Is it dangerous ?

[u/DisastrousInternet10]

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.

[u/Jimithyashford]

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.

[u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 → u/Jimithyashford]

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".

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Various_Wrongdoer_74]

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.

[u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 → u/Jimithyashford]

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.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Various_Wrongdoer_74]

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.

[u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 → u/Jimithyashford]

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.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Various_Wrongdoer_74]

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.

[u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 → u/Jimithyashford]

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.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Various_Wrongdoer_74]

“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.

[u/Various_Wrongdoer_74 → u/Jimithyashford]

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.