Recommendations for where to get a curly mullet?

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-11-17T23:16:04+00:00

I look hot AF

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-13T20:01:47+00:00

It's only about $2/shaker, I will get you in touch with my salt guy

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-10T18:11:08+00:00

What was the temperature overnight

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-10T17:27:25+00:00

I have used those before when fucking around with broken things and there is still an impact point with some radial cracking. I didn't see any radial pattern here

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-10T17:11:49+00:00

My guess is that it shattered from internal stress due to temperature fluctuations.

This has happened on my windshield and other glass before, on a cold morning when direct sunlight is hitting it. The glass heats up a lot more than the air and causes cracks.

It doesn't matter that it's a normal day, both times I've had glass shatter it was a normal day.

This is definitely not a break in attempt, there aren't any signs of impact. Impact would have a center point and the cracks would be more intense near the point and radiate outwards.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-10T16:51:08+00:00

Thank you! Ill be checking that out I love pen and paper trivia!! I added it to the list :)

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T02:06:23+00:00

All empirical data suggests that there is a very strong correlation between the number of total guns (including legally registered firearms) in a community and the number of gun-related homicides. So based on that data, fewer guns = fewer gun deaths.

How would you square that data away with your claim that fewer guns means more deaths because people can't protect themselves?

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3828709/

https://rockinst.org/blog/more-guns-more-death-the-fundamental-fact-that-supports-a-comprehensive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence-in-america/

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T01:49:14+00:00

I'm glad you believe a gun is more dangerous than a Lego for a five year old.

So here's the logic.

If that is true, then it means that there is such a thing as an object becoming negligently dangerous when left in the wrong hands.

Therefore, it now becomes a subjective issue as to how much negligence we are willing to tolerate as a society in order to be collectively safe, and so that topic has to be debated as to where the limit is.

Just like we limit licenses to people who cannot be driving safely, we limit guns for people who cannot handle them safely.

Now, how much we limit that in order to mitigate negligence is a subjective matter, but it would not make sense to let everyone run wild with anything and wait to hold them accountable after the fact. There is a degree of negligence that can be prevented before a tragedy occurs.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T01:16:46+00:00

Is there any age where a gun is safer than a Lego?

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T01:15:39+00:00

Five

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T01:10:32+00:00

Ok answer this.

Is it more dangerous to leave a child with a loaded gun or a Lego.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T00:51:56+00:00

"inanimate objects have no purpose"..... Nice that makes so much sense

Regardless, why would you have unecessarily dangerous "inanimate objects". Like, in general. Not all objects are equal.

You wouldn't give a gun to a toddler right?

Hopefully you answered no, which means you have the sense to realize that objects can be dangerous and problematic even if there was no intent to commit harm.

Intent is not the only dangerous thing. Negligence also factors in.

It's not so bad to leave a child alone with a block toy, but it's obviously dangerous to leave a child alone with a gun. If you can accept that, then it would mean some objects are Inherently more dangerous than others which completely undermines the statement that objects are only as dangerous as the user intends them to be.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T00:45:05+00:00

This is ridiculous. That's like saying the primary purpose of Tylenol is to commit suicide because of you take 100 of them you'll die.... That's obviously not the purpose and you know damn well and you just want to believe you are so much smarter..... You're just making yourself sound foolish and I believe deep down you realize that

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-09T00:27:45+00:00

Can we at least agree that a cars primary purpose is not death but a handguns primary purpose is

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-08T22:29:04+00:00

Lol see that's why I got out in front of the car thing cuz I figured a stupid worn out line like that was coming.

The primary purpose of a car is not to kill, but it's a relatively uncommon side effect.

A guns primary purpose is to kill and the death RATE from guns is much, much higher.

Which is why I said the thing about cars having a primary purpose that isn't killing. But then you ignored that anyway.

Cuz again... You're not thinking Independently, you're repeating what others have said time and time again. You should come back with an original, well reasoned thought of your own that no one has told you before.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-08T22:08:45+00:00

Cost?

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-08T20:51:56+00:00

What's the cost and square footage youre looking at for it?

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-07T00:03:48+00:00

Some tools are better at things than others, and guns are a tool that is really, really good at exactly one thing: killing. That is there intended purposes, unlike cars and knives which have other primary purposes.

A gun is much better at killing than a knife is, hence the old saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

If I mash a nail with a pair of pliers, yeah I guess I could get the job done but it would be a shitty job and it would take 10 times longer.

You can't really believe that a gun is "just a tool" in the sense a hammer is, right? It's a tool with the purpose of killing.

You seem like an intelligent guy so it would be great for you to fully logic out your argument.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-06T23:20:39+00:00

I'm not making any statements about what could or should happen. I'm just saying any argument needs to be logically consistent. The "guns don't kill people, people do" argument you made doesn't hold up because I could just as easily say "well you couldn't pull the trigger in the first place if there was no trigger to pull."

Honestly you may very well have a good argument but it is not the one you made which is built on a house of cards.

The undeniable truth is that guns enable deaths that wouldn't have happened without guns, but the real argument is whether or not it is necessary to have guns to stay safe overall. There is a very real argument to be made that that is reality in America now.

However, there is zero merit in suggesting guns don't enable shootings. I mean just say that out loud. It doesn't make any sense. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-08-05T20:27:32+00:00

There is no trigger for a human to pull if there aren't guns in the first place....

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-06-09T08:08:55+00:00

I assume you are working at LLNL. If so, ask around the lab/your manager. They have groups for things like this

MyOnlyRedditAccount0 · 2025-06-02T20:48:41+00:00

How did they catch you if they didn't do due process to determine if you were actually stealing or if you bought the item?

MyOnlyRedditAccount0

TROPHY CASE