Trump's Bump Stock Ban

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (64 posts)
  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    I don't agree with Trump on most issues, but I do agree with him on this ban.  Here is the summary of the final ruling from the ATF.

    REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

    The new final rule confirms the definitional change offered in the proposed version. The definition of machinegun gets into much more detail, evidenced by the definition growing from 29 words to more than 220. To ensure bump stock devices are covered, they are explicitly mentioned by name, and the definition includes any devices that “allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

    Bump stock owners (including retailers) will be required to turn in or destroy their devices within 90 days of the rule being published in the Federal Register.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Likewise, I don't agree with Trump on most issues and do agree with him on this one.

      We'll see if the NRA freaks out about it.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I cannot agree.  Not at all.

        When the government decides it wants what you have legally purchased and own, and simply takes it without compensation it has crossed the line, and done so big time.  It gets worse when you can be punished for not voluntarily giving up your chattel for no more reason that people are afraid.

        We want to ban bump stocks and require owners to give them up, fine.  But compensate them for what we're taking from them.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Anyone who thinks guns are more important than human life will never agree with a bump stock ban.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps you failed to read the last paragraph?

            "We want to ban bump stocks and require owners to give them up, fine."

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I wasn't disputing your comment. I was simply offering an opinion about people who will oppose the ban such as the NRA.

              That said, in your previous views, the government "confiscates" all of the time, especially with taxes.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Of course they do.  And supposedly it provides roads, military, etc.  That makes it all right to take without giving anything back, yes?

                There have been many negative comments on Imminent Domain; here we have the same thing but without ANY compensation, not just a smaller amount than the victim thinks is reasonable.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  In this case, the government is trying to give back safety, something gun nuts don't care about.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Safety.  As in confiscating land to widen and improve highways?  Without, of course, paying for that land?

                    Or as in the whacko assumptions those afraid of a chunk of iron claim will solve problems this time even though it never has in the past?  You know - the control freaks that think they have answers because they don't like guns and will do and say anything at all to spread fear until those nasty things are gone from the country?

                    But either way, Promisem, the fact remains that government should NEVER simply confiscate what a person legally acquired and owns.  Not even by suddenly making the item illegal to own; if govt. wants to confiscate such items, whether a gun, land, a home or a bump stock it must provide reasonable compensation.

                    I really do believe, and hope, that this misbegotten plan from those control freaks fails at the first court appearance, and we can be sure it WILL be fought.  That hope may come partly because I recognize that the ban will do zero good (not when they are readily available from a 3D printer), but I do hope it fails.  I find this action to be unconscionable, beyond even the disarmament attempts.  What's next - either give all your guns to Uncle Sam for free or face prison?  It sets a precedent that cannot be allowed.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness:  It may be legally purchased when you bought it, but after the law passes, it will become illegal.  And you want to be compensated for turning in an illegal item? Talk to your congressman, if you want to be compensated for turning them in. 

          People are afraid of the bad guys using bump stocks to commit mass shootings. By keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys will reduce people being killed in mass-shootings.  The only way the bad guys can be prevented them from having them is to make them illegal for everybody. Or do you have a better idea?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That's what I said: the bump stock was quite legal when you purchased, but then the govt. decides they don't like them, make the illegal and demand you give it to them.  Want to bet that will be contested in court, and lose?  Government cannot simply confiscate anything it likes, at the whim of legislators.  It is no different than confiscating land for a new road - fair compensation must be paid.

            "By keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys will reduce people being killed in mass-shootings."

            If you could only show that to be true instead of just making the statement because you believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that it is.  Much like Australia confiscating all the semi-automatic weapons, only to see the death toll from mass murders go unchanged and the toll from murders continue the same slow slide it had been on for decades.

            No result for them, yet you insist that you know, somehow, that it will lower the death toll here.  Wish I had your crystal ball; I'd use it on the stock market.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It does confiscate all of the time in the form of taxes, court fines, even property in some situations.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Wilderness:  Who do you think is going to pay for your confiscated bump stocks?  Answer:  You and me and everybody else who pays taxes.  Do you even own a bump stock? 

                How about the people that are killed from mass killings and their families, how do they get paid back?  "Just remember our thoughts and prayers are with you."  Yeah right!

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh?  And what is Uncle Sam paying for the stocks turned in?

                  No I don't.  The quote "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” comes to mind here, however, as do the lives of the millions that have given their lives to protect the rights and freedoms we all enjoy.  Confiscating goods on a whim and without compensation is not freedom - it is government run amuck.

    2. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just another way to make the government more powerful than the people. The one Thing that the Trump administration  has in common with 1940's Germany, and the Liberals love it.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Onusonus:  It's not about making the government more powerful than the people.  It's about making those who want to do harm to others less powerful. How do you know ahead of time when a person is going to become a mass shooter?  You don't, so therefore, everybody has to sacrifice to take that potential away from those that might do harm to others before they do it.

        Yes they can use other means, but common sense says it will reduce the use of weapons who's primary purpose is to be efficient killing machines like the ones used in combat.

        Hitler gave guns to the Youth Core and they became the Storm Troopers of the NAZI military.  You need to get your history straight.

        https://www.history.com/news/how-the-hi … into-nazis

        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          And much like Hitler's brown shirts, Liberal politicians believe that only certain groups of people should be allowed to own a firearm. In fact with some they narrow it down to their body guards.

          Had the 2nd Amendment existed in 1940's Germany 6 million Jews would have been able to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.

          I find it interesting that liberals are always comparing Trump to Hitler yet they still want him to take away their means to self defense.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            onusonus:  You were the one who brought up Germany in the 1940's not me. Am I missing something?  Who were you referring to if not Hitler?

            So you think 6 millions Jews would have been able to defend themselves against one of the most powerful military's in the Axis powers?

            The problem with Germany was not only the German military, but the people were willing to look the other way and be indifferent as the Jews were made to live in ghettos and were unwittingly being carted off to concentration camps. 

            The tyrannical state is always used in these forums as the boogie man. Congratulations, you are the first one in this forum to use that reference.  Fear is a great motivator. 

            So you think Trump is going to turn against his people and the 2nd amendment and your combat style weapons are going to protect you from the most powerful military in the world or do you think a foreign power is going to attack us with assault rifles, just like you guys have?

            I have news for you.  They are already attacking us, but it is not with firearms.  It is called cyber warfare and the Russians and Chinese are very good at it.  So you can put away your pea shooter and start learning coding. This is not 1776 or NAZI Germany, but it is the only country in the world that has a 2nd amendment that allows everybody to have guns, including the mentally ill.

            1. profile image0
              Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              So the Jews didn't deserve to defend themselves because guns are too dangerous. It is that mentality that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews, Chinese, and Russians. 

              You are the one in dire need of a history lesson.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                O: So the Jews didn't deserve to defend themselves because guns are too dangerous. It is that mentality that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews, Chinese, and Russians.

                M:  I never said they didn't deserve to defend themselves, you did.  Hitler's attack of the Jews, started out with him brainwashing the German populous by calling the news media fake news and then taking over the news outlets . (sound familiar?) 

                Then he started broadcasting propaganda that the Jews were what was wrong with the world. By then he had a huge military force and civilian force that rounded up the Jews and sent them to concentration camps to be exterminated as the final solution. 

                At what point during this scenario do you see the Jews defending themselves against the Germans?  It was as much psychology and propaganda as it was warfare. As I said before, they were unwittingly taken to the concentration camps.  Even when they were taken to the gas chambers, they were told, they were going to the showers. 

                Fighting against genocide is much more complex than you make it out to be.  Look at what is happening in Syria.  Bashar al Assad is taking out his own people, even though they are armed.  They use barrel bombs loaded with lethal nerve gas dropped from Russian aircraft to take out the people who are against him.  What good does an AR15 do in that situation?  We even have our own military there for years. Do you think if you had to defend yourself against an enemy, it would be as simple as shooting them with an AR15?

                Maybe you see them going house-to-house and you have your AR15 with a scope trained on them so that you can shoot the aggressors right between the eyes.

                1. profile image0
                  Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "Do you think if you had to defend yourself against an enemy, it would be as simple as shooting them with an AR15? "

                  Absolutely.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                    peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Good Luck:  You don't understand how genocide works.  We are currently supplying Saudi Arabia with military fire power so that they bomb the hell out of Yemen's Houthis Shia's.  These are not simple little skirmishes, they are full scale attacks meant to wipe a people off the face of the earth. Your AR 15's wouldn't last five minutes in an attack.

  2. hard sun profile image85
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    As a hunter, I'm certainly not too big on gun control. However, I am for reasonable gun control laws, and bump stocks are a way around the law as it has been illegal to manufacture new fully automatic weapons since 1986. So, you could argue that a bump stock ban is really just upholding the current law. I'm guessing that's why "the definition of machinegun gets into much more detail."

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hard sun:  I think there is little bit more to the law.  Retailers and owners of bump stocks have 90 days after the law passes to destroy their bump stocks...so that is different.

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I did just read that. I also saw there'e lawsuits, or likely to be, about things such as bump stock owners being reimbursed their cash. Bump stocks are basically a way to get around the automatic weapon law though.

    2. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.

  3. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    I have no problem with banning bump stocks.  I do believe it is like illegal drugs, it will only affect those who choose to obey the law.

    A huge problem with this ban is the advancement of technology.  A bump stock can be made with a 3-D printer.  Just do a bit of a google search and then you'll realize, bump stocks, like drugs, will be illegal, but many people will still have them. 

    Will this law make a difference?  Who knows?  Like illegal drugs, those who want bump stocks will find a way to get them.  Those who obey the law won't. 

    I have never owned or used a bump stock.  I like hunting on an occasion as well as target shooting often.  Neither one of those activities involve the use of a bump stock. 

    So, I hope the ban does some good.

    Read about the very real 3-D printer bump stock.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/3d-p … n-obsolete

    1. hard sun profile image85
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, interesting article in light of the new ban.. It's a reminder, to me anyway, that sometimes things just have to be fabricate their own plastic guns anytime they want.

  4. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    LOL. There are also other ways to simulate automatic fire without using a bump stock. I guess a person who knew anything about guns would know that. Can't expect a gun grabber, someone wishing to induce mass murders, and with no regard for history or facts to understand something like that though.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wesman:  It has nothing to do with knowing about guns.  It has to do with reducing mass-shootings. I know this, it is far easier to buy and use a  bump stock than it is for the bad guys to modify a semi-automatic and make it fully automatic.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You mean like in California and Illinois where gun control  reduced gun crimes? Oh wait, that didn't happen in either of those places.

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      First I thought it was strange that you and other Donald Trump fans haven't mention his name once, even though he is the person pushing to implement the ban.

      Then I understood your difficulty. So I'd like to help.

      Here are a selection of phrases you need, but are obviously struggling to say:

         "Donald Trump is wrong on this issue"

         "Donald Trump has made a mistake"

         "I disagree with Donald Trump's policy choice"

         "Donald Trump is misinformed on this issue"

         "Et tu Donald?"

         "No Donald, for the love of everything holy, say it ain't so!"

         "Why Donald why!!??"

         "Donald, I think we need to spend some time apart"

      Absolutely no need to thank me.

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I thank you, Don.  I hope you don't mind. smile

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You're welcome promisem smile

  5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    Confiscation is theft. Theft is violence. Violence just leads to more violence.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wesman:  Mass-shootings are violence. Mass-shootings lead to murder and injury. Making bump stocks illegal, will lead to reducing mass-shootings and injury.

      If we let everyone have bump stocks, that means the bad guys will have them as well.  Why does a civilian need a fully automatic firearm?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Making bump stocks illegal, will lead to reducing mass-shootings and injury. "

        An interesting claim.  And as evidence, you offer the real world experience of...  What?  That you think it will work so it must be taken as factual?

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Except you've been shown before how none of that is true. You didn't care. You do not care. What you care about is your fake sense of moral superiority. You posted this hoping some of the usual suspects would come along and tell you, 'oh yes, you are so right. Aren't we so morally superior!'

        You know of exactly one instance where a bump stock was used. You also know your government and the horrific leftist mass media shut up really quickly about that whole situation. You could think, and surmise there was a reason for them doing so. It would require thinking though.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Ouch, you scored the perfect verbal kill shot.

  6. hard sun profile image85
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    I know I don't have to simulate an automatic rifle to kill a deer.

  7. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    Everybody:  There is no evidence that banning bump stocks will reduce mass shootings.  But how are we going to gain any evidence unless we try?  Doing nothing is also an action. Your evidence is based on foreign countries confiscation of weapons, but not on banning bump stocks.  The other thing that should be banned is high capacity magazines. Bump stocks and high capacity magazines go hand-in-hand for mass-killings.

    I do not feel that I am morally superior to anybody.  But you people that keep bringing it up must feel morally inferior or you wouldn't keep stating that.

    I feel empathy for those who were victims and those who lost loved ones.  Why does any civilian need fully automatic weapons?  I ask again and again, but no one answers that question. 

    What is wrong with having moral values anyway?  Being selfish is also being morally wrong. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines is a sacrifice of the many to save a few, that it my view should be made.  Again, there is no evidence to support that, but if we don't try, there will never be any evidence.

    1. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We had a speaker of the house named Nancy Pelosi once tell the American public in regards to Obama Care "We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill." 

      I guess she thought the American public was really stupid.

      Now you are saying...."We won't know if gun restriction laws works until we pass these gun restriction laws."

      This may work with the mental abilities of liberals.  Conservatives can look beyond your words to see your goals. 

      WE are not that stupid.  Nice try.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Readmikenow:  Let's just keep this simple.  How would you feel if one of your loved ones was taken out by person using a bump stock and high capacity magazines?

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Poor argument.  Let me explain to you how reality works.  With or without laws in place my loved ones, your loved ones and everybody's loved ones could be taken out by a bump stock or high capacity magazine.  Laws don't matter to someone who wants to commit a mass shooting.  I believe the liberal approach to this is to pass laws that make you feel good and do nothing real.  They only punish those who abide by the laws. Guns aren't the problem.  People are the problem.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Readmikenow: 

            R: Poor argument.  Let me explain to you how reality works.  With or without laws in place my loved ones, your loved ones and everybody's loved ones could be taken out by a bump stock or high capacity magazine. 

            M:  That's true, however, if someone is taken out and there are laws to prevent that, then whoever committed said crime is subject to appropriate legal action based on those laws.

            R:Laws don't matter to someone who wants to commit a mass shooting.  I believe the liberal approach to this is to pass laws that make you feel good and do nothing real.

            M:  You just said "I believe."  That means it is nothing more than your opinion. 

            R: They only punish those who abide by the laws. Guns aren't the problem.  People are the problem.

            M: Really, then why is it that people who break the law, have legal action against them ?  People with guns who want to harm others is the problem.

            1. Readmikenow profile image97
              Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "That's true, however, if someone is taken out and there are laws to prevent that, then whoever committed said crime is subject to appropriate legal action based on those laws."

              I agree.  There are plenty of laws on the books concerning guns.  There is plenty of punishment currently available.

              "You just said "I believe."  That means it is nothing more than your opinion."

              I agree.  Such as passing laws will eliminate bump stocks.  It's an opinion.

              "Really, then why is it that people who break the law, have legal action against them ?  People with guns who want to harm others is the problem."

              Again...we agree.  People with guns who WANT to harm others.  That is the real problem.  I think history has proven someone with the desire will always find a way.  If there was a way to eliminate that desire, we could end mass shootings.  I think this goes deep into social as well as cultural issues and more.  You have to ask yourself why were mass shooting unheard of in the 1940s and 1950s. Why was that something unthinkable during that time in American history.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "But how are we going to gain any evidence unless we try? "

      You might look at the experience of other countries that have done similar things, of not the exact same.  Australia comes to mind; they took all semi-automatic guns...for zero result.  Mustn't mention that, though, or else spin it into something that isn't true or isn't relevant.

      "Why does any civilian need fully automatic weapons?  I ask again and again, but no one answers that question.  "

      You probably don't get an answer because it isn't relevant.  Need is not a requirement to want or have something; only desire (and the resources to get it).  This is just another red herring to divert attention, nothing more.

      "What is wrong with having moral values anyway?"

      What?  Taking things from people because you're afraid of them, or just don't like them, is moral?  Not in my world.

  8. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14337400.jpg

  9. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    Wilderness went out of his way, as he often does, to show the OP how none of his ideas have any basis in reality. OP did not listen. OP does not care about facts. OP does not care about logic. OP is a gun grabber. He wants to incite the same sort of violence as was seen last century. All 'progressive' ideas lead to social disorder and violence. OP wants more of that exactly.

    He's incapable reflecting upon things which contradict his virtue signaling. He just keeps repackaging the same tired old things in brand new forum posts. He presumes these things make him appear to be caring, wise, and thinking of the nation's best interests. Sadly, there are persons forever willing to fall for that.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wesman:  Everything you stated about me is nothing more than your opinion.  Nice try at trying to bait me, but that dog don't don't hunt anymore. 

      I bet everybody on this forum doesn't even own a bump stock.  You are all so afraid they are coming after your guns.  You are all suffering from the slippery slope syndrome. 

      Obama is no longer president and the threat of tyranny went down the tubes and so did gun sales.

      And now you are using the bump stock ban to continue your anxiety led fear that they are coming for your guns.  Again, it shows you don't care about mass killings.  All you care about is they are coming for your guns...selfish, cruel, and without any empathy.  Oh by the way, you can thank your beloved leader for approving the ban.

 
working

This website uses cookies

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://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)