Stop trying to talk about bullets if you don't know about bullets.

Anybody who knows anything about guns has debates about which specific bullets are best for which use. We also all know that any bullet that's intended to kill that hits its target is going to succeed. A perfectly aimed .22 is deadlier than a .357 that misses. Hell, just look up the old Derringer 22s - they don't look all that scary; but, those were useful when women needed to put a bullet in the skull of a would-be rapist.

It's the lack of understanding of bullets that leads to states like New Jersey banning hollow points for civilian use while other people harass gun owners for using full metal jacket rounds. Really, most people who shoot use both - hollow points are much more expensive than FMJ. For civilians, FMJ is best for the the range because they're cheap and can sometimes be more accurate at greater distances. Hollow points are the standard for self-defense and home protection because they expand inside the target and lose velocity - that makes them more likely to kill the intended target without the bullet penetrating and hitting someone behind the target (still, obviously, always follow the rules of gun safety). Incidentally though, most politicians like to evoke the "weapons of war" narrative and hollow points are internationally banned for combat use.

Everything has a trade-off and a use. Yeah, a 45-70 government round is scary - it can take down a grizzley - but you're not gonna be able to operate quickly with it. My 30-30 is basically designed for deer hunting and it's a powerful round; but, you're not gonna see many gang members carrying a lever action rifle down the streets of Chicago.

A 9mm won't rip your lung out. You don't need to go in that direction during these debates. Really, you shouldn't because it makes you look rediculous and every word is easily refuted.