Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pistol sights

yarchive.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#171

Post by Karunamon »

hansthehorse wrote: post #60
uberchet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differen…

I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.

Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.

Re: Pistol sights

#172

Post by Karunamon »

maxerickson wrote: post #154
bmelton wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill. Without meaning to be glib, this is exactly the reason I would not recommend a machete to my grandmother for personal defense, but I would recommend her a Ruger LCR, or a Smith & Wesson M&P. The fact that she is physically disadvantaged against almost anyone would do her harm is a use case that…

I'm happy to be glib about it. Undermining your grandmother's ability to defend herself is worth it if the policy that does so statistically reduces violence (or even statistically reduces the consequences of violence).

This exchange is a case study in why people who cherish their gun rights don't care one iota for the opinions of people who don't.

Re: Pistol sights

#173

Post by clarkmoody »

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.)

I don't think he's making that argument.

Also, it's not like governments use those weapons responsibly, even though they have the "right" to own them...

Re: Pistol sights

#174

Post by iamatworknow »

kjlaaskssss wrote: post #146
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day. Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own. I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not mak…

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best. You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone. > Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded…

>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens.

I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state.

And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.

Re: Pistol sights

#175

Post by itbeho »

InitialLastName wrote: post #113
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!

Anecdotal but related: My grandfather shot competitively and as a hobby for most of his life (mostly skeet, occasional trap and pistols). Until the 90's he also taught gun safety and competitive marksmanship at a (comparatively very wealthy) area high school. He was dropped from that role as a knee-jerk reaction to the Columbine shooting, as it was deemed "too dangerous" to allow guns, even well controlled and in pro…

I grew up in a small town in central California. High School in the early 80's - lots of kids from ag/ranching backgrounds would park their trucks in the school parking lot with a rifle or shotgun hanging in a rack in the back window. I don't recall anyone being particularly bothered by that practice or any problems relating to it.

Same town, different era: My 12 year old nephew received a poor grade and "this is terrible!" written on his essay by his teacher because "What I did last weekend" recapped target shooting with his dad and grandpa at the range.

Re: Pistol sights

#176

Post by deno »

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.

The odds are for your average moron, not for me (I am very smart). So they are not convincing. This is similar issue as with motorcycle statistics.

You’re also arguing to the wrong side of the brain. In face of danger, I will never ever choose to remain helpless. It goes against every single instinct a man has.

Re: Pistol sights

#177

Post by losvedir »

coredog64 wrote: post #135
rhcom2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.

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.

Oh, that's an interesting analogy. Another one I use to help sort out my feelings on this is recreational drug/alcohol use and recreational car use (probably not too long from now once they're fully automated). That is, how do we handle activities that a large fraction of society enjoys, but that nonetheless do pose risks to both themselves and others.

Re: Pistol sights

#178

Post by jdcarter »

fivestar wrote: post #48
arthur_trudeau wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Palma competitors routinely hit out to 1000 yards with iron sights (in reality, aperture sights). They are extremely effective.

Palma rifles don't have post front sights. They use adjustable front and rear apertures. You still generally focus on the front sight. All you do with the rear is center up the front in the rear and the target is blurry but centered in the front one. This is the same for really any distance from 50 feet up to 1000 yards. And yes, I have been involved in those competitions. The hard part is having a solid hold and bod…

I switched to target archery for similar reasons. Archery is far less about the bow and far more about technique. With olympic-style recurve and bare-bow shooting, it seems like there's always more to learn--it never gets boring!

And if you want to throw some money into the bow, you can put together the same bow that Olympic shooters are using for about $2000. The compound bows you see on the World Cup circuit are a bit more, perhaps $3000. Keep in mind that's for very top-end gear. (See [1] for examples of what I'm talking about.)

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/user/archerytv

Re: Pistol sights

#179

Post by iamatworknow »

hansthehorse wrote: post #60
uberchet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differen…

I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.

>I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates.

In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates.

When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side.

That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.

Re: Pistol sights

#180

Post by Bartweiss »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #155
Clubber wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?

The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.

But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership".

So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?

Post reply on HN