The disingenuous question and the false argument

This is a question, variants of which, I have been asked, and have seen asked of others, many times.

"How can you explain DNA in evolutionary terms"

If you take it at face value it is fairly easy to answer, it only asks for an explanation after all - so any plausible hypothesis should do the trick.
Here is one, just off the top of my head.

Life begins as an inevitable result of the general movement toward thermodynamic equilibrium in appropriate systems, and among all the various forms of rudimentary life that are produced some have the capacity to absorb others and use the material to increase in size. These must have some sort of basic coding/instruction system to allow this building. Now either one of the life forms arising from thermodynamics also has the capacity to use this coding/instruction to split into two, or one of the coding systems goes wrong and results in a split rather than death. (if the chances of such an event were, say, 1 in 10 million billion billion, then it should have occurred about 14 times by now) So now we have life that splits, but the coding isn't perfect, so occasional mutations creep in, and so evolution begins. Over time complexity grows, both in the organism and in its coding system, eventually giving rise to basic protein type things, which in turn lead to better coding in a precursor to RNA, which paves the way for actual RNA, and so on to DNA.

So, there is an explanation in (very) basic evolutionary terms. It's light on the detail of course, and not established by research (and in any case researchers are likely to have their own, much better, ideas to examine). But that is not why those who ask the question will reject the answer.

They will reject any answer because the question is disingenuous - it is not a request for an explanation, it is a disguised statement  to the effect that -

"You cannot prove this particular thing therefore..."

And the therefore... is the false "God of the Gaps" argument

In standard form it would go something like this

(1) Phenomenon X occurs
(2) There is no proof of the cause of X
(3) If there is no proof of any other cause, supernatural agent Y must be assumed to be the cause
_____________________________________________________________________
(4) Therefore (from 1,2, and 3) Agent Y must exist

A very common argument despite its obvious flaws

(5) The argument contains the fallacy of "circularity" in that the existence of agent Y is assumed in premise (3) and then stated as the conclusion (4).
(6) The basic form of premise (3) is flawed, e.g. before there was proof of the existence of DNA the coding process was not carried out by some other thing or agent.
________________________________________________________________________
(7) Therefore (from 3,4,5,and 6) the "God of the Gaps" argument is false.
<which is the thing I said it was>

Reducing gun related violence

Last time I spoke to someone about this the term used was gun violence, - I'm not sure if that was intended to include accidents or not, but for my purposes it does.
And of course this is primarily aimed at Americans, so the first thing to get out of the way is the notion that only Americans can make suggestions and voice opinions on the subject - that is nothing more than a childish attempt at an unjustified adhominem silencer, no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" when someone says something you don't like. So, anyone suggesting such a thing must go straight to the children's table, and is forbidden from taking part in adult discussions.

I am going to present to you the two most obvious and most effective methods for reducing gun voilence:

1. Get rid of the guns...

A fairly obvious one, - no guns = no gun violence.

Anyone arguing that they want to keep their guns (or the ability to own them) is basically saying that guns matter more to them than the lives of all the children who will be killed as a result of gun ownership during their lifetime. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as getting your priorities in very much the wrong order.

To those who might be tempted to say that they have a "right" to own a gun, I say go to the children's table.
To say that you have a "right" does not establish that it is a good "right" and worthy of preserving, to say nothing of the actual wording of your constitution.

2. The Swiss model

There are some parallels here allready, your constitution gives you the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia, and in Switzerland it is a requirement for men (ok, a bit sexist, but stick with it...) between 18 and 34 to keep a gun as part of the people's militia.
What they don't have however is amunition.
It is possible for private individuals to obtain a licence to have a gun and amunition for hunting/sport, but they are a relatively small number compared to the militia, and it is illegal to carry a gun on the street.
Even in Switzerland greater gun control is being actively considered, as Switzerland has a higher rate of gun deaths than anywhere else in Europe (except Finland), so this is clearly the less effective option.

"If you want peace, prepare for war" - really?

"If you want peace, prepare for war"

almost every human society has tried it....

it doesn't work.

double standard of assisted suicide?

I have the right to play the piano
I don't necessarily have the opportunity or talent to be able to play the piano

The person who drowns in a river does not die an easy, pleasant, or dignified death.
Equality or special privilege?

Who really benefits?
The dead person no longer exists to experience any benefit...

How do believers pick and choose which bits of their special books to believe in?

The average christian (to use the most familiar example to me) doesn't believe that the bible is literally true all the way through. But why not? and how do they choose which bits to believe and which bits to call allegorical or just ignore?
A subject of perennial interest to atheists since it seems so arbitrary.

Here is my pet theory on the subject.

They don't.

Or at least there is no conscious and deliberate selection process.
Most beliefs are formed not from reading the relevant special book but from being brought up to believe, or running into some other strong emotional stimulus. So generally the belief is formed independently of the content of the special book, and, since times have changed considerably since most of the special books were written, the resulting belief is not likely to fit all the descriptions in the special book.
So, as the believer reads the special book, some passages fit their belief, and some do not.
Essentially a version of the logical fallacy of begging the question (in which there is no reason to believe one or more of the premises of an argument unless you already believe the conclusion).
And because fallacies are such beguiling things that they slip past conscious critical faculties the believer will not be engaged in a process of thinking "should I believe this passage?", rather it will just seem obvious to them which bits to believe and which not to. Also, since it is a process they are not aware of, when questioned they will only be able to say that it is obvious, or a matter or faith, or revelation, or something of that ilk.