"Ban the gun" becomes the slogan most yelled for weeks after the shooting anywhere , Those here at Hubpages , like all other mass media , jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon . Before even all of the facts of an incident hit the streets the call arises from the usual ones . "What do we do about guns and gun -owners ?"
Now let's look at the brushes with the law that this shooter has had , including but not limited to , Bringing guns illegally onto an Air Force base to threaten commanding officers , multiple charges of domestic violence , animal cruelty , etc............escaping from a mental institution !
I have offered dozens of times in the past my opinion of the stance of our "soft on crime" legal system . It does matter . President Trump when asked by a young starry eyed reporter " Will You Now Institute Gun Restrictions ?" Said , No .
He pointed out the most violent city in the US 's restrictive laws ,Chicago , saying
'Gun restrictions in Chicago is a disaster "
When will America wake up to our legal system's systematic breakdown ?
Without knowing all the details about the Texas shooter, I fully concur that mental health clearly plays a major part in many crimes and if the authorities have been lax in their treatment of past offences which should have raised alarm bells, then that is certainly something which should be addressed.
But of course no problem like this can be reduced to just one cause. A lax judicial system and failings by the authorities may be one aspect. That does not stop inadequate gun laws being another aspect.
But regarding Chicago, the linking of Chicago's high murder rate to strict gun laws is wrong on so many counts. Mr Trump's assertion that 'gun restrictions in Chicago is a disaster' is typical of something which he does better than anyone else - the promulgation of 'fake news'. As I understand it, almost everything about the Chicago argument seems to be wrong - other than the basic fact that the city has a high murder rate.
That sounds like a list of reasons he shouldn't have had a gun. And in fact he was not legally allowed to have a gun, which is good. What was missing was actively policing to take the gun away from him--which should not be impossible given that he posted pictures of it on Facebook. Take home message: more resources for community policing.
Exactly. It sounds like the “on the spot” background check failed miserably here.
I still don’t think I’ve seen anyone saying they think that guns should be banned outright. “Gun control” does not equal banning guns. It means being more thorough in ensuring that people are suited to own firearms.
For example, a small measure that could have potentially stopped this man from buying guns here in Canada, is reference checks. They would see that he was married (or previously married, I can’t remember if they were still together?) and notify her that he was trying to buy a gun. Given his history she’d have the opportunity to speak up. It’s a really simple addition that has potential to give police information beyond a background check.
The man who shot this murderer is credited by law enforcement with saving the lives of potentially dozens of more church goers . Check your news media . Will you site that heroism as happening in Canada too ? What about those heroics ? As usual most fact is forgotten in gun debates and the only accounts become that which bore the hell out of honesty and celebrate the leftist anti- gun argument. I can see just as much personal warfare going on with divorcee involvement in gun checks.
Canada is overboard in it's vigilance in the war against legal gun owners. Canada only has 10 % of the population of the US. and it's "statistics " cannot fairly be debated.
That particular brand of heroism is not happening in Canada because people don’t regularly walk into public establishments to shoot dozens of people in Canada.
What do you feel is “overboard” about Canadian gun laws? Canada has 30.8 guns per capita - that’s the 11th highest in the world. There is no war on legal gun owners happening here.
As for the “personal warfare” between past partners, it’s certainly possible. But it’s also certainly possible that someone could get a heads-up that their abusive ex-husband/wife is purchasing a gun and either notify police that they have concerns and/or take necessary precautions to protect themselves.
Or notify police that their non-abusive ex-husband (wife) did terrible things to them and they have tremendous concerns about them getting a gun. Do your police go on hearsay or only on documented events?
As I said, that’s a possibility. I’m sure they’re familiar that it’s a possibility as well. Personally I feel like the benefits of being extra cautious with giving someone who has negative character references outweighs the cons of someone not potentially being able to purchase a gun. But that’s just me.
I don't know...those "benefits" seem primarily directed at causing police to do a thorough investigation of anyone wanting a gun and has an angry ex. Whereupon they then may deny or accept the application; if they deny, the person gets it illegally and kills with it At best the "benefit" is to delay the murder by a few days/weeks and at worst causes a perfectly innocent person massive trouble with the law while taking law enforcement personnel away from doing the job of protecting the public.
Thing is, at least in the US, very few guns used in murders are purchased legally (by the shooter) - denying guns to murderers seems to accomplish very little. Whatever we may "feel" about the benefits that does seem to be the bottom line. It's much like "feeling" that if we could only take the guns away then people couldn't kill any more, but the evidence from all over the world gives a lie to that, too.
So since there’s a chance they’re going to acquire it illegally there’s no point in taking precautions when it comes to selling it legally? Do you think we should just do away with background checks, licensing, etc. completely and sell guns over the counter at the local corner store to anyone who walks in?
And as I mentioned previously at least if they legitimately are abusive and still manage to get a gun, the ex-spouse has been notified that they’re looking to get one and has some time to take precautions.
You misunderstand - from all appearances it isn't a "chance" a gun will be obtained illegally if it is not available legally. It is a virtual certainty, or, if a killer desires to kill and can't find their preferred tool, they will find a different weapon.
I'm all for gun controls, but only those controls that have a reasonable expectancy of saving lives. And even then it is possible that the cost will exceed the returns - if, for example, there was a reasonable expectancy that buying back all guns at a cost of a trillion dollars while turning those that refuse to sell them into criminals would save one life, the cost exceeds the reward.
The US has some 20,000 gun control laws on the books, and we have the highest murder rate in the civilized world. So I have to ask - what is the expected result of asking the public for opinions of whether a gun buyer should be able to purchase a gun? Can we reasonably expect it to save live, or will it do nothing but cause problems for citizens and police?
It’s not asking the “public” for their opinions, it’s asking the people who know them the best and can provide information that might inspire the police to take extra precautions. I think it’s perfectly reasonable.
Your ‘20,000 gun control laws’ claim made me scrunch my face up so I did a bit of googling and found this: https://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/10/ … it-matter/
Numbers aside, your 300 or 20,000 or one million gun control laws are still less strict than most of the developed world. The laws themselves matter more than how many of them there are.
I can only repeat: what is the reasonably expected result, in terms of lives saved, in getting references from people that may or may not have an ax to grind with a gun applicant. If your opinion is that it will save lives, what can you produce to support that opinion?
What evidence is there that it works here currently? I don’t think it’s possible to isolate each particular aspect of our gun control laws to determine its level of effectiveness compared to the others.
I was simply citing that particular safety measure as potentially being helpful in the case of the Texas shooting since the background check missed his history of domestic violence. His wife/ex-wife may have been able to shed some light on that and prevent him from obtaining the guns.
But Aime, everything is potentially helpful. Playing Christmas music all year long from stores might help, too, but I doubt it.
My point is that removing rights, particularly Constitutional rights, is not something we do by trial and error in the hopes that someday we'll find something that helps. We're not talking here about taking corn flakes off supermarket shelves; we talking about denying guaranteed rights and it's not a subject to take lightly.
It's why I keep harping on the reasonably expected results; personally I think that asking spouses as to the mental stability of their spouse or ex is nearly worthless. I would expect thousands of people to be harassed without reason, and I would expect thousands more that should never be allowed withing a mile of a gun to receive glowing reports from happy spouses. And at the bottom of it all, I would expect to save exactly zero lives. I can hope all I want to, but hope just isn't sufficient to deny people their rights OR to subject them to useless investigation.
Oh come on, that comparison is a bit silly.
But you do make a good point which I had overlooked, here it is not a “right” to purchase a firearm so denying it as a precaution is not as easy to do there as it is here. I understand your point and I’ll give you that.
As for how you think the reference checks would affect people negatively, it hasn’t been an issue here (at least not one that many people care to express) so I’m not sure why the cases of harassment or ridiculously inaccurate testimonies would be much higher there.
"Oh come on, that comparison is a bit silly. "
No, it's a lot silly. But then, in my opinion, so is expecting an honest response to either an spouse or an angry ex-spouse. Either way, positive or negative response, I would expect something of almost zero value, and in the case of negative response an almost 100% guarantee that valuable police resources are being washed down the drain. But that's just my opinion, based on nothing more than a recognition that ex-spouses are very often vindictive and hateful and current spouses will desire to please their mate.
But regardless of my opinion, I'm open to facts showing that after such a law was instituted and people began ratting out their ex's that the murder rate fell a statistically significant amount. Are there other countries that do this, that can be used for data, or only Canada?
Finally, the constitutional right. It is extremely important in the US, but then rights and freedoms are important, to a slightly lesser degree, everywhere. We do not remain a free people by giving up our rights for nothing in return - we remain free by fighting for them. The US may put more emphasis on freedoms than other cultures, but all of us want the same thing - to live our life in peace, living it however we wish. Yes, it is necessary when living as a group to lose some of our freedom, but let's keep it to the minimum possible and that inevitably means we don't guess or assume that taking rights away will be good for the nation or it's people - we make an honest effort to evaluate the consequences of our actions before implementing them. In this case my personal, unresearched and unstudied opinion is that there will be virtually no positive results. It is not, therefore, something we should be doing.
Rights and freedoms are important to a “slightly lesser degree” elsewhere? You put more emphasis on freedom than other cultures...? And yet you are nowhere near the freest country in the world. What are you basing those assertions on?
Is there another country that has a basis of their justice system that their citizens may carry weapons? It seems to me that this right is a major thing - that our government may never disarm us. Given that so many governments have done just that, followed closely by killing off the population, it seems the right thing to do, but no one else (that I'm aware of) has taken that step. Don't take offense - it is merely that we have taken the step of writing it down, in a very difficult to change manner, that makes me say that. I fully understand that all peoples want to be free...and that their definition of freedom varies from country to country. Some find freedom in being forced to give the majority of their earnings to the government, some find freedom in having their salaries determined by government, some find it other ways.
But tell me - what country, with a similar or greater population density, is more free than the US?
No offence taken, just a little confused. Here’s the list of freest countries and what factors were taken into account: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index (there’s a link to the full study at the bottom)
Hong Kong is #1 and has 193 times the population density of the US. The UK, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Malta all have higher population densities than the US and rank higher on the list.
Whether you agree with it or not, this index looks at multiple factors, which to me is very important when making claims. But if being able to purchase guns is the most important indication of freedom to you then I guess you live in the right place.
To address your other question, Guatemala and Mexico both have the right to bear arms written in their constitutions.
I think you and I have very different concepts of what freedom means, and so does the link.
Being forced to pay for health "insurance", whether govt. funded or not, is not being free.
Being limited in what can be paid employees is not being free.
Being forced to supply employees with anything is not being free.
Being forced to support others in purchasing what they want but don't want to pay for is not being free.
Being told you cannot own certain items is not being free.
Being limited in what you can put in your veins or mouth is not being free.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Living in a community requires giving up some freedoms; the question is which ones and how much. These countries you list, for the most part, take far more than we do. The people may like that (or may not) but the fact remains that they take more than is required to maintain the country. To me, a rough guess can be made by comparing GDP to govt. income from taxes; anything not required for the maintenance of the country (military, infrastructure, govt. costs, etc.) is taking freedom and rights from the people. The more socialistic a country, the less freedom and whether the people appreciate, use and enjoy socialism it is NOT freedom.
Being potentially faced with crippling health care costs if you fall ill, is not being free.
Being forced to suffer defamatory lies from media or politicians without recourse to effective libel laws, is not being free.
Being so frightened of your government or gun-toting criminals, that you need to keep a gun (or many guns) in your own home, is not being free.
Being told where you can legally walk across a road without being charged with jaywalking, is not being free.
As I understand it, in many other ways, other countries are much freer than the USA - greater freedom from persecution by bosses, greater tolerance for religious or ethnic minorities and atheists, greater freedom to indulge in certain social activities etc.
Just thought I'd try to redress the balance a bit You do make the fair point that definitions of freedom differ from country to country, and I can certainly agree with your point that it's often a question of which freedoms we give up or to what degree we give them up as the price of living in a community. Also different freedoms are mutually conflicting (for example the right of free speech versus the right not to be abused by hate speech). Personally I prefer the 'social freedoms' of the UK to the 'legal freedoms' of the USA, but perhaps rather than scoring points over which countries are most free, we should accept that all democracies are basically free on the issues which matter most (such as freedom to elect the government and freedom to criticise the government).
Which governments have disarmed their public, and then 'killed off the population'? Not many (any) democracies that I can think of. Indeed, I'm not sure there are any countries - even non-democracies - that have followed a deliberate policy of universally disarming the public in order to kill them once the public are not in a position to defend themselves. I wonder which countries have done that?
The state of Texas really blew it , They not only "missed " that he wasn't to have a gun , but the were participants in the chain of events leading entirely through his legal brushes with the law , The federal government including but not limited to the FBI "missed " a few things too . The United States Air force "missed " a few things as well , not not informing the FBI he was booted for bringing a gun onto a base to threaten an officer with it . Legislate another law though , get up on the soap box , that's been working really really well hasn't it ? Actually ; just turn your head the other way from someone with a mental illness . That seems also to work really well .
It's kinda' complicated isn't it ?
Not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that I’m turning my head from someone with mental illness. But since you’ve brought it up, what do you think can be done to help people with mental illness access appropriate care easily and without exorbitant cost?
Mental illness in America , as to getting these cases into the medical system or a program , is a joke in America ! Even the hospitals don't know what to do with mental issues , why ? it's easier to just turn our heads away . That is partially a Reagan era issue and fault . " They " are mostly on the street and outpatient mental patients given prescriptions and turned lose on America's public IS the newest crime by an uncaring and highly profiteering medical system .
We have to acknowledge them first , then we can deal with the mental patient.
It’s a joke here, too. My friend was just saying yesterday that she went to speak with her doctor finally, after almost a year of being too afraid, about her worsening depression and anxiety and he literally told her to “try to relax and see how you feel in a couple of months.” No doctor would ever tell someone with a broken leg or cancer to just wait it out and see what happens. Mental illness needs to be treated with the same seriousness as physical illness.
If very few guns are purchased legally by shooters, then that is an argument for making it more difficult across society to buy guns. If guns are less readily available to the general public, then they are also less available to criminals. That is a truism which does accomplish a lot, as is amply demonstrated by other countries with stricter gun controls. Of course people can still kill without guns, but not so easily or quickly. The evidence from all over the world doesn't give a lie to that - it proves it.
Not just you. Any sensible person anywhere in the world
The same personal situation can develop here . What ? You don't think an ex-wife couldn't cause you problems purchasing a gun in the US ? You have another thought coming !
What Canada does have is a land mass the size of the US with 1 tenth the population per square mile . One tenth the population of the US ! You and many, many here don't get is ---that comparisons between the US and Canada just don't work .
My older brother in the 1980's once raised his voice at his cheating wife , someone generally very quiet , when he found out his wife was cheating on him , She called the police and had his firearms removed for one whole year - No charges filed , no court dates ,no arrest no nothing , she moved out a week later and he still went one full year .
A friend of mine in New Hampshire has the same name as someone in Michigan and their SS # 's are just a couple off from each other , Every time he has made a firearm purchase in the last ten years he has had to endure the 72 hour waiting period check before it gets straightened out .
By the way ,there are hundreds of gun laws in the US yet what good does it do if the leniency of the justice system is so incredibly lax ? There are extensive background check questions on an application to purchase a firearm here that I experience each purchase , at least two pages and an FBI background check .
There you have it , fix the justice system and not do more darned legislating ,this IS the problem . A history of legal brushes with the law dealing with this guy should have foretold the outcome . Especially dealing in violence and abuse . The truth of the matter , animal torture IS one of the oldest flags on the books too.
Notice , Ahorseback is offering a $ 100 reward for any criminal who illegally obtained a firearm , no question's asked , if you will just turn in to me or any other public official. In full realization that although laws were broken in the acquisition of said firearm , no charges will be filed against you at all .
Anyone see the problem with asking, even politely, a criminal to not use his firearm illegally anymore and turn it in ?
Get it ? Gun Crimes = criminal ? ............. No , guess not !
Just curious, are you trained to shoot at people...hitting a target it one thing, hitting a person in such a situation is another.
Aime F So true about the broken leg. Or, I like to say "oh just walk it off" to a person with a broken leg. That tells me right there they have no idea what they're talking about.
It is amazing that whenever some nutty white guy slaughter innocents in large numbers, the gun people start to circle the wagons and get defensive. If the shooter could have been identified as minority, leftist, particularly, Muslim, it would lend to rightwingers' arguments as justification to deport everybody in retaliation. And, of course, Trump will then get Kudos, his xenophobia vindicated.
Whats truly amazing is how gun-less and gutless leftists always blame the gun first and the man last ! Attack the 2nd amendment first and guard with their lives the ineptitude of the systematic demise of the justice / incarceration system , attacking the two hundred plus year old constitution instead of the present day culture of mindless and conscienceless violence .
It's just so predictable and I answered my own questions .
Would you have given me the same speech if the assailant were Muslim? I doubt it.
Credence ,Oh don't be contrary , The Muslim {immigrant Muslim ] is an entirely different problem except the penchant for terrorism , domestic or home grown . What difference does religion have to do with homicidal tendencies , get serious please ?
Just can't see past the evil guns can you ?
You conservatives bring up bogey men from halfway around the world as a threat, when your home grown boys are committing most of the high profile massacres. So, who should I fear the most?
The only "terrorism" with an appreciable body count is the domestic sort. Does it really matter what the label is when the outcome is the same?
I do see beyond the 'evil double standard" always promulgated by the Right.
And they shouldn't "circle the wagons"? We already have a bill introduced to ban those dreadful "assault rifles" - the weapon that kills fewer people each year than bare hands and feet and far fewer than knives, in an irrational but very predictable, emotion laden gut response to the church tragedy.
"And they shouldn't "circle the wagons"? We already have a bill introduced to ban those dreadful "assault rifles" - the weapon that kills fewer people each year than bare hands and feet and far fewer than knives, in an irrational but very predictable, emotion laden gut response to the church tragedy."
I never challenged possession of firearms as the basis of my discussion here. My point is that so called foreign terrorist threat with weapons is exaggerated relative to the mayhem committed by the 'all American boys....'
No, you didn't challenge the constitution. Just the idea that conservatives must watch liberals very carefully ("circle the wagons") lest they lose their rights to fear mongering idiots that care nothing for facts.
Greensleaves , So ,you are saying "Of course the justice system is flawed ".......but that's not it ......... "Of course mental health issues are a disaster" ........but that's not it .......,,,,,"Of course the history of this mans brushes with the law are there ".........but that's not it ............"Of course there is more than one cause ".........but that's not it ............"Of Chicago and many of our cities are in turmoil of violence ".......but it ain't that ..............."Of course an American has the constitutional right to defend himself against anyone ."...............but it's not that either .
You're saying , All of the faults of our justice , courts , incarceration system , legal system and mental health system .................... It's that big bad boogy -man ,the gun .
I say ,Great ......one more expert heard from.
Heard from, but appearently not listened to.
Quite funny actually how you chose to paraphrase what I actually said, so as to include virtually everything which I never said, and never would have said. And none of those societal problems were responsible for arming him with a gun.
I don't fault you my friend , you actually use the daily used liberal tactic of implying a whole lot of innuendo and factualizing nothing . So let me help you , here's the most direct and serious issue , Of the thousands of gun violence , domestic violence , a whole separate military system of law on the books in America today , This man was given pass after pass after pass after pass.........?
See the problem with instituting more law ?
I can happily provide facts including plenty of relevence to Chicago if you wish, but I think we both know that the problem with 'facts' - or rather statistics - is that they can very easily be interpreted any way you want to on this issue - both sides do that, but it's something that the gun lobby have become particularly expert at.
You're calling liberals idiots? What about those of us here, are we idiots if we're liberal?
No, you're idiots if you think that further regulation banning the sale of those black, scary looking guns that are used to murder fewer people than hands and feet is what the country needs.
I'll rise to that bait. Yes, further regulation is what the country needs, and yes, if no one had guns, it would save countless lives. Maybe you think that makes me an idiot or uneducated, but if so you would also think the same thing about the vast majority of people in free-thinking, informed democracies around the world, pretty much none of whom would ever want to follow America as a role model on this issue.
But let's be sensible - no one is sugesting all guns should be removed tomorrow morning. That would be disastrous! For a start, criminals obviously wouldn't all give them up. What sensible people - not idiots or the uneducated - would suggest is rigorous checks on would-be owners and a clamp down on illegal sales, and a very gradual, phased withdrawal of certain categories of weapon. As the markets - both 'legal' and 'black' - dry up, so criminals would find it increasingly hard to obtain guns. That's what's happened in numerous other countries around the world, where no one feels the need for a gun.
I'll bite. Let's say I want to see the AR 15, Mini-14 and other semi-automatic rifles heavily regulated or even banned. Now I'm an idiot? Go ahead and say it. I dare you.
No , your no idiot , just one more misdirected , ill-informed anti- progressive progressive. Fix the justice system and enforcement we have and mass killings will die a slow death , keep jockeying for non- assault 'assault weapons bans " and even if you succeed--- watch nothing change . Fix the broken justice system !
Liberals should take classes on the difference between "black guns " and "assault weapons" to begin with , but then why bother . They would only go to spring break and skip it all.
Guess that would have to depend on your reasons. If you're honest enough to say that you have an irrational fear of them and therefore millions of people should not be allowed to own one I might disagree but that doesn't make you an idiot.
If, on the other hand, you say that no one should have one because it will save countless lives, well, you haven't bothered to educate yourself. Or can't, which should say something in itself.
I didn't ask you. But I would rather see these types of discussions left to a conservative forum so you can all commiserate together. Leave this political crap off this forum. Why you think it's ok to talk about guns when the they are not allowed as a hub is beyond me.
I'm waiting for them to close these deservedly stupid threads once and for all.
So typical ," Leave the opposing debates elsewhere " Ummm, ........guess what ?
They were here before you were .
You know ,..... I didn't know guns weren't allowed as hubs , if they aren't .
That's one more nail in the HubPage ,pop up corporation to me .
So , Of all of the genius in the alt -liberal world , perhaps one of you can explain the difference between the benefits of the literal destructing of the second amendment rights as compared to the first amendment rights that cause as much death, property destruction ,cop killings , political wars and cultural turmoil ?
So okay people , no more free speech rights , Ban the first amendment !
Why no ? It could save countless lives.
I can only explain the difference from a foreign perspective, though maybe it would be one shared by those who support greater gun control in the U.S? The First Amendment is all about free speech, free expression and belief (or non-belief) and was remarkably enlightened for the time when it was written. Even free speech has its limitations (security issues etc) but its necessity is recognised as a fundamental human right, perhaps second only to the right to peacefully choose the people who govern you - because free exchange of views is essential to make valid, informed decisions in an election. People may differ on the extent of the freedom (whether libel laws for example should be strengthened to prevent 'fake news' or protect the innocent from defamation) but the basic right to state your opinion and discuss - as we are amicably doing here - is absolutely fundamental. What's more, getting rid of free speech would not save lives, because it would lead to dictatorship, and dictatorship almost invariably leads ultimately to civil war or revolution. No other way to change the government would remain.
The Second Amendment has always been the subject of discussion due to the odd wording employed, but however the phrasing is interpreted, many would argue it is very different in its merit. The right of self-defence is certainly another equally fundamental right, but what defensive weapons are proportionate in a society with an organised police force? In most of the democratic world, nobody even talks about guns and nobody wants guns - it's a total non-issue in the UK - because almost no one feels threatened by guns. We can use other weapons for self-defence against burglars etc (commensurate with the level of threat) but otherwise law and order is left to the police and everyone feels safe with that.
I realise Americans have a different historical perspective, and also a lack of any trust in the Government or the police which ingrains in many a deep-rooted belief in the need for personal defensive weaponry, but whereas the basics of the First Amendment would surely be agreed by everyone, the basics of the Second Amendment are more open to debate.
"What's more, getting rid of free speech would not save lives..."
Buried within this statement is the crux of the matter in the US, for it makes a very strong insinuation that getting rid of guns WILL save lives. Unfortunately for that assumption there isn't a country in the world where that has proven true, but there are quite a few where the opposite has happened (government "purges" after disarming the public).
Greensleeves , Oh but , "The first amendment is a ""fundamental "" constitutional right , " ..........and the second is up for interpretation ? No , actually not when it was written and not now . there are 27- simple words for an entire amendment ?
If 27 words makes an amendment hard to interpret , then your interpretation is the problem and not the written word , a militia was made up of simply civilians then and the national guard today is too.
My point is that free speech is a fundamental human right, irrespective of the American constitution. It is a human right in any decent country. Bearing arms is not. It may be a Constitutional right, but that is very different from a fundamental human right. It's not recognised as a human right in almost all other countries.
The fact that the 2nd Amendment is only 27 words long is precisely the problem. There isn't enough detail or clarity of wording to be sure as to what was intended. It is very much open to interpretation and that was clear from the Columbia v Heller Supreme Court ruling. A majority of 5:4 is hardly overwhelming, especially when I believe all but two of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents, four notably conservative judges voted in favour of the pro-'right to bear arms' argument and four notably liberal judges voted in dissent. Only one judge - Anthony Kennedy, who gave the decisive fifth vote - was less predictable in his voting practices. (I am relying on neutral websites for all this information, but do you dispute it?)
In other words the Supreme Court judges were very divided in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and on another occasion with a different Supreme Court make-up clearly may have given a very different judgement. Even allowing for this verdict, the judges stated that this right is far from being unlimited in terms of the types of guns, how they are carried, or where they are carried. So that too is open to interpretation.
"There isn't enough detail or clarity of wording to be sure as to what was intended."
Are you assuming the intent was a limitation of some kind? Or was the intent to leave it to future generations to decide was is reasonable and what is not? Or was the intent to allow each and every citizen (white male, of course, considering the times) ownership of any weapon they could lay hands on?
What the second's simplicity was , was an obvious assumption that the need to acquire food daily , defend one's home and their family , defend ones absolute and universal right to liberty , freedom from tyranny , and to promise the retention of that newly formed sovereign government from all evil intent from inside or outside of our borders was guaranteed.
27 simply basic words in English .
To me, the linking of two elements in just 27 words - 'a well regulated militia being necessary' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' indicates that the latter is conditional on the former. At that time a newly founded nation was far from secure. But today there is a well regulated police force, a well regulated standing army and a well regulated National Guard all in place.
I realise that this linking of the two elements is disputed, plus there is the feeling among some conservatives of the need to keep arms for protection against a tyrannical government. But the way I read it the intent seems limited to that period of history when a militia of the people might have to be called upon to defend the nation against insurrection or invasion.
But to be honest, it seems strange to those of us viewing from afar, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is even an issue of relevence. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers hold a place of reverence in American society, so it may seem almost blasphemous to say so, but should the precise intent of a handful of men at the end of the 18th century hold sway over what's best for hundreds of millions of people at the beginning of the 21st? The real issue should be 'are guns a good thing or a bad thing and should they be controlled today?'
What you're advocating removes us from the realm of law and justice into mob rule, though. When we simply ignore the constitution as no longer applicable, even though it IS the law, we have lost the entire concept of law.
But there is another problem as well; that "good thing" and "bad thing" are not dependent on fact, but only on the emotional makeup of the speaker and listener. The current thrust in congress to ban those terrible "assault weapons" (that are used to murder fewer people than hands and feet are) is a case in point; those lawmakers would remove rights from millions of people for no more reason than a fear factor that has been worked on for years, building it to suit the prejudices of a few.
OK, I guess you know what my response to that would be. Do all countries which lack a written constitution have mob rule, or lack the concept of law? In the UK there is no such structure, yet there's no fear of societal breakdown. Some other countries also lack a written constitution, including that degenerate haven of mob rule and lawlessness, New Zealand Seriously, I'm sure a constitution may give some feeling of reassurance to a nation, but strict adherence to the surmised intentions of its authors - rather than the spirit of just law and human rights - is hardly a pre-requisite for civilised law.
"Do all countries which lack a written constitution have mob rule, or lack the concept of law?"
I don't know - do they constantly squabble over changing existing laws according to current desires of the majority, rampaging over the desires of a minority for no more reason than they don't like with others do? That's almost textbook definition of "mob rule" - the majority always gets what it wants without regard to the minority.
Our constitution goes to great length to protect minorities, and personally I like it that way.
No, we just peacefully change laws through debate in Parliament to keep in step with the changes in society over time, as opposed to adhering to 200 year old laws.
As for minority rights, I'm not sure how we measure up legally. I can only say that there seems generally to be more respect between races and creeds in the UK than there is in America, possibly less islamophobia (despite high rates of Islamic immigration here), less racial tension between police and minorities, less hostility towards gays, transexuals etc, much greater respect for atheists, and more tolerance between those on the two sides of the birth control issue.
"No, we just peacefully change laws through debate in Parliament to keep in step with the changes in society over time, as opposed to adhering to 200 year old laws. "
How long has it been since religious fights and murders were common? 10 years? 20? Were there not riots over Brexit? No trouble/violence over Scotland's proposed exit from the UK (why was it even proposed - do Scots not feel they are getting a fair shake in parliament)?
But don't forget that your common law (basis for American law in many cases) is not 200 years old, but a thousand. And still in effect.
Concerning riots over Brexit. No, I don't think there were any. There were demonstrations and marches and petitions, but no riots I think. There was an increase in hate crime for a while - mostly verbal abuse, rather than physical violence - against East European immigrants by extreme far-right wimgers emboldened by the anti-EU vote, but that's all.
Concerning Scotland's Independence vote. Again, no major vioence. There were a few clashes between fanatical Scottish Nationalists and - once more - ultra right-wing fascists, but they were isolated. Mostly it was verbal abuse, Internet intimidation and scuffles. As far as I can recall, nobody was seriously hurt, and it all died down immediately after the referendum. Many Scots have had a desire for independence ever since the United Kingdom was first formed. It's nothing new, and perhaps an inevitable result of a situation where 84% of the UK population are English - Scots feel like a junior partner (as do us Welsh), and some resent that. Some would prefer to be 100% in control of their own affairs rather than be a smaller part of a bigger country. But in fact there is a greater proportion of Scottish MPs at Westminster than their population warrants, AND they've had their own parliament since 1997 which handles many devolved powers.
Concerning religious fights and murders, I can only assume that is mainly a reference to the Northern Ireland troubles which again were the result of an age-old division over whether Northern Ireland should be part of the UK or part of the Republic of Ireland. Well organised terrorist organisations like the IRA carried out active murderous bombing and shooting campaigns over a period of about 30 years. BUT can I point out that in all those 30 years of active terrorism - virtually civil war - about the same number were killed as who are murdered every 3 months in America.
Which kinda brings us back to the issue of gun crime.
Your qualifiers - "I don't think", "no major violence", "mostly verbal abuse", etc. says it all, for if we recognize that it is primarily the major violence that we hear of and that there are hundreds of peaceful protests, comments, debates the same thing can be said of the US.
But you're right - we have drifted from gun control. All that I can say there is that if someone, anyone, can produce a plan of controls that stands a chance of success in limiting lives lost that is commensurate to the freedoms/rights lost I would be all over it. So far, though, the only things produced are methods of limiting the guns owned by the citizenry and we know that is a failed program. We need a robotic, AI gun that can instantly reason through the circumstances and decide whether it should fire or not, but unfortunately it is never the gun that makes decisions or takes action; that is left to the individual. And doesn't work very well.
Totally agreed. I should just point out the only reason I use qualifying phrases like that is because I am ultra-cautious about trying to getting my facts right. I did do a quick Internet search to check if any deaths or serious injury had been recorded post-Brexit or during the Scottish referendum, but obviously cannot check over every incident that occurred. Hence the caution
Respectfully my UK. friend , who are you trying to kid about less negative human nature in the UK ? The only difference between America's crime , etc. and the rest of the free world is the incredible media dump of negativity in the US.
America's sensationalizing news media is the latest "reality show" for the rest of the world. That's the only reason that you know what our culture is comprised of. If the UK , France , Greece , Russia had our media freedoms , the real picture over there would be much the same and perhaps worse .
To an extent I would agree. There's clearly no natural reason why Brits and Americans should be different culturally, but nonetheless I think that is the way it is. We just don't seem to have the same level of violent hate crime as you - rest assured, whenever it does happen it DOES get extensively reported as headline news, because our media bend over backwards to be politically correct in defence of minorities.
You claim that the cultures are similar, but it's just more sensationally reported by outspoken fake news media in the US. My view is that the 'extreme freedom' of the US media to say what they want regardless of the truth, actually helps create the problem. It nurtures extreme divisions between communities. In the UK, people are just as free to say what they think, but the language they can use is more restricted. I don't think it's as easy to get away with blatant lies or sentiments likely to provoke violence as it is in the US. I think our communities may tend to develop closer bonds because extremists don't have the same mouthpiece in the media to influence or stir up trouble with their hateful propaganda.
I do worry that may change in time. The vitriole of Internet sites - as opposed to television - is probably just the same as across the pond, and increasingly people get their 'news' from the Internet. That helps polarise opinions towards the extremes.
I'm with you in that there IS a reason we are different culturally. I doubt it's about innate violence, considering the massively violent past of the UK, but there are other possibilities.
Do Brits have more self control than Yanks? Do the consider their actions rather than just letting it all hang out?
Does that "stiff upper lip" of Brits include more willingness to simply endure than to act?
I don't see much of our violence as "hate" crime; I see it as either a disregard for human life and/or the killers just don't care what the results are. Of course, most of the killing is around drugs and/or gangs, where the intent to kill is very much there, but it still isn't about hate.
The UK isn't anywhere near the melting pot the US is; is the natural desire for "clubs" of like minded harder to do there? Is our extreme diversity giving rise to more "grouping"?
I'm sure there are dozens more of possibilities, too, but no one cares enough to examine them. The desire to disarm others is too strong to allow such thought.
Traditionally we are supposed to be more reserved than you guys (two Brits can sit opposite each other on a 3 hour train journey and never say a word!) So there may be more self-control and less willingness to engage with others - perhaps that makes us less warmly friendly, but also less prone to aggression.
That culture may be changing a bit. We've had high rates of immigration in recent years notably from Eastern Europe (a major reason why we voted Brexit) whilst nearly 5% of our population is now Muslim. What's more the country as a whole is probably becoming more liberal than it used to be.
I'm right of centre Conservative in British terms (albeit left of centre by American standards) so I do worry about the general trend in the UK, but I suspect we won't change too much in the years ahead. Certainly there's less prejudice against Afro-Caribbean blacks and Indian Asians today than 30 years ago because most have been well integrated into society for many years. Back then there was probably more of a ghetto culture. And the increased liberalism today certainly benefits gays etc. We're also a more secular society than the USA - religion plays a very much smaller role here, so religious division also plays a lesser role.
Where intolerance exists today it's probably more directed by the Left towards those who are 'politically incorrect', and by the Right towards Muslims, partly because of the cultural differences and partly because of the fears which inevitably have surfaced around terrorism. Nonetheless, it's still only a tiny minority on eiither side who actually physically demonstrate intolerance.
LOL In all my flying, I don't think I've ever struck up a conversation with the stranger in the next seat, and my flights are always more than a mere 3 hours! My wife, on the other hand, won't stay quiet for 30 seconds...
Your minorities - I don't really think you guys over there get it. You don't have 20% black. You don't see 20% Hispanic. You don't have a few percent "indigenous". We don't have a real majority of ANY race any more -
we really ARE different here, with the huge numbers of people that are considered "minority", and I do think that affects things. How, I don't know because I don't see but a tiny percentage of killings as having a racial cause but it is certainly the root of much dissension
Religion can be a problem, though, as the far right Christians are adamant that everyone else follow their god's edicts and that can cause pretty major problems. Not killings per se, but certainly violent confrontations that CAN lead to murder.
I'm just confident that there is something in American culture that lies at the root of our violence. Perhaps our fascination with it, whether sports or video games or movies. Perhaps a holdover from a mere 150 years ago when people were responsible for themselves and violence was necessary at times, just in self defense. We're a young country, with a young culture and maybe that's a factor.
I don't know what causes our high murder rate, but I do know it isn't the proliferation of guns; that is merely a symptom and a tool, not a cause, and we aren't going to end violence by removing the preferred tool. No one else has managed that trick and there is exactly zero reason to think that doing the same thing while hoping for different results will be effective.
Hi greensleeves, I understand your perspective that the divided Heller court decision may seem to cast doubt on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but if you consider the wording, (those infamous 27 words), of the amendment in the context of the times, and the author's notes and explanations of its intent, then I don't think you will find the ambiguity you think the Heller decision illustrates.
Take a few minutes to look for yourself. Look at Madison's Constitutional debate notes, and the Federalist Papers relative to the 2nd;
*I apologize for the link referrals, it is contrary to my usual postings, but it does serve the purposes of my comment.
Madfison's Federal CoventionDebate Notes - Avalon Project
James Madison Research Library
The Federalist #29
The Federalist #46
After looking at these "author's" perspectives - in their times, you may very well continue with your current opinion, but I think you will at least have noted that there was no ambiguity in the author's minds when they constructed the 2nd Amendment.,
GA
Thanks GA for those links. No apologies necessary! It'll take time to read through all of them, especially as I think it's necessary to do so 2 or 3 times to fully understand the 18th century phraseology and inferences, but I will do so when time permits. (Quite apart from the arguments, it's always interesting anyway to read documents such as these to gain an insight into the thinking of historic figures and the nature of society at that time.)
I have looked briefly at two of the documents, (the 2nd and 3rd linked) and they indicate the range of opinions at the time, and the Research Library Notes make clear the different views over how to precisely word the Amendment. I do feel on preliminary reading that the ambiguity does remain, certainly with regard to the limitations of the 'right' and whether it was a 'right' for all time. But I will read through them again in due course, so cheers.
I would however refer you to the reply I recently gave to to 'wilderness', as to where priorities should surely lie - the exact intent of the writers of the Amendment, or the needs of 21st Century America. But that is for present day Americans to decide, not me. I can only offer a detached, foreign perspective
I understand your "foreign" perspective on the Second Amendment. By foreign I mean just that - not an American perspective, so it is understandable that you view it differently.
From what small amount of reading I have done concerning this topic, I can relate a few points with confidence. One is that our Constitutional language and intent must be understood in the context of the times and circumstances of the Constitution's creation. As such, to try to apply 21st century interpretations will seldom meet the mark of the author's intentions.
Secondly, and one of the reasons I consider our Constitution's structure and wording a brilliant accomplishment is that the document is a foundation, a structure, for our government that is not period dependent. It is not a detailed finished product that says this is what America will be, it is the foundation for the finished product of America to be built on. It's structure and wording was purposeful because our Founder's understood there would be future times they could not begin to guess at, so the document they were creating had to be concise enough to carry meaning and intent, but not so rigid or detailed to preclude future circumstances.
Consider the simple wording of their First Amendment aspects of free speech, and religious freedom. They didn't try to prescribe the parameters of either one. They didn't say you couldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded venue, or that you couldn't put the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawn. But they did understand that there would be future considerations that would require those kind of details, so they merely constructed the framework, and an amendment process to accommodate changes, and a judiciary to validate parameters.
Back on topic, and with those thoughts in mind, consider the simplicity of the Second Amendment. They didn't insert details like; when you could bear arms, or even what kind of arms. They merely established the Right, and left the rest for future considerations by the citizens, our government, and our courts.
There is one point you make that is very clearly documented by notes and writings of the times. The Right to bear arms for the purposes of having an available citizen militia was very much directed to concerns of defense against a powerful central government that could turn tyrannical, and the standing armies that central government would come to posses.
The bottom line is that the militia spoken of in the Second was directly intended for defense purposes against our new government - should it go wrong, not primarily for defense against foreign invaders or internal insurrections.
I have had this type of conversation before, and can only hope to have sparked an interest for further reading. Because that is where a true, non-biased,non-political understanding will come from. Even with the 2nd being so tightly knotted, (these days), with political gun control stances, there was nothing political about the Second's creation.
I hope I didn't tire you out, as you can see, this is a topic I am enthusiastic about. ;-)
GA
The only truth decent liberals ever use that bears and resemblance to due righteousness is "In my opinion " , But, lets talk about a basic fundamental human rights, until something less than 50 years ago in America and actually still in every state here and much if not most of the world hunting is an accepted way of life and so the weapons to that purpose are as well.
Any talk of gun confiscation , reduced rights ,limitations , governed collections , confiscations or controls for that matter go against that simple 2nd amendment.
Liberals here seem to be the only ones who believe constitutional law as being fluid . There comes a point when even amended law strangles the original intent of the constitutional right itself. And the laws that amend , alter or change the second amendment already do that. Hence ,the un-moving supreme court stance supporting the 2nd.
Look at the second amendment this way , it is as perpetual as the constitution is itself.
Oh, he had a reason! Well then, that makes it all right?
Not one element of constitutional law can be so severely altered without the compromising of the whole . I understand that a city dweller has no need or familiarity with a ten gauge shotgun , someone residing and raised in London has no need for the idea of a vintage gun collection , a man in gated community in Baltimore has no understanding or need for personal protection with 911 three minutes from his door.
IF each of you asked yourself fairly , What is YOUR OWN personal understanding and experience with gun ownership ? What you read about in Vanity fair about personal protection ? What you watch on 60 minutes and was produced by urban dwellers , educated at Georgetown and so chopped, cut and edited in a NYC studio ?
Or , did you grow up with the firearm heritage passed down through generations of constant ownership ? From a young age traditionally handed a firearm at a young age and trained in it's safe use and operation , Were you taught the proper cleaning , maintenance and use at the range or in the home by trusted adults , quite often in the back yards of rural homes ? Was that upbringing related to military service often times the only offering of a making a living for rural Americans ? Did you attain your firearms training and use at the calling of your government ? That right of possession?
I don't truly expect anyone in the anti- gun crowd to understand , much less support ,
such reasonable responses from the right because I am not that naive , true opposition is constant opposition , but a well instituted and much legally dissected meaning to the Second Amendment has already been done , hundreds of times in the courts , in just about every single election cycle in our American history .
Worry not , the second amendment isn't going anywhere soon .
Depends on your definition of "soon" My prediction is that within the next 50 years the second amendment will be either repealed or so emasculated with "proper" interpretation as to be useless in providing the right to bear arms. The "I WILL control you!" crowd is destined to win this one.
Maybe , hell probably but at what cost ? I know that there are many ,many millions of Americans that are willing to push that to the limits . I have said before that it would involve civil war . Yet , I also fully and consciously admit to the presence of indoctrination in our schools and in our youth . Just as in all such things it is obviously our young that are the future and that will be the true telling of this debate .
In the mean time , we fight on.
In the meantime we fight on, but it's a losing battle. Far too many people aren't interested in facts and results, just in an emotional appeal to fear, and it's getting worse. What percentage of people, for instance, know that the dreaded "assault rifle" is used in only a tiny percentage of murders (about 2%), is the most popular rifle in the country, AND cares about either one? We are being trained that terminology (implying military usage) and appearance is cause for fear, and fear will triumph reason any day.
A few fact's unknown to most with gun questions outside of America ; 99.99+% accurate within the U.S.
-automatic weapons are illegal to own by U.S. citizens[only federally licensed ]
-Most people who are into guns have been so for many years
-Are safe and always act safely when shooting
-Demand safety from other shooters at all times
-Majority of gun's owned are primitive in design
-Marketed fake " assault rifles" are just that , lacking ' automatic' fire
-All new / used gun sales legally require extensive , instant FBI background check
-Felons cannot legally own guns
-Full auto weapons owner have to have special Fed . licence[hard to attain ]
-Gun show/sales unless illegal , must be legally registered with FBI ,B.G. check
-I have attended hundreds and never witness an illegal gun show or sale .
-People under 21 cannot legally purchase a handgun
-nor under 18 yr.s without parental signing [long-guns ]
-Any more questions ?
Consider also the timing at the writing of the second amendment that people today cannot hardly begin to imagine , Protesters in the streets of Boston , A people taken to the streets over politics , taking up arms and laying down their rakes , shovels and hoes . Putting aside family , farm and business' , leaving their homes by force , marriages put off , child bearings missed . Marching for weeks on end to muster .
Watch the Mel Gibson movie , The Patriot just once , And then read the 27 words of the second amendment . The simplicity of those words for people who love their country rings bells year after year since then . And ask yourself , Is the politcal / cultural / media atmosphere so different today than it was in 1777 ?
The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere soon .
by Don Bobbitt 7 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by David 10 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...
by Michael Collins aka Lakemoron 10 years ago
We hear and read so many people saying what they don't want. It makes me wonder what do people think would help. Please if you are going to list them then use a number system or bullet points. Thank you.
by thomasczech 9 years ago
Gun Grab North America .In your opinion, are the anti gun groups going too far, or not far enough?The governments of both, United States and Canada, along with the anti gun groups are pushing for tighter restrictions of firearms and an all out ban on certain guns. However, those who have firearms...
by PrettyPanther 2 years ago
March 23, 2021WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.In brief, somber remarks from the White...
Copyright © 2023 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 © 2023 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) |