Just to pivot to some 2A issues.

In my twenty years of advocacy for the right to keep and bear arms, I've noticed that there's no safe decision regarding ammunition if you ever need to shoot in self-defense.

The one thing that Binger got kinda-sorta right in the Rittenhouse trial was his pressing of Kyle regarding the use of full metal jacket .223 rounds rather than hollow points. That was mostly a point being made to get Rittenhouse on he lesser charge of reckless endangerment. It's true that full metal jacket rounds have greater problems regarding overpenetration.

The thing is, if you're like me, and you do carry with hollow points, because you're not an idiot, it's like playing a game of roulette regarding whether or not the prosecution is going to claim that you were using "cop killer" rounds or simply rounds that are "more lethal."

This is where a lot of DA offices are less legally literate than lawful gun owners.

The only way that anyone is legally and morally justified in pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger is if causing the death of that person is justified. There's no, "I thought he was gonna pop me in the nose and run off, so I shot him in the leg." The moment you point the gun at a person and pull the trigger, you're using deadly force.

The point of hollow points is to inflict maximum damage on who you're intending to injure while minimizing the potential of collateral damage to anybody who may be behind the attacker. If you're justified in pulling the trigger, the use of hollow points should be regarded as the right choice 100% of the time; but, it's the policy of a few anti-2A states to ban hollow points for anyone who isn't a cop.

This makes no sense.