this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
174 points (82.2% liked)

World News

52236 readers
2282 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

how does one look at a fired round, presumably beat to shit from impact, and trace it back to a origin? unless this is people assuming the entire round fires and have no understanding?

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

It was a kosher bullet obviously.

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

how does one look at a fired round, presumably beat to shit from impact, and trace it back to a origin?

This took 5s to find using DDG

5 seconds of reading and critical thinking would dismiss what you linked. The posted article is for linking bullets to found guns. They didn't seem to find the guns. Just the bullets.

Also like much of forensics, forensic tool mark and bullet mark analysis is crock full of shit. Like much forensics, attempts to ground it in robust reproducable controlled science and statistical work has fared poorly. I would not rely on it for this or really anything.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Are you AI?

Because it took you 5s to find an incorrect answer and confidently link to a Wikipedia article, that doesn't answer the question.

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And it doesn't answer the question. Examination of the bullet can tell you something about what kind of gun barrel it was fired from. It cannot tell you that the ammunition itself is "Israeli military grade" unless Israel is doing something unusual with the composition of their bullets. As that page says (under the Criticisms section), comparative bullet lead analysis is not necessarily a reliable indicator of where the bullet was manufactured.

I sort of think that staring at bullet striations is basically tea leaf reading, but even if you think it's perfectly reliable, without a suspect weapon to compare to it can only tell you what kinds of gun barrels could have fired the shot.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Comparing metal composition to known samples has been around since the 18th century

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

Well, this is what the linked article says about it:

Prior to September 2005, comparative bullet-lead analysis was performed on bullets found at a scene that were too destroyed for striation comparison. The technique would attempt to determine the unique elemental breakdown of the bullet and compare it to seized bullets possessed by a suspect.[47] Review of the method found that the breakdown of elements found in bullets could be significantly different enough to potentially allow for two bullets from separate sources to be correlated to each other. However, there are not enough differences to definitely match a bullet from a crime scene to one taken from a suspect's possession.[48] An additional report in 2004 from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that the testimony given regarding comparative bullet-lead analysis was overstated and potentially "misleading under the federal rules of evidence".[47] In 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that they would no longer be performing comparative bullet-lead analysis.[49]