Pistol sights • Hacker News Board

Re: Pistol sights

#301

Post by wyager » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 1:19 AM UTC

gkya wrote: post #298

wyager wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern factory firearms quite simply do not go off accidentally. With extremely rare ecxeptions, "cleaning accidents" are either failed suicide attempts or extremely negligent mishandling. Look up the four main rules of firearm safety. Adherence to these rules will all but eliminate the risk of a dangerous malfunction (extremely rare) or fumble (less rare) during firearm operation and cleaning.

> With extremely rare ecxeptions, "cleaning accidents" are either failed suicide attempts or extremely negligent mishandling. Nope, they happen. I'll leave it to you to search for them. For me, there are people who need guns, and people who must not have them. They're killing machines and serve no other purpose (unlike the knife which has utility).

Not to be dismissive, but it's very clear you don't know what you're talking about here. Fundamentally, to put oneself in a situation where an accidental discharge (operator-caused or not) poses a health risk, you've already violated several fundamental rules of gun safety. So these things fall very squarely into the realm of "negligent mishandling". I can think of very few scenarios where I would attribute a "cleaning accident" to the gun, as opposed to an ignorant operator.

As for the rest of your comment, that line of reasoning has been addressed thousands of times, so I won't bother being thousands plus one. My firearm usage doesn't involve killing anything, so this should be a big glaring hint that there's an error in your reasoning.

Re: Pistol sights

#302

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 1:43 AM UTC

dfsegoat wrote: post #300

maxerickson wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except where it says: "However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

And the sentence before that is Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners.

I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.

Re: Pistol sights

#303

Post by madengr » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

appleflaxen wrote: post #292

madengr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot about the STDs. "And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship." Why? It's legal in my state (KS) and there have been no shootings.

January 21, 1985 Goddard, Kansas Armed with a rifle and a handgun, 14-year-old James Alan Kearbey, killed principal, James McGee, and wounded two teachers and a student at Goddard Junior High School.

Ok, but that was prior to CCW being allowed in schools.

Re: Pistol sights

#304

Post by brianpgordon » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 2:45 AM UTC

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.

If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here."

By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing.

I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.

Re: Pistol sights

#305

Post by tahabi » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 2:46 AM UTC

rflrob wrote: post #235

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…

Agree here, but I'd also be in favor of some method of requiring gun owners to undergo this kind of course as well. While accidents are a small fraction of total gun deaths [1], they seem especially preventable by creating a well-regulated militia[2] and ensuring that armed citizens are required to at least be trained in the proper storage of their weapons. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] I'm…

10 USC 311 states that the militia of the United States is composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45, among others.[0]

[0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCOD...

Re: Pistol sights

#306

Post by Pinckney » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

brianpgordon wrote: post #304

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.

If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you ag…

>If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be.

To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it.

We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.

Re: Pistol sights

#307

Post by JoshMnem » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 5:53 AM UTC

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.…

That comment sounds a bit polarized. I've never heard anyone in the US advocate banning all guns.

I generally hear two perspectives from people:

1. the view that people should be allowed to buy guns after background checks and mandatory training.

2. the view that no checks or restrictions should be put on guns at all.

I haven't heard very many other proposals.

Re: Pistol sights

#308

Post by ethanhunt_ » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 6:17 AM UTC

duncan_bayne wrote: post #274

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think there's a great answer here. Without special legal protection, you're asking police to take a job that would require them to make decisions in a couple of seconds and if they make the wrong decision, they face a high risk of either death (should've shot but didn't) or life in prison (shot but shouldn't have). I wouldn't take that job if it payed 500k/yr, but we're asking officers to take it for 60k/yr?

I'm not asking for police to be protected if they're malicious, but if a police officer completes all his training correctly and tries his hardest to make the right decision in that pivotal moment, but makes a mistake and shoots when he shouldn't, then he's sentenced to life in prison if he is held to the same standard as a civilian.

And people wonder why their police officers aren't the best and the brightest: anyone making a rational decision under these terms wouldn't take the job.

Re: Pistol sights

#309

Post by sobani » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 6:59 AM UTC

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…

> > as in most EU countries > Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

Actually, they are. According to Wikipedia[0] the US has over 10.54 gun related deaths/100K while the UK has 0.23. That's a 45x difference.

Of course I picked the UK, because it's the second best European country (the best is Romania). My own, the Netherlands is doing much worse at 0.58 deaths/100K.

But even the worst western Europe country, Finland, is doing 3 times better than the US at 3.25 deaths/100K.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Re: Pistol sights

#310

Post by srean » Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 7:49 AM UTC

angersock wrote: post #231

iamatworknow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to…

Thanks for sketching out the proposed policies in more detail! That's a lot more productive. Now, to tackle them in reverse order: > as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible. There is no concrete benefit for law-abiding citizens above the system we already have in place here. Like, it's not immediately obvious that the proposed changes clearly ma…

> We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).

Comeon that's a terrible false equivalence and I am sure you know it. I can possibly use just a blunt pencil to kill someone, but a gun makes it orders of magnitude easier (even if the intent was not to kill).

If false equivalence are acceptable, let me throw you another one. Why throw hissy fits about nations that have or are building nuclear arms capability. As a third party it is legit to feel unsafe unless you have skin in the game, unless you have demonstrated to some satisfaction that you can handle the capability responsibly. But NPTs are no way as nuanced as that, even hypothetical capability is enough to legitimize a hissy fit and worse: crippling sanctions.

I think its fair trade, if you are not willing to take liability of not being able to secure your gun, you don't get to keep it. If it gets stolen etc, its fine if you alert law enforcement within an actionable window. If something bad is done with your gun you have to convince a judge that you took all reasonable precautions.