Pistol sights • Hacker News Board

Re: Pistol sights

#281

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #279

TallGuyShort wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ob…

>> You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire.

Not really. Try moving a fire-selector from safe to semi under stress and see how quickly you stop. Then look at the number of shots fired from fully-automatic weapons during police shootings. Then tell me long-burst fire isn't a concern when deciding where they should be deployed.

Curious if you've ever fired a submachine-gun on full-auto? You'll either rise significantly within a few shots or you're applying enough downward pressure to make it very unstable during recoil.

edit: Your edits to the above post seem to be repeating themselves and adding italics. Maybe I'll just concede the argument so you can stop hyperventilating at your keyboard. Calm down, seriously, for your own health.

Re: Pistol sights

#282

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

dfsegoat wrote: post #267

maxerickson wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No problem. See below link to proper page, section: "Impact of Having a Firearm at Home" https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40

I don't see where it shows there is an obvious overall protective effect from firearm possession.

Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.

Re: Pistol sights

#283

Post by Avshalom » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

ufmace wrote: post #220

Avshalom wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I think the grandparent was speaking more of knowledge then possession of items. Many anti-gun progressives seem to know little to nothing about guns, be proud of their lack of knowledge, and recommend passing ignorant laws that will do nothing to reduce violence. It seems kind of appropriate to compare them - their attitude seems like "Guns are always bad, unless you're the Government, you shouldn't know anything ab…

Also what about constant denunciation of military colonialism, police shootings and the militarization of law enforcement makes you think the anti-gum crowd makes an exception for the government having guns.

Re: Pistol sights

#284

Post by omginternets » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #281

omginternets wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ob…

>> You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire. Not really. Try moving a fire-selector from safe to semi under stress and see how quickly you stop. Then look at the number of shots fired from fully-automatic weapons during police shootings. Then tell me long-burst fire isn't a concern when deciding where they should be deployed. Curious if you've ever fired a submachine-gun on full-auto? Yo…

>Calm down, seriously, for your own health.

I'm perfectly calm. Please don't be condescending. I'm being insistant because you seem intent on missing the point, which is the following:

1) Single, controlled shots from pistols are less accurate than their equivalents fired from SMGs with stocks

2) Yes, automatic fire decreases accuracy. Don't use automatic fire where accuracy is a concern.

To claim otherwise is, again, absurd.

Re: Pistol sights

#285

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #284

TallGuyShort wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire. Not really. Try moving a fire-selector from safe to semi under stress and see how quickly you stop. Then look at the number of shots fired from fully-automatic weapons during police shootings. Then tell me long-burst fire isn't a concern when deciding where they should be deployed. Curious if you've ever fired a submachine-gun on full-auto? Yo…

>Calm down, seriously, for your own health. I'm perfectly calm. Please don't be condescending. I'm being insistant because you seem intent on missing the point, which is the following: 1) Single, controlled shots from pistols are less accurate than their equivalents fired from SMGs with stocks 2) Yes, automatic fire decreases accuracy. Don't use automatic fire where accuracy is a concern. To claim otherwise is, again…

>> over-penetration would actually be pretty low on my list of concerns about a submachine gun.

That's what I said. I haven't argued with #1 at all, in fact I've specifically agreed with it. #2 would be my biggest concern in deciding when to deploy fully-automatic weapons to routine law-enforcement. It's a common (and increasingly so) thing in the US to do is to issue semi-automatic only rifles to police officers for their patrol vehicles. In London you'll see a number of police officers at various high-risk locations carrying MP5s, slung while on guard. If I'm not mistaken, they are select-fire.

So in deciding which firearm I would issue for which deployment, what I'm saying is that my list of concerns about a submachine gun or similar firearm, whether or not the situation and the training level of the officers is appropriate for the potential of fully-automatic fire is far higher on my list of concerns than over-penetration. If you miss the target, everything is over-penetration.

I don't see how that's "absolutely absurd". I don't think data is available on how well officers manipulate safety switches under stress, but the rate at which even moderately trained personnel blow through all their rounds without hitting anything, military or SWAT, is astounding. So yes, don't use automatic fire if you don't need it. The reality is not so simple, IMO.

Re: Pistol sights

#286

Post by cmbuck » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #260

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.

> like, you know, every fucking first world country in the world

I don't find this a very compelling argument and it comes off as a personal attack rather than composed intellectual rationale. Instead of saying why you think this is a poor idea, you essentially say this is a poor idea because no one else does it--which is the exact thought process that stifles innovation and new ideas.

Regardless of whether teaching gun safety at that age is a good idea, your argument against it leaves much to be desired.

Re: Pistol sights

#287

Post by toomanybeersies » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:11 PM UTC

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.

The American constitution is not a single source of truth. The same goes for arguing that morality is based on the law.

The men who wrote the bill of rights were not infallible.

Sure, it's entirely possible to argue that from a technical or legal standpoint, it wouldn't be possible to require a firearms handling test.

But as far as principle goes, I don't think that the constitution is a valid reasoning.

Re: Pistol sights

#288

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

tetromino_ wrote: post #280

CWuestefeld wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal?

Yes, I always get steamed when someone tries to impute motives to some other actor. But I'm not resorting to such here. I know it because the head of the organization (a while back, when it was named NCCH) said so:

The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.

Support of this claim, and mention of other organizations that make an explicit goal of bans, here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/24/david-kopel/one-mans...

Re: Pistol sights

#289

Post by gkya » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

15155 wrote: post #272

gkya wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've known many casesof guns accidentally firing when being cleaned and causing deaths. Usually a child or a spouse.

Re: Pistol sights

#290

Post by Clubber » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

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.

Yes,they are, but with the NRA, politicians are scared to pass any restrictions on gun limitations, effectively stopping it before it starts. With the ACLU, politicians are quick to erode our other rights and only compromise after a long fight leaving us with fewer rights. Over time, our rights are fewer and fewer. I always ask myself what would a WWI vet think of our current state of rights?

I think the ACLU does a great job, but they aren't as effective as the NRA.