Would that evidence include a Political party,
Where one said: "HELL YA, I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
And several others totally agreed.

 Yes.  Should that be taken into account?


And now the person leading that party says;
"I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
as well as saying the person who said:
"HELL YEA - I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
Will be in CHARGE of;
TAKING YOUR GUNS

 Yes.  Should that be taken into acccount?


Is that not enough 'evidence', to say several groups of people want to:
" TAKE YOUR GUNS "  ?


 Depends.  Historically, on here, as long as we don't read the information provided, or find a single contradictory article, then no that would not be enough evidence since all that has been historically necessary is one single contradictory article, social media posting, or picture.

  The question is should the totality of the evidence be taken into account, or just the articles I select?  Should we read information posted here before discounting it entirely?

So, because recent record sales are obvious
Second Amendment is safe and there aren't gun control groups trying daily to figure out how to change the availability and legality of weapons,,

Is that what you're saying


 Can you provide me one martial law prediction that has come true?  How many forced buybacks or gun grabs have taken place in US legislature that I have been hearing about since the 80's?  Name one.



 What I am saying is this strategy directly reflects ones used in other subjects.  I am refusing to read the information you posted to support your view and instead am finding an article that supports mine, and telling you to prove my information is wrong.  

 Is this not an effective way to have a conversation about this?

 So the refusal to read documentation, ignoring things I "don't care about", using unverified sources, and providing one article and saying "Prove I'm wrong" is only effective if you agree with it?


"And because NO Predictions of Natural Events have come to pass"

 Except the one's that have.  So refer to Strategy 1: Refuse to read or acknowledge the accurate ones so I can keep saying NO predictions are true.



"political mechanisms That PEOPLE are TRying to put into place,because they havent WON yet, Im suppposed to ignore their efforts"


 No, you are supposed to prove my information is wrong.  Are you seeing how useless that is?  Or is it only useless when I do it but fine when you do?

 Sounds like you are assessing gun control the way I assess SARS-COV-2.  I am choosing to not ignore all the surrounding evidence because some articles have a degree of conflicting information.  I am willing to include the information and see how it applies, but not say this one article will now override all other evidence in a massive and complex issue.

 Just as you acknowledge firearm sales are at an all-time high, but aren't willing to say that information overrides all the other information out there.

 I did tell you, but I also provided all of the information.

 I have no working models that provide outcomes of millions of deaths.  I outlined cities in TX set for potential increase such as Nueces, McLennan, Victoria, Taylor and Midland, each showing significant increase in cases at this time, as predicted.

 Look over the data and confirm if you don't believe me or just believe me.


 I consider it massive because all humans can be effected and this is at a global scale.  This isn't a disease from NY, it traveled across the planet.

 

 

 We should be skeptical of the numbers.

 I do not think we should declare all numbers wrong because some are.