*sigh*.

In just 24 hours, the US President:

1). Canceled a trip to Denmark because the Prime Minister told Trump that Greenland was not for sale.

2). Used an anti-semetic Jews must be loyal to Israel dog whistle to appeal to his evangelical base.

3). Accepted the idea that he is anointed as the second coming of God and King of Israel.

4). Called himself "The Chosen One" to take on China in a trade war that he claimed isn't his.

5). Bowed down to his NRA overlords on background checks after saying we needed them last week.

1.   Mexico isn't sending their people to this country.  We spend a lot of money for the border.  

>guns are banned in Mexico

Factually incorrect.  They have restrictions on guns, but guns are not banned. 

2.  By the time that a Democrat became mayor of Detroit, Detroit had lost nearly 200,000 people from the collapse in their local economy.  

If the current state of Detroit is down to the local policies, then the most you can say is that Republicans caused the collapse, but Democrats were unable to fix it.  

And again, a big part of the reason for California's housing issue, is they literally aren't building enough houses.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage

Also those cities are doing well by the standards listed in your article about how Detroit isn't doing well.  So if that list is void, then so is your article you shared.  

Addition:

I will say it again. These are complicated issues.  Economy, crime, etc.  Specialists will spend upwards of a decade of their life studying each of these subjects.  And you think you've got it all figured out from cherry picked examples.  

Any comment that "Democrats are bad", "Any taxes are bad", "Any regulations are bad", do a disservice to yourself and the conversation.  Treating every tax or regulation as being identical is dishonest at best.  Thinking people are bad because they don't have the same political beliefs as you doesn't make for good discussion.  

This again?  Ok, I'm going to show you something.  And you're either going to learn from it or ignore it (again).  If you ignore it again, you will be labeled as being willfully ignorant and your standing for debate will remain tarnished.

Trump, his tax cuts and deregulation didn't do anything different than the trend it was already going in.  The rate of descent is the same.  If his policies had a direct impact, the rate of decent would have increased. 

You are either being lied to and accepting it because it feeds your cognitive bias or you do know the facts and are intentionally lying out of cognitive dissonance.

Yep, awesome.  We can also ban them all and it;s all good.

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

If we go by this logic then why do we have any laws at all?