Are you too stupid to read in context, or are you dishonestly snipping it out?

Relevant points highlighted.

Your imagination is not a credible source on the harm caused by defensive firearm use. The article listed 10 examples where an armed citizen stopped a shooter, without racking up an innocent death toll by friendly fire. You don't even have a single counter-example.

Low.

It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.

Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty to protect you.

Sometimes it is. There are no shortage of defensive firearm shootings in the US.

The people with a vested interest in pointing out the cons have not done so. Is it because they're too stupid to calculate the numbers? Or is it because they don't think it will help their preferred position?

Your imagination doesn't match reality.

Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.

Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.

You are demanding that I consider an irrelevant context. No one can tell me "there is no god" in the way you are talking about. By definition, any person who says that to me is claiming it as a fact and implicitly declaring his belief in it.

I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).

Since I asked a person that question, every answer is going to be personal belief, and everyone who replies "there is no god" is an atheist declaring "I believe there is no god".

You are adding confusion, not correcting error. Is that rational behavior?

That distinction is nonsensical. Agnostic is "I don't know if there's a god", where atheist is "there is no god".

If an atheist is confused enough to think he is both simultaneously, his thoughts are not useful to the overall debate.

That's "No", or "I don't think so" for a humbler atheist. It's an important question, pick a meaningful answer and don't be wishy-washy about it.

That's a weak "no". But if he was agnostic and honest, he would answer "I don't know, there might be one".

Where are you getting your word definitions? Capital G Gnosticism has a specific meaning referring to a particular Christian heresy.

Your question is not functionally different than mine. "I believe in no deities" == (I believe) "there is no god"

"I believe in X deity" == (I believe) "god X exists"

But in the absence of peer pressure, there should be no such effect.

I think a better explanation is that people assume meaning. People can find patterns in random noise.

As people try to process a random word salad, the brain works hard to develop any tenuous connection between unrelated concepts; the brain notices this exertion and concludes that this must be a difficult and meaningful concept.

A better trained brain will instead bypass that effort and conclude it's nonsense.

Hobbies are optional. Belief systems are not.

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"

Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.

No it does not indicate that.

Previously, "In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain."

To show that that claim is invalid, you have to demonstrate that those researchers had a high failure rate using a disembodied brain to determine an individual's sex.

The existence of a new measurement tool is insufficient to invalidate that claim - what if you check their prediction rate and find that it's 100% correct? That would validate and justify their claim.

Holding two opposing ideas and believing in two opposing ideas are not the same thing.

That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.

You're not going to get any answers until you hold yourself accountable for every lie and false accusation you made.