Mass Shootings

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (95 posts)
  1. peoplepower73 profile image92
    peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

    I am fed up with the gun people stating that more people are killed by other means than guns. Statistically that may be true. But at  this point it is not about statistics.  It is about keeping our environment safe.  In this latest mass shootings, the shooter killed five people and wounded 21 while driving a vehicle. 

    This is  a whole new mode of mass shooting.  The NRA says the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Hell, the police couldn't  even find this guy for a while.  When swat teams have to have hours of  long stand-offs with mass shooters, something  is wrong with this picture. 

    Where in these mass shootings are the good guys with their AR-15's?  It's not about statistics, it's about keeping America safe from white supremacist and racists.  It's about the almighty dollar, the NRA, congress and the gun industry. 

    It's not about our thoughts and prayers are with you and lip service from presidents and the NRA.  It's time to do something  real and effective. If you want to talk statistics, 51 people died in mass shooting in August alone.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      The majority of Americans feel just as you do. We need to vote the NRA-loving cowards out of congress. Fire their sorry @sses.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I suggest we need to push for laws that block campaign contributions from dictating how Congress acts.

        Let's actually have a real democracy instead of a "republica" under the control of whomever has the most money.

        If that happens, the NRA won't control Congress. The American public will have that control.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      "It's not about statistics, it's about keeping America safe from white supremacist and racists."

      No it's not - it's about stemming our own tears while disarming the American public.  Were it about keeping America safe we would be searching for, and addressing, the root cause of the violence rather than pretending that if we just remove the preferred tool from law abiding citizens the hatred and violence will stop.  Something real and effective, in other words.

      1. dianetrotter profile image68
        dianetrotterposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        All of those who want to shoot people should be enlisted in the army.  Put them on the ground in Afghanistan, Syris, Yemn and other places where they will need good skills.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          That an idea.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Now that could be a winner.  Don't let them around our own servicemen, though!

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Mike, consider this a discussion-starter rather than a rebuttal of your thoughts.

        Consider that almost all, (if not all), of this year's mass shootings were done with legally purchased/obtained weapons, which means all buyers went through the background checks, what solution would you propose--short of getting rid of all guns?

        One less drastic solution might be to limit all guns to single shot, meaning all semi-automatic weapons would be banned. Of course, that would mostly apply to long guns, leaving the revolver handgun as a choice.

        If the NRA and the Constitution were removed as obstacles, what idea short of a total ban can you see as helpful?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          If they were legally purchased, it doesn't mean they went through background checks.

          A private sale doesn't require a background check and is still legal.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          GA:  I don't have any solutions for gun control.   All I can do is protest about the way things are being handled now and try to point out the facts to make others aware that enough is not being done by our government to reduce mass shootings in this country.

          Our government is beholden to the NRA and the gun industry because they fund re-elections campaigns for everybody including the president.  They have huge lobbying groups with lots of money. The NRA even has rankings for congressmen based on how well they support NRA causes.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Solutions" might have been the wrong word Mike, my intent was to ask if you had any ideas about new gun controls that might work.

            Folks are demanding that something must be done. And they are looking for a scapegoat to blame. But, the "something" they demand should do something to solve the problem, not just something that makes folks feel better.

            My point was that access to guns might be a major area to look at. With the exception of the gun show loophole, (I don't think one-on-one private sales are a significant factor), I also think we have legal access fairly well covered.

            So, short of a total ban, and also remaining relevant to the issue of mass shootings, what might be a viable idea for a place to start?

            Once we have that workable idea then we can address the obstacles to getting there.

            GA

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              GA: In order to come up with a viable solution, we have to define the real problem and the root cause of that  problem.  Are you prepared to do that? I venture to say the question to ask is why are there mass shootings?

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                If we could identify the root cause there would be no reason for bans.

              2. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Remember, I changed "solutions" to "ideas." However, you did ask the right question.

                Relative to the "why," my first thought is because there are evil bad people, as in psychopaths. And then, that there are weak bad people that cannot cope with the status of their life so they do things for notoriety and acceptance. And lastly, that there are angry bad people who lose control of their life because of that anger.

                One more thought would include the ideologues and their followers that do bad things because they are either idiots or a leader of idiots.

                The problem we face is that almost all of those people can and do appear normal in society, and as such, they will almost always pass a background check.

                The only sure way to stop those people from committing mass shootings is to ban all weapons. That isn't intended as sarcasm, just the reality that I can't think of any reasonable gun control that would help--short of that.

                Or, we could try to develop 'Minority Report' capabilities. (an attempt at humor)

                GA

                1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                  peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  GA:  I agree with you.  There are several categories of bad people who commit mass shootings.  However, I believe the root cause of the problem is the 2nd amendment.  It allows everybody  including all the categories of bad  guys to have the right to bear arms. 

                  There is nothing to stop anyone from obtaining fire arms without going through the legal channels. The laws only apply when purchasing said weapons.

                  The problem is that law enforcement and victims have no advanced notice that a mass shooter  is  going to commit those crimes.  It is  always after the fact. After the El Paso shooter, they are getting better at stopping  potential shooters based on internet information.

                  This really begs for a stakeholders analysis based on the rights, responsibilities, harms, and benefits for each type of stakeholder. Just for openers, the stakeholders could be, the shooter, law enforcement, gun shows, legal gun owners, FBI,  the target (potential victim), and congress.  It is something to think about.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    God damn the internet! I just lost a detailed response to your comment due to some stupid misclick! Buggers!

                    Without trying to recreate my response, the shorthand version is this;

                    You speak of stakeholders, but which stakeholders do you mean; the ones that lament the victims of mass shootings, or the ones that lament the loss of our 2nhd Amendment Rights?

                    GA

                    1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      GA:  Here is an article I wrote two years ago on the 2nd amendment and stakeholders analysis.  It needs to be updated to bring it up to current issues about mass shootings.

                      https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/The … s-Analysis

      3. dianetrotter profile image68
        dianetrotterposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Consider:  The US is the only country that has mass shootings with regularity?  Is there a profile of a person that could potentially "go postal/'  Are the freedoms we have a contributor to the violence that we experience?  Does the US have a greater rate of mental illness than other countries?  More hatred than other countries?

        Does any of it matter?

      4. Ken Burgess profile image93
        Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        You are blaming guns for the increase in mental instability and violence throughout society.

        It is a symptom that there is something wrong, it is not the guns fault, it is our unwillingness to identify those within our society with major issues and dealing with them as people with serious issues.

        Like the individual who shot up the club in Orlando, 49 people killed, investigated by the FBI on three different occasions, was not only allowed to still buy weapons legally, he held a security license and had clearance to be armed with a weapon.

        We live in a world where a suspected terrorist and individual who espoused hatreds online was able to arm himself, because we were afraid of infringing on his rights?

        Another shooter was one who had a bad conduct dishonorable discharge from the Air Force, now there is someone who should have never been able to get ahold of a gun legally, but again, instead of dealing with him as a mentally unstable threat to society, we let him run around free as can be.

        Trust me when I say the streets are filled with people who are a threat to society, who are capable of killing at any time, complete mental cases that are rounded up by police, treated at a hospital, placed in a mental ward, and back out on the streets within two weeks.

        Our nation is filled with the mentally unstable and criminally insane walking among us.  We decided long ago not to put these people in institutions, that it was inhumane to keep locked up, and so now they live among us, ticking time bombs.

        Its not the guns that are the problem, its our inability and unwillingness to identify the threats to society and ensure society is protected from them.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Ken:  The 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, including the good guys, the bad guys, the mentally ill, and domestic and foreign terrorists. 

          The only gatekeeper is background checks which are easy to circumvent by buying from private individuals and online. The FBI is supposed to perform the checks, but their departments for doing this are understaffed and underfunded.

          We had institutions for the mentally ill until Reagan decided to shutdown all the institutions because he wanted to cut back on "big government spending."  He put those  people on the  streets and  they have  been  there ever since because there is no government funding for them and institutions.

          Most of the time, the only way we know a mass shooting is committed is after the fact. Trump wants the death penalty for those who commit those crimes.  The problem is their manifestos state, they all ready want to die.

          You are right, the problem is not the guns, it is the lack of laws and the lack of enforcement of those laws. Many law abiding gun owners don't want laws imposed upon them because they feel they have done nothing wrong.

          However, as law abiding citizens we all have laws imposed on us. That is what keeps society safe. Until these conflicts of interest can be settled, I believe we will continue to have mass shootings in this country.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            "You are right, the problem is not the guns, it is the lack of laws and the lack of enforcement of those laws."

            No, it isn't even laws or the lack thereof.  It is something that is developing within our society that says it's OK to become violent.  That glorifies violence.  That says the only way out of pain is to kill people, dying in the effort.

            Pretending that if we can only keep a specific killing tool out of the hands of those people will end the carnage is foolish; it hasn't worked anywhere in the world, it hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.  People do not need a gun to kill, to take their rage or depression out on others.

            (I will agree, though, that if we can but take all the guns out of society the rate of accidental injury/death from guns will fall dramatically.  Of course, the same could be said for cars, but then we all want a car so we won't do that.)

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Wilderness:  We have driver laws to keep people safe from each other.  We have driver tests to ensure that we can operate a  car safely, We have separate tests for truck drivers.  We have laws to register our vehicles.  We have laws to control speed limits and intersections. We have insurance to protect ourselves and others from liability.  All of these laws are imposed upon all of us equally whether we are law abiding citizens or not.

              We have the 2nd amendment that protects your right to keep and bear arms and form a well regulated militia.   It is not a law.  You can't be prosecuted for not bearing arms or not forming a well regulated militia. You don't even  have to exercise that right.  It will always be there.  We are the only country in the free world that has a right like that applies to everybody without any preconditions.

              You and others like you don't want any laws imposed upon you to make society safer from mass shooters because you are already law abiding citizens. However, there are no laws to protect society from mass shooters, other than background checks which are sorely lacking.

              You are always afraid that if there were more laws, eventually they would include laws to confiscate your guns.  However, you and  I know the 2nd  amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms and form a well regulated militia. 

              It seems to me you don't trust law enforcement or the U.S. military enough to protect you.  In fact, you actually think they or even a foreign force could attack you. So therefore, you don't want any laws to protect the rest of from mass shooters, because it could jeopardize you right to bear arms and form a well regulated militia to protect you from a bogey man.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image93
            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't care who shut them down or why.

            The issue remains, they are out there on the streets a threat to society at large.

            And again, I note that the FBI had pinpointed the individual who killed 49 in Orlando... but did nothing. 
            The individual who killed 26 people in Texas was charged with various crimes before and after his bad conduct discharge - "In 2013 - told authorities he had water-boarded her in addition to choking and kicking her."  &  "In 2012 - he was court-martialed and found guilty of assaulting his then-wife and fracturing his stepson’s skull at an Air Force base."

            When you leave known or suspected mentally unstable violent individuals free in society without restrictions this is what we get, and as we let in millions more people every year, and put additional strains on limited social resources and police protections the problem will multiply.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              While I agree with what you're saying, I also see a truly major problem when we force treatment onto those "suspected" of being mentally unstable (think how many have made the claim of our president).  Will we each and every one have to submit to a mental exam each year, and who will set the guidelines?

            2. dianetrotter profile image68
              dianetrotterposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Is hatred considered a mental illness?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image93
                Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                As the events of almost every recent mass murderer's past were slowly unearthed, they started to ring familiar bells: run-ins with the police, domestic violence, involvement with online hate groups, psychological interventions, violent threats made against others.

                There are lots of angry and embittered people who have it out for others. They get fired from jobs, fight with their partners, perpetrate road rage, harbor grudges, commit minor acts of violence.

                But when we find out these Mass Murderers were identified by authorities, like the Orlando murderer that killed 49 being investigated by the FBI, twice in person, and being put on the Terrorist Screening Database.

                And when we find out the shooter that killed 26 in Texas was sentenced by Court-Martial, should have been jailed, repeatedly, for his violent crimes.. the problem isn't the guns!

                The problem is we have a society that allowed these two individuals to run around free, one of them to actually have a job where he carried a gun!

                These two individuals committed two of the top mass murders in American history.  And people who should have had them jailed, at the very least incapable of buying weapons and arrested at the attempt, failed at every stage in the system. 

                Its not the weapon... its that we allow criminally violent dangerous people to walk among us.  We live in a society that lets murderers walk free, like the killer who shot a woman on a San Francisco pier.

                "Kathryn Steinle, 32, died in her father's arms when she was shot on July 1, 2015, while they and a family friend were strolling along Pier 14 in the city's tourist-friendly Embarcadero district."

                They had the right guy, he shot her in front of witnesses, and he walked free.

                In the case of the killer of 26 in Texas, he beat his wife and stepson so badly they had to be hospitalized, and then he did the same to another woman a year later in another relationship... not a guy that should have been walking around free.  Let alone capable of buying weapons.

                Don't blame an inanimate object for the insanity that is being accepted as normal in our society.  We identify violent criminals, murderers even, and continually release them back into society... there-In lies the problem.

                1. dianetrotter profile image68
                  dianetrotterposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I agree.  BUT is hatred considered a mental illness.

                  1. tsmog profile image77
                    tsmogposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    No it is not a classified mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statiscal Manual, of which the latest version is DSM-V or the World Health Organization version. Yet, it could be used with forming a diagnosis.

      5. Onusonus profile image77
        Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Banning weapons is the most white privilege idea ever. Rich liberals scoffing at the idea that a person might need to defend their own life is a tower so ivory you can't look at it in direct sunlight. It's the personal safety equivalent of "just have the maid do it".

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Onusonus: You wrote:

          Rich liberals scoffing at the idea that a person might need to defend their own life is a tower so ivory you can't look at it in direct sunlight.

          That tells me you are more concerned about saving your own life than protecting the safety of others who may be involved in mass shootings.

          1. Onusonus profile image77
            Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            And what that tells me is disarming law abiding citizens somehow keeps them safe from criminals. I can't see you from that ivory tower way up there, it's so shiny.

    3. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago

      https://thinkprogress.org/black-kids-in … b4a2cb851/

      Do you care about all violence? Every day violence? Or is it just those you can slap with the convenient label du jour?

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Inflammatory left-wing propaganda.

        Think Progress is not much different than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

    4. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

      I care about keeping our streets safe from mass shooters. I also care about all violence, but I have been taught to solve one problem at a time.  You are doing what gun people do and that is conflating  one problem to include the whole universe of discourse about mankind.

      I'm tired of that sh*t. And you know what? Nothing gets done, because your argument becomes solving all the worlds problems at one time. It's all or nothing with you people and it always turns out to be nothing as our streets become more unsafe everyday by mass shooters who are becoming more sophisticated in their tactics.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Hear, hear.

        I'm sick of these stupid argumrnts, as are most sensible people.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        You're right - nothing gets solved.  Plenty done but the death toll keeps right on.

        Because you argument simply continues to advocate for the same failed concepts we've been dealing with for years in disarming the public rather than searching for a cause and solution to the death toll.  And when you are successful in denying the constitution you will scream to the heavens that "Look!  No one has been shot!"...while ignoring the pile of bodies, just as high or higher, dead from other violent means as the criminals switch weapons.

        You know this, too - you have studied the figures from around the world and know that there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate of a society.  You know that removing all semi-automatic guns (whether termed "assault rifles" or just "hunting guns" did not slow the mass murder rate.

        You KNOW this...and keep right on advocating to repeat the events that allowed thousands of murders.  Eventually one begins to wonder why - is there a deeper purpose or do you simply have no other answer and wish to make yourself feel better that you are doing something even if known to be ineffective.

    5. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks ago

      Where were the good guys with guns during these mass shootings in Texas?

      Oh,I guess there weren't enough of them. This should do the trick.

      8 new Texas laws that loosen gun restrictions, starting Sept. 1

      Pure stupidity.

    6. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

      Wilderness:  Where were the law abiding citizens in these mass shootings with their preferred tools?  How many did they stop from being killed.  You are using the same old argument and again nothing gets done because you are afraid the big bad government is coming for your guns, while more and more mass shootings are taking place and more and more innocent people, including children are being killed. 

      There is a war being waged by white supremacist and racists, not against each other, but against innocent people. Where are your gun people when these take place.  Or do they have to come to your door step  in order for you to protect us? Are you more concerned about protecting us or yourself?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        A mass shooting occurred 15.minutes from my home in 2015. Several armed people were on campus. What good did it do? None.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        You're right - there is a war.  And you and those like you are losing it and will continue to lose it as your only solution is to disarm the honest person. 

        Using loaded words (providing an emotional but fact free argument) and asking where the honest people were does absolutely nothing to supply an answer - just another empty argument to convince others their tears will dry if we can just disarm the public.  Which we've been doing for years with zero results, but that's alright - it will surely work this time!  (What's that definition of insanity?  Something about repeating the same action while expecting a different result?)

        As far as that war being done by white supremacists - there are more mass murders committed by blacks, as a percentage of their population, than by whites.  So you can take that foolish concept and stick it with the equally foolish one that when only criminals have a gun the death toll will end.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Blah. Blah. Blah.

          We hear your fear-filled, right-wing blather and we're moving on with you throwback  wannabe patriots kicking and screaming behind us.

          Enough.

    7. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

      Wilderness:  What is the cause and solution to the death toll?  Do you know? or are you just putting that out there as delay tactics.  I don't care about statistics anymore.  I care about people.  All you care about is protecting yourself from the government confiscating your guns.

      You are right I'm one person and all I can do is bitch and complain, but there is power in numbers and if a lot of us bitch and complain, we can get something done.  I think that most of this country is fed up with these senseless killings, but nothing will get done because of the big money it represents for congressmen, the NRA and the gun industry, but I'm not going to sit by and keep my mouth shut and feel powerless.  That's not what I do.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I do not know the cause.  Do you?  You're insisting that if we take guns from the citizenry; does that mean that the cause of the violence is law abiding people having a gun?  Or even a killer having a gun?  Do you really believe that a killer won't kill if he/she doesn't have easy access to a gun?  Experience and history tells us "No"; do you simply ignore it in the effort to disarm the country?

        (You might want to talk to McVeigh about that, or perhaps any of the thousands that kill with knives or even hands and feet every year - see if they can convince you that without a gun they would not have killed.)

        Yes - there are a lot of people afraid of guns.  The far left has run a program for years to scare people into thinking that if they can just take guns from other people the death toll will stop.  They use loaded terminology and their tactics center around emotional appeals and teaers rather than factual ones, with the result we have thousands of people murdered each year while they continue to cry for anything that will reduce the number of guns in private hands.

        People like you that will not "keep your mouth shut and feel powerless" while never even attempting to root out the cause and address it.  That's what you do, while acknowledging that guns are not the cause of the violence in America.  No, you don't care about people, for if you did you would advocate finding that cause rather than assuming it is a chunk of iron.  And if you can't find a cause you would accept such stop-gaps as armed teachers in an honest effort to at least slow the carnage. 

        It isn't the NRA and gun industry causing the death toll; right now it is people like you demanding that we repeat the past, failing once more to even reduce the death toll while you can then beat your breast, exclaiming that you did all you could.

    8. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

      Wilderness:  The cause for mass shootings is the easy access to guns.  Mass shooters use guns, not  knifes and forks and other means.  Trump just said background checks wouldn't have  stopped the killings in Midland Texas. So that is is just another form of doing nothing. Today Texas just loosened gun laws to allow guns in schools, churches, and in foster homes

      I have never advocated for taking away law abiding citizens guns.  However, I  have advocated for better gun laws, including more effective background checks. Trump quietly removed Obama's law of not allowing mentally ill to own guns and yet he claims that is what is the biggest causes for mass shootings is about. Congress, the NRA, and the gun industry are all playing a passive resistance  role in this game, because it represents big moneyed interests to them.

      Right now, the FBI is responsible for background checks and those agencies are very underfunded and understaffed because Trump has diverted the money and focus to international terrorism. We have had one international terrorists in the last year.

      You are blaming me for mass shootings because I'm trying to reduce the number of mass shootings. You are playing a passive resistance role as well. See, you have to do nothing and everything stays the same that is the way you want it so your imaginary government doesn't  come after your guns.  How selfish of you.

      Whether you realize it or not, there is a war being waged in America by both white supremacists and racists. The easier it is for them to get guns, the easier it is for them to thin out the population they are against.  It's called  the replacement movement and they are the motivating force in many of these mass shootings. They want to replace the mixed races with the pure white race.  That is what motivated the Christ Church and El Paso shooters. If you  don't believe me, read their manifestos.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "The cause for mass shootings is the easy access to guns."

        Proof please?  You can use that proof to explain why Australia's mass murder killings failed to change after they confiscated all the "assault rifles" in the country.  Then you can show how the mass murderer(s) at the OK city bombing used guns, or those at the twin towers.  You can explain how no one will ever use anything but a gun to commit a mass murder, though you will have to erase many, many cases that disprove the theory from our history books.

        In any case, though, I await your proof that guns cause mass murders.  Not madmen, not anger, not terrorist beliefs in a god's instructions - only guns.  That a chunk of steel caused all of the mass murders we've suffered.  And no, pointing out they guns were most often (but not always) the tool used is NOT proof they caused it.

        "I have never advocated for taking away law abiding citizens guns.  However, I  have advocated for better gun laws, including more effective background checks."

        You only advocate for "better" gun laws, meaning that guns are ever more expensive and ever more difficult to purchase legally.  This, of course, does not result in fewer guns in the the hands of law abiding citizens.  I don't think you believe that any more than I do.

        "...because Trump has diverted the money and focus to international terrorism. We have had one international terrorists in the last year."

        And aren't you glad he did - we did not have another 911.  It amuses me greatly to hear someone attack spending on terrorism prevention, then proclaim that there were no successful attacks so it proves, you know, we didn't need to spend the money after all.

        "The easier it is for them to get guns, the easier it is for them to thin out the population they are against."

        Even your conspiracy theory is true (and I won't argue it either way) that is NOT an indication that if guns are not available they won't use another tool.  As pointed out, and as you are aware from past discussions, history and experience both point to the opposite; people will use whatever tool they can to accomplish their goals, including murder.  Removing one tool, even the one they prefer, will not stop them - it never has and won't in the future.

        (If you think it is easier to murder 168 people (the death toll at OKC) with a gun than with a single fertilizer/diesel bomb you might wish, once more, to discuss it with Timothy McVeigh.  I suspect he has a different opinion.  If you don't agree with that, you might check with the first responders of 911 on which was easier - a plane or a gun - to kill 3,000 people with.  We haven't had a single case of a gun being used to kill even a tenth of that number.  Not even 2% of the total a single attack, without any guns, killed.

    9. Jodah profile image91
      Jodahposted 6 weeks ago

      Just another senseless tragedy with loss of innocent lives, peoplepower73. It seems we are reading of a new mass shooting every week. It is almost as though this situation is becoming the norm and just accepted as part of life in the USA.
      As an Australian, I have found it to be a total waste of time arguing the case for gun control as the same arguments are fallen back on time and again...the Ammendment and the right to bear arms etc etc; people kill people guns don’t; it is only taking guns away from the law abiding people not the bad guys; without guns people will just find another way to kill; Australia has a small population so what works there won’t work in America where the population and number of guns are so much bigger;
      It almost seems the “Wild West” wasn’t so “wild” after all. The way it is now, maybe we have to call those days the “Mild West.” Ultimately it is up to the majority of the American people to decide on the outcome and solution, no one from outside can do it.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        You are correct: the same arguments are used each time.  One side repeats those you have mentioned, the other side pretends they are false (or just ignores them entirely) and says "We must take guns away because without guns murderers won't kill any more.".

    10. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 6 weeks ago

      Wilderness:  You and others are using cognitive dissonance to re-frame the word gun into "tools" and the phrase mass shootings into all types of murders by any means to make yourself feel better about what is really happening.

      The 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms.  Arms are guns, not tools. It's called the NRA.  The R  stands for rifle, not tools.  It's the gun industry, not the tool industry.  There are gun shows, not tool shows.

      Mass shootings means using guns to kill many people at one time, not tools.  If you were to look up the word for tools, I'm sure it  would not include guns used for mass shootings. However, tools like bump stocks, high capacity magazines, and rounds that tumble and do maximum damage when they enter flesh are used to increase the efficiency of mass shootings.

      Mass shootings are a class of murder and injury.  They do not include all murders, including flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up federal buildings using fertilizer bombs.  It means using guns that shoot projectiles at a rapid rate to kill as many people as possible in as an effective manner as possible.

      When you use the words tools and murder, you are  purposely expanding the argument beyond its scope of mass shootings. You logic is guns (tools) are used to murder people. There are many other ways to murder people, therefore, if guns are taken away, there will still be murders by other means. So therefore let's do nothing.

      The reality is nobody is coming for your guns, not now or in the future.  The 2nd amendment gives everybody, including mass shooters and domestic and international terrorists that are in this country the right to bear arms, not airplanes and fertilizer bombs. It requires laws to stop those people from doing harm to others. The 2nd amendment by itself doesn't do that.

      It is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights, that involves an object. All other amendments are about human personal rights.  Therefore, there have to be laws to keep people from using guns to do harm to others. So if you want to continue this argument, let's stay  on track about mass shootings and not open it up to the whole universe of discourse about all murders by any means with tools.

      How many airplanes or fertilizer bombs are you going to take out with your AR-15?  How many people can be killed in a mass shooting with an AR-15 with a bump stock and high capacity magazines?

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        It is an amendment that involves an idea. An idea that can only be truly implemented, if it becomes necessary, by employing the use of an object. That idea would be toothless without the ability to maintain possession of said object.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          LTL:  The intention of the 2nd amendment was to protect the colonies from tyranny by a foreign force by using a well regulated militia.  When is that going to be necessary now?  When Obama was president, we heard the constant drumbeat of tyranny,  now that Trump is president, I haven't heard one mention of tyranny, have you?

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            We must be accessing different sources. I hear the same frantic and fearful claims I heard during the Obama years of tyranny.

            But, I disagree. The founding fathers knew the dangers of power, how it can pervert and corrupt noble ideals. It was left in the hands of the people to ensure corruption of those ideas could be balanced by action.


            https://hubstatic.com/14663063.jpg

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              LTL:  So what are you going to do attack our government every 20 years with your  AR-15?  In my view we have a very corrupt government right now, what good is the 2nd amendment doing to keep the government honest?  In fact, the NRA is aiding corruption of our government by being one the biggest funding contributors to getting corrupt congressmen re-elected.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                That is your opinion. Which you are welcome to. I agree on some points but revolution were Jefferson's words. Not mine. I couldn't advocate revolution. No matter how corrupt the government is, the socialist left is what I fear most. Revolution for basic freedoms restored could devolve into socialist tyranny of they hijack, or cheat a movement.

                I do, however, support the constitution being upheld.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                  peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  LTL:  That's interesting. I fear the capitalist right.  They already control the senate, and the president, and all the right wing state governors.  Look up American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC  Exposed) to see how state governors policies are dictated by big money and corporations, including the NRA and the gun industry.  I'll save you the trouble.  Here is the link.

                  https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    LOL  That makes sense.  The right (whether capitalist or not) controls the right (conservatives), while the left (socialist or not) controls the left (liberals).  Including the House and the next Democrat president.

                    If you think money doesn't drive the Democrats of this country you need to settle back and take a hard, honest look at how things work.  You could start by examining how much the last two Democrat presidents accumulated while in the office.

                  2. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I fear them too. But I fear the far left much more.

      2. aware profile image68
        awareposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't want to digress or anything but since you're talking about gun control we hand out war weapons all around the world like Halloween candy to any rebel group without a background check that will kill for us. We have a 1 trillion dollar a year military budget.. you want to do something about gun control you're not going to start with ours.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          aware:  It's all about the almighty dollar.

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Fascinating.   Here, the definition of "tool" from Mirriam Webster:

        Definition of tool (Entry 1 of 3)
        1a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task

        If that doesn't describe a gun then it doesn't describe anything at all, for a gun is certainly a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.  A gun is a tool, period.

        "Arms are guns, not tools. It's called the NRA.  The R  stands for rifle, not tools."

        What is the NRA?  A gun is the NRA?  What are you trying to say here?

        "When you use the words tools and murder, you are  purposely expanding the argument beyond its scope of mass shootings."

        You're right, for the topic is not "mass shootings" it is "mass murders".  You may be content in the pile of bodies does not have bullet holes, but I am not.  I prefer live people, not corpses.

        "There are many other ways to murder people, therefore, if guns are taken away, there will still be murders by other means. So therefore let's do nothing. "

        No, that's your attitude - to do nothing.  Or at least to do nothing that has a chance of reducing the body count.  I would far prefer some action that addresses the causes of that body count (it isn't the amount of iron in the country) and have said so repeatedly.

        "The reality is nobody is coming for your guns, not now or in the future."

        Yes, yes, I know.  We aren't coming for your guns...but by the way we're going to classify any semi-automatic weapon as an "assault rifle" (so as to scare people) and take that (as Australia did).  And we're going to make it extremely difficult to purchase that which the constitution guarantees, so as to limit ownership as much as possible.  And we're going to make you register your gun so when we get the political power we know where to go to get it.  But you're not coming for our guns.

        "So if you want to continue this argument, let's stay  on track about mass shootings and not open it up to the whole universe of discourse about all murders by any means with tools. "

        You stay on your topic of ending shootings (or mass shootings, take your pick) while ignoring the murders with other tools.  You pretend that killers won't kill if they can't have a gun.  Again, I'm not interested in the political gain (if any) of piles of bodies without bullet holes: I prefer live people.

        "How many airplanes or fertilizer bombs are you going to take out with your AR-15?"

        Zero.  Your point?

        "How many people can be killed in a mass shooting with an AR-15 with a bump stock and high capacity magazines?"

        About 1/10th the number as can be killed in a mass murder with a fertilizer bomb.  About 1% of the number that can be killed in a mass murder with planes.  Both proven by history.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          W: Fascinating.   Here, the definition of "tool" from Mirriam Webster:

          Definition of tool (Entry 1 of 3)
          1a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task

          If that doesn't describe a gun then it doesn't describe anything at all, for a gun is certainly a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.  A gun is a tool, period.

          M: Yes that  describes a gun and a million other things, even a male organ used for sex.

          W: "Arms are guns, not tools. It's called the NRA.  The R  stands for rifle, not tools."

          What is the NRA?  A gun is the NRA?  What are you trying to say here?

          M: It doesn’t say NTA, for tools.  It says NRA for rifle.

          W: "When you use the words tools and murder, you are  purposely expanding the argument beyond its scope of mass shootings."

          You're right, for the topic is not "mass shootings" it is "mass murders".  You may be content in the pile of bodies does not have bullet holes, but I am not.  I prefer live people, not corpses.

          M:  You are wrong.  I’m the Original Poster in this forum and the topic is about mass shootings, not the entire universe of mass murders.  That’s how you people deflect and distract from the mass shootings is to make the comparison to all murders in the world done by any means possible.

          W: "There are many other ways to murder people, therefore, if guns are taken away, there will still be murders by other means. So therefore let's do nothing. "

          No, that's your attitude - to do nothing.  Or at least to do nothing that has a chance of reducing the body count.  I would far prefer some action that addresses the causes of that body count (it isn't the amount of iron in the country) and have said so repeatedly.

          M:  I’m protesting about the lack of government cooperation in this game.  You are protesting about the government coming for your guns. I’m dealing in today’s reality.  You are playing the what if game and the slippery slope.

          W: "The reality is nobody is coming for your guns, not now or in the future."

          Yes, yes, I know.  We aren't coming for your guns...but by the way we're going to classify any semi-automatic weapon as an "assault rifle" (so as to scare people) and take that (as Australia did).  And we're going to make it extremely difficult to purchase that which the constitution guarantees, so as to limit ownership as much as possible.  And we're going to make you register your gun so when we get the political power we know where to go to get it.  But you're not coming for our guns.


          M: You just proved my point.

          W: "So if you want to continue this argument, let's stay  on track about mass shootings and not open it up to the whole universe of discourse about all murders by any means with tools. "

          You stay on your topic of ending shootings (or mass shootings, take your pick) while ignoring the murders with other tools.  You pretend that killers won't kill if they can't have a gun.  Again, I'm not interested in the political gain (if any) of piles of bodies without bullet holes: I prefer live people.


          M: I am taking my pick and I say stay on the original topic of mass shootings.

          W: "How many airplanes or fertilizer bombs are you going to take out with your AR-15?"

          Zero.  Your point?


          M: Gun people want to protect themselves from attacks by foreign governments. How would an AR-15 protect the people in the towers?


          W:  "How many people can be killed in a mass shooting with an AR-15 with a bump stock and high capacity magazines?"

          About 1/10th the number as can be killed in a mass murder with a fertilizer bomb.  About 1% of the number that can be killed in a mass murder with planes.  Both proven by history.


          M:  Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.  Why leave the comparison at murder with a plane or fertilizer bomb, why not make it a nuclear attack?  That would increase your kill rate even further.

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            And there are major rules in place that limit the access to people taking control of planes and to getting access to too much fertilizer.  I love it when the right wing helps make the case that we need stricter rules to limit access to the tools that cause mass death, which include guns.

    11. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

      That's true promisem. I bet there are stats somewhere that indicates what percentage of total gun sales occur through private sales, but, relative to mass shootings, do you know of any that were obtained that way?

      Do think your point about private sales affects the validity of my point about the legal ownership of guns used in mass shootings?

      Do you have thoughts on the questions posed to Mike?

      GA

    12. Stigma31 profile image68
      Stigma31posted 5 weeks ago

      First of all it is not hatred that is causing mass shooting. We are growing a society of blamers and victims. 50 years ago there were guns everywhere as well. This is not something that has just started in the last 20 years. But the mass shooting have increased. Some you people might want to BLAME your President, yes I am not American. Some of you want to BLAME racists, some of you want to BLAME media. You might as well BLAME everyone including yourself. We all sit back and point fingers but do nothing about anything. Most of these kids are troubled youth, with no political agenda, no racism, just self loathing. We give prizes to people that achieve nothing, it undervalues the one that do achieve, it reducing the want and need to better yourself. Pass people that should fail, trophies to winners and losers. NO more communication, no more family dinners, no punishing kids that do wrong. We are creating a society of never doers. There is no reason to be great. If I just putter along I will be fine. Except, after going through you childhood doing this you get to high school and think I am nobody, I have no real friends, my family doesn't talk to me, I am a nobody. NEWS Flash MASS shooting....NEWS Flash MASS shooting.....I could be famous couldn't I?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        An interesting thought; are our teachings to our children - that they will be rewarded for doing nothing and that there are no consequences for poor behavior - contributing to the mass shooting phenomenon?

        Our children get whatever they want, whether a video game or recognition, without putting forth any real effort and without truly earning it, then grow up to find that it is no longer true.  Does that create massive resentment and/or anger that others have accomplishments that they do not match?  Resentment and despair that results in an adult temper tantrum that leaves others dead?

        It makes at least some sense to me, and is why disarming the citizenry won't accomplish anything - that anger/resentment is still there and there are too many ways to kill people.

      2. dianetrotter profile image68
        dianetrotterposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        It is a bit warped to want fame from killing a bunch of people.  But how do you explain the pattern of tweets and published statements on hating people for whatever reason.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image92
          peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          The two mass  shootings in Texas were all committed by people who were either white supremacist or who were inspired by them, by the mass shooter in Christ Church New Zealand.   All you have to  do is read their manifestos.  They did not want to be replaced by Jews or people of mixed races.  Maybe we will need guns to defend us from the white supremacist.  The Great Replacement Movement is a hate group motivated by the fear that their superior culture is being replaced by others who they see as inferior and not like them.  It reminds me of NAZI Germany and Fascist Italy.

          1. Onusonus profile image77
            Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/70417692_1127244377473534_3308699314276007936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQkOh7I4OpDQHVAbf5aI9NOyl6j6VbEJuXs-158YcjsdXIo5JHyi_araueJtRK9Fa1s&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=a2430b23f98664d447e8c96ee6f8e64f&oe=5E04F191

            1. peoplepower73 profile image92
              peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Onusonus:  If the shoe fits, wear it.

              1. Onusonus profile image77
                Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Anybody who disagrees with a liberal gets labeled a Nazi. It tends to loose it's meaning. Which is sad because The Nazis did horrendous things. You should be more careful who you slap that label on.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                  peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Onusonus: That's not true.  I have  people disagree with me everyday.  I don't call them Nazis. You don't think mass shootings in America to thin out a race that you don't like is a horrendous thing?  They call themselves neo Nazis.  You disagree with me.   I don't call you a Nazi, at least I don't think you are???

                   
                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ … -far-right

                  1. Onusonus profile image77
                    Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You say you aren't labeling people on the right as Nazis, then point to an article that wholesale blames Nazism and equates people on the right side of the political spectrum with them.

                    1. peoplepower73 profile image92
                      peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Onusonus:  Here is what I said:

                      "The Great Replacement Movement is a hate group motivated by the fear that their superior culture is being replaced by others who they see as inferior and not like them.  It reminds me of NAZI Germany and Fascist Italy."

                      You conflated it to me labeling people who don't agree with me as Nazis.  I never said that, you did.

                      And now you are again conflating that article to mean all people on the right side of the political spectrum are Nazis. The article doesn't say that but you do.

                      I stand by what I said.  Those white supremacist remind me of the earlier days of when Hitler and Mussolini started playing the us and them game.  Hitler wanted a super race and Mussolini wanted to be Il Duce. So they started attacking those who did not agree with their agenda.   

                      I don't know how old you, but I remember when this was taking place and the  white supremacist in this country remind me of that.  You can take it or leave it.  But it is here and in many parts of the world, so wake up and see it for what it is. 

                      You are blaming the left for name calling.  Do  you even listen to what Trump says about people he doesn't like and who don't agree with him?  He even emboldens the white supremacist with his rhetoric.  His rallies even remind me of Hitler and Mussolini's early year rallies when they were first coming into power.

          2. dianetrotter profile image68
            dianetrotterposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            That's +2 on the hate side!

    13. profile image0
      RTalloniposted 4 weeks ago
    14. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 4 weeks ago

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/70510185_1183407248531975_8598591579621425152_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnYDTG6zBWR7u4ME3R5ZX6kqFPL4kTcqCpF2ibpx7SZoj-rZrvg03GectZ3tp60tI8&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=68ec6dc62f44f20960460b41b37fa976&oe=5DF296FF

      1. peoplepower73 profile image92
        peoplepower73posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        If you are going to post it, post the whole statement.  Don't take it out of context.

        https://hubstatic.com/14677688.jpg

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          This highlights the divide in America today, because the full statement, in context, is just as scary.

          The left-overreaching government is preferred. Guilty until proven innocent is the norm. Circumventing the constitution is allowed.

          The right-none of the above.

          1. Onusonus profile image77
            Onusonusposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yeah, in context, it's even worse. What they never realize is that they aren't banning gun ownership, they're centralizing it.

            And guess who's going to take the guns away, other people with guns.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image93
            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Indeed this is true.

            The biggest tragedy I see in the coming election, is the failure of so many older voters who still want to believe the Democratic Party represents what it used to.

            I know Trump is horrible to listen to, but the alternative is accepting a party that has openly stated that it is essentially the party of the United Nations, the party set to nullify the Constitution.

            I say this not taking a side in the matter, but I want people to recognize it.

            People should familiarize themselves with UN policies that I believe are at the heart of the Democratic Platform, such as:
            The Global Compact on Migration
            The Agenda for Disarmament
            The Strong Cities Network
            The Biodiversity Treaty
            The 2030 Agenda

            The Democratic Party candidates have been openly stating it on stage, debate after debate, that they support these positions.  Not verbatim of course, but the talk of open borders, healthcare for all, taking guns, etc. its all in the UN mandates and agreements.

     
    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://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    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)