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

181–190 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#181

Post by Zenst »

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…

Should be a prerequisite to owning a gun, after all we allow people to drive a car only after they have passed a test, why not also with guns.

Re: Pistol sights

#182

Post by maxerickson »

Karunamon wrote: post #172
maxerickson wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what's your point?

I'm certainly not expecting any of my comments here to persuade someone who cherishes their gun rights.

But I don't believe that such people come anywhere near representing a majority, so I still see value in staking out a clear position.

Re: Pistol sights

#183

Post by Avshalom »

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.

Um, no, anti-gun laws are closer to nuetering than abstinence only education. One attempts to prevent the thing from happening the other refuses to provide actual education about something that is going to happen.

Abstinence only education is mandatory gun ownership and then refusing to provide any guidance beyond "don't shoot people".

Re: Pistol sights

#184

Post by adamsea »

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.

Why compare sex and firearms? Sex: - Fundamental to life - Something every human is capable of, and that (except for Slashdot users ;), most experience in their life. - If consensual, a source of pleasure and love.

Firearms: - A tool which can be used for a varierty of purposes - Must be purchased, i.e. it is a choice. - I suppose one could compare firearms training/use to martial arts, in that it can have personal benefits, but at the same time it's original purpose and base function is to defend oneself from, or (with guns) attack and kill another person.

So why are we comparing these two things again?

I am for anyone owning a firearm being educated. I don't own a gun and enjoy knowing a bit about them. I am also for a reasonable degree of gun control, and for acknowledging the fact that the U.S. appears to be unique in terms of the frequency of mass shootings, and of taking action (increasing the availability of mental health clinics, finding ways to restrict mentally ill people from owning firearms which does not violate the second amendment, etc) to do something about this.

[Edit]

And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship.

Re: Pistol sights

#185

Post by TallGuyShort »

Bartweiss wrote: post #180
TallGuyShort wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differ…

Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO.

edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.

Re: Pistol sights

#186

Post by angersock »

iamatworknow wrote: post #179
hansthehorse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> common sense regulations make sense

See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners.

State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.

Re: Pistol sights

#187

Post by adamsea »

Karunamon wrote: post #171
hansthehorse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.

This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.

Re: Pistol sights

#188

Post by justin66 »

binarytransform wrote: post #16

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

> And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

If you're talking about a pistol, the right Trijicon optic might easily be the most reliable part of the weapon. The issue is that is really difficult to use a handgun with optics well. Intuitively, people might think it makes the gun easier to use, but it's a feature that can really magnify your mistakes.

Re: Pistol sights

#189

Post by adamsea »

Bartweiss wrote: post #180
TallGuyShort wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differ…

May be relevant - from the ACLU website:

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions."

https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

Re: Pistol sights

#190

Post by ramy_d »

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Stats show that despite having the most amount of guns, the US does not have the most amount of homicides (by firearm) per capita. Most EU (and Canada!) are doing quite well by comparison against the US.

Post reply on HN