Because the weapons I listed, including AR-style rifles such as AR-15s, are the weapons of choice in mass shootings that I was specifically talking about.
I don't know that your premise is actually true. But, of course, this all depends on how one defines the actual problem including things like "mass shootings". I get the idea that you only know what the msm is feeding you and they have a decidedly anti-gun, anti assault rifle, support the party line at all costs mentality. Thus, the idea that all the "problem" shootings and murders would be solved by simply banning these horrible weapons of war is constantly thrust upon you. I guess you missed the part where I noted that the previous ban had no actual impact on crime and the murder rates. Yes, it was horrible what happened in St. Louis. However, did you know that last weekend in Chicago, 45 people were shot and 12 killed? How many do you think happened with your dreaded AR and how many of the arms do you think were acquired legally? You don't even consider the bigger issues, however.
The problem is not the specific guns, but the people using them. Incidentally, even if you were correct about being the weapon of choice, perhaps we should stop promoting these shooters with 24/7 coverage and focusing on AR's. You can't even accept the basic concept that an AR is functionally the same as every other semi-automatic firearm except it looks more menacing. Think about what this focus and sensationalism does to the average wacko out there. Btw, I can fire just as many rounds through a handgun as an AR, it just takes more magazines and the associated magazine change that literally is accomplished in a couple seconds.
Not only did I mean to say semi-automatic weapons but that is precisely the term I used a few posts back. Do details really matter to you because it appears you've become rather sloppy with the details.
I quoted you big boy, so it was your words, not my error on the details. I'm not going to go back and play Nostradamus with your previous posts. Just admit you f'ed up and move on. It's not that hard for most people. Simple mistake and I even acknowledged it in my post and addressed both automatic and semi-automatic. Your response just comes off as a little Napoleonic, but this isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Simmer down.
$2000+? Is that all? For a weapon that can take out dozens of innocent victims in minutes without reloading? Wow! Like I said, cheap.
This speaks for itself. Do you have a trust fund or something? Is your real name Hunter?
So what's the problem here? You pointed out the higher number of fatalities in blue cities with liberal policies and I pointed out the higher number of fatalities in red states with conservative policies. So what? It almost sounds like your accusing me of not fighting fairly.
This reminds me of my ignorant cousin who was once complaining about states like New York and California being blue states only because of their large metropolitan areas that are full of Democrats. I countered with the states of Texas and Florida, red states that also have large metropolitan areas that are heavily Republican, and he did the same thing you're doing right now.
"But, but, it's not the same thing."
"It's exactly the same thing, cousin Eddie."
Cousin Eddie scratches his head, dumbfounded by the exchange and suddenly unsure of himself.
Apparently, your cousin Eddie at least paid attention in elementary and middle school when you were held back or out sick because it's not the same thing. The concept you are missing here is that cities are located within states. Cities are often blue while being located in a red state. Since you fancy yourself a math expert, imagine a Venn diagram where the smaller circles (cities) are located inside one larger circle (state).
You mentioned Texas as an example of a decidedly red state, but make the mistake of assuming the metro areas are Republican (red). Take a moment and look it up instead of just putting your foot in your mouth. The ten largest cities are: Houston (4th largest in the country); San Antonio (7th in US); Dallas (9th); Austin (11th); Ft. Worth (13th); El Paso (24th); Arlington (49th) ; Corpus Christi (62nd); Plano (76th); and Irving (86th). They all fall into the blue camp except Plano which still, for now, leans conservative.
I don’t know where you live to discuss specifically how it works, but in almost all locations, the job of crime enforcement and crime prosecution is a local responsibility (usually county by county which, of course, are dominated by the city located therein). And much of what happens is a reflection of local elections, so movements like defunding the police force, automatic bail, and non-existent prosecution are reflective of the politics on a local level. States don't control this aspect of governmental life.
Thus, numbers get skewed and it is intellectually dishonest to point a finger at Texas as a red state with red policies when the concentration of crime is in locations that are decidedly blue. Secondly, and the point you want to completely ignore, is the claim about red states is per capita. The total number of murders in a city like Houston doesn’t go down just because they are huge. The following are not actual numbers, but are hypothetical to lay out the distinctions. If a county only has a thousand residents and has 15 murders, that's a rate of 1.5. If a city has 4 million people, but has the much lower rate of 1.0, that's still 40,000 murders. The per capita rate of the city is technically one third lower than the county (1.0 v. 1.5), but I know where I'd rather live from a crime standpoint. Who do you think has a bigger murder problem: 40,000 or 15? If you can’t follow these simple concepts, I can’t help you.
