They could easily argue a law change for homemade guns. DC v Heller said this in the decision.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Common use for lawful purposes. That line of thinking is what allows the semi-ban on automatic weapons, etc. The could probably argue that homemade guns must be registered and stamps applied for to allow for the possession of said firearms. Now, that wouldn't prevent the proliferation, it'd just enable law enforcement to do at least something about it.

You have an odd grasp of the English language.

Did you read what you wrote?

So "what" did you compare it to? Hint - the main point of issue here.

Congratulations, you know the First Amendment. I did not invoke it, the rest of your comment is moot.

Or that GTA Online still has...

A) Godwin's Law.

B) Is it newsworthy if they don't publish pro-nazi propaganda?

Prefer yes, but that doesn't make the scientist's argument valid or correct.

They've both given factually sparse arguments. Though the second threw in threat of danger. It could be said that the dermatologist is being alarmist because it means they'll get to charge you for a test. That said, most warts are benign in nature, and warts on the face are most likely to be flat warts and they're not associated with the development of cancer. The dermatologist would probably recommend you buy some OTC wart remover or a give you a prescription for said thing. Usually after they treat it. All in all, the SOP isn't that different than the dry-cleaner's advice. Just pricier.

Your point?

Appeal to authority:

I'll admit, it's not cookie cutter exact here.

Feel free to discuss it, doesn't make it news or newsworthy.

I haven't read either because I can't read the original behind the paywall. I have no need to read a retort to something I can't read and I have no desire to read something that I can't fact check (i.e. make sure the retort doesn't make things up).

What kind of bias though is it? The assumption I'm seeing is that, the WSJ doesn't want to print the retort for religious or support of religious reasons. But is that the case? Could it just be that they don't feel the need, desire, or inclination to publish every letter to the editor that comes out? Could it be that they might have thought that there were other articles that were deserving to be printed? And let's be honest, from what I saw of the letter, it's short. I can't believe that it really had anything substantial to it, it's basically a long winded comment to the article. (Disclosure: I have not read the letter, because I can not read the original article).

Who said anything about the first amendment. It's their business, they put what's in that paper. It's their decision. Got nothing to do with the First Amendment, so I'm not sure what the quotes were for.

No it is not. A scientist's argument when dealing with science is more likely to be valid, yes. But it is no more valid based purely on their author's characteristics. To say that one argument is more valid because it was written by a scientist is a classic appeal to authority.