If Democrat's want to keep referring to themselves as the party of science, they eventually have to acknowledge that there's fairly robust scientific research in regard to firearms and ballistics that nearly no Democrat appears to be aware of.
Really, this should be embarrassing.
It took less than a week after Biden said that a 9mm will rip the lung out of your body for half a dozen YouTubers to get their hands on a Ballistic Dummy Lab torso, just like the FBI and police departments use for testing their standard-issue side arms, and prove what everybody with half a brain knew-- that Biden is full of shit.
The thing is, this clear, emboldened ignorance that is really only coming from one side is only funny until there are real life consequences.
There have been several studies that have shown that people choose which guns they want to ban based on aesthetics rather than function.
One study showed that, given identical circumstances, mock juries were more likely to convict a person using a gun in home defense if he or she used an AR-15 as opposed to a similar rifle that has the same functions and takes the same bullets so long as the gun has a wooden stock.
Yes, I'm being entirely serious, these people are so dense about guns that the material used to make the stock on your rifle could be the difference between not guilty and life in prison.
It's not a matter of "just my opinion -- man" that hollow point bans, like they have in New Jersey, increase the likelihood of collateral damage and severe injury in defensive use of force situations. It's scientific fact that full metal jacket rounds penetrate more than hollow points. It's scientific fact that the New Jersey law increases the likelihood that a justified use of defensive force case will turn into a reckless endangerment or a manslaughter case.
Remember when Binger was grilling Rittenhouse about using full metal jacket rounds? That's what he was doing. Binger was trying to hang Kyle on the reckless endangerment charge.
The reality is that the science is out there, and easily accessible. This is just a particular issue where the "party of science" wears its ignorance like a badge of honor. They seem to take pride in not knowing. They think that it's virtuous to be so afraid of guns that they won't even hold an empty AR-15.
I can deal with anybody who disagrees with me philosophically. If you're a devoute Quaker, and you believe that it's better to let the assailant kill or rape you than it is to use defensive force, you do you. I would argue that your philosophy isn't particularly sound; but, at least it's possible that you're informed and honest.
I can't tolerate people who want to throw people in prison over something that they know nothing about.
We can't begin to have a philosophical discussion when one side has the objective, scientific facts and the other side is ignorant or lying.