Pistol sights • Hacker News Board

Re: Pistol sights

#161

Post by vkou » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #140

rkangel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotg…

being burgled in the middle of the night or when they don't expect you to be home is certainly one scenario. But some people break into your house to hurt you. There is no magic insurance policy that can un-rape my wife. So if some mother fucker comes in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to confront him, but you can bet your ass he's going to get a face full of lead the moment he heads up my stairs.…

Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.

Re: Pistol sights

#162

Post by kej » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #143

coredog64 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always shocked and amazed that progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work? Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"? (I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)

Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.

Re: Pistol sights

#163

Post by cat199 » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:53 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…

Yes, but then this brings up the intent behind the 2nd amendment - to ensure an armed popular militia to defend against corruption of concentrated power. The citizens arms need to actually be effective in such circumstances.

As for 'highly dangerous concealed weapons' - you were probably more likely to encounter this on a day-to-day basis at the time of the constitution being written than even in the most heavily gunned state with low-barrier carry laws.

If you are updating constructions, this also means that the context is important; in the constitutional times people were responsible for defending themselves primarily - if that assumption can/should/has been changed, where then is that change legally codified?

Re: Pistol sights

#164

Post by upvotinglurker » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #138

maxerickson wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than . I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).

No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot. We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker. I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.

My workplace provided "active shooter training" in which a police officer demonstrated a potential way for a group of unarmed people to disarm a person with a gun. When one of my coworkers asked "What if they have a knife?" the officer replied with something to the effect of "There's no good way to disarm them without getting your hands cut up, I'd much rather face an assailant with a gun than a knife."

Re: Pistol sights

#165

Post by turnip123942 » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

forkandwait wrote: post #66

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…

Are there any organizations you would recommend for such a class?

I have to respectfully disagree with microcolonel in the context of trying to educate more politically progressive people about firearms.

I cannot recommend the NRA as many people (former members, including myself) feel they have gone from being an advocate for the 2nd Amendment in the United States to being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and it tends to come up with their instructors, classes, and other students and would probably put most progressives off.

I would do research to see if your state offers any sort of Hunter Education programs instead as they tend to focus less on the politics (IMO) are more comprehensive multi-week classes. Plus some of these classes are available for no charge or help the state with preserving vs having to pay for the NRA courses.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/ might be a good place to start.

Re: Pistol sights

#166

Post by roninb » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

Infernal wrote: post #126

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FBI decided that, "[i]n every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets...".

[0] http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...

Re: Pistol sights

#167

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #70

> "But optical sights small and robust enough to be mounted on a pistol slide are a recent development, and are costly; very few handguns have one mounted." This is still true, but pistol red dot sights are becoming more prevalent.

Do be warned that there are jurisdictions that do not look favorably on self-defense shootings, and often page 1 in their playbook is to play up any modifications to the gun involved. The argument is that if you're interested in enhancing the performance of the gun, you must just be walking around itching to pop off a few rounds. Personally I'd feel like I'm in a weak position if a DA started telling a jury all about my high-tech "holographic reflex sight".

So by all means mount a red dot sight for your 3-gun competition. Personally, after speaking to a few folks in the know in such places, my concealed carry / home defense gun is very conservative. I opted for the most popular handgun used by police with a very mainstream laser / flashlight combo instead. Hard to make me look like an extremist / survivalist gun nut if I ever had to use it. Something to think about, depending on where you live.

Re: Pistol sights

#168

Post by vetinari » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #138

maxerickson wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than . I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).

No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot. We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker. I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.

Cold weapons _are_ more dangerous at near distances, than guns.

The gun has exactly one business end and you know how it is going to be used. An attacker wielding a knife can use multitude of moves, how to attack.

Re: Pistol sights

#169

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 5:02 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #140

rkangel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotg…

being burgled in the middle of the night or when they don't expect you to be home is certainly one scenario. But some people break into your house to hurt you. There is no magic insurance policy that can un-rape my wife. So if some mother fucker comes in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to confront him, but you can bet your ass he's going to get a face full of lead the moment he heads up my stairs.…

> And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence.

No, even if that was relevant, if you want to get technical that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is older, whether you date from writing or adoption.

> I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.

We are, and those of us who are quick to resent it being pointed out do nothing to diminish the truth of that. We're old enough that the (second, actually) system set up when we founded the country is dated, and young enough that we still imagine that our founders' innovations are somehow the end of history so we don't even consider dealing with it. The latter is immaturity and arrogance.

Re: Pistol sights

#170

Post by jboggan » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #161

viggity wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being burgled in the middle of the night or when they don't expect you to be home is certainly one scenario. But some people break into your house to hurt you. There is no magic insurance policy that can un-rape my wife. So if some mother fucker comes in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to confront him, but you can bet your ass he's going to get a face full of lead the moment he heads up my stairs.…

Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.

Citation needed from a primary source.