusions except "recent sharp increase in homicides in Venezuela could be in part explained by the abundance of arms there". (bolding added - pay attention to that could be and in part)
The article also notes that there is strong gun control, but that enforcement is very lax - no indication is given as to the numbers of guns in the country.
Finally, are third world countries, all known for excessive violence, heavy drug dealing and a near war condition in the country really what you want to compare the US to? Countries like Guatemala and Columbia?
For shame, Ralph - you can do better than that. Or maybe not if you're trying to link gun ownership to homicide rates - I certainly couldn't find any correlation in the industrialized countries like Germany, France, UK, Australia, Iceland, etc. You know - countries at least something like our own.
You guys remind me of Archie Bunker on gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
Nice rebuttal (although I didn't bother to watch it).
Ralph, if you want to actually discuss, debate or possibly find a solution it has to be better than these two posts. All they do is scream out "I don't care; I want guns GONE!"
Come on; I've read your thoughtful posts in other forums; give us something to sink our teeth into. Something relevant to the US and that has something to do with homicide rates and guns. Preferably something relevant to homicide rates in general, but I would discuss suicide, homicides in the home or homicide by relatives.
Just not a list of third world countries, as far from US culture as possible, that have a far worse problem.
"Nice rebuttal (although I didn't bother to watch it)."
Open minded as usual, I see. The video reminded me of your mentality. You might even find it amusing. If you had a sense of humor, that is.
"All they do is scream out 'I don't care; I want guns GONE!'"
I've never said anything like that. I'm a lifelong hunter, and I currently own a Model 12 Winchester with a three shell magazine plug which I used to use to hunt game birds. You are the one who is unable to give even an inch.
I should watch Archie Bunker rant to be open minded? You're funny!
Or did you mean that your own open mindedness or mentality was similar to Archie's?
Here's a bone for you, Ralph: Homicide rates by weapon for the US and Canada. Notice that while our gun homicide rate is much higher (we have guns) Canada's rates for knifings and beatings is many times that of ours (they have no guns, so use fists and knives instead).
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c … Oo58Xfhdks
Replying to your edit and addition:
What would you like me to compromise on that experience tells us will be effective in reducing the general homicide rate? I assure you that I'm open here, just show that it will be at least somewhat effective.
I expect you do do me the courtesy of considering the points I offer to our discussion.
!! But I did, Ralph. I opened the first link and read it. I just didn't find it pertinent to the discussion. All about Latin American countries, which are nearly as far from the US culturally as you can get, most of which have a violence problem far, far in excess of ours but with known causes. No data presented, no real conclusions, just a "maybe" this and "possibly" that, without any real support of either.
A claim that reducing gun ownership lowers gun homicide rates, but without evidence and that's a no-brainer anyway. Nothing at all about homicide rates and gun ownership.
It's why I asked for better information; You've produced valid, pertinent stuff in the past - why submit junk like that for perusal here?
All I ask is that you do me the courtesy and yourself the favor of watching the video that I posted. You might actually find in funny.
Actually, I did open it later - I always liked that show with it's over-the-top bigotry and total lack of rationality. This one was funny, too, I thought - wish I could have seen the whole show.
But what did you think of the link to Canadian data? I thought the graphs were interesting, particularly the second one where the differences are striking. Coupled with the known fact that fewer guns correlates well with lower gun homicides but not at all with lower homicide rates in general it made a pretty striking statement and graphically shows what happens when guns are removed from society.
Did you examine it?
Keep avoiding the REAL problems Ralph my friend , keep throwing up the smoke screens and mirrors !
Please enlighten me on the "real problems." And while you're at it try responding to the points I and others have made.
While I am on the opposite side of this debate as Ralph, I agree that there must be real data to back claims up; that is why I am posting links to sites that are relevant. Please come back when you have facts; until then, leave the debating to me.
Statistically speaking we should be more concerned with Obamacare.
This image makes me want to stand up and start a slow clap.
Did you know BS is more dangerous than lying, because they really don't care.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia. Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Most suicides are by firearms
Do you want a world filled with Guns and take away your Doctors, cars, knifes, and excercise?
Get real
Did you note that the picture doesn't address homicides at all, just deaths?
Much like talking about the decrease in gun homicides when gun ownership is limited, it is a red herring that has little to do with the discussion in this thread.
How many charts and surveys addressing homocide do you want?
If I showed you a picture of a cow, would you get that, it is a cow?
If UN OR Wiki are not good enough, what is?
We all know the UN is nothing more than a Star Wars Bar Room Scene look alike. It's full of people who hate America and we should have kicked them out a long time ago. They're useless.
As for Wiki, anyone can go in and post what they want and you do know you can't beiieve everything you read on the internet, Right?
The United Nations is an organization open to all sovereign nations of the world, as a forum to work out their problems and to work together towards common solutions.
NATO is a military alliance, Most countries in the world are part of the UN. Only 28 are part of NATO
What other group do you trust to protect the world?
There's only a handful of UN member nations that works to protect the world. Then there's the others who either need the protection or are the problem, Castle. To give the ones that are the problem any credence at all is just one of the reasons the UN isn't worth the real estate it sits on. IMHO, of course.
I apologize, Castle. I've seen so many charts and graphs on the subject that I don't remember any from you comparing gun ownership to general homicide rates. Can you refresh my memory, please? With one comparing guns to general homicides, not the smaller subset of gun homicides?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org … online.pdf
From the conclusion,
"the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world."
Basically, a study of gun control and crime rates of over 25 countries across the first world, mostly Europe. It finds that more gun control is directly correlated with more of both violent and non-violent crime.
This study takes a different view:
"Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … 0073291506
And this one:
"Instead of conferring protection, keeping a gun in the home is associated with increased risk of both suicide and homicide of women. "
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article … eid=623145
And this one:
"A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense4. Cohort and interrupted time-series studies have demonstrated a strong link between the availability of guns and community rates of homicide2,15-17. Our study confirms this association at the level of individual households."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … 0073291506
And this one:
"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi … index.html
And this one:
"Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Edit: URLs unscrambled
Most interesting. I recently compiled that same sort in information (from the UNODC) for a hub and came to the same conclusions, except for more controls correlates to more crime. I simply found that there was no correlation between controls and a decreasing homicide rate.
Thanks, MrBecher - I'll have to dissect this one and see if it is actually applicable to the hub.
The figures cited in the Harvard Law School article came from a variety of sources which may or may not be comparable for each country in the comparisons, and they provided data only for suicides and murders. The figures didn't not include accidental gun deaths, injuries short of deaths, armed robberies not resulting in deaths and so forth. Moreover, the study cited Kleck which I have read has been discredited. I'm not suggesting that all of the data is unreliable, but that the conclusions do not strike me as valid.
It is essentially the same data (although older) than what I compiled from UNODC. Would that suffice?
You will have to make your own conclusions from the data, but isn't that why we're discussing?
Here's a more complete set of comparative data from Wikipedia which includes all gun deaths.[ Note that U.S. is nearly five times higher than Canada and the highest of all developed countries.] I doubt that truly comparable and accurate data are available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
Comparing countries to the US is a little ridiculous, I doubt Canada has a 2nd amendment in their constitution allowing its citizens to keep and bear arms.
MrBecher says:
"Basically, a study of gun control and crime rates of over 25 countries across the first world, mostly Europe. It finds that more gun control is directly correlated with more of both violent and non-violent crime."
No comment made.
Ralph Deeds says:
"Here's a more complete set of comparative data from Wikipedia which includes all gun deaths.[ Note that U.S. is nearly five times higher than Canada and the highest of all developed countries.] I doubt that truly comparable and accurate data are available. "
Whois immediately responds:
"Comparing countries to the US is a little ridiculous, I doubt Canada has a 2nd amendment in their constitution allowing its citizens to keep and bear arms."
Why is data comparing countries okay when it supports the anti gun control argument, but "ridiculous" when it supports the argument for gun control.
Selective reasoning perhaps?
It may be a little ridiculous, but it's all we have. Remember, we're just trying to project what results in homicide rates might be found if we tightened gun controls and/or limited ownership (primarily the latter).
Other countries have already done it; what were the results and would they be comparable to what we could expect to see here? Given that there are many differences socially, culturally, legally etc. it is still useful to look at those results.
Thanks, Ralph. I had seen that chart, but rejected it because:
1. it"s wikipedia and therefore suspect IMHO
2. It's from a variety of sources, compiled by some yo-yo on wiki. Again, untrustworthy.
3. It ranges from 1993 to 2011 - why? Was data cherry picked, looking for a particular result? I know they could have done better than that.
I would have probably used it in spite of these (fairly minor) considerations, but found better from the UNODC. I just had to compile several sets of data into one spreadsheet, exactly as that "yo-yo" on wiki did.
In my opinion Wikipedia is usually a reliable if not a completely accurate source. I guess my attitude about Fox News and NRA is similar to yours about Wikipedia. If you think Wikipedia is wrong you should suggest a correction. They welcome corrections.
I use them, too, I just want to look a little more carefully than I might otherwise.
For instance, I'm looking over your chart and there are a bunch of countries where every single homicide is by gun. That's a little suspicious and I would find it hard to believe. Looking closer, every country like that is in South America and I find only one south American country that isn't like that.
What??? Who the he** compiled those numbers and what are they trying to prove? Suddenly, I wouldn't put an ounce of faith in the whole chart. Somebody either didn't take any care when making up the chart or has deliberately lied.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but it's a much better source than the National Rifle Association or various gun supporters like Gary Kleck.
She might be able to convince me!
My little friendly gun weapon could be convinced, except my girlfriend is so hot with good sense.
This is not indicative of anything. All it says is that Americans use guns in their crimes more, but no one would deny that. What's important is how much crime actually exists.
If there is one crime in place A / ten people and the person uses a gun, and there are five crimes in place B / ten people, and only two use a gun, then the stats are this...
The crime rate is lower in place A, but the gun use rate is higher (100%). Doesn't mean much.
This thread is over 700 posts long, there is so many examples of it here from so many people here.
No, there most certainly is NOT. I don't think I have seen even one study (except my own) comparing gun ownership rates to general homicide rates for a variety of first world countries. That's why I compiled it myself - I couldn't find one anywhere else.
Somebody put one up for latin America, but personally I don't find any of those cultures similar to ours. The one just posted by MrBecher a few moments ago in response to my request is another exception, but I haven't had time to absorb it.
I think GW Bush can convince an eye optometrist on the eye chart that the E is an F too.
Personal experience is the best teacher, I've traveled every State in the USA except Alaska and every industrial country in the World. I have no doubt that guns makes America (with no hold bared) the most dangerious industrail country and outside of that only few latin American and African countries
In your U.S. travels, how many people did you see carrying a gun, Castle?
More than anywhere accept the Latin Countries at boarder or road crossings, Saw all together about 20 gun racks either in their trucks or Homes. Two Texans gave hippy me, a hair cut in the 1969 at gun point.
Please don't judge all Americans by the actions of a few, Castle. I, too, was the recipient on some harassment for long hair and beard back in the 70's. Not at gun point. That came later. 20 years later. I chose not be a victim again. Those people know I now carry and they stir clear of me. That's the benefit and my family is safe because of it.
When I growing up, gun racks were in almost every truck. I saw nothing wrong with them.
In spite of the furor, there are still hundreds or thousands of small towns where teens go to school with guns on the pickup racks. It's a way of life in rural America. It's also a far safer life than kids in the inner cities see although I stop short of claiming that it is because of the guns - that's probably not true.
I went to school with a guy that had a gun rack in his Mustang. He had a gun that looked like a M16 in it all the time.
I don't know that it's far safer... it's just a different kind of dangerous.
Safer in the sense that fewer farm kids are attacked and hurt or killed than inner city kids. Rural areas have their own dangers, but being killed by their fellow man is very seldom one of them. Of course it happens - there is no total security short of the grave - but it is rare.
Dose compassionate conservative mean a person who drives a Volvo with a gun rack
What matters is not the percentage of homicides using guns, rather the rate of homicides against the population. More people may use guns for murdering, but there are less murders. I'm okay with that.
I'm afraid you aren't to get very far promoting that kind of concept.
I've been trying to say that the gun homicide rate isn't what counts for days, overall homicide rate is, but no one cares. It seems to be a heresy or something; certainly nothing of interest.
Haha it's unfortunate how hard people shut their eyes and cup their ears when presented with a statistic that works against them... maybe if people understood math better, they'd understand the difference in relevancy of said rates. Anyways, keep up the good fight!
Wail your at it
1. Keep America obsessed, keep eating McDonald's and dream about private healthcare
2. Shoot a lot of people at home and keep making new nuclear weapons...
3. Keep THE Natural environment record of the World's largest carbon footprint per capita, in America keep denying climate change
4. Keep promoting debt via IMF and World Bank,
keep paying dictators who they want to represent them
5. keep Hollywood culture American and listening to "news and insist USA knows best.
6. Keep imprisoning pot heads with war on drugs
7. Fight Oil enriched Countries, as the bible says onward Christian solider, fight the good fight
Maybe I said too much, better slow down now
That's part of it - people don't truly understand how to draw conclusions from statistics. Other reasons, depending on the individual, can include a fear of guns, lack of concern for personal freedom, "busy body" attitude of wanting to control others, emotional distress over Sandy Hook (that includes me), simple ignorance leaving "common sense" to make conclusions with and probably 100 others.
"fear of guns, lack of concern for personal freedom, "busy body" attitude of wanting to control others"
I think you may have isolated the problem.
Remember I'm fearless, it's just guns are useless except for hunters and bullies. As far as Controls, I'll leave that job up to the RIch and Religious politics
Been Mugged twice, Six times had a gun pointed at my head, been to 6 war zones, Two advances to intent rape until they found out my fighting skills. Fought off a bear, out swam a crock, a few snakes, monkeys and mostly attacked by dogs
And here are Facts Ralph ,
The year 2000 in your reality world
-2,523 deaths to SIDS
-1,621 teen suisides
- 1,580 suffucations
-6,466 auto deaths
-1,946 fires
-1,236 to drownings
-ALL children ynder 18 Ralph , want more facts ? Yes , "from my cold dead hands " , will you take my swimming pools , my pillows too , what about my matches and automobiles , get real people , lets delve into reality for a while ....you guys did too much acid back in the day , me thinks ! No dissrepect intended !........:-}
Those deaths are unfortunate, but this forum is about unnecessary gun killings and gun control issues such as the NRA's recommendation that armed guards be put in schools. How do you feel about that? And closing the gun show and private sale loopholes? And appointing a director of the federal agency responsible for gun control. And about the need for uniform federal regulations. And about specific regulations, e.g., banning large capacity magazines, body armor, and reviving and improving the assault weapons ban? I gather from your irrelevant comments that you can't think of a single gun control law that you would support because you don't think gun killings are a significant problem.
I would respond to just a couple of your questions.
"reviving and improving the assault weapons ban" - I could compromise on reviving this ban on fully automatic weapons, although those guns are used very rarely by civilians and are not owned legally anyway. The only reason I say I might compromise is because it would affect only a very small percentage of the people - a sop to appease the control advocates that will not affect the number of killings at all, but will negatively affect only a very few. Tolerable, if totally unnecessary.
Large capacity magazines, same thing. They aren't particularly effective from what I've been reading in these forums; they jam and it only takes about 2 seconds to change out an empty for full magazine anyway. Another sop to appease the control group, but one that will impact only a very few owners. Collateral damage to a handful of owners for purely political reasons, but something I could live with.
Body armor, I'm not so sure about. Lots of people could use body armor in their daily lives; removing a purely passive defense just so cops can kill people easier doesn't seem rational. Discussion, reasons, etc? How many killers use it, is it really effective in allowing those killers to kill even more people, who else might find it useful, etc.? I do remember seeing a bank robbery a while back with two people wearing the stuff and simply shooting up the whole area as they walked down the street, but that's it. One incident certainly isn't enough to warrant banning it - are there others?
Unless the criminal is wearing Sapi plates or something similar their body armor does NOTHING but help prevent penetration. The force of the impact travels through and does traumatic impact damage. you'll be a mass of bruises, with possible broken bones if you get shot in the chest.
You can get low-ebb body armor that looks like street clothes, and higher-end versions that look like coats or jackets. I honestly suggest anyone who does not want to own a fire arm but who does wish to survive an encounter with a potential robber purchases and wears body armor. It weighs very little without plating and can be disguised under normal clothing.
Sapi plates are useful against one to two shots to prevent a lot of the trauma but they break easily under fire and are useless afterward. Also, without trauma plating body armor does NOT stop a knife attack.
If someone is wearing body armor and shooting up the place a few well placed shots are still just as effective. They are just less likely to die from being shot.
Of the hundreds of gun control laws on the books in americas states and fed levels .. not one of these laws was able to prevent a single one of the shootings ...........anywhere ! Now , why ? because Criminals and or ,doting mommies and daddies with half idiot kids don't pay attention to laws anyway . Ralph , seriously if you had a tweaked teen age son , would you allow them access to your collection ? oh and those "unfortunate deaths "......we'll not regulate those right ! Ralph there are thousands of sexually molested children everyday in America , are there laws agains that ? Yes , what about illicit drug use by parents of children , anything there .....? I am a reasonable gun owner , I understand and welcome regulations that protect our kids , women , and entire families , I understand the need to close loopholes too ! All of them ,............ But what I fail to understand the most is the paranoia attached to this issue ! Especially from those who've NEVER taken a nephew or a son to the woods with a twenty-two and a few tin cans ............I truely believe that societies handwringing paranoia is simply explained ........You and those like you have to clear your social conscences quicky and loudly by pointing neurotic fingers at everyone else but ....at your own apathy towards Really Making a Difference , mental health reform , Legal reform of a twisted and distorted justice system .
Example - DUI laws to keep drunk drivers off the roads ! One man arrested last year in the great liberal state of Vermont had eight previous DUI charges , He t -boned a mini van after running a red lightand killing young mother of two and killed her instantly ! Where's this suedo outrage there ? One in four FOUR young girls will be molested by the time their twenty one ! Any outrage . ? Apparently not !...........put this in perspective ....all I'm saying .
Here's a piece on the Aurora movie theater massacre:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/he … re.html?hp
"...Officer Oviatt said that because the suspect, James E. Holmes, had been swathed in so many layers of body armor and equipped with a helmet and a gas mask, that he had first thought that Mr. Holmes was a fellow police officer....
"Less than a month before the shooting, after he had dropped out of his neuroscience program, Mr. Holmes sent a text message to a classmate that suggested he believed that he suffered from dysphoric mania, a bipolar condition that combines manic behavior and dark, depressive tendencies. Mr. Holmes warned the classmate to stay away from him “because I am bad news,” the classmate has said. "
And did this classmate report this to school authorities or law enforcement?
Is Lying was the USA greatest pass time, Let me make Gun America is a make USA Safer as my number 1 choice now.
1. GunAmerica is safer
2. USA 50% of the World’s War Budget makes the World safer
3. USA 26% of the World’s prisons makes us safer
4. Columbus discover America
5. The war in Iraq is finally over and it was a success. BY We are winning in Afghanistan.”
6.America is unthreatened by China's growth.”
7. Tie: “Republicans are the problem” and “Democrats are the problem.”
8. Cutting the taxes of millionaires helps create US jobs.”
9. “I love Israel.”
Anyone got a 10th to add to the list?
Please go to the bottom of your post, click more, then edit from the side out menu. Slow down. We know you hate the U.S. but we can't rebut what doesn't make sense, Castle.
You got it all reverse, I love the world, not against or hate anyone. I know America is better than this. America has best and worst of things, I want a more of a happy America of balance and I'm not the bad guy.
So you love us as long as we have a liberal, or in this case a Socialist, in the White House?
Wow you have many choices to vote from
Republicans OR Democrats
What do you perfer front or back, Up or down
The White house is no longer just white people
Canada has a balance of Socialist and Capitalist and still I think there is something out there, even better than this balance
In capitalist America, bank robs you!
This is in no way a black or white thing, Castle. At least not for me. Obama's skin color means nothing to me.
You say Canada has a balance of Socialist and Capitalist. Does one try to cram their beliefs down the throat of the other? That's what's happening here. The left is trying destroy what we had only to replace it with something that's been proven to be worse and doesn't work. If that were the case in Canada, would sit idly by and watch it happen?
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population
The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with 173,929 of its 1,388,028[1] active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle east, as part of the War on Terror
Let your bull dogs loosen their grip first, we get along well with rest of the world
Listen, I'm all for bringing our men and women home and putting them on our own borders. We could keep out the illegals.
We could drill here for oil and let the barbarians of the Great Cat Crapper in the Middle East kill each other to their hearts content as far as I'm concerned. It's like a 12th century sport to them anyway. Hell, let 'em play and the sand will soak up the blood.
If you want to preach about bringing U.S. forces home, you're preaching at the wrong guy, Castle.
One time the Bears dominated this land, then it was Native Americans. Then Mexican owned one third of America, then Europeans.
In the future Most of us will be brown skin anyways. When we mix all colors, white, black, brown and yellow it all comes back to the spirit of the earth, brown people again.
The greatest non sense war right now is the war on drugs, which is mostly pot.
Stats:
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
Mortality
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,799
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
Cause of death rank: 15
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hey everyone , Ralph , I'm not aginst one of the hundreds , hell thousands of federal and very few local or state gun laws as long as reasonable people write them !
I have a -five -shot clip fed deer hunting rifle ,bolt action , I can change out the clip in three or four seconds . and fire rounds as long as I want to a as many as well, Oswald got off 3 in six and a half seconds .
I have a single barrel ,single shot 45/70 sharps style buffalo rifle that will shoot once !..........and then I reload to shoot agaain .........I could effectively fire what 5- to-10 times a minuite maybe .....
I have a single barrel, single shot 12 guage shotgun . and that will give me the same rate of fire
I can MAKE an amored vest out of steel plates and a hunting vest !
Give me a roll of duct tape and a couple of soda cans I can make you a silencer for any gun !
My point is go ahead write all the laws , renew clintons magezine laws ! None of this will make a difference !
,
Well, I'm more optimistic than you, but I recognize that change in the U.S., given our history and Constitution, will not be easy. Until recently I had three hunting guns, one antique .16 gauge Ithaca double barreled gun that was my grandfathers, a .22 Remington bolt action repeating rifle and a Model 12 Winchester shot gun which I used to use for game bird hunting. I guess I'm too old and set in my ways to see the value of AR 14s or Bushmasters. And I never felt any need for a gun for self-protection. If I did I'd load up the Model 12 Winchester pump gun and stand it up in the corner of my bedroom. (No children in the house.)
I once suggested to my mother who was worried about a prowler in the kitchen when my dad was out of town, that she barricade herself in the upstairs bedroom and load up my dad's shotgun.
You sound like a good person to have around, ahorseback.
I have a .75 caliber, smooth bore Brown Bess Musket I can load and shoot 3-4 per minute using pre-rolled cartridges. It depends on what I'm shooting. I can shoot round ball, shot, rocks, nails, whatever will fit down the barrel.
Exactly Ralph , my friend thats about the extent of my ownership as well , yet you and I both know reasonable answers are What WILL work ! The Aks and the ar -15s are just the younger generations "old favorite " , personally I have no use for them either ! Yet an Iraqi war vet i know hunts with one . Who knows , there are far too many issues involed here that magezine size s . I am a single shot man myself Ralph ! My pleasures lie around my old shotgun a couple of dogs and maybe a darned partridge if I can get my new glasses ! Hell ya , lets close the loop holes ! I fear though that it won't do much !.........:-}
Jonesy ! My hero was Jerimia Johnston , a Hawket 50 for me !lol........Ralph , gets those guns Back ! Your Grampa had them !...:-}
Yeah, that will work!!!
Come on, Wizard. You have to have at least one gun.
Indeed, I have a staple gun and a glue gun!
Wizard , Actually most of the guns ,in your little picture are made in all parts of the world . The thing about America as compared to whatever third world country your from , we air ALL of our dirty laundry in the media for all to see ! Does yours ? -Yes because of its size and place in the grand scheme of things as a world super power ,America has more of a lot of things , crime , guns GENEROUSITY !, PHILANTHROPISTS ! FORIEGN AID ,THE WORLD S MILITARY PROTECTION ,is for whatever reason , OUR JOB ! ALWAYS ........do I stop now ! about Thirty percent of the worlds economy is the US ! ANYBODY need something beg the US, We'll send it !
Do not fear the Firearm an inanimate object. the fear is in what cannot be understood the understanding
of why people do what they do.which can escape the well educated and the person with sheer common sense.these things are not logical one says there must be a logical explanation.When there is not.
I say to myself there is an answer for this but i just can not draw logical explanation for the short circuited
human mind or even predict when it will all make sense.
Robo , and it is this very unpredictability of the mind that cannot be understood NOR controled , Nor can it be legislated out of existance by another law ! Its perhaps more irrational to think that we can control such impulsive acts of complete insanity ! Almost all these acts are in some ways nurtured into existence by a coddling system , parents , schools , hospitals , the legal system
An experiment ? Call up the hospital and your insurance company and the police and tell them your insane and need a room with a lock ! See how long it takes to aquire .....
Horse it is an unfortunate fact that the locked room is unobtainable unless the act of violent insanity happens first.We as a society need to be more proactive then reactive.The time of sitting on our hands has passed.
You know, neither side is ever going to convince the others; why don't we just archive the topic for future reference and go on believing what we do?
It never matters who is right, it matters who the jerk in the conversation is. And from the posts I see, there are jerks on both sides. So, why don't we lose ther jerks and hold a nice, calm, intellectual and ethical discussion of the Federalist (a.k.a gun-banning) and Anti-Federalist (a.k.a gun-rights) viewpoints? Who knows, it may even be recognized as the most enlightening discussion on the topic someday, if we do that.
Click here to see more of Randall Munroe's apt sarcasm.
Not going to happen when you have two sides who feel passionately about the subject. I can easily just discuss the subject until the arrows start flying. Then I tend to give as good as I get.
I have come to the conclusion arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a small child. Hell, my 4-YO son is smarter than most of them.
That was a childish comment,
Freedom was throwing away my army toys at age 8, real freedom is awesome and been child like ever since.
You don't know the difference between childlike and childish.
OK, carry on your bigot ways towards non violent people and the other half of American political thinking forever. What do I care, it's not my conscience who suffering.
I know perfectly well the difference between the two, Castle, and there comes a time when a grown man sets aside both. It's not my fault when liberals can't handle the truth.
There's nothing bigoted about my comments and my conscious is as clear as the ringing of a bell.
The Universe is always expanding and contracting, like Liberals and Conservatives. Blaming Liberals dose not help anymore than Christian blaming Satan and fight your back in spite of your front.
Satan concept is made up, they use it, so they can kill so called sub humans, they so call bad guys
It's always something to fight or kill over, peace is in the mind, not out there.
"The Universe is always expanding and contracting, like Liberals and Conservatives."
Does this mean we have to cut back on the chili and soda?
Are you feeling well, Castle?
Soda's directly will kill you quicker, than guns or politics. It's the fear of Gun that harms the poor.
pleasing.hubpages.
We are not going to change a America's with their gun crazed nation background over night and it's hundreds of battles History
Just trade with the National defense less nuclear and gun weapon for the American public Guns for a safer America.
Because if America dose not, The rest of World will take away their money and spend them to death. Very few Countries will for their policy at gun point anymore.
Seung-Hui Cho, the VA Tech shooter, was never a member of the NRA, Wizard. You representing that he was is, at best, a total misrepresentation and, at worst, a lie.
Perhaps you should consider pulling your last photo.
You isolate the one aspect that is satiric and ignore all the other valid points on the issue that these cartoons point to.
Little boys, programmed to identify with their toys for all kinds of reasons, but mostly to help them feel more secure as they grow and develop, at some point recognize they don't need them any longer, then stop identifying with them and move on and mature.
Sadly, we should be addressing all of the immature identification with guns the American male can't seem to relinquish because of his preoccupation with feeling more secure as an overcompensation for his fears and male inadequacies.
It's always about them verses us because you can't seem to face the fact that the real enemy is a lack of awareness and human compassion or empathy. There is no difference among desperate men with fear in their hearts—excepting the fact that the ones with guns are causing most of the mayhem in America and around the world.
<image removed>
I have no "human compassion or empathy" for able-bodied people who, even in a good economy, won't get a job. They instead want to take what's mine, that I work for, and they have a president who will give it to them.
As time wears on, it's becoming increasingly clear it's us against the government, Wizard. It's clear we'll be on opposite sides.
Your response is obviously sincere and tragically sad, Jonesy. You exhibit the same kind of projected anger and resentment, that so many dupes of right-wing demagogues who encourage you to believe this folly, suffer from. Scapegoating and believing other people are the cause of your fears and unhappiness is an age old malady of humanity and your Them vs. Us delusions.
You're trapped in your patterns of thought and nothing I can say will matter, but I can predict what will come of it—you are sealing your own fate to despair and unhappiness.
Hmmm, lets see, my cost for our government's "human compassion or empathy" is $424 more out of my paycheck each month, Wizard. That's the extra I'm paying each month for lazy, good-for-nothing "vunables" to have healthcare, EBT cards, Obama phones, and baby-daddies free to roam the streets like the predatory animals they are without responsibility for their actions.
And you wonder why I have no "human compassion or empathy" for these people. Call it what you want, Wizard, but as far as I'm concerned, they can all go to hell on the next rocket ship out.
I thought your clap-trap sounded familiar—it's you, who formerly called yourself, "Longhunter," right?
What pity you didn't win The Civil War or that we never abolished slavery!
No. Who the hell is Longhunter?
As for the Civil War, I just hope all this doesn't cause another one, Wizard.
Your comment on slavery doesn't deserve a response.
Longhunter was someone from Tennessee who share your myopic views and petty resentments.
And FYI, Longhunter's response regarding The Civil War & slavery was exactly the same as yours.
As opposed to your myopic view and petty resentments?
I'm from the South, Wizard. I don't like government and I'm ready to fight it anytime it intrudes too much in my life as it's trying to do now.
When it comes to slavery, you'll find a majority of us Southerners don't agree with it and find it a horrible thing. Of course, you wouldn't be the first Yankee to insinuate such a thing to which we Southerners usually just say, "Bless your heart" and move on with our day.
Obviously, you and this 'Longhunter' have a history. I've done a search and don't find the name. Was this person a member of HP?
PSA: The views of Jonesy do not reflect the views of all southerners. He is representative of a certain kind of southerner for sure but not of ALL southerners. Please do not judge southerners by his opinions or personality.
That is all.
Agreed, Melissa. I should have said, "majority," "some," or "most." Fair enough?
It is also my fervent hope not all Southerners will be judged by what you say as well.
I was equating Jonesy's diatribe, and anger about lazy people with another Tennessean, Melisa and in no way do I assume everyone in the South is as biased or wallows in petty resentments about government and the poor.
It was just a comment to draw Jonesy out. He has a typical mindset of so many self-deluded and angry white men all over the world who can't tolerate change or understand their own prejudices which console them in their fears, anxiety and, at worst, paranoid projections.
Thes people shouldn't have guns they should have therapists.
Seung was a bit over the top
Yet
He would have killed less with a hammer or knife in his hands, even I could have stopped him.
rest of the world does not own a gun yet safer than americans.
The continent of South America rather gives a lie to that statement, as does Central America.
So does the continent of Africa, particularly the middle east, and you can add much of Asia to the list.
As a matter of fact, most of the world has more violence per capita than America.
America has less violence than most of the World
So much, Non sense
Yes, despite the brainwashing so many people seem to enjoy America is actually NOT as violent as many other western nations. http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/201 … -than.html
In some countries people being dragged out of their homes and shot by the government doesn't even make the news. If that happened in America it would make the news, unless of course they claim that the homeowner had drugs or something to cover the murder.
Here's an interesting reason why many might NOT want to see their guns get banned. Sure, you'd die most likely in the assault but at least you wouldn't have to watch your handcuffed children get kicked and beat while staring at the dead family dog. http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/10/st-pa … g-door-rai
Sir , Countries you have mentioned are in War. War zones can not be compared with place like USA. Look at countries those are not in War, for example United Kingdom. I do not see any gun fight here in London . Even Most police officers do not Carry guns. The whole world is in shock after that guy went on shooting those innocent babies. There is only one way you can enjoy a safer environment. But I am not anyone to give advice, I hope you guys get what is best.
Law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. were shocked as well, SB, but not near as much when the left used the deaths of 20 first grade children to further their political agenda.
Brazil is at war? Or South Africa? Columbia? Mexico? Panama? Peru? Ukraine?
Not to my knowledge, but all have a homicide rate far, far in excess of the US.
Sir,
Brazil is not in war. But I hope nobody will take offence if I say some Brazilians are far from being civilized. Lets say they live in Jungle.
South Africa is situated near some war zones, its easy for criminals to traffic arms which are used to kill people. In USA your border guards are strong enough to prevent this.
Columbia do have a war going on with FARC rebels, And Mexico has their drug war which is responsible for many deaths. Peru is in civil war since 80s which have caused 70 thousand deaths.
We all have our problems, don't we? America currently has, to me, a massive problem with violence, but to say it is the worst in the world is far from the truth.
Nor can it be linked to gun ownership. Looking at just the "civilized" world, there is no correlation between the number of guns owned and the violence of Homicide rates.
To be honest with all problems we have in the world still world is much safer than it was 50 or 70 years ago. With the rise of Media and internet we get news of war and crimes very fast thus getting impression as the world is in constant chaos.
When we talk about america we expect america to be the best country in the world. However all these school shooting , mass murder is not a common sight in any other part of the world . When a psychopath can find a gun close to his hand what else he would do than go and shoot some random peoples? atleast in other countries psychos do not find guns near their hand. If a guy kills another guy for a reason that's a normal crime. But if a psycho goes out and kills random peoples just because he hate living his life and wants to mark his name in the history book, thats not normal. How can such people get close to a gun and how do Americans feel safe knowing there are thousand more psychos are fantasizing about committing same kind of attack right now at the very moment we are discussing.
So, just to understand your feeling on this situation... America is more violent than other countries because it has no excuse for being violent?
I'm sorry, but that's just sad. Many of the world's countries have citizens who can't even use the bathroom without fear that someone will shoot them in the head and steal their toilet paper. I don't give any country a 'pass on being violent' just because they have internal strife. That strife is the epitome of violent action.
People are so afraid of violence that it makes me sad. The world is not child-safety proofed. It's an inherently dangerous place and we've removed ourselves from the dangers of being alive to the extent that we complain when anyone is hurt or killed. We die every day. It's the quality of our lives that should matter.
I would rather live in a dangerous country where I have to a chance to live my life independent and free than in a sterilized police-state where I can only live within the confines of what someone else allows. A little regulation on how guns are acquired is fine, but outright banning me or anyone from a weapon when they have no history of violence is a slap in the face to a life lived without violent tendencies.
I understand people of USA has their own culture which is different than ours. And i do respect. But you should work in order to prevent psychopaths getting close to guns. If one member of a family is known to have serious mental issues that family should not be allowed to own guns. For public safety. I hope you agree to that.
That should be the responsibility of the family and their choice, not the governments. Just my two cents.
Can't say I would agree with that, Jonesy. The mentally ill aren't the problem of his/her siblings or even parents - they didn't cause it and have no blame for it and thus cannot be held responsible for it.
It is the problem of society in general, and we aren't dong a very good job of handling that particular part of the violence problem.
Sensible comments Shockblog. Certainly there are other countries with high gun homicide rates but usually there are reasons associated with the instability of government or ineffectiveness of police force, lack of resources, inter racial, ethnic or political rivalry, and extreme poverty, drugs etc. None of these apply to the same extent in America, which is a rich country with a stable government and a strong police force. The main reason for the high level of gun homicide in America has to be due to the ease of access to guns.
From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center on Homocide:
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
Source
I thank you Living Well Now for this source of information. I am on the look out for accurate, preferably objective and dispassionate reviews of gun control, gun proliferation and the implications of both.
wiki
United States is ranked for the highest gun ownership rate unambiguously, Yemen based on the margin of error may rank anywhere between 2nd and 18th, Switzerland anywhere between 2nd and 16th.
According to few guy on this thread they only use their gun on the bad guys. USA is way out in fronts for prisons too with 25% of the World's prison.
Where do most of the terrorist hang out?
Most of the people in prison are there due to drug charges, tacked on BS charges, and nanny-state laws.
I know someone who ended up in prison for three years because they decided that a fight he got into with a man on his property was obviously due to his attempt to commit first degree burglary.
Sounds bad right? Except that first degree burglary usually requires someone to enter a private home or business while an occupant is asleep. This guy was having a conversation with a former employer, the argument got heated, it came to blows, and because this assault occurred after 9pm it was deemed 'attempted first degree burglary'.
The attack might have gotten him a few months in jail, but the tacked on charge got him three years. He had to plead guilty in order to prevent it from being a possible 20. He denied the charge 3 times, but the prosecutor wanted to be 'hard on crime'.
The man he fought with didn't even bother to show up to the trial. He sent pictures from a time several months earlier when he'd been hospitalized after a fight with his brother in law. Due to the "attempted burglary" and severity of his inflicted wounds his attacker was sentenced to like 3 years. He gets out next year.
They prosecutor told the judge that the poor abused home owner might never walk again. Funny that I'd seen the guy moving refrigerators three days after the altercation and he didn't even seem bruised up despite the many vicious blows he'd taken. pfft.
Yeah there are MANY reasons why America has a prison overpopulation but it's got nothing to do with our excessive violence issues.
I must say I amazed at the supposed intellectual levels of liberal intellectuals , NOT !. And heres the thing I probably have less I.Q. than most of you do , and yet I know that I have more common sense that most of the idiousy coming ,obviously , from the anti-gunners ! You ae so predictable ......And soo Far removed from reality in the REAL problem here ! But hey . Lets just legislate the problem away .....That'll fix it !
Your comments
"It only takes a split second for a person's life to changed completely by a mad man. We saw that in Connecticut"
A split second? A split second? But you support guns and assault rifles to kill in "split seconds".
You are completely OK with allowing a Mother to buy a gun and keep it in a home with a mentally unstable kid. A mad man did let that happen since there were no laws in effect to prevent her from purchasing the gun and keeping it at her home. A mad politician bought out by the neo-conservatives. I feel it is OK to an extent to arm yourself but you don't need assault rifles or guns in close proximity to people who are unstable. So, that would apply to having armed guards in schools who are around unstable kids.
When you want to live like a free bird and keep whatever 200+ year old laws at your disposal, you see the result over and over. It does not work! For you to support guns after a unstable kid grabbed a weapon that should be banned is deplorable. Innocent children were killed because of the NRA!
I know, it's about time you now you label me as a liberal since I am anti-gun or wasn't pro-Romney nor Pro-Obama. For the last 8 to 12 years presidential candidates were not far apart in their agenda. FWIW, I am very pro-business but not at the expense of risking lives. We could label the NRA and its supporters as neo-conservatives and plaid-shirt union jack gun toting whackos but I don't throw those out there. Everyone has an opinion that should be heard since it is our country. Dividing it does no good for those lost by the assault rifles you support.
I cannot find the person who made the comment now. But it is directed to anyone who supports NOT banning the sale of assault or automatic rifles to the general public. If it can kill 10 people or more in less than a minute. I will sign against it. I will also sign against having and owning weapons that can kill others in close proximity to crazy people (same household, work, etc). You say, "Crazy people kill and commit these mass murders NOT guns".
Crazies will find a way to carry out their devious acts." OK, so logic tells you to have a law to prevent that. Keep donuts, carbs and processed breads away from a person and they will lose weight.
These type of, "if then, logic" statements do not support pro-gun people nor do the statistics.
We have laws to keep crazy drunk people off the road and you have to adhere to this to some degree? Why not this? Please don't answer with the 200-yr old, "Oh, it infringes on my American constitutional right to bear arms".
Oh, _that's such _ _, you can keep the normal gun for protection as long as you are not a crazy and don't have people in your household who are diagnosed as mentally unstable. There have been 3x as many murders with the "stand your ground law".
A great argument for pro-gun people is that other countries have higher homicide rates yet less guns. So in the U.S., logic tells you the majority of guns are in the hands of good moral people since we have millions more people with guns than those other countries. OK, well then a ban on assault rifles law will make it even better ratio and children and teens can go to school and theaters w/o being shot up. Or no? maybe we should make bullet proof vests for kids now?
OK, you are a gun collector, why not allow bomb collectors too? what about plutonium too? A bomb or nuclear chemical can only kill 1000s if in the hands of a crazy person right? It is a mass murder weapon right?
Why not answer with the 200 year old argument about my rights under the constitution? Do rights become invalid after 200 years? It is actually the only argument we need! We have laws against the insane buying weapons, they still get weapons and if there were a ban on them they would still find a way.
The Second Amendment, contrary to some opinions expressed in this forum, is subject to differing interpretations, and it doesn't preclude reasonable and practical restrictions on the sale, use and possession of guns.
The 2nd amendment is straight forward and means what it means.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Just because we don't currently draft people into the military doesn't mean the concept of bearing and maintaining arms is void. If America were ever surprise attacked on national soil the first line of defense wouldn't be the military. It would be armed and trained citizens who have to hold ground until the military is mobilzed. I would say that a great deal of 'infringement' has occurred and is still occurring. Turning blinders on reality doesn't change things. Just because people think we're safe and secure now does not mean that we will always be without war at home.
I would say yes, the rights may indeed become invalid after 200 years if the circumstances which brought about those rights have changed. There are many interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but for me the most convincing one simply links the two parts of the amendment - the right to bear arms was written into the constitution because of the necessity for a people's militia. Today with a stable democratic government, a powerful army and an armed police force, there is no need to form militias. America is a very very different place. Therefore, I don't feel the 2nd Amendment still applies. Of course there are other arguments in favour of guns in private hands for personal safety, but I don't myself believe the constitution is a valid reason.
You may have had a point but the U.S. Supreme court thinks otherwise. You may want to worry about your countries laws you don't seem to have a grasp on ours.
whoisit, I could have predicted someone would imply - politely in your case - that foreigners with an alternative point of view to yours should stay out of the discussion. I think I do have a grasp on the law, but laws can be changed in a free and dynamic society.
And speaking of "scapegoating" & gun control . . .
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j … un-control
Greensleeves...I think you need to go back and read the second amendment again. The amendment does not tie the militia to the citizens bearing arms...it separates it. It makes clear the point that even though a "well-regulated" militia may be provided for by the various levels of government, such action does not impede the right of the citizen to bear arms. In other words, just because we have a US military, in effect a standing militia, in no way restrains a citizens ability to bear arms. That was true 200 years ago and it is still true today. ~WB
Everyone will once again know the causes and reasons that the second amendment was written in the first place [along with all the others ] , wars and revolutions , civil unrests will always rear their ugly heads .. The rest of the world doesn't ever seem to mind asking [begging]Americans to dig that old musket out of thier closets and "come to the rescue " of the compromised freedoms of outside counties , now do they . Any country in the world that doesn't have a second amendment ....should have !
The reason all of the other countries don't mind asking the USA to come to the rescue is because they know we are a gun happy country who loves to shoot off our guns any chance we can. We spend the money, we have soldiers die, we solve THIER PROBLEMS!
Kind of seems like they are out smarting us!
"... Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50.
"The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher.
"Sixty-nine percent of all American homicide deaths in 2007 involved firearms, compared with an average of 26 percent in other countries, the study said. 'The bottom line is that we are not preventing damaging health behaviors,' said Samuel Preston, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was on the panel. “You can blame that on public health officials, or on the health care system. No one understands where responsibility lies'....”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/healt … .html?_r=0
Well Ralph. I don't really believe this Issue will Be Settled, EXCEPT, If WE ALL Crumble, Like ALL the other Countries did,
To me, This would be, UNEXEPTABL. I stand as YOU DO.
How or what will it take to get MOST if these People, TO WAKE UP, AND GET IT.
I know their are TWO people that, Will Not comply. You and I.
I will always have your back This Issue is getting blown Totally out if shape.
NRA,,,,, You have been very Quite in all this. Looks like, WE THE PEOPLE, Have another Group of Goo-die- too shoes that have been bought off.
IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK WE WILL STAND FOR,,,,,,, NOT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vNj2sb_00
OLY
OLYHOOCH
Interesting film, however
Education is one of the most powerful weapons and most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. A gun is not an instrument of peace and the terror of guns is more in the big bang, its only in the anticipation of it. We allow Guns and wars far too often the greedy rich this powerful tool of Guns and Gods.
Gandi changed India without weapons te purpose of programming fear into the masses of people is to control us – and is it ever effective! Fear, although it is a very low vibrational force, is an extremely powerful emotion. It is used extensively in brainwashing programs, because nothing makes the implanting stronger than a good dose of fear.
The only thing a Man/Lady, has to fear,is Fear it self.
Guns, dont kill people, People kill People.
OLY
I'm happy love is stronger than fear, fear is just the unknowns until they are understood. That is where education comes in and why firearm and nuclear budget are far greater in the USA to promote worldwide fear and control.
The USA greed will fail, like all the rest in your film and 80% of the consciousness of the people will lead again
Interesting life expectancy by country
USA is rated 38th, Cuba was rated better.
I just got enlightened by a marine on the topic and it all seems moot. Yes, I was in the military too but not a marine, (air force). I was not aware that almost or most guns can be modified to become automatic. So, a ban on 'ABC rifle or gun" is just fluff. There's a lot of variables out there.
I assume you're posting this to the OP which is I so I'll answer.
The death of a friend or a loved one is never easy, SMP, but it's not the gun's fault. It's fault of the person who's pulling the trigger.
If I smash my finger while nailing, it's not the hammer's fault nor my right hand's. It is mine as I am the one in control of the hammer.
We must stop doing something so stupidly silly as blaming the tool, an inanimate object, for the actions of a person.
I'll agree to an extent with the blame part.
You are aware of being guilty for "accessory to murder" . You, the gun owner contributed to their death by leaving it in an accessible or visible place. No gun visible to the exploring 6 yr old child could've kept him alive and you out of jail. Blame the 6 yr old 100%?
You know a lawyer would have a field day and they can even win if it was another adult instead of the child.
A gun being available to an "exploring 6 yr old child" isn't a problem in my house. Unless it's on my hip, it's locked up. That is the responsibility of the gun owner.
We could sit here and argue scenarios all day, SMP. The fact of the matter remains a gun is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more, nothing less. To a person like the Lanza kid, it wouldn't have mattered. He was going to do something bad. Maybe he wouldn't have done as much with a knife but we must still blame the person, not the tool of choice.
All this talk of gun control is either knee-jerk reaction by some or using the deaths of 20 children to further their political agenda.
by Cindy Lawson 11 years ago
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense, or do you think this is where parts of the world are going wrong and make a snowballing type problem?
by Xenonlit 12 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Recent surges in Gun crimes include fully automatic gunfire in London ? Doctor in London , "Bread and butter business is treating highly increasing gun and knife wounds in London ?" I thought they had free health -care ?Experts are saying "Its only getting...
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
by Castlepaloma 11 years ago
Jim Carrey’s "Lonesome Earl and the Clutterbusters". -wrote a song reference to Charlton Heston NRA statement, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." The wording of one part of Jim’s song was “ he could not enter Heaven, as even the angels could...
by Dr Billy Kidd 12 years ago
Jim Carey makes a spoof of the idea about someone having their assault rifle prived out of their cold dead hands. Fox people flipped. It's really just silly and of no lasting importance, right? Look at it: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/03/27 … n-twitter/
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |