Ivanka Trump quietly talking to lawmakers about gun reform

They do and Bill Ruger was a bit of an odd duck. As for the mini14 being a great gun. I will question that as their groups at 100 yds were horrible. Their full auto version was worse. Suffice to say if the French police use them as their "assault weapon" of choice, that explains a lot about the French and their ability to choose weaponry wisely. I guess one would have to first actually win a war to make a choice so my statement was an oxymoron.
Ivanka would look good shooting one though.

 

STOP IT with the facts. Bare hands kill
more people than AR-15s.

 

Can you document this 2012 claim? I assume by "their own" you mean the Mini-14 and therefore I have to point out that Ruger started selling the SR556 (a piston AR) in 2009.

 

Is there any reason why Mrs. Kushner would want to place restrictions on gun ownership? Hmmm

 

Ivanka runs nothing. Deal with it. That's Reality.

 

And Donald is the actual president and actually on record supporting red flag laws and universal background checks.
THAT'S reality.

 

The sad reality is that Trump's stated opinions do not always matter. For example, he said he would build a wall when he has no intention of building a wall.

My thoughts are that Trump may support gun control now -- but is almost certain to support gun control after being reelected.

I have to point out that the Republicans never let the concealed carry reciprocity come to the floor for a vote. Very disappointing.

 

I don’t give a damn what any president or other politician has to say. No one is taking away any sort of firearms away from us, unless they want open revolution.

 

And as the comprehensive study on the effects of gun laws by Rand found

"Other countries such as Australia, Switzerland and Israel are often cited for adopting stricter laws. But the RAND study found it’s not clear that’s what led to less gun violence.

“The problem with a lot of gun policy research is that there is too much ambiguity,” Morral said. “It’s easy to either cherry pick or pick apart the claims of the other side.”

Australia had fewer homicides, suicides and mass shootings after tightening gun control. But the RAND study said it wasn’t clear the gun law deserved the credit.

A 1996 mass shooting killed 35 people in Tasmania. In response, Australia banned automatic and many types of semiautomatic rifles and imposed new restrictions on owning other guns. The country also bought back 695,940 prohibited guns in 2001 and 68,727 in 2003.

But studies found the country’s homicide rate was already declining. The only study that met RAND’s criteria found a significant decline in all homicides, rather than just gun-related killings.

Australia had a dozen mass shootings during the 15 years before the law, and none after. But New Zealand also had a decline in mass shootings — from four before the Australia law to one after — without reducing its stock of guns, according to the RAND study."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...studies-gun-policies-violent-crime/383083002/

 

The republicans leadership, ie mcconnell crenshaw rubio etc, have all come out in support. Its happening.
Prepare the lube.

 

Keep us posted with the latest developments, he's all talk, remember?

 

The article you quoted to support your contention is Titled “
Do gun policies save lives? Lack of research means we just don't know

And you cherry picked and misrepresented the information

I like THIS bit

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...studies-gun-policies-violent-crime/383083002/

And the article is correct when it states the stakes are high with more than 36,000 people dying per year in the USA from gunshot

That that number is only the tip of a very very large ice berg

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/

$ 226 billion would pay for a decent length of wall

 

Yes we just don't know so statements of fact like "gun deaths dropped because Australia passed stricter gun laws" are not sustainable, we don't know. We are limited into the amount of a cite we can post due to copywrite law and the mods request we keep it short and not post entire articles or the majority of articles. I posted the part which concerned what I was talking about.

 

There is a correlation, it is just not as strong as required for establishment of causal relationship. However there is also NO research shower fewer gun laws affect gun violence. But again there is a significant correlation
This archive is run through Sydney University

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/topic/firearm_morbidity

There is a plethora of research and statistical analysis proving correlation between gun legislation and firearm mortality and morbidity there is just poor research showing definitive causal relationships between the two.

 

Correlation is not causation, exactly what the Rand study addressed.

 

yep, it's her husband that runs the show, Ivanka and her daddy are just along for the ride as a distraction

 

LOL, so it's no longer Putin? Not even CNN has issued that CT yet.

 

Putin helped Trump win, Putin doesn't run things... Trump returns the favor by helping Putin

 

LOL, so Putin helped him win, but it's actually Kushner who is running the show? LMAO, WTF? It's hard to keep track of this crap, really...it is.

Cite him 'helping Putin'.

 

Yes and I have acknowledged that however correlation, with caveats, can indicate that there may be causation. This is why we do research, to weed out factors that might be influencing the correlation. When we get enough research THEN we can prove the degree of causation

 

Different contexts, the GOP will never bring in wholesale bans. The worst they've done is grandfather class 3 NFA firearms, and heck that was done under Reagan with a democratic Congress and a viable threat of avoiding the veto.

I think in the long term they'll treat all semi-automatics like we do handguns - ie: you can still get AR15s, after some period of club membership.

I can't see them going beyond that and even that is a stretch with the Supreme Court looking like it is for the next 3 decades plus.

 

yes, it's like a reality tv show with this administration, maybe next time we should not elect a reality tv star as President

 

Which is what the Rand did and found none.