Lord-Humungus
Diamond Member
- Aug 29, 2023
- 5,040
- 4,427
- 1,918
Well now you are that smarter you’re welcome.The you have a different definition of the term locked doors than I do
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well now you are that smarter you’re welcome.The you have a different definition of the term locked doors than I do
You definition isn't correctWell now you are that smarter you’re welcome.
And you agree with me that the fact a product might be used improperly is not an argument against the efficacy of that product.So you now seem to agree with me that proper use determines the effectiveness of a product.
You are incorrect a door can be locked and open at the same time.You definition isn't correct
to make secure or inaccessible by or as if by means of locks![]()
Definition of LOCK
a tuft, tress, or ringlet of hair; the hair of the head; a narrow ropelike strand of hair formed by matting, braiding, or twisting : dreadlock… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
That’s incorrect if not used properly a device is. It effective, there is no changing that fact.And you agree with me that the fact a product might be used improperly is not an argument against the efficacy of that product.
Glad you saw the light.
You are incorrect a door can be locked and open at the same time.
You are wrong locking a door has to do with engaging the mechanism, once it is engaged the door is locked even if it is in the open position the door is still lockedNo it can't.
If a door is locked in renders the entrance inaccessible.
of the door is open it is open it doesn't matter if the handle of an open door is immobilized
You are wrong locking a door has to do with engaging the mechanism, once it is engaged the door is locked even if it is in the open position the door is still locked
No need to I understand EnglishWrite your own dictionary if you want to.
So you're saying if the bad person didn't have a weapon of war he might not be able to kill 20 or 30 people with, say, a six shooter.
welcome to the club shitbrain!
Good, then we're agreed that mental health services need a major overhaul in this country. I'm far too pragmatic to think that more gun laws are going to have any impact on the situation. There are just far too many in circulation right now to make a difference, plus you're going to run into resistance. People are fed up with government overreach and are not inclined to meekly disarm themselves.Ok with me.
That isn't likely to address the need but I'm good with that being a part.
So you're saying if the bad person didn't have a weapon of war he might not be able to kill 20 or 30 people with, say, a six shooter.
welcome to the club shitbrain!
And military style weapons have killed thousands.No, I am saying a bad person will kill no matter what. Remember, liar, a gallon of gas burnt more than 80 people to death.
Want to outlaw gasoline?
A lie.Almost all of them used those weapons.So far, none of the American mass public shooters had weapons of war......so what are you prattling on about?
...
A lie.Almost all of them used those weapons.
Yes, they did.No, in fact, they did not.
Name one.
Unless you mean the Navy Yard shooter who used a pump action shotgun...that is an actual military weapon, used by all branches of the U.S. military and Coast Guard.
Never said "actual military weapon"I will wait while you try to find even one who used an actual military weapon.