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

271–280 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#271

Post by omginternets »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #129
omginternets wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Though your comment is very much beside the point, I'm nonetheless left scratching my head.

Are you suggesting that submachine guns make you more likely to miss your mark? If so, this is spoken like someone with absolutely zero firearms experience, as submachine guns are much more accurate and controllable than handguns...

Re: Pistol sights

#272

Post by 15155 »

gkya wrote: post #233
escherize wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a pool do you?

Once the kid learns to swim you're done.But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.

> But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.

How is basic/safe operation, safe handling procedures (call an adult!) not effective teaching?

Re: Pistol sights

#273

Post by 15155 »

bmelton wrote: post #153
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!

> do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff It was pretty common in the 50s, and up to the civil rights era in the 60s, but after that, the answer is very much no. Currently, possession of a firearm on school grounds is a felony for almost everyone.

> Currently, possession of a firearm on school grounds is a felony for almost everyone.

Depends on the state of course, but it isn't a federal GFZA violation if you are state-legal and have a state-issued permit to carry.

Re: Pistol sights

#274

Post by duncan_bayne »

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #130
jdietrich wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sol…

I'm not convinced the laws should be any different for the Police, should they? A justified shoot is a justified shoot, regardless of who is pulling the trigger.

Perhaps the laws in the UK need fixing (they did in New Zealand last I checked) but it should be a level playing field.

Re: Pistol sights

#275

Post by 15155 »

Zenst wrote: post #258
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pas…

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

Courts are built on the shoulders of reasonable individuals (judges).

The law, especially as it relates to something as complicated as the Constitution, isn't a computer system with blind "gotchas" and logical loopholes.

There is no reasonable person that would, after jurisprudence established in Heller and McDonald, argue that firearms and their ammunition are exclusive of one another for purposes of legislation (and rights infringement).

Re: Pistol sights

#276

Post by mowenz »

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #125
mowenz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So the argument is any country with citizens that have not left thetefore does not have a unconstitutional or criminal government?

And how are you not aware of any unconstitutionality or illegality?

>I already have a brita filter.

Oh of course, it's all about self interest.

Re: Pistol sights

#277

Post by 15155 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #104
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its typically called a suppressor. And it doesn't make the gun silent at all. But at least it won't blow out your hearing. Still, even equipped, I wouldn't try it in my living room.

Indoor target practice at home is fairly common among Class III enthusiasts where I live. (Although the website I cited says you don't need a Class III for suppressors any more). I've not tried it; suppressors outdoors are quite pleasant to shoot without ear protection but you might still want EP indoors. The point of the suppressor is to avoid alarming the neighbors. It's also something I'd never try in an apartment…

I don't want to be a pedant: weapons are never "Class III" - this is just a tax designation for federal firearms licensees that are eligible to deal in NFA "Title II" items.

The distinction is pretty important, because you certainly do not need a Class III SOT to own a Title II item.

Re: Pistol sights

#278

Post by TallGuyShort »

omginternets wrote: post #271
TallGuyShort wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Though your comment is very much beside the point, I'm nonetheless left scratching my head. Are you suggesting that submachine guns make you more likely to miss your mark? If so, this is spoken like someone with absolutely zero firearms experience, as submachine guns are much more accurate and controllable than handguns...

No I've fired a handgun and a fully-automatic submachine gun several times in the last few months. Accuracy on the first shot, sure. Unless you're on semi-automatic I'd be deeply concerned about uncontrolled misses on subsequent shots. Maybe the London police's MP5s are a billion times more stable in the shoulder than a MAC-10, but still - even with ample training I'd keep it on semi-auto pretty much all of the time, or 3-shot-burst at best. The muzzle rise builds fast.

Re: Pistol sights

#279

Post by omginternets »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #278
omginternets wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though your comment is very much beside the point, I'm nonetheless left scratching my head. Are you suggesting that submachine guns make you more likely to miss your mark? If so, this is spoken like someone with absolutely zero firearms experience, as submachine guns are much more accurate and controllable than handguns...

No I've fired a handgun and a fully-automatic submachine gun several times in the last few months. Accuracy on the first shot, sure. Unless you're on semi-automatic I'd be deeply concerned about uncontrolled misses on subsequent shots. Maybe the London police's MP5s are a billion times more stable in the shoulder than a MAC-10, but still - even with ample training I'd keep it on semi-auto pretty much all of the time,…

You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire. Your point about mussel climb and automatic fire is akin to saying "if you hold a pistol sideways -- gangsta style -- and repeatedly jerk the trigger, your accuracy will suck". Well duh! Use the thing properly!

Yes, firing from the hip on full rock-n-roll is less accurate than controlled shots from a pistol, though I should think that was both obvious and beside the point.

Carefully controlled shots from an SMG are systematically better-placed than carefully-controlled shots from a pistol. Full stop. Moreover, SMGs are so damn easy to control (again, assuming they're used properly, i.e. with the extensible/foldable/fixed stock) that you can trivially put 3-to-5-round bursts in a human torso at 5 meters. Anybody who can't do that has no business carrying an SMG.

Surely you'll concede than in just about any professional situation, full-auto fire is not used. Full-auto fire is a suppressive technique, and as such it is largely relegated to military action (and not with SMGs, by the way).

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that pistols are more accurate and more controllable than a firearm with a longer barrel and stock.

Absolutely, astoundingly absurd.

Re: Pistol sights

#280

Post by tetromino_ »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #249
JoshMnem wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who rallies for "abstinence only" for guns in the US? Asking for background checks is more like arguing for safe sex.

It's a standard "motte and bailey" argument [1]. What you're saying is the reasonable argument that anti-gun folks fall back to. But for many of them, they're always reaching for the whole enchilada. For example, although the Brady Campaign is only pushing for strong background checks at this stage , we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric.…

> we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban

You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal? Assuming that they didn't publicize that goal - how do you know it? Are you privy to their confidential discussions, was an internal whitepaper of theirs leaked?

Post reply on HN