Gun People: How will you answer?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (149 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 11 months ago

    The spouse directed my attention to a recent news event that saw me seeing RED once again about the "gun" and the endless problems associated with it in this country.

    A little background:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/us/g … earms.html

    https://www.wdsu.com/article/georgia-bo … /38426990#


    The tragic story of the 13 year old kid who was arrested associated with the accidental shooting of his sister.

    1. It should be illegal to obtain any gun parts or components for assembly on line or otherwise as a way to circumvent proper procedures to obtaining a weapon, background checks, etc. Assembled weapons without serial numbers that identify them are easily used for crimes.

    2 it is not fair to blame all of this on a 13 year old. Again, I have no sympathy for parents that are "asleep at the switch". Both should be arrested and considered accessories to the crime as well as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. This "I did not know" stuff does not cut it. How could a 13 year old do all of this while their parents were unaware?

    3. Those that acquire guns from the assemblers should be arrested as well, this kind of circumvention of proper procedures cannot be tolerated.

    4. This pieces and parts industry should be shut down, unless every component part sold is identified with a serial number. They may not be sold "on line" no more than I can buy a case of Jim Beam "on line".

    This society continues to be a mess, with conservatives always griping about liberals taking their guns meanwhile a gangster mode exists at the very foundation of this society and culture. Yet, at the same time conservatives are so concerned not about the gun but keeping them from improper hands, how are their arguments consistent?

    What do the "gun people" propose be done?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Guns are not allowed in our 20 member unvaccinated community. Only solution I can imagine is when military and police get rid of their gun so will the public. Now try to be an unarmed man and take their gun away, can one do that ?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Castle.

        I am for the 2nd Amendment, but the right to obtain weapons is not open to either minors or felons. I am not for disarming people, just providing a level of discretion in this society that I would get if I buy a chocolate malt.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Really?  You're not grossly exaggerating?  You would approve of gun laws equivalent to those about buying a chocolate malt?

          Our would you actually saddle potential gun owners with such restrictive laws they simply give up on their rights?

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            What restrictive laws are you associating with my complaint?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              How about laws requiring payments of as much as the cost of the gun to do background checks?  Or those checks that take a month or more?  How about requirements that result in the cost of the gun being dwarfed by costs to store it?  Laws that prohibit carrying the gun anywhere at all?

              Lots and lots of laws that simply make owning or purchasing a gun beyond the financial means of most people.  Or that make it such a hassle that it just isn't worth it.

              But you didn't respond to the question about the (possible) exaggeration comparing it to buying a malt?

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, it is an exaggeration that drives in a point.

                I have to see how much does it cost to do background checks relative to the cost of the gun. How long is the actual delay, have you experienced this yourself? Are you not the one that is concerned about mentally ill people and such acquiring a gun, well how do we begin to screen then, without a background check? I can say the same thing about a car, insurance maintenance costs, etc. does that keep you from buying one?

                With Rights come responsibilities. How many other life purchases are not such that you can acquire the purchased item immediately without niceties being observed?

                That is the world in which we live, today because of dangers that come from the least expected avenue.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        'Now try to be an unarmed man and take their guns away can one do it'?                                       Castle, tell us a precedent among the nations of the world.                                       Would the Canadanian armd force, navy, air force, police, and such other related para-military forces, give in if your Prime Minister gives the order for disarming? Then what would happen if hostile neighbouring nations or so invade Canada? I think your suggestion's a mistake?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          US has 50% of the entire planet's war budget with only 4% of the worlds population. Used mainly for offensive invading of other countries every year.  Plus 25% of the worlds prisoners. I'm suggesting they lower their military complex arms each stage. Like their nuclear weapons at each stage of the game as for the public to lower their guns.

          The States got stars and stripes on their flag. Canada has a leaf. We have the longest coastline in the world and Canada owns 5 military submarines,  of 3 submarine are in an amusement park in Edmonton mall.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
            Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Castlepaloma, you're not answering my question. Looks like you're diverting. Is Canada armed forces completely disarmed as you suggested? That's the point.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, Canada has enough fighting men like hockey players and hunters to protect our waters from US theift and invasion. We beat them before.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Castle, again you miss the point!

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  We all have a point, I must have one too. Canada has not been in a war since 1812. It wasn't even a country back then.
                  Canadians are lovers, not fighter, although lately we are turning i

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    We all have a point, I must have one too. Canada has not been in a war since 1812. It wasn't even a country back then.
                    Canadians are lovers, not fighter, although lately we are turning in communist

              2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Again, I choice to ignored you...you're diverting from gun violence to hokey playing.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Our Canadain white hokey players are not so cheesy, feeble and old-fashioned sentimental.

                  Our hockey players are very ruggedness tough men and the women are too.

                  Canadain public has plenty of guns per capita more than European countries except Switzerland.

                  It's the white honkey billionaire players we all have to watch out for.

                  I won't lay victim to these Sharks because I'm a fish who can swim with them and know where they are in order not to be eaten.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                    Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    'Canadian public has plenty of guns per capita more than Europeans countries except Switzerland'                                    Beware all, Castlepaloma has a gun to the kill!                                  Castle, don't you suggested disarming the military? And with the same voice, I can infer you retain a gun? Oh, how terrible and awful.

                  2. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    The Canadians have more guns, yet, per capita, still far less gun related homicides.  How have the Canadians avoided the fate of their neighbors to the South?

    2. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      You have my sympathy.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Looks like no gun people around. They would have to make sense only using their words, which could not ever hurt me.

        1. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, you seem to be right here.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image75
            Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Now where is Nathan when the gun lovers come out????. Probably back to to the safety salvery of vaccines madates.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Castlepaloma has throw an hammer in the forum...closing to 'close to reply'.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Some gun lovers say hammers kill more than guns. If that were true the God of Thor would control all the military of the world rather than guns doing 85% of the killing. Vaccines and guns obcession by their lethal weapons can just kill each other. Wail I stay out of their way and their cross fires. Live by the sword, die by the sword. In my world there is no guns nor vaccines, nobody has been harmed by neither so far. We have smarter ways of dealing with totalitarianism.

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Castlepaloma, this forum has nothing to do with the covid vaccine; it’s about gun violence in the USA.  So making up lies that the covid vaccines kills and is thus as lethal as guns is tasteless.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                    Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Nathanville has state the truth.

                  2. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    No country in their right mind would ever attack the US. The US worst enemy is their own US Government Tyranny as all Governments are corrupted in degrees.

                    The worldwide invasion of our freedoms and human rights is this one world order by this best tool weapon of vaccines. So US citizens, this is the best reason for the public to keep their guns and the most dangerous kind by the invading madates of any kind. Unless illegal Aliens attack, and I don't mean the Mexican kind.

                  3. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I can't live a lie, so that is out. I do make mistakes like anyone else. That could be tasteless for billionaire.

            2. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, Castlepaloma, I've argued bitterly against the gun people in the USA in a number of forums in the past; but being from the UK it's not my culture (thankfully) and I do have better things to do than fight other peoples wars all the time.

              Nevertheless, I do give Credence, and others who are willing to take on the might of the gun people, all my sympathy.

              Arthur (aka Nathanville)

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Talking to gun lovers is less fruitful  than the energy it's worth, so do I agree, I will visit yet won't hang around in case someone gets trigger happy over their top killing machine. I've actually had deaths threats on line.

                Yet nothing overall tops the destruction of..... COVID 19!!!! Tyranny.

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Castlepaloma, this forum is about gun violence in America, not a place for you to continue your personal crusade of trying to convince other people not to get vaccinated.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                    Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Excellent point.

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Arthur, I don't have to tell you about the myriad of excuses our gun people have to try to explain the difference in gun violence between our two societies, they and there are not even rational.

    3. tsmog profile image77
      tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for posting Cred. Tragic. I wonder why those who bought from him did not do it themselves since it is so easy to obtain the parts online. From poking about the websites selling parts and means advertise it is cheap to build them.

      Personally being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment I am against 'Ghost Guns'. I think it only circumvents the system with the threat of being someone who can't legitimately buy one. For instance with mental illness, yet not saying they use them or cause harm. It is not uncommon in the local news here in San Diego area to hear it was a 'Ghost Gun' used in something.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Tsmog.

        You don't have to be against the 2nd Amendment for a society to take a responsible view of firearm proliferation. No more than being against Prohibition means that a 10 year old can buy Jack Daniels at the liquor store. Why is that concept so hard for "gun people" to understand?

    4. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      From your second link (the first is behind a paywall), the whole thing was rife with illegal activity.  The laws are not being enforced, so what more do you want?  More laws that we won't enforce?  More obstructions thrown up so law abiding people cannot exercise their rights?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your input, Wilderness, I did not know about the paywall. I don't pay them anything. If I paid for every publication where I had an interest, I would be flat broke.

        Selling parts and pieces for guns without serial numbers should be unlawful in itself. What law is there to enforce as these part peddler people have been functioning within the purview of the laws as currently written?

        Obviously, we need more laws, sterner enforcement and penalties with teeth.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Will a serial number on a gun part prevent a single loss of life?  I don't, for the life of me, see how that will prevent murders.  Do you?

          If you can find the gun used in a murder (often a pretty big "if") then you might find the owner...if it hasn't been stolen.  And if you find the owner you might get a conviction of murder.  And if you do that you might keep him from murdering someone else...except that the vast majority of gun owners, and even murderers, will not repeat the offense.  Some exceptions might by professional killers doing it for money, or gang members - do you really think a serial number will stop either one?

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            We have spoken about this before.

            Some criminals might be concerned about getting caught if their intent is premeditated. If the provision does not preclude the options of law abiding gun owners, why resist the provision to make it more difficult if not foolproof against the criminal?

            Knowing that weapons can be traced may well discourage some from committing the crime, if not all, but some is better than none at all. Murderers certainly do not want to be caught, why would that not be a concern for them?

    5. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      What do you want "gun people" to do? There are already gun laws that pertain to obtaining gun parts. There are already gun laws against all-plastic guns, and there are laws concerning complete receivers. What else would you suggest?

      One look at your list suggests that you are firing on all emotional cylinders but only half of your reasoning cylinders.

      #1 - There are laws concerning the important gun parts—the receiver. Also, do you really think criminals are worried about serial numbers?

      #2 - This one is almost the best one. The stories I chased for information have no more details than the ones you linked. There doesn't seem to be any information about the "how" of how the guns were made. Were they 3-D printed? Were they made from online parts? Do you know these answers? I don't. Yet you don't hesitate to blame the parents for as being asleep at the wheel. Geez bud, you need to take a breath.

      #3 - It is already against the law to buy a gun, (handgun), from an "assembler" without all the checks and hoops. I bet you knew that too.

      #4 - Shut down the components industry? Does the same thought apply to all component parts of anything that could be dangerous? I think you can guess where that thought will lead. Also, one can buy Jim Beam online. Check out the Grizzly app.

      You really `bared all' in those post. With nothing but the sketchiest details your progressiveness has you using a tragedy as a weapon. That ain't right.

      But I think you are right in that conservatives are probably more concerned about keeping guns out of improper hands than they are about the guns themselves. You get 2 points for that.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Cmon GA, you can stop with the concept that everything that is not crimson red conservative has its foundation as an emotional argument.

        Perhaps, you did not get the memo? An excerpt from the New York Times.

        "Ghost guns, and the niche industry that produces them, have flourished because of a loophole in federal regulation: The parts used to build “privately made firearms” are classified as components, not actual guns, which means that online buyers are not required to undergo background checks or register the weapons."

        Doesn't sound like a generally illegal practice to me.

        1. Criminals are worried about getting caught, weapons without serial numbers cannot be traced.

        2. Why does it matter how they are made? The average family generally do not have a 3D printer to manufacture gun parts, or are you going to debate this with me, as well?

        3. The excerpt obviously indicated that much of this parts industry has enjoyed protection under the law. That should end.

        4. You conservatives always express so much concern about "law and order". So, who is hamstringing law enforcement now? If it is illegal for a minor or felon to purchase a firearm, it has to be illegal for them to acquire component parts. We are asking for trouble, it is more than just a loophole it is a chasm.

        I will check the Grizzly app and see what provisions are made to ensure that minors cannot buy.

        The tragedy is a weapon, to warn people of loopholes in the current laws that are and will be again exploited with tragic consequences. No point in shooting the messenger, GA, as the message still stands.

        Conservatives speak from both sides of their mouths opposed to guns in the improper hands but are so fussy  about eliminating unnecessary  loopholes that allow for that outcome.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Now you are just showing your emotional attachment to this issue. (as mentioned)

          How else do you explain your response of;  "Conservative red" and "speak out of both sides of their mouth" when my response was neither partisan nor conservative-owned. You injected those and they are certainly not relevant to the facts discussed.

          For instance, I didn't say ghost guns weren't a problem, and if you consider my "how was it made" point, it was directed at the event you posted about. In that context how it was made is very pertinent. Although 3-d printers are becoming a lot more present in homes than I think you realize, (Google "Glowforge"), that was a question that would pertain to his parents' culpability. It would be hard to not notice one in the house, but it is probably easy for a savvy 13-year-old to order and receive small stuff online and when the parents were at work or done at and sent to a friend's house. It wasn't sharpshooting or deflecting, or nit-picking.

          That thought segues into your assumption', (your acceptance that the NYT blurb "obviously indicates"), about the gun parts industry enjoying protection under law. If you look into the details of that blurb you find that, of course, gun parts are considered components. What else would you call a sling swivel or a scope mount or a spring-loaded tubular magazine or even a gun barrel? Or any of the multiple other screws and pieces used to make a gun? They are components. But, unlimited access to those components by anyone will never make a gun that shoots—without the one vital component that pulls them all together and makes a gun.

          That component, (yep, it's a component too), the receiver, (a complete receiver), is already subject to the very laws you are demanding—they must have serial numbers and all the other gun-purchase requirements.
          *I just grabbed that from memory. Some details may be specifically wrong but I think the explained concept is right And if there are other loopholes that fit that inference I might find some agreement with you.

          No emotion or party, or ideology in that statement. If you check it out I think you will find that it is not general practice to illegally sell completed receivers. As your blurb apparently infers to you.

          On the bright side, I'm sure more details will come out concerning how he built these guns and we will get to see just how right or wrong we might be.

          Is it necessary to say I am not defending this kid, his parents, or anything about how the gun was built? I am just grabbing you by the belt before you fall off of this cliff of assumptions you are standing on. ;-)

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            It is not emotional at all, most conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to this issue.

            3D printers that can make components to the standards needed in a firearm, did not think that I could buy that at the neighborhood Walmart? Available certainly does not mean "common".

            The story talked about a kid that makes a working firearm solely from component parts bought with a credit card on line. What am I missing?

            The article seemed to imply that this was not the first incident where the kid ordered components in this way.

            I had to field strip m-1 and m-14 rifles while in military training. Why would you tell me that a parts dealer would waste his time or that of a customer by not providing complete components to make for an operational weapon? The receiver  portion has a loophole that one does have to be too clever to take advantage of. That need to be plugged.  Your opinion is contrary to what was defined in the article. I am not the expert.

            That is not mentioned in the article, that the part peddlers according to you, in actuality, cannot, thru providing component parts, make assembly of a fully functional firearm possible? A 13 year old managed to do it and that is a warning sign enough. That is contrary to the NYT article.

            I used the NYT as a source, which I consider reliable. I read two articles that report the same thing, what are you reading that is so contrary?

            If I can't trust the NYT, who can I trust? Certainly not right wing media.

            Still, no excuse for the parent, would you allow your kid access to your credit card? And even if they did use it without permission, do you not check statements every month? I am tired of adults making excuses for wayward kids, that they simply choose not to properly supervise. It is a Stalag 13 scenario that is totally ridiculous

            --------

            To vindicate you somewhat I offer this
            -------
            A Deadly Loophole

            The decades-long debate over gun control in Washington revolves around the regulation of traditional firearms. Ghost guns pose a more elemental question: What makes a gun a gun?

            Every semiautomatic weapon consists of two main parts: the movable upper “slide,” which sits on the barrel of a pistol, and the “receiver” or “frame” — the lower part to which almost everything else, including the trigger and magazine, can be attached and made functional after drilling a few holes and filing a groove into an unfinished, factory-produced frame.

            Under federal law, any frame or receiver considered 80 percent finished is a functional firearm subject to the same regulations as a fully assembled gun. If it is less than 80 percent finished, it is not subject to the same federal safeguards.

            Even so, an experienced amateur can make the minor modifications needed to turn it into a working firearm in less than an hour.
            -----
            So yes, the receiver issue is valid but can be circumvented much easier than the middle class family can obtain a 3D printer to make illicit weapons.

            If you took the time to read the entire article, you should be able to identify this issue as a serious problem.

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              That the gun parts were bought online with a credit card must be some of that "new information" I spoke of. I did not see it in any of the early articles I checked. So we can ditch any 3-D printer thoughts and move on to what parts the kid bought and how he modified them.

              Is there any information on that yet? We seem to have an understanding that complete receivers are regulated, so now we are left to find out how much ingenuity this kid had to modify an incomplete receiver to make a working receiver. My impression is that it requires precise drill press and milling or filing work to complete one. I wonder how the kid did it?

              It looks like to plug the loophole that allows "ingenuity" to complete a receiver will require either regulating ingenuity or banning parts sales altogether. Do you have a different idea?

              I couldn't read the NYT article, (paywall issue), but I did ask Google for other sources, and I did completely read all of those articles.

              Finally, you have to stop this "hypocrite" stuff. Thinking folks are hypocritical just because they don't agree with you isn't a very flattering position. It points to a closed mind, as I read it.

              Consider the known facts you are using for the basis of your hypocrite claim: a kid made a gun with incomplete parts bought online, he has done this before, and a shot from his homemade gun killed his sister. That is all you know right now. And from that, you have deemed conservatives hypocritical on the issue just because we don't agree with your extrapolation of those scanty details.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                "Finally, you have to stop this "hypocrite" stuff. Thinking folks are hypocritical just because they don't agree with you isn't a very flattering position. It points to a closed mind, as I read it."

                This entire thread has been inundated with conservative reasoning and logic, yeah, right..... This is how I "read it".

                1. Much of this thread has focused on conservatives arguing that the difference in the quantity of gun violence between the US and our friends across the pond, the United Kingdom, is due to the immigration crisis on our southern border. That is specious as this society has always been more violent than England even when we did not have a southern border.

                Irrational argument number 1.

                In addition it has to makes sense that there is far more driving this unfortunate statistic than immigration, legal or otherwise from the South.
                --------------

                Another conservative tells me that violence from a claw hammer and from a gun is equivalent. That people can be murdered with claw hammers, cars and Sterling silver pickle forks. Well, when I send my 13 year old nephew to the hardware store to get a claw hammer, he comes home with it. But if I need a .38 special, I have to buy it myself. So they are both "tools" that can kill, but society makes a distinction between one and the other. Why do you think that is?

                Irrational argument No. 2

                -----------------

                I have listened to conservatives tell me the issue is not the gun but the criminal. That they are "overwhelmed" at the waiting periods, background checks, etc. But, while they gripe about this, they say that they want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminal. How is that done without screening at the point of purchase? Yet, they have resisted every attempt at registration and screening so that those with a criminal background can be identified. So, who gets to have their cake and eat it, too? You can't have it both ways.

                Irrational argument No. 3

                With that, 3 strikes and you are out......

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  "Another conservative tells me that violence from a claw hammer and from a gun is equivalent."

                  I really don't think the dead, or their loved ones, care one iota whether the murderer used a claw hammer or a gun.  Do you?  They are, then, pretty much equivalent in the eyes of the people that paid the price.  (Did you know that more people are murdered with blunt objects {your claw hammer} than with all long guns combined, including that dreadful "assault rifle" the military doesn't use?)

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    "But if I need a .38 special, I have to buy it myself. So they are both "tools" that can kill, but society makes a distinction between one and the other. Why do you think that is?"

                    What about your answer to this part of the question?

                2. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  It appears you have abandoned the topic of your OP in order to have another go at gun-bashing conservatives.

                  Speaking of irrational . . . you post about a specific event, but with so few known details your direction has been unrelated to your OP.

                  You say it should be illegal to buy these critical parts, (receivers), but when it is pointed out that it already is illegal, you call opposition to your assumptions just conservative thinking and logic.

                  You say conservatives point to the issue being the user, not the tool, yet you are unable to refute that truth. You complain about conservative comparisons of guns and hammers while you do the same thing—equating an illegal use of a regulated component with unregulated use. At least the point, (the danger), of the gun/hammer comparisons are factual.

                  You complain about conservative resistance to background checks and screening when we already have extensive background check and screening regulations that, (I think), most conservatives abide by and support. Your complaint seems to boil down to us just not agreeing with your ideas for regulation and screening.

                  And look at your ideas: It should be illegal to be able to buy certain gun parts, (receivers),  online. It already is and conservatives follow those regulations.

                  There are already laws and regulations against everything you are complaining about, yet you ignore that to complain about conservative logic.

                  Your complaint should be with the lawbreakers, not conservative logic.

                  Follow your own logic to its theoretical end and see if you find an acceptable, (to you), solution that does not result in a gun ban, or UK-type laws that can arrest kids for playing James Bond games with toy guns.

                  Considering the few facts that were known when you started this: a minor made a pistol, he made it from at least one illegally obtained component, and he shot his sister, I don't see anything wrong with the conservative logic; at least two illegal acts were committed by a minor, the minor was arrested, our laws were enforced. What more do you want?

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I have not abandoned my topic, it is all part of the same theme.

                    The point I made and which I clearly excerpted to you is that obtaining these parts is not illegal do not require serial numbers and presents a loophole to acquiring a weapon.

                    Yes, the "receiver" makes it all go and it  has to have a serial number only if it is 80 percent complete or more. Obviously, a receiver was sent to the boy, but was not marked because it was not complete to the point where it required a serial number. A clever boy, made minor adjustment to make the receiver serviceable and thus circumvented this would be impediment.
                    ----
                    Deputy Sheriff Pounds called the issue of ghost guns a "super big deal," adding, "there's no serial number, you can't trace that gun."

                    "It's real critical, and it's a bad thing for law enforcement all over the world," he said. "You can order everything you need to make that gun off of the internet and make it — and it will fire."

                    "Every semiautomatic weapon consists of two main parts: the movable upper “slide,” which sits on the barrel of a pistol, and the “receiver” or “frame” — the lower part to which almost everything else, including the trigger and magazine, can be attached and made functional after drilling a few holes and filing a groove into an unfinished, factory-produced frame.

                    Under federal law, any frame or receiver considered 80 percent finished is a functional firearm subject to the same regulations as a fully assembled gun. If it is less than 80 percent finished, it is not subject to the same federal safeguards.

                    Even so, an experienced amateur can make the minor modifications needed to turn it into a working firearm in less than an hour."

                    -------
                    Obviously, all these parts have been ordered by the boy On Line, and if the receiver part was provided, which obviously it has been, it was less than 80 percent complete and did have to be marked according to Federal Law. So what am I missing here?

                    Can I presume that you know more than the law enforcement in the field?


                    "You say conservatives point to the issue being the user, not the tool, yet you are unable to refute that truth. You complain about conservative comparisons of guns and hammers while you do the same thing—equating an illegal use of a regulated component with unregulated use. At least the point, (the danger), of the gun/hammer comparisons are factual"
                    -------
                    Still you did not answer my question, why the difference in the rules of access to the different "tools" that either can be used to kill?

                    Yes, I bash conservatives and point out areas of inconsistency and unreasonableness, no less than you and your "red gang" do the same regarding progressive ideas and thinking, right? I am self appointed as somebody has to do it.

                    My IDEAS about regulation and screening is only that is it necessary. Don't tell me that MANY conservatives do not complain about this, they do. I think Wilderness can relate to that attitude as I pick up much of it in our correspondence.

                    My complaint is with both lawbreakers and conservative logic as their logic makes it more difficult to identify lawbreakers and their fear of gun control makes it all the more likely that reasonable safeguards never see the light of day.
                    --------
                    What do I want?

                    Receiver assembly units regardless of level of completion have to all have a serial numbers or they are not available for sale.

                    That will take some of the wind from the sails of the clever or resourceful.

                    All the media I access say that this is a big problem, you don't agree?

    6. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Credence, I couldn't bring myself to feel sorry for the parents.                                                If I had control over my 17 years old son, how come parents of 13 couldn't?                                    Perhaps, they've give up all hopes on their childrens? Or the parents believe in gangs and had give leave to the boy?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        "If I had control over my 17 years old son, how come parents of 13 couldn't?"   

        Well, Miebakagh, that is the $64,000.00 question. But obviously it is a more complex question than I initially thought.

  2. quotations profile image89
    quotationsposted 11 months ago

    Here is the answer you asked for.

    You are really making a straw man argument. Negligent parents did not properly secure a firearm and a 13 year old kid negligently killed his sister.

    This is not an argument that supports gun control but education and regulations on how to store guns. There is no reason why responsible gun owners should be penalized and deprived of their guns thanks to the actions of the few morons.

    By your logic no one should have cars because some people drive drunk, or leave the keys out for their underage kids to get and drive when they shouldnt, or because like the Christmas Parade massacre, when a radical blm supporter plows into a group of people because he is upset over the Rittenhouse verdict.

    If you have the moral compass you think you have when you advocate for gun control or elimination, please first apply your faulty logic to other identical scenarios and see where your logic leads you.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Also should not be able to purchase repair parts for a car because it might then be used to again plow into a crowd and murder people.

      Better not sell whetstones for your kitchen cutlery for the same reason.

      Do not sell propane because someone will use it to forge a sword and murder people.

      Do not sell anything at all because someone, somewhere, will use it as part of a weapon to murder someone.  A pillowcase, for example, could encompass the pillow that is then used to smother a person.

      That's where the logic leads.  The only difference is that we have raised such fear of those awful black "assault rifles" that the military uses on a day to day basis that people will swallow it whole as a panacea to quell their fear.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Using other objects to kill were not design to kill which is a lame excuse for self defense.

        Policy and politics guns kill more than all US wars in the pass 50 years.

        Plus 85% of kills in wars are from guns, hardly a fair comparative to a useful  hammer or car.
        https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … 3/9842346/

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          And if we ignore that killers will kill with or without a gun then it will profit us to take the guns away.

          IF we just assume that something is true when it is not, all will be well.  At least in the land of make-believe - those of us living in the real world (every last person on earth) will find a very different story.

        2. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Well, Castle, is did look like a lame excuse to me.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image75
            Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            The 2nd amendment was made when Americans needed guns for food. Also it took a minute to load a musket gun and time for the man cheating on his wife a good running start.

            US has more than doubled the murders than Canada with guns per capita. Canada has per capita has more murders than the adverage European country.  Switzerland is the exception because they need to protect all those billionaires in their banks.

            I can't imagine running out of ideas to  killing anyone in my lifetime. Where assume leaders of the world kill millions. Not in my honesty , ethical. and dangerous free world.

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness, your examples made me smile in that if I made a fake gun from wood, and painted it black to make it look realistic, and then carried it down the street, I could end up in prison for 12 months.

        Two aspects of the gun laws in the UK that might put a smile on your face are:-

        •    The maximum sentence for carrying an imitation gun in a public place without reasonable excuse or lawful authority is 12 months imprisonment.

        •    Possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence; maximum of 10 years prison.

        So you don’t even need real gun parts in the UK to break the law; an imitation gun is just as illegal.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Have ever kids been arrested for their toy guns?

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Yep - as silly as it may seem!

            For just a few examples:-

            #1:  6th Nov 2021:  Two children, aged 11 & 12, were arrested after motorists were threatened with a toy gun (painted black to give it a more authentic appearance) near a shopping centre. 

            Both were taken into custody, one for possessing an imitation gun and the other for knife possession.

            The outcome is that the parents were spoken to by the police and referred to the ‘children’s services’.

            #2:  28th July 2020:  Following a call from a concerned member of the public to the police.   The police raided the parents’ home of a 12 year old, where they found a plastic pellet gun that looked quite realistic; the kid was arrested, and handcuffed – but I don’t think the police took any further action.

            #3:  3 Aug 2002:  Three children, all aged 12, who were plying a ‘James Bond’ game with a plastic toy pistol, were surrounded by police from three patrol cars, arrested, fingerprinted and had their DNA taken.  No further action was taken in that afterwards the ‘Association of Chief Police Officers’ in a press statement while calling “for tougher measures to outlaw realistic fake weapons”, added that “The onus should be on the officer to make a common sense judgement”.

            Those are just three examples.  I’m sure if you Google you’ll find more.

            So yes, in the UK kids have been arrested for their toy guns.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I'm taking notes of all such examples here.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I guess the gun laws in Nigeria are radically different to the two extremes; USA & UK?

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                  Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes. But they're a carbon copy of the 'two extremes USA & UK,' with slight modifications.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Interesting; no doubt the modifications in the laws are sensible and logical, and presumably work.  What, out of interest, are the modifications?

            2. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Sounds more like thought police rather than realistic police.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Haven't seen you around before, welcome.

      So, let's have at it.

      I said nothing about eliminating the 2nd Amendment, it is just a fact that neither the First nor Second Amendment is absolute.

      If it is illegal for a minor to obtain a firearm, it would follow that it would be illegal for a minor to obtain the parts to build one? Children cannot be allowed to purchase firearms, any responsible society acknowledges that.

      And, yes, parents are responsible for the behavior of their minor children. I say that adult owners that are guilty of negligence regarding proper storage, access and availability of firearms to minors and people get hurt or injured because of it should be held accountable.

      More of the Zero-sum game? No one is saying "take your gun away". But for those that are negligent or careless, I say "throw the book" at them. If you are careless or negligent, then you are not a responsible gun owner.

      Cars are not guns, the Right seem to equate a firearm to a wrench. It is absurd logic as everybody knows that a firearm serves one purpose and one purpose only, and it is the most effective way to address that purpose. Far superior to any wrench.

      I am not aware of the Christmass massacre thing, but have plenty of examples of excesses from the Right, that far exceed those from the other side.

      You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing about gun elimination. But, do you consider prohibiting access to firearms by minors and felons gun control? Maybe, you need to go back to the drawing board and reassess a thing or two?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Felons, or exfelons that have paid their debt?  Felons whose crime had zero violence involved - white collar fraud, maybe?  Would you remove their right to a gun simply as part of their punishment - a right that they likely never exercised and don't care about anyway?

        Children - at 14 I was helping to provide meat for my family.  Will you deny families that ability, simply because the age of the child?  Would you deny the Olympic  biathalon athlete the right to compete because they aren't 21...all to pretend you are saving a life because, well, because all Olympic athletes are murderers at heart?

        Maybe you need to go back and reassess a thing or two, as in figuring out who the killers are, and if they will kill without a gun (as the Christmas parade mass murderer did).

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I am talking more about conditions associated with parole, rather than just merely being an ex-felon. Of course, once their debt is paid they obtain the rights all the rest of us have and that  includes the right to vote( had to throw that in).

          I did not say that children cannot have access. I am saying that it MUST be under responsible adult supervision. What possible explanation can you have to dispute that?

          Did your Dad let you take the gun around town and display it as if it were a toy?

          Do YOU know who the killers are, really?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I have no problem with felons and parolees being denied a gun.

            All guns must now be under adult supervision (adult = 18), depending on age, although that supervision might be miles away on a hunting trip. Many high schoolers carry guns to school to hunt when they get out, and if they carry it to school they will get it at home and go out for the evening hunt.

            No, I don't know.  That's the point - you would deny rights to millions because you don't know either.

  3. Ken Burgess profile image84
    Ken Burgessposted 11 months ago

    There is no problem with guns... it is the gun owners.
    It is the parents (or lack thereof).
    The gun, like a knife, like a sledge hammer, is just an object.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Then irresponsible gun owners need to feel the pain of more certain and consistent penalties for negligence.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        That's already the law.  Do you wish more laws saying the same thing?

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Well if it is, I have heard nothing regarding the parents role in tragic shooting incident. If it is the law, I want more rigorous enforcement and prosecutions.

          If you recall in Michigan, with the prosecution of the parents involved with the boy that committed murder at the school, authorities were saying that blaming parents was not the standard modus operandi director, but the circumstances were so heinous that charges had to be brought.

          I say that this needs to happen more often and assuredly whenever minors commit crimes with weapons obtained by negligent adults and parents.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            The parents of the kid shooter are being charged now.

            I spoke of charging parents a few days ago, I think to you.  You know as well as I do that parents do not, and cannot, exercise 24-7 control over children.  And some parents cannot exercise hardly ANY control...yet cannot get help from law enforcement either.  I agree with you in spirit on charging parents, but also recognize that it doesn't always make sense.  A blanket "blame parents for everything a 17 year old "child" does" just isn't reasonable.  Would you imprison a parent if a kid steals a car, gets drunk and kills someone?  If a kid shoplifts should the parent have it on their record?  If a kid has a schoolyard fistfight, should the parent be charged with assault?

            It's not so simple as you project.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              But can they do better than 00/00? That is all that it takes to find that Junior has an AR-15 hiding under his bed.

              If a 17 year old kid shoots up my house, while he may be arrested, who do I sue for collection of damages? A minor that can't legally enter into a contract?

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Not ever seen a gun in any of my schools growing up. Lucky the bullies that attack me ending up in my win or draw. One bully was a foot taller than me and he and I were shocked he was just putty in my hands. In time I learn the art of not fighting, gave confidence to traveling to 6 continents and a backbone in life.

                Kids today with guns in their lockers, Then security guards needs a gun and maybe the teacher has a gun.
                What we got here is
                HIGH NOON.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep, "High Noon", it just keeps feeding on itself with no end in sight.

                  Bullies are bad enough on the playground but when they are adults in politics and economics the problem is exascerbated exponentially.

              2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Wonderiog likewise.

              3. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                As I understand it you will sue both parent and child.  You didn't respond to any of the questions about imprisoning the parents - do you equate paying damages with a prison sentence?

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  After chatting with you awhile, I realized that there is a shade of gray here.

                  The situation in Michigan should involve jail time to the parents as their involvement in and contribution to the resulting carnage at the school made them accessories to the crime.

                  On the other hand, parents while possibly not considered accessories can through their negligence be a contributory factor to whatever crime was committed by their child. I would resign myself to imposing stiff fines for such negligence, not a prison sentence.

                  And part Or all of that fine that they pay should be directed toward me and the damages to my house to make me whole. If they resist then the law should have the authority garnish wages, etc...

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, it's gray (isn't most of life?).  The couple in Michigan - I've heard, without verifying, that they bought the gun and gave it to the child they knew was "troubled".  They share responsibility for the results if that's true.  But if they knew nothing about it, and they took proper care of their own gun, then it would be very different.  And if they owned the gun and left it on the bedside table with that disturbed child in the house a third case arises.

                    But the kid in the ghetto, the one that joins a gang and is away from home for days at a time, that gets a gun...well, Mom and Dad have no responsibility at all.  That child might be 17, might be 15, might be 12, but still no responsibility.  Parents cannot always control their wayward children. 

                    And that's my point - that parents are sometimes helpless to do anything at all.  I suppose they might report that gun ownership of their child (if they even know of it) to the police...and risk heavy retribution from the gang or even the child.  Not something I would require of anyone.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I personally can defend myself from any object or attacker unless they are a greater world class train fighter than me, which are very rare possibilities.  Any fool can pull a trigger of a gun and can kill me easily enough.  I've actually dodged a few bullets in my time and was extremely lucky.. If I had a gun, I would have been kill a couple of times in traveling  in 6 wars zone countries and supervisor the Largest riots in Canada. I'm maybe fearless yet not stupid like the whole history of guns. The greatest design killers of all time.

  4. Ken Burgess profile image84
    Ken Burgessposted 11 months ago

    I remember when I was a pre-teen, another boy my age was found making pipe bombs in his bedroom after one went off on him and took some of his body parts in the process.
    The problem was not that he had access to aluminum piping, or chemicals, or electric wiring, or batteries.
    The fault was with how he was wired upstairs between his ears, and his parents and lack of parenting.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Well, stupidity will always be the leading cause of death. Darwin award, I would give to germ warfare like vaccines, over guns. Have to give the red states more credits than the blue state for avoiding the covid mandates or do or else policy.

      Only valid excuse I give US gun owners is the possibility of Tyranny from their own government and US military which is the largest corporation in the world. The only solution is both sides dropped their gun and replace the hate with love and kindness. Yet they rather fight than switch. Like the civil wars happening all over the world right now.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      That is why the parents should bear responsibility for things like this that happen. It just might encourage them to watch "Junior" a bit more carefully.

  5. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 11 months ago

    When I was 13, we had handguns, rifles, shotguns in my house and the homes of my friends and relatives.  We took them out for hunting.  I knew my father would become quite violent if I ever touched one of his guns without his permission.  I didn't want to take a chance of getting him that mad.  Life was much happier if you didn't mess with the guns without permission.

    Nobody ever got shot.

    I have to wonder how many parents have a13-year-old in their home and guns and never have a problem.  I'm sure the number are in the tens of thousands.

    The problem is with the parents and what they raised.  This was a kid who was never taught to respect firearms or what they can do to a person.

    Building guns from a kit is a problem.  A bigger problem is that plastic guns can be made with 3D printers and being able to legally purchase other gun parts.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Nobody in my whole entire family tree had guns. Even the larger Mexican side of our family.
      Most of the time didn't lock our houses or car doors. Some place in Canada, we can still do this.

      Been train since a child about community security.
      Threw out my war toys at age eight, developed an adult attitude from then onward.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      This is another time where we agree.

      Life is fraught with dangerous materials and components, that is why children have parents as legal guardians. It is their responsibility to supervise.

      Years ago while living in Montana, a boy broke my house window with a rock. The boy couldn't have been older than 7. So, who pays for the window? That is why I don't allow rock throwing by my nephews that visit, because they are not the ones held responsible if they break something. It comes out of my pocket.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        We made them do choirs for punishment.
        It teaches them work ethic and to think twice about breaking things. Even though they didn't get much done in work.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Well, Castle, I am with you as there has to be consequences for disobedience.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image75
            Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            https://youtu.be/N0Wn3Eey6dY

            Jim Carrey take on cold dead hands.

            This drove the right sooo madd.
            Notice in the band John Lennon, Gandi and A Lincoln who all have been shot to death.

  6. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 11 months ago

    I think this is true.  The problem with gun violence is not the guns but the people who use them.  I was exposed to guns quite a bit growing up and we never had any problems.


    https://hubstatic.com/15829890.jpg

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      When we look at Americans 4% of the world population. With 50% of the worlds war budget where 85% of the killing is done by Guns. American have 25% of the worlds prisoners in American jails. Of one object guns is most of the murders and suicide are triple that.

      Makes America a bad example of peace with guns amounts and control.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Castle, how come you've become reasonable again so soon?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Because the absence of love and reason, is evil. Always been this way. Your just more agreeable on this topic.

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Those are "little tidbits" that are certainly hard to ignore.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
          Miebakagh57posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Credence, you're welcomed.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I hear you Ken.

      I lived during 1962, and I do know that firearms could be ordered by mail order catalog, would you REALLy believe that that is a good idea today?

      As a kid in 1962, would I be willing to compare that period's mores, the state of America and the World with that of 60 years previous, 1902?

      Time changes Space.....
               Credence2

  7. Miebakagh57 profile image69
    Miebakagh57posted 11 months ago

    Who knows?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      That is a reasonable comment.

 
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://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

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)