So clearly, all who were actually contributing to SQLite did not have a problem with it, as they would undoubtedly caused a stink at the time if they did.
The project head added this CoC with unanimous approval from current contributors.
Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of
the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite
approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have
been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC
would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it
better to be open and honest about who we are?
First off, you may want to read the universal declaration of human rights. It mentions the right to marry and for that right to be respected. You can also read Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Saffley if you want US jurisprudence.
The right to marry is a different thing than a duty for others to recognize your marriage.
To exercise your right to marry, find your marriage partner and marry them. No outside parties are involved in this process.
But fundamentally what you are doing is removing people's freedom to form contracts.
Liar. A contract can exist without government recognition and enforcement. Eich did not campaign to interfere with homosexual marriage contracts. He donated to the cause of conserving the traditional legal definition of marriage, which does not prevent homosexual marriage contracts from being formed.
What thought policing is that? That your actions and behaviors have consequences?
You're not going to like it when you eat those words in the future. You will be hounded from society, because your actions and behaviors have consequences.
Just remember that you brought it on yourself when you used those very tactics on people who were perfectly happy to live and let live.
How is what the anti-same sexmarriage advocates want any better?
Point me to the public figure who has been fired for making a donation to a pro-gay marriage organization like Eich. False accusations to create a moral equivalence do not work because they are false.
But since you find it acceptable to fire people because they are personally against gay marriage, I hope you enjoy the future where people are in turn fired for being personally for gay marriage. "Your actions and behaviors have consequences", after all.
Eich gave money to a fund that was trying to deny basic rights to gay people, doing them harm.
There is no right to have your marriage recognized by the state or by society.
In reaction, people who were upset decided they would no longer be willing to do business with this person. That's fine, his views are not a protected attribute over which he has no control, they are something he decided upon and can freely change at will.
There is no justification for the thought policing you wish to impose on Eich.
But that is the way of Social Justice. Point, Shriek, Persecute.
Wikipedia's core staff is overwhelmingly male (87%) and mostly white. There is no indication that "social justice" played a role in either the creation of the current system nor the difficulty the site has had in attracting greater participation from members of other races and the opposite sex.
Rule #1 of SJWs - SJWs Always Lie.
SJWs are identified by their behavior, not their skin color or sex. It is quite typical for SJWs to be white males.
Bringing up white and male is irrelevant and your "no indication" assertion is falsified by observed wikipedia editor behavior.
My bad. "Criminal threat" is probably the more appropriate analog.
In the case of hate speech, the perpetrator is sitting comfortably in his armchair at home, not personally threatening anyone, posting Internet comments like "hey everybody, go kill some $group", which might cause some completely different dumbass to actually do it.
Bearing in mind that the crime also needs to have provable harm - "someone else might do something bad after they hear you" is a very broad net.
Put another way - it needs to have a clear way to weed out false positives, or it will be abused.
1012: Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
1012: Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
1013: Jews are expelled from the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordova, then ruled by Sulaimann.
1015: Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.
The first Crusades don't happen until almost 100 years later, in 1096, after yet more Islamic conquest and expansion.
So 1000 years ago, Muslims were conquering nations and killing unbelievers. Why are you downplaying Islamic violence by creating a false equivalence with Christians?
A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.
There's a crime for that already, it's called "assault". (legally defined as credible threat of violence)
Creating new words to describe an existing crime doesn't help to stop it. However, the creation of "hate speech" does set the stage to criminalize badthink.
So go ahead and embrace your actual position - you want thought police.
Philosophy made itself pointless and obsolete with the creation of the scientific method and it has become little more than religion for the modern age.
Not sure why you have to ask me, it seems that this is something you should already know.
You were making some bizarre accusations, so I'm just checking to see if you finally connected the dots or not.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work
Your choice is incorrect.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?
Let me remind you that this was my request:
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Do you dispute that the Paris shootings were terrorist shootings?
The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law... see, you can make distinctions when it suits you.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
That's not the harm that we were talking about. And you're going to whine about me bringing up Paris as an example of terrorist caused death?
If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015.
Don't move the goalposts. Compare terrorist caused shooting deaths to the number of innocent bystanders harmed by individuals shooting in self defense.
Deal?
You don't have the integrity to make deals. When are you going to start retracting the bizarre accusations you made against me?
Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh? So now you know - the train is fine.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
Your actions are louder than your words.
I don't need to convince you, I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else. No one cares what a dishonest word-twisting illiterate moron like you thinks.
No. I'm not here to chase down information for you. If it is of interest to you, you should look it up yourself.
Dishonest liar. You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.
See how he creates a new fantasy where I never brought up the Paris and San Bernardino shootings.
If the second comment was truly about greenhouses (and not the greenhouse warming outlined by Arrhenius et al.) can you explain why you suddenly changed the subject between those 2 remarks?
Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?
How do greenhouses work? What mechanics drive greenhouse warming?
The gullible ideologues in question aren't on the same side as the general public that their fire is injuring. They are just acting out their internal fantasies.
So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.
No one cares about your internal fantasies.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Do it yourself.
Afraid to find out, are you?
Between Paris and San Bernardino, 129 + 14 = 143 innocents killed by terrorists, not to mention the wounded.
In that same time period, "gullible ideologues" in mass shootings racked up a count of 0.
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
What is factually incorrect about that statement?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire.
Incorrectly.
Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.
Strawman. The harm is the same - doesn't matter if you are shot by a terrorist or a gullible ideologue who thinks he's equipped to handle dangerous situations because he has a weapon. The harm is the same, the people are different.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Utter comprehension failure on your part. Again. How long ago was it that you mistook thermodynamic for exothermic?
A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?
Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.
And do you think "friendly fire" means friendly fire, or perchance, did I quote that phrase for a reason?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire. You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.
Please point out where exactly in that sentence I used the words law abiding.
Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.
Every single example even admits that it is inconclusive but you are too stupid to read.
A prevented mass shooting is never going to be "conclusive", you mouth breathing idiot.
That's why no one cares about your goalpost shift asking for "conclusive" evidence.
Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Laquan McDonald
Those aren't examples of innocent bystanders shot by citizen shooters defending against mass shooters. You're too stupid to follow the topic of discussion.
If you can point out some whole country where people get shot but mostly don't bleed and die, I would accept that distinction.
Gunshot -> bleeding -> death == gunshot -> death
Gun-free zone -> attracts predators with guns -> not safe == gun-free zone -> not safe.
Gun free zones are objectively more dangerous than non gun free zones, because "gun-free" doesn't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
I pointed out Canada where schools don't have this recurrent problem in spite of being gun free.
Neither did France, until it did. Bad people cause bad things to happen. You're blessed if Canada does not have that sort of bad people. Be careful about who you bring in.
You really believe, while you all run through the streets shooting at each other, that the media has some secret agenda behind reporting on how fucking bad that is for you all.
What secret agenda? The media favors gun control. This is easily observed objective fact.
The fact is that the media does not report a death toll from wannabe heros accidentally killing bystanders.
Why are they silent about this when it could help the case for gun control? Do you think the Media has a secret agenda against gun control and buries these stories?
How safe were the people at this latest shooting?
Not safe. All the victims were unarmed because California has very strict gun control laws, by the way.
You know it's already illegal to take guns into those public areas and shoot people, right?
Are you actually so incredibly deluded that you think more guns would have made the situation better?
What were the shooters stopped with? Police using guns to shoot bullets into them.
People shooting each other dead, saves people from dying. Mind blown.
Were you not paying attention to the news? How did you not notice these shooters were stopped by filling them with bullets and killing them?
If guns make people safer, why are you all not mandated to take one with you every time you go on a plane? That way the plane would be totally safe. Right?
Because America is not a totalitarian society, unlike yours.
Nothing's totally safe, bub. Sitting in front of a computer increases your risk of bad posture, athritis, and becoming a fat neckbeard.
Your link has no conclusive examples of preventing mass shootings. Although it does show how weak your argument it is if that is as good as it gets.
Goalpost shifting, eh? "Conclusive" to whom? You, the liar?
Yes over 1000 cases, did you read them all or just selectively chose one that suited your argument, then resort back to childish insults because it's not working out for you?
Innocent people don't shoot at cops, liar. Now go find some "conclusive examples".
List the Joe Blows that have successfully prevented mass shootings with their concealed carry?
Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.
If you can't argue using reason, then just start calling names and see how that works out for you...
I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.
List Joe Blows who have killed innocent bystanders while trying to stop a mass shooter.
If people who are specially trained can't avoid killing innocent people, then regular Joe has no chance.
Your use of "innocent people" is the exact opposite of the actual definition, liar.
"Police stopped the man, who was driving a car with stolen license plates, and learned of multiple felony warrants for his arrest, police said. The man assaulted one officer and shot another before the officers returned fire, according to authorities"
Deputies stopped two men, both of whom pulled out guns, police said. The officers opened fire, killing one of the men, according to authorities.
Smith was a passenger in a car that was driving in the opposite direction of traffic and that crashed after fleeing a police stop, according to authorities. Smith and the driver attempted to leave the scene before Smith exchanged gunfire with officers, police said.
You don't think you should be murdered in your sleep.
Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."
It can't progress because you're ignorant of what god is and how that has driven human philosophy for all of recorded history. That, or you're dishonest enough to pretend ignorance.
Either way, there is no debate to have because all you have on your end is mockery.
It might be an entertaining exchange of barbs, but it won't be a debate.
So... A dozen or so examples spread over 20-something years... compared to (pretty much) one mass-shooting a day (if not more).
You don't understand the point. There are more than a dozen examples of "good guys with guns" stopping shootings without a single example of the imagined problem of friendly fire.
One question I'd like answered - what happens to the "good guys with guns" if law enforcement are also on the scene...? Do they get to join in the fun - isn't that the point of being allowed to carry - or are they also taken down as a potential threat?
Go take a concealed carry class and ask the instructor.
All I'm noting is that there is no media reported death toll of "good guys with guns" accidentally shooting bystanders, nor is there one for cops mistaking "good guys with guns" for the mass shooter(s) and shooting them.
The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?"
Anyone with that response to the concept of god doesn't have the intellectual horsepower or integrity to be worth debate.
It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question.
Slashdot Mirror
So clearly, all who were actually contributing to SQLite did not have a problem with it, as they would undoubtedly caused a stink at the time if they did.
The project head added this CoC with unanimous approval from current contributors.
Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it better to be open and honest about who we are?
First off, you may want to read the universal declaration of human rights. It mentions the right to marry and for that right to be respected. You can also read Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Saffley if you want US jurisprudence.
The right to marry is a different thing than a duty for others to recognize your marriage.
To exercise your right to marry, find your marriage partner and marry them. No outside parties are involved in this process.
But fundamentally what you are doing is removing people's freedom to form contracts.
Liar. A contract can exist without government recognition and enforcement. Eich did not campaign to interfere with homosexual marriage contracts. He donated to the cause of conserving the traditional legal definition of marriage, which does not prevent homosexual marriage contracts from being formed.
What thought policing is that? That your actions and behaviors have consequences?
You're not going to like it when you eat those words in the future. You will be hounded from society, because your actions and behaviors have consequences.
Just remember that you brought it on yourself when you used those very tactics on people who were perfectly happy to live and let live.
How is what the anti-same sexmarriage advocates want any better?
Point me to the public figure who has been fired for making a donation to a pro-gay marriage organization like Eich. False accusations to create a moral equivalence do not work because they are false.
But since you find it acceptable to fire people because they are personally against gay marriage, I hope you enjoy the future where people are in turn fired for being personally for gay marriage. "Your actions and behaviors have consequences", after all.
Eich gave money to a fund that was trying to deny basic rights to gay people, doing them harm.
There is no right to have your marriage recognized by the state or by society.
In reaction, people who were upset decided they would no longer be willing to do business with this person. That's fine, his views are not a protected attribute over which he has no control, they are something he decided upon and can freely change at will.
There is no justification for the thought policing you wish to impose on Eich.
But that is the way of Social Justice. Point, Shriek, Persecute.
Wikipedia's core staff is overwhelmingly male (87%) and mostly white. There is no indication that "social justice" played a role in either the creation of the current system nor the difficulty the site has had in attracting greater participation from members of other races and the opposite sex.
Rule #1 of SJWs - SJWs Always Lie.
SJWs are identified by their behavior, not their skin color or sex. It is quite typical for SJWs to be white males.
Bringing up white and male is irrelevant and your "no indication" assertion is falsified by observed wikipedia editor behavior.
My bad. "Criminal threat" is probably the more appropriate analog.
In the case of hate speech, the perpetrator is sitting comfortably in his armchair at home, not personally threatening anyone, posting Internet comments like "hey everybody, go kill some $group", which might cause some completely different dumbass to actually do it.
Bearing in mind that the crime also needs to have provable harm - "someone else might do something bad after they hear you" is a very broad net.
Put another way - it needs to have a clear way to weed out false positives, or it will be abused.
Maybe you can ponder the irony of griping about "thought police" while splitting semantic hairs.
Online disagreement is the exact same thing as criminal charges with associated penalties.
1000 years ago, Christians were roaming the world, killing non-believers. How is this a whole lot different?
Which Christians are you talking about?
Looking at the history of Islam and Europe, 1000 years ago ...
The first Crusades don't happen until almost 100 years later, in 1096, after yet more Islamic conquest and expansion.
So 1000 years ago, Muslims were conquering nations and killing unbelievers. Why are you downplaying Islamic violence by creating a false equivalence with Christians?
A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman ...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.
There's a crime for that already, it's called "assault". (legally defined as credible threat of violence)
Creating new words to describe an existing crime doesn't help to stop it. However, the creation of "hate speech" does set the stage to criminalize badthink.
So go ahead and embrace your actual position - you want thought police.
Philosophy made itself pointless and obsolete with the creation of the scientific method and it has become little more than religion for the modern age.
Funny philosophy you've got there.
Not sure why you have to ask me, it seems that this is something you should already know.
You were making some bizarre accusations, so I'm just checking to see if you finally connected the dots or not.
But since you asked: I think that the most likely answer is neither - you entered into a conversation about GHGs without knowing how they work
Your choice is incorrect.
Your claims depend on convincing people that Paris is in the United States of America, and that the universe began less than 2 months ago.
What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?
Let me remind you that this was my request:
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Do you dispute that the Paris shootings were terrorist shootings?
The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law ... see, you can make distinctions when it suits you.
How does a bullet entering the body of a non-combatant behave differently if fired by a terrorist?
That's not the harm that we were talking about. And you're going to whine about me bringing up Paris as an example of terrorist caused death?
If I google the required information and find that there were more unintentional deaths by shooting in the US in 2015 than there were deaths by terrorists in the US in 2015.
Don't move the goalposts. Compare terrorist caused shooting deaths to the number of innocent bystanders harmed by individuals shooting in self defense.
Deal?
You don't have the integrity to make deals. When are you going to start retracting the bizarre accusations you made against me?
Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh? So now you know - the train is fine.
I don't recall every saying it was a fantasy. Can you provide a cite in which I said it was a fantasy?
Your actions are louder than your words.
I don't need to convince you, I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else. No one cares what a dishonest word-twisting illiterate moron like you thinks.
No. I'm not here to chase down information for you. If it is of interest to you, you should look it up yourself.
Dishonest liar. You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.
See how he creates a new fantasy where I never brought up the Paris and San Bernardino shootings.
If the second comment was truly about greenhouses (and not the greenhouse warming outlined by Arrhenius et al.) can you explain why you suddenly changed the subject between those 2 remarks?
Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?
How do greenhouses work? What mechanics drive greenhouse warming?
The gullible ideologues in question aren't on the same side as the general public that their fire is injuring. They are just acting out their internal fantasies.
So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.
No one cares about your internal fantasies.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Do it yourself.
Afraid to find out, are you?
Between Paris and San Bernardino, 129 + 14 = 143 innocents killed by terrorists, not to mention the wounded.
In that same time period, "gullible ideologues" in mass shootings racked up a count of 0.
Are those numbers the same?
You didn't say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?
What is factually incorrect about that statement?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire.
Incorrectly.
Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.
Strawman. The harm is the same - doesn't matter if you are shot by a terrorist or a gullible ideologue who thinks he's equipped to handle dangerous situations because he has a weapon. The harm is the same, the people are different.
List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".
Desperate for attention, eh?
Utter comprehension failure on your part. Again. How long ago was it that you mistook thermodynamic for exothermic? A month? Did you manage to go a month without another monumental fail?
Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.
And do you think "friendly fire" means friendly fire, or perchance, did I quote that phrase for a reason?
I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire. You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.
Please point out where exactly in that sentence I used the words law abiding.
Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.
You are dishonest with your words. Liar.
Every single example even admits that it is inconclusive but you are too stupid to read.
A prevented mass shooting is never going to be "conclusive", you mouth breathing idiot.
That's why no one cares about your goalpost shift asking for "conclusive" evidence.
Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Laquan McDonald
Those aren't examples of innocent bystanders shot by citizen shooters defending against mass shooters. You're too stupid to follow the topic of discussion.
If you can point out some whole country where people get shot but mostly don't bleed and die, I would accept that distinction.
Gunshot -> bleeding -> death == gunshot -> death
Gun-free zone -> attracts predators with guns -> not safe == gun-free zone -> not safe.
Gun free zones are objectively more dangerous than non gun free zones, because "gun-free" doesn't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
I pointed out Canada where schools don't have this recurrent problem in spite of being gun free.
Neither did France, until it did. Bad people cause bad things to happen. You're blessed if Canada does not have that sort of bad people. Be careful about who you bring in.
You really believe, while you all run through the streets shooting at each other, that the media has some secret agenda behind reporting on how fucking bad that is for you all.
What secret agenda? The media favors gun control. This is easily observed objective fact.
The fact is that the media does not report a death toll from wannabe heros accidentally killing bystanders.
Why are they silent about this when it could help the case for gun control? Do you think the Media has a secret agenda against gun control and buries these stories?
How safe were the people at this latest shooting?
Not safe. All the victims were unarmed because California has very strict gun control laws, by the way.
You know it's already illegal to take guns into those public areas and shoot people, right?
Are you actually so incredibly deluded that you think more guns would have made the situation better?
What were the shooters stopped with? Police using guns to shoot bullets into them.
People shooting each other dead, saves people from dying. Mind blown.
Were you not paying attention to the news? How did you not notice these shooters were stopped by filling them with bullets and killing them?
If guns make people safer, why are you all not mandated to take one with you every time you go on a plane? That way the plane would be totally safe. Right?
Because America is not a totalitarian society, unlike yours.
Nothing's totally safe, bub. Sitting in front of a computer increases your risk of bad posture, athritis, and becoming a fat neckbeard.
Your link has no conclusive examples of preventing mass shootings. Although it does show how weak your argument it is if that is as good as it gets.
Goalpost shifting, eh? "Conclusive" to whom? You, the liar?
Yes over 1000 cases, did you read them all or just selectively chose one that suited your argument, then resort back to childish insults because it's not working out for you?
Innocent people don't shoot at cops, liar. Now go find some "conclusive examples".
List the Joe Blows that have successfully prevented mass shootings with their concealed carry?
Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.
If you can't argue using reason, then just start calling names and see how that works out for you...
I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.
List Joe Blows who have killed innocent bystanders while trying to stop a mass shooter.
If people who are specially trained can't avoid killing innocent people, then regular Joe has no chance.
Your use of "innocent people" is the exact opposite of the actual definition, liar.
"Police stopped the man, who was driving a car with stolen license plates, and learned of multiple felony warrants for his arrest, police said. The man assaulted one officer and shot another before the officers returned fire, according to authorities"
Deputies stopped two men, both of whom pulled out guns, police said. The officers opened fire, killing one of the men, according to authorities.
Smith was a passenger in a car that was driving in the opposite direction of traffic and that crashed after fleeing a police stop, according to authorities. Smith and the driver attempted to leave the scene before Smith exchanged gunfire with officers, police said.
Prove that it's the most important thing.
You don't think you should be murdered in your sleep.
Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."
It can't progress because you're ignorant of what god is and how that has driven human philosophy for all of recorded history. That, or you're dishonest enough to pretend ignorance.
Either way, there is no debate to have because all you have on your end is mockery.
It might be an entertaining exchange of barbs, but it won't be a debate.
So being gun free is not what encourages shootings- it is the porous border between gun free and non gun free zones.
Getting shot didn't kill the victims, the bleeding did.
Useless distinctions are useless. Ineffective solutions are ineffective.
So... A dozen or so examples spread over 20-something years... compared to (pretty much) one mass-shooting a day (if not more).
You don't understand the point. There are more than a dozen examples of "good guys with guns" stopping shootings without a single example of the imagined problem of friendly fire.
One question I'd like answered - what happens to the "good guys with guns" if law enforcement are also on the scene...? Do they get to join in the fun - isn't that the point of being allowed to carry - or are they also taken down as a potential threat?
Go take a concealed carry class and ask the instructor.
All I'm noting is that there is no media reported death toll of "good guys with guns" accidentally shooting bystanders, nor is there one for cops mistaking "good guys with guns" for the mass shooter(s) and shooting them.
Practice > theory.
pigeon holing complex beliefs in this manner is intellectually lazy.
Lazy but effective. I don't care how complex you think your belief is, it can be summarized simply.
Truth is simple, and a pursuit of complexity for the sake of complexity is to flee true understanding.
You can claim someone is rambling when they are being too precise for your liking
Rambling off topic is not precise.
There are a wide range of atheists whose beliefs have very little in common.
But they all have one thing in common: They believe God does not exist, or they wouldn't be atheists by definition.
The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?"
Anyone with that response to the concept of god doesn't have the intellectual horsepower or integrity to be worth debate.
It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question.