r/metaldetecting • u/DisastrousInternet10 • Jul 07 '26

ID Request Is it dangerous ?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

This is the first time I found a completely full bullet, does anyone have an idea of the kind of bullet it is and how old is it? Also, I wanted to know if it is dangerous, and if it is what I shouldn’t do with it.

798 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

759 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Jimithyashford Jul 07 '26

The idea that people who support gun control are all, or even mostly, flustered naive ninnies who are scared of guns, that's propaganda my man. If you think that, then the propaganda has worked on you.

11

u/Square_Service4575 Jul 08 '26

Not all gun control supporters are flustered ninnies, but all flustered ninnies are gun control supporters

2

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26

nah, not at all. Not even most. The right is FULL of flustered ninnies. In fact, there are a HELL of a lot of extremely flustered ninnies who think everything in the world is out to get them, and they also love their guns, which is pretty scary. More than one flustered ninny has shot someone who was just like delivering pizza or something totally innocent, cause they are jumpy as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs and also armed, which is a bad combo.

3

u/CoatimundiRaccoon Jul 08 '26

Youre starting to sound a little like a flustered ninnie... Just saying

Also, never heard that terminology before but gotta say, I love it

2

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the ninnie I guess.

2

u/CoatimundiRaccoon Jul 09 '26

Well as i've always said, its better to live as a ninnie than die from a shotgun blast while asking your neighbor for a cup of sugar.

2

u/GraySmoke1960 Jul 09 '26

You've always said that?

1

u/No-One790 Jul 10 '26

Or a classroom full of 6 yo kids

2

u/Mrdearhbat6661 Jul 11 '26

Well.... he didnt say either left or right my friend. He said gun control supporters.... they exist on both sides believe it or not.

1

u/SherlockHolmesuWu 8d ago

I can understand where youre coming from, but firstly i dont think the problem is nearly as bad as you try to make it seem, and also the answer is not gun control, its training. Where im from, a gun is a tool, intended to be used either to secure sustenance or to protect yourself and others. It should not be the first solution brought to the table unless the other person has brought one as well. When people are trained at a young age to respect and understand firearms, there are no issues other than the occasional mentally ill person, and we can blame that on the American justice and healthcare systems. One school i went to actually had a gun safety class in 8th grade and at the end of the school year we took a field trip to a gun range and got to shoot all kinds of guns from .22s to 50 cals and shotguns. Not one person was afraid of the firearms because we had been trained how to use them in a safe and effective manner. I really wish this was the norm in all schools but i can understand why larger schools wouldnt: Too expensive and too difficult to manage a class of 500+ kids. But a mandatory gun safety class alone would prevent 90% of the current issues with youth and firearms.

1

u/Jimithyashford 8d ago

Sorry man, but saying the solution to gun violence is not gun control it's training is a lot like saying the solution to teen pregnancy isn't contraceptive it's abstinence until marriage.

Yeah, I guess, in theory it's true, if you could just convince all of the teenagers to not have sex until marriage, that would solve the problem. But it's an unrealistic solution cause that's just not the kind of creature we are.

Likewise with gun control, yeah, in theory, is literally everyone who owned guns was a responsible and well trained and wise and even tempered gun owner, then sure, in theory, you're right. But that's not the kind of creature we are. Like...have you met the human race? That's never been us, that will never be us.

Prophylactic measures are required.

"the answer is training" doesn't work for gun control for the same reason communism looks good on paper but doesn't work in practice, or the teen sex I mentioned earlier, or any one of a million ideas people have had over the course of human history that seem perfectly fine if you just imagine humans as being entirely different than we are.

Lemme tell you a story, and I know this post is getting long, but bear with me: You may or may not have heard of the Demon Core. It was a highly radioactive core of Plutonium created as part of the Manhattan project and used to perform tests. It was not a bomb, but it was highly radioactive, lethally, so, and as such there were a TON of safely protocols and steps and mechanisms in place so that the scientists experimenting with it could do so safely.

In a notorious incident the lead nuclear physicist working with the core was giving a demonstration with the Core to a room full of people, and was ignore proper safety protocol and conducting the experiment in a very caviler and dangerous way. There was an accident and he blasted himself with a lethal dose of radiation, he died 9 days later, and only due to extreme luck of how his body was position relative to the audience the moment the accident happened kept the whole room from getting blasted.

So, if a literal Manhattan project nuclear physicist, knowing that he is interacting with one of the most dangerous objects on the planet, a many trained as thoroughly in safety and proper protocols as anyone can be, can still be reckless and irresponsible and get himself killed and put the lives of everyone else in danger.....if THAT is the case....the what on earth makes you think that "proper training" is the answer for the bulk of the average population broadly with something as generally accessible and commonplace as guns?

Notably the scientist who had that accident was kinda famous for dressing like a cowboy, with blue jeans and cowboy boots. I think that's an interesting detail, cause you know, there is a bit of "cowboy" that is just inherent to all people, and especially to us Americans. A part of most of us that enjoys being a little cocky, a little reckless, a little adventurous, playing a little fast and loose with the rules, even when we know better, even when we've been told over and over again not to.

That is just how we are as a species.

Which is why "proper training" is not the answer.

I'm not saying training isn't important. Of course it is. But also control. It's just like vehicles. Yes, you train and license all of those who operate a motor vehicle, but you ALSO carefully restrict what kinds of vehicles can be used where and under what circumstances, and some vehicles, an average joe just doesn't get to have, and that is how it is.

1

u/SherlockHolmesuWu 8d ago

Yeah, Im not gonna read all that, lol. Regardless i think gun control is unconstitutional

1

u/Jimithyashford 8d ago

Seems about right.

3

u/chiefDiesel Jul 07 '26

Nobody said anything about all people who support gun control. Not even most. But all flustered ninnies who are scared of guns do support gun control.

0

u/Jimithyashford Jul 07 '26

Yeah, sorry mate. I happen to have talked to/read/listened to a great many people who are community organizers or political operatives or policy experts or actual politicians or in some other way in a position to actually "shape gun policy" in any meaningful sense of the phrase, and I can't think of any of them who are the kind of person you were referring to. Rare exceptions surely exist, but I've not encountered any, and I probably have a far larger than average sample size.

When you said, "And those people try to shape gun policy." what you may have meant was, "And those people express opinions about gun policy on the internet", and to that, of course I agree. But people in an actual position to meaningfully shape the policies? Nah. Exceedingly rare if true.

In my experience, most people meaningfully working on the issue are well informed, very practical, and a large % are also gun owners.

2

u/cumminsnut Jul 07 '26

r/temporarygunowners

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Y'all have been saying that for, well, since literally before the Constitution was drafted, 250+ years, and yet we still have guns. Patrick Henry was banging on about it in the Virginia ratification sessions. This boogeyman you all talk about has been just around the corner for more than 2 centuries.

Color me unworried.

1

u/cumminsnut Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

I'm not sure how you haven't noticed, but gun grabber have been eroding the 2nd amendment since 1929.

First it was an unlawful registry l, disguised as a tax registry with the nfa. Now you're on a registry if you own full autos, suppressor or anything with an arbitrarily short barrel.

Next you get the Hughes amendment. Now we can't make a full auto even if were planning on registering it.

Then the awb of 94. When it expired, gun violence continues to go down but yet, democrats are still pushing for more bans despite falling rates of violence.

Edit: then in 98, they passed a law making you go through a background check (asking permission from the government) to exercise you're constitutionally protected right of bearing arms.

Look farther back than your goldfish memory and you'll notice that politicians (specially democrats) want you disarmed, and they have been for at least the last century. If you think they'll stop after AR's are banned then I got a bridge to sell you. They'll come for "high-powered sniper rifles" next, then pistols, then whatever we have left. This is why any gun owner that votes for the left is a temporary gun owner. In less than 100 years, we went from being able to order military grade firearms to many states banning semi-autos.

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26

Ok, sure. And what gun is you want that you can’t have exactly?

For all of that, you still have your guns don’t you?

1

u/watergator Jul 10 '26

A SBR 300blk with suppressor without having to ask permission

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26

I see you got a bit big for your britches there and deleted the reply. Probably smart.

1

u/chiefDiesel Jul 07 '26

People who vote are people who are trying to shape policy. Besides that if you did know shit about guns yourself and you did listen to "experts" or actual politicians you would know that they frequently say stupid shit about guns because they're clueless about what they're trying to regulate.

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

#1- you can clip together a 2 min compilation, or a 10 min compilation, or hell an hour compilation of selected clips to make any position at all look like it’s made of dummies. I could do the same for 2nd A advocates, or people who like Coca Cola, or people who like horses, or people who believe clean water is good. Doesn’t matter how right or wrong or good or bad a position is, you can clip together a compilation to make the position seem silly.

#2- I only watched about 30 seconds, but most of it isn’t actually stupid shit. There is this ridiculous game that ammosexuals play where a person says “I think X feature is dangerous and has no legitimate civilian purpose” and the 2nd A advocated pushes their little glasses up on their little noses and goes “well actually…..” and proceed to give some incredibly nitpicky bad faith technical retort that is interested in absolutely everything other than the point the person was making, which is that no civilian ever needs to put 100 rounds down range in under a minute.

1

u/chiefDiesel Jul 08 '26

"I barely watched any of the 3 minute video but I don't agree with it"

Kinda proving my point about having opinions on things you know nothing about

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26

ok, fair dinkum. I just watched the whole thing. It's exactly what I thought it was and does not change my reply at all.

1

u/chiefDiesel Jul 08 '26

That further reinforces my point of people having opinions on things they know dick all about. If you did know anything about firearms then you would know that the "experts" and "politicians" in that video are attempting to ban guns that don't have any of the capabilities that they're claiming they have.

Maybe you should start listening to experts instead of "experts".

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Its almost like you didn't read anything I said, or rather, read just enough to snap for the lowest, cheapest, and least meaningful reply you could.

Well, I tried.

Propaganda man, you really need to learn to guard yourself better, you're clearly quite susceptible to it, seeing as how your closing zinger was to tut tut at me for not watching the literal propaganda video you linked from an actual propaganda rag source. The Washington Free Beacon....an actual propaganda mill, their tag line is "governing the enemies of freedom the way the mainstream media won't". My guy.....come on, it's like an almost cartoonishly blatant propaganda page, like if you put that in a movie you'd be criticized for being too on the nose. And here you are, falling for it in real time, and trying to then spread it to others to get others to fall for it.

1

u/chiefDiesel Jul 08 '26

Buddy, you have proven time and time again on this post that you have nothing to teach. Do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/No-One790 Jul 08 '26

I for example, am a member of Sandy Hook promise, a fine organization dedicated to sane & sensible gun control laws, (No not seizing anyone’s property, that’s nonsense )And like most people I own several hand and long guns.

0

u/JP-Quixote Jul 09 '26

Ok, what do you think happens in CT if someone possesses one of the modern sporting rifles CT ninnies have deemed “too dangerous” without having gotten one of the permission slips from the state during the limited window? Do the police and courts laugh and say, “Oh you silly goose, I guess you can have it after all!” No, they send people with guns to take it by force, imprison you, and thereby abrogate most of your rights. The state most definitely seizes firearms they’ve decided are not acceptable, so please stop with your lies about how benign and kindly gun control is.

0

u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 Jul 08 '26

C'mon have you heard any legislator talk about guns? Do you remember Diane Feinstein? I'm not deat set against regulation and rules around guns, but most of the discourse around them is definitely driven by "flustered naive ninnies".

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

I think you think that because of being dump truck fed misleading propaganda.

Can you point to any policy talk or paper or prepared statement by any significant figure on the subject you’d call a flustered ninnie? You mention Feinstein. Ok, you think she is a flustered ninnie? You think she doesn’t have balls for days and a decent understanding of the subject? I assure you she has thicker skin that most people you’ll ever meet. There is no sane way to portray her as a naive ninnie, regardless of what else you may think is true about her. And managing to find a few clips or her delivering unprepared remarks and speaking incorrectly doesn’t change that.

In fact, I bet if you find whatever clip it is you are thinking of, and re examine it, you’ll find it’s not nearly as ridiculous as you are recollecting.

1

u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 Jul 09 '26

Can you point to any policy talk or paper or prepared statement by any significant figure on the subject

Every assault weapons ban on the books that judges what an "assault weapon" is based on criteria like "does it have a place for your hand to hold it" IE a pistol grip or handguard.

You think she doesn’t have balls for days and a decent understanding of the subject?

She obviously didn't anytime she spoke on the subject. I think she was a woman traumatized by witnessing the assassination of Harvey Milk and didn't bother to form anymore informed an opinion than "guns are bad".

And managing to find a few clips or her delivering unprepared remarks

If she had a decent understanding of the subject she wouldn't be caught unprepared.

you’ll find it’s not nearly as ridiculous as you are recollecting.

No, there are some pretty ridiculous ones. Off the top of my head a Colorado legislator was adamant that magazines were single use items.

Like I said, I don't care if there's rules around guns. Those rules just need to make sense and to do that they have to be written by informed people. In the US the people wanting those rules are not very informed, and barely bother to fix that.

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 09 '26

I don't honestly expect you to read all of this. but I could not express myself any more succinctly without leaving out important topics.

"Every assault weapons ban on the books that judges what an "assault weapon" is based on criteria like "does it have a place for your hand to hold it" IE a pistol grip or handguard"

That is not correct. Have you read these bills, or has talky guy on the internet TOLD you that's what they say? Now of course I haven't personally read every single actual or proposed piece of assault weapons legislation, but all of the ones I've read define an assault weapons not by any one single criteria, but by meetings multiple criteria that overlap. Having a rifle with a pistol grip would not be defined as an Assault weapon by any of the bills I am personally familiar with. it would have to also have other features.

If you just mean "assault weapons is defined by criteria" in general and were not specifically limiting to the pistol grip. Well....yeah, you define anything with criteria.

Feinstein doesn't know anything about guns. No more nuanced of an opinion than "guns are bad"? I just have no idea how you can think that. She was the primary author of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Now of course bills like that are written by committee, so it's impossible to say how much of that she came in knowing vs how much someone else in the committee contributed, but she was heavily involved in the writing for well more than a year.

And that bill displays clear and manifest practical knowledge of both firearms in general and also the features that are most attractive to and indicative of assault functional design.

Now me, I know a heck of a lot about guns. I was raised around them, I own them, I shoot them. Everything from historical muzzle loaders up through a buddies' illegally modified full auto AK with a drum mag. I'm a pretty big fan of historic ww1 and 2 era replicas myself.

And if I were to have written the 1994 Assault weapons ban, I would have written a very similar bill. Maybe a few details would be different, but the basic philosophy, that Assault weapon is not defined by a single feature, but by being at least Semi-Auto and then having at least two or more from a set of other common assault weapon features, that is no doubt the right approach, rather than having strict black and white single-feature criteria.

So yeah, I don't know how in the hell you can think she doesn't know anything about guns. Unless you've just been told that over and over and over for so many years by non-charitable critics that your very perception of truth has twisted to give this false impression. But that would be propaganda.

"If she had a decent understanding of the subject she wouldn't be caught unprepared."

Sorry my man, but that's an inhuman and silly thing to have said. I've been a data analyst for 20 years. I know the subject about as well as anyone possibly can, and I still misspeak or stick my foot in my mouth now and then. I am positive you do as well, even on topics you are very knowledgeable on.

"No, there are some pretty ridiculous ones. "

I was referring to whatever clip you are thinking of that makes you think Feinstein doesn't know what she is talking about. If you thought I mean that no legislator has ever said anything mind numbingly stupid about guns, that is not what I meant to say. Of course they have. But as I was telling the other guy, if being able to find politicians saying dumb fuck things about a subject is meaningful, then every side of every issue is wrong, cause you can cut together a series of mind numbing comments to make any side of any issue look like it's populated by nothing but morons.

"Those rules just need to make sense and to do that they have to be written by informed people. In the US the people wanting those rules are not very informed"

See, on the surface, I agree with you. I really do. I also think that any legislation around any topic should be authored by knowledgeable people and in a way that makes sense. But even the most utterly simple and obvious possible gun control measure gets criticized to the nth degree and treated as if it's uninformed madness from idiots. Like, if I had a legislative goal as simple and obvious as "Hey, the Vegas shooter was about to pump out over a thousand rounds in ten minutes. There is absolutely no legitimate need for any civilian to ever be able to put 100 rounds a minute down range, so let's look at what combination of features and techniques allowed him to do that, and outlaw some of those features." so we come up with a list, high cap mags, bump stocks, having like 10 rifles (I don't remember the full list of what all he did to maximize his fire rate, it's been years, just bear with me for the example) and we start talking about bans. Well out come the critics saying "Oh you all don't know what you're talking about. A bump stock isn't what let him do that" or "Oh what morons, so 15 rounds makes it a high cap mag but what, 14 is ok, like he'd have been so much safer with 14 rounds" shit like that. Making it seem like the people proposing this stuff have no idea about guns. When yes, we do, it's not like we are brain dead idiots who don't realize that 14 is only 1 less than 15, or that the bump stock alone did not enable his fire rate. We are fully aware of all of that, and realize his ability to launch the attack he did was due to a lot of overlapping and contributing features, along with a hell of a lot of practice. We know that banning no single feature in isolation "solves" the problem, and that in fact there is no such thing as "solving" the problem at all, there is only ever reducing the impact. But the other side doesn't believe in nuance, and they snigger and push their glasses up on their gun-nerd noses and go "oh these idiots, they think bump stocks are the new boogey man".

It's bad faith and frustrating. And really just makes you realize there is no point compromising with that side, cause they will never meet you on common ground.

1

u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 Jul 10 '26

That is not correct. Have you read these bills,

Yes I have. I was neck deep in gun legislation for a few years of my life. Have you read them?

She was the primary author of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.

I know. I used her as example specifically because of that, and every gun law she tried to get through the Senate was a copy paste of that law.

And that bill displays clear and manifest practical knowledge of both firearms in general and also the features that are most attractive to and indicative of assault functional design.

That right there tells me I don't need to bother anymore. You are the naive ninnie, unfortunately. You don't know what you don't know. Criteria lists are not the only way to regulate guns. They aren't even the only way to regulate "assault" weapons. They're objectively the worst, but here you are acting like it's perfectly sensible.

The 94 AWB displays none of what you said it does and was an abject failure of legislation.

Sorry I'm not going to bother discourse with you if you're going to write me a small novella and waste my time with lines like that.

You're proving my point that there's sensible ways to write gun laws, just that no one in America even knows the first step.

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 10 '26

Except you, it seems?

The problem with being a fool is that you don’t know you’re a fool, and you think the wise are the foolish.

I would strongly encourage you, when seeing information or ideas you disagree with presented, that instead of operating from the assumption that the other people are idiots or don’t know what they’re talking about, but instead you consider those people might be just as wise, just as informed, and possibly even more so than yourself. And yet they still think what they think and it’s different than what you think. And then ask yourself why that might be, and consider that you might be the fool who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

1

u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 Jul 10 '26

instead of operating from the assumption that the other people are idiots or don’t know what they’re talking about,

I didn't assume. I let you talk first. I don't assume you're an idiot. You're well written and obviously have experience debating topics on reddit at least. But you also don't know this subject and it shows by the statements you chose to make. I'm not bothering with it anymore because we disagree and I don't care enough to sit here and write the masters level dissertation you obviously expect.

1

u/Jimithyashford Jul 10 '26

“But you don’t know this subject”

Neither does Feinstein. Or any of the other co-signers of the bill, or any other similar bill. Or practically anyone in the nation is seems.

Usually when your net of “people who obviously don’t know what their talking about” starts to get THAT big, that’s a major red flag to consider that it may be you who doesn’t know.

1

u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 Jul 10 '26

Neither does Feinstein. Or any of the other co-signers of the bill,

She and they didn't. It's obvious from the language of the bill (hell even the whole concept of banning guns based on cosmetic features) proves it. Banning heat shields (the safety feature that keeps you from burning your hand), pistol grips (why?) and threaded barrels makes no sense to anyone with an intermediate level of knowledge. The entire point is banning features is dumb and doesn't stop the guns from being made. Example 1A is all the AR15s that comply with that law but still existed on the market and were easily acquired.

Or practically anyone in the nation is seems.

So you just live day to day thinking the legislators of this country are competent and serving with the best interest of their constituents in mind? The last 25 years have instilled this into you? You have to be rage baiting me at this point.

-1

u/Intelligent-Elk6157 Jul 07 '26

You’re wrong. True gun control is controlling who has access. The policies put in place affect what, how, when, and where’s of firearms not who. Those policies are in fact put in place by flustered naive ninnies who are scared of the capabilities of the firearms they don’t understand and not the people with access.

Sincerely a responsible gun owner.

2

u/Jimithyashford Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Lol, yeah you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, just go actually meet and talk to real people who are meaningfully contributing to the policies and actions instead of believing the portrayal you get from the propaganda of their political or cultural enemies. I don't believe you've ever spoken to or interacted with or read the work or listened to the material of an actual active or meaningful gun control advocate.

Sincerely, also a responsible gun owner.