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

251–260 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#251

Post by louithethrid »

kjlaaskssss wrote: post #159
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.…

Amen. It's not worth arguing with them. They use "age of a country" to talk down to Americans, but Americans broke off of them to start our own country. They'll never understand true freedom, and considering their land is under siege its not surprise the level of doublethink they have to do to still agree with their backwards way of life.

You know, we had them all- the rebellions, the true freedom (usually lived out in one big feast after some other people have been robbed and murdered). And we have them around, all those high hopes, and faile dreams, castle on this rock, castle on that rock, robber barons who decided they where worthy to take arms. Peasants, who where decided for to bear arms when it was time for slaugther (war).

I detest every fearsome second a cop has to live in America, every time he walks up to a car or a flats door. To be honest, in such a country, i can very well understand somebody who wants to return home in the evening- and thus shoots first.

Re: Pistol sights

#252

Post by ecopoesis »

deno wrote: post #176
vkou wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> (I am very smart)

Citation needed.

Re: Pistol sights

#253

Post by CWuestefeld »

angersock wrote: post #186
iamatworknow wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think the very phrase you pointed out is a big part of the problem: "common sense regulation". This seems to be designed to slip past any rational discussion. If you can say that something is "just common sense", then you've excused yourself from needing to provide the logical foundation for your argument.

Re: Pistol sights

#254

Post by maxerickson »

dfsegoat wrote: post #197
jboggan wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed from a primary source.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-st…

Could you go to https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and deep link the section you are referencing?

It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.

Re: Pistol sights

#255

Post by lanius »

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…

How does bullseye/precision pistol compare? I would like to compete eventually, and I'd hope that how much money you can spend is less of a deciding factor than skill.

Re: Pistol sights

#256

Post by cestith »

cmyr wrote: post #201
mi100hael wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... The word you are looking for is "awesome"

I'm curious about how you think about your feelings here. What do you think makes these things seem 'awesome', to you? When I was a kid, I definitely thought that guns were 'cool', in some sense. I thought about them, I read about them, and I desired access to them. As I grew up and came to understand that (in the general case, and certainly for hand guns and the stuff mentioned above) guns are tools designed to end…

When I was growing up, rifles and shotguns were used to put meat on the table all winter. No, I'm not that old. Getting a deer or two for the cost of ammunition and butchering is a lot cheaper than getting a side of beef for the freezer. It's also a generations-long shared hobby and ritual that members of the family go hunting and fishing together.

That's a far cry from ending human life. It's sustaining human life and culture. Speaking of culture, how dare you judge mine so harshly from yours?

Re: Pistol sights

#257

Post by vkou »

dfsegoat wrote: post #197
jboggan wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed from a primary source.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-st…

Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted.

The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2]

So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.)

I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

[2] http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Re: Pistol sights

#258

Post by Zenst »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #238
Zenst wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the constitution.

Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets.

Because that is how that particular constitution is worded.

So still doable, and would not impact the gun fans about owning guns, many of which would of already done lessons.

Just protects people from those, accidents with guns, as we do with cars by insisting they own pass a test.

Re: Pistol sights

#259

Post by roninb »

Infernal wrote: post #222
roninb wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ok - but that is ballistic gelatin penetration. The comment I replied to claimed both expansion and lack of penetration in drywall, neither of which is at all a realistic expectation for extant 5.56 rounds, to my knowledge.

Not trying to sound rude at all, but you should actually read the link...

Relevant excerpts:

"Tests 1-6: Bare gelatin, heavy clothing, automobile sheet metal, wallboard, plywood, and vehicle windshield safety glass, were shot a distance of 10 feet from the muzzle."

"Tests 7-13: All involved shots through heavy clothing, safety glass and bare gelatin at 50 to 100 yards, concluding with internal walls, external walls and body armor at 10 feet."

"The Bureau’s research also suggests that common household barriers such as wallboard, plywood, internal and external walls are also better attacked with pistol rounds, or larger caliber battle rifles, if the objective is to "dig out" or neutralize people employing such object as cover or concealment."

"If an operator misses the intended target, the .223 will generally have less wounding potential than some pistol rounds after passing through a wall or similar structure."

Really unsure as to how you could possibly have come to that conclusion after reading the link....

Edit: now that I think about it, people unfamiliar with ballistic testing might not know that gelatin is almost always used to find out data about efficacy downrange regardless of what other things are being tested, so I can kinda see how you might take my comment at face value and feel that it was immediately contradicted if you didn't read the entire summary (which is a bit long).

Re: Pistol sights

#260

Post by Helmet »

bawana wrote: post #196

Gun safety should be taught in school. Just like driver's ed. Why do we give no attention to these weapons which are real, commonly available and impossible to eliminate from our world? Showing teenagers 3 months of ballistic videos of various projectiles going through gelatin will give them a better appreciation for reality, rather than relying on games like call of duty to 'mis-educate' them. What can possibly be l…

No, it really shouldn't be. Math, science, language arts, etc should be taught in schools, like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world.
Post reply on HN