Would it take for me to be willing to turn in my gun?

I dunno
How many rapes would need to happen before you cut off your dikk?

A very Freudian comparison..

any logic implied is fallacy

poison gasses are poison..

"Stop listening to the fear mongers and look at it scientifically"

 Also lets not forget that you choose to eliminate any sea-based plant life to the C0-2 equation because you "don't care" about it.

 So since the C0-2 data in these discussions is selective based off of how much you care, none of the arguments are useful.  Scientifically based arguments include all data, not just data we want to use.

 Also I would not say that body mutilation is comparable to inanimate objects.  For instance if I had the choice of cutting off my dikk or handing over my gun I would choose handing over the gun.  

 I do agree that I should not have to give up my personal property because it is the same thing other people use to commit crimes.  I think a better comparison is how many people have to die in automobile accidents for me to turn over my truck and start walking everywhere.

"It is possible, they forgot to, subtract, suicide, at about 22,000 per year?"

 Are you saying suicide by firearm is not a gun death?  If a gun is used, its a gun death.  If they said "Homicide" then its wrong.

"It is possible, they forgot to, subtract, Justifiable Homicide, (like Police/etc)"

 Are you saying law enforcement using a gun to justifiably kill someone is not a gun death?  If a gun is used, its a gun death.  If they said it was "Homicide" then it's wrong.

"It is possible, they forgot to, subtract, accidents, (like falling down stairs, drowning, ladders, etc., which are MORE) ?"

 Are you saying they are calling all deaths gun related deaths even if there is no gun?  If so then its wrong.

"It is possible, they forgot to, subtract other things ?"

 Yes.


 My point was that a member here explains the use of scientific data to another member on the very topic he specifically is selective with, purposefully with his own admission excluding the largest contributing factor based off the fact that he doesn't care about that factor.  Then tells someone else to be scientific.  

 That makes no sense, exactly like gun grabbers manipulating numbers in their favor.

 This also is along the lines of citing that less-intrusive law enforcement strategies have been very effective in other communities, but ignoring that that same very low violence rate is from melting guns and making spoons out of them donated to soup kitchens.  If its applicable just use it and save opinions for later.

 Phytoplankton absorbs CO-2.  You said you didn't care about that during one of your discussions about CO-2.

 Even though dimethylsulfide isn't proven to affect clouds, the reasoning of just removing a plant-based absorber during a discussion about that very thing is purposefully selective and not based off of the available evidence.  I assume since you don't remember that is why you are explaining to someone else how to use science as a method and not opinion.  

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 11/24/18 at 09:16:40:


As long as they aren't armed...

"So? It's just One More element that BOLSTERS MY POINT."

 It doesn't matter what it bolsters.

 You are saying that a member should "look at it scientifically" while ignoring the largest contributing factor to the topic you are discussing.  

 You are literally putting into practice the opposite of what you expect from others.

 As for bolstering your point the issue is reduced plankton due to unsustainable temperatures and drastic current changes.  That's reduced CO-2 absorption based off of warmer temperatures.  But it doesn't matter, because you don't care, even though the rest of us should be scientific about it.