Pistol sights • Hacker News Board

Re: Pistol sights

#121

Post by mirimir » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:42 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #106

ythn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we nee…

We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag…

Have you ever worked with machetes?

Re: Pistol sights

#122

Post by arethuza » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:42 PM UTC

cafard wrote: post #119

arethuza wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff? The reason I ask is that my son was taught to shoot, gun maintenance etc. at his high school in the UK and we're usually regarded as "anti-gun" as a country!

I suppose that if you are in JROTC (junior reserve officers training corps), maybe so.

Yes, it was in the context of the Combined Cadet Force. I just remember a double take when my son talked about the school having an armory!

They have ex-military personnel teaching this as an optional component (you were expected to do CCF or Duke of Edinburgh Awards) - but it is kind of odd to have school kids dressing up in military camo outfits to go into school one day a week.

Re: Pistol sights

#123

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #121

maxerickson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag…

Have you ever worked with machetes?

I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.

Re: Pistol sights

#124

Post by ethanhunt_ » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #63

seibelj wrote: post #51

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no ex…

I second this, if only for personal safety. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unexpectedly responsible for a firearm, you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you. If you happen to find a handgun, or take one away from a child, knowledge is a virtue.

Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear.

It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.

Re: Pistol sights

#125

Post by ethanhunt_ » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

mowenz wrote: post #108

anologwintermut wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to like guns and shooting. It's a good point to understand the appeal of guns and also "the other side." But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever gun…

I mean, isn't all this debate kind of moot drama in 2017? If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals. Oh but if we make guns illegal--well there already are too many unregistered that it would empower criminal interests, both economically from a black market, and from havi…

> If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.

You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal.

> Ah but you just want to "save lives?"

I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.

Re: Pistol sights

#126

Post by Infernal » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #49

wyager wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handguns are drastically easier to carry than rifles. Hollow point handgun rounds drastically reduce the danger of over-penetration present with rifle rounds for likely police scenarios. Most plausible scenarios where an officer would be forced to discharge a weapon wouldn't really benefit from a larger, more cumbersome weapon. Police usually have to shoot in close-range engagements that end in a few short seconds. C…

Your third point hits the nail on the head imho, but this: > Hollow point handgun rounds drastically reduce the danger of over-penetration present with rifle rounds for likely police scenarios. Isn't really true anymore. There are modern cartridges for 5.56 that have great ballistics while in the air, and then very reliably dump all their energy into the first thing they hit, to the point where if you shoot drywall t…

Citation? If such a round exists I'd be very interested to see it.

Of all the 5.56 vs drywall tests I've seen (and there are lots out there), they never make a hole in drywall larger than 5.56 unless it has yawed, and even then it is a keyhole no larger than the un-deformed round. To make "a huge hole" in drywall it would have to expand massively and immediately, and I've never seen a 5.56 round capable of expansion when hitting drywall. Even frangible rounds essentially turn into 3 or 4 projectiles after passing through drywall, but I'd never say 1/3 of 55 grains at 2000+ fps would "not significantly harm a person".

Re: Pistol sights

#127

Post by kyleblarson » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:53 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #89

seibelj wrote: post #51

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no ex…

Out of interest, do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff? The reason I ask is that my son was taught to shoot, gun maintenance etc. at his high school in the UK and we're usually regarded as "anti-gun" as a country!

I live in an area where nordic skiing is super popular and the local high school has a shooting range for biathlon. (in Washington State)

http://methowvalleynordic.com/biathlon-home/

edit: added link

Re: Pistol sights

#128

Post by mirimir » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #59

fivestar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not personally been in a gunfight (thankfully) but a couple different people I know have. It went something like this: "Oh shit" followed by the gun being drawn and fired in very close quarters with no aiming whatsoever because the person/people was/were knife distance away. I know that's not how all encounters go down, but my takeaway from these stories is that contact distance is the norm and you should expe…

IIRC the statistics, according to cop teaching my CCW class: 90% of handgun shootings are Takes 7-15 seconds to bleed out from a direct shot to the heart (i.e. drugged up people are still dangerous after multiple shots to chest). The only instant stop is a 2" band around the head. 15% of handgun shootings are fatal (mostly due to quick medical response these days). In the one second you have to draw, the bad guy can…

At 18 feet, a trained attacker with a sharp knife can take one down before the gun is drawn and shot. With a machete, they'll just start with the gun arm. Self-defense law takes this into account.

Re: Pistol sights

#129

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #41

binarytransform wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no LEO experience but I'd imagine increased mobility, decreased chances of rounds exiting the target and hitting an innocent bystander, and cost are the primary reasons.

Concerning over-penetration, that's largely a function of ammunition. Hollow-point rounds from a submachine gun don't (practically speaking) over-penetrate any more than those fired from a handgun.

If the concern is hitting something behind your target that you're not supposed to, over-penetration would actually be pretty low on my list of concerns about a submachine gun.

Re: Pistol sights

#130

Post by ethanhunt_ » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #61

duncan_bayne wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone I've shot a bit, but only rimfire long guns, air rifles, and air pistols. The pistols were harder to shoot by a _long_ margin, and I can imagine it'd get orders of magnitude harder w/ more recoil, noise to promote flinching, etc. etc. So with your comments in mind, and my own limited experience, do you have any idea why every Police-critter here…

Here in the UK, police aren't routinely armed. We rely instead on specialist firearms officers who usually perform a rapid-response role but sometimes patrol high-risk locations. Over here, it's actually much more common to see a police officer equipped with a sub-machinegun or a carbine rifle than a handgun. Firearms are used as a tactical resource to be deployed as needed, rather than an insurance policy for ordina…

> police aren't routinely armed

That might be because some UK police refuse to carry because the UK doesn't have laws to protect officers (those laws that the US has that are constantly protested). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/15/police-chief...

Can't say I blame them. Why would someone take on the chance of being charged with murder for carrying out their job's duties? It's not an easy problem to solve, but I think the ease of access to firearms is only going to increase, and they're going to have to get the UK police sorted with carrying.