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

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#321

Post by KozmoNau7 »

Bartweiss wrote: post #205
rkangel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotg…

> I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. I think this marks some confusion over exactly what constitutes 'rural'. The UK certainly has rural settings in terms of town size, small access roads, culture, etc. But having spent time in both, the UK just doesn't have anything like the US in terms of distance . Salmon, Idaho is several hours from... anything, really. You could…

I would say those situations fall under "practical purposes", and are not based in unreasonably fear, like a lot of other gun purchases.

And there is a hell of a lot of difference between living in the (very) rural countryside, and living in a city.

I fully admit that my perspective is influenced by living in small country with relatively short distances between towns and cities (hell, it's even impossible to get more than 50km from the sea, anywhere in the entire country). But I honestly still think my reasoning stands up.

Re: Pistol sights

#322

Post by KozmoNau7 »

antisthenes wrote: post #151
rkangel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotg…

How's it an issue with response time? 10-20 minutes for a _country_ residence is an amazing response time. Police don't have personal teleporters and there isn't an infinite number of them. Want a 5 minute response in the country? Pay 90% tax that goes to the police departments. I'd still be amazed if you'd get it down to under 10 minutes consistently. > The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely…

> Many Americans will argue that the 2A and personal weapons mean that home invasions are less likely to occur in the first place because of increased risk to the criminal (getting your head shot off).

Another argument is that the wide availability of guns, combined with the harsh penalties faced by criminals, create an environment where criminals become needlessly aggressive and ruthless, because "well, I'm going away for 20 anyway, might as well go all the way".

Re: Pistol sights

#323

Post by KozmoNau7 »

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.

> They'll never understand true freedom

That's cute, as if you've ever had actual freedom in the US.

Re: Pistol sights

#324

Post by KozmoNau7 »

Pinckney wrote: post #85
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…

>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 can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs a…

I see your point. One could also argue that ammo isn't very dangerous without a gun to fire it from, although one could be cobbled together from scrap pieces of metal.

Re: Pistol sights

#325

Post by douche »

Pinckney wrote: post #85
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…

>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 can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs a…

I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to make any secure conclusions about the provenance of a gun that was used in a crime. As far as I know, it is not legal to keep a registry of serial numbers and who they were originally sold to. Moreover, in most states, you can sell firearms privately, without any background checks or paperwork at all. I have only purchased one of my firearms in an actual gun shop - the half dozen others are inherited, or purchased from friends, family, or randos on Craigslist or Uncle Henry's. Good luck tracking back the chain of custody on some of those...

Re: Pistol sights

#326

Post by Zenst »

wyager wrote: post #296
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.

Funny enough, you've accidentally made the moderate pro-gun argument. We only allow people to drive a car on public land after they get a license. They can own a car and use it on private land as much as they want without a license. That's how most gun owners agree it should be for guns. If you want to own and shoot your gun on private land, more power to you. If you want to carry a gun on public land, you get the ap…

Hmmmm, you're right and I have been completely overlooking that aspect, can't argue with that.

   I have nowt against people owning a gun in America, more case of making sure they and others are safe when they use it and with that, protecting  their lives.  Which I'm sure is part of the constitution and if not, then it sure does add something needed perhaps.   After all it can have amendments, just need to see the prohibition of alcohol to see how that can work.
So thank you for destroying my analogy, I learned something there and that I appreciate. After all a good point has no flaws.

Re: Pistol sights

#327

Post by duncan_bayne »

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #308
duncan_bayne wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

"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"

But that's the problem! The civilian shouldn't be going to jail, either, should they?

That is, I don't think the standard for prosecution for killing someone should be different for civilians and police.

Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.

Or perhaps, to put it another way, under what situation could you imagine yourself as a juror convicting a civilian of murder, but acquitting a police officer who acted identically?

Re: Pistol sights

#328

Post by JoshMnem »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #315
JoshMnem wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is, indeed, the point of the "motte and bailey" strategy. When pressed on unreasonable demands, they'll re-frame the position as something within the Overton Window, but without actually abandoning the goal. See my nearby citation of the guy who was heading the organization that later became the Brady Campaign: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this c…

You're quoting a guy from 40 years ago (1976) and making a slippery slope argument. Here is some more information on the Brady Campaign:

"In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, 'I see our issues as complementary to theirs.' He said, 'The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats.'"

Most people who want to see more gun control are not out to ban all guns. Many of them own guns.

Re: Pistol sights

#329

Post by roninb »

Infernal wrote: post #320
roninb wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Ah, ok. I read the "Equipment Deployed" section which called out gelatin, body armor etc. but not walls and such. Ctrl-F'ed for "drywall" just to be sure and didn't hit since the term isn't in the document (though obviously they mention walls lots of times which I failed to notice). I still say though, the original comment I replied to is mischaracterizing what happens when 5.56 hits drywall. It does not make a huge…

Hopefully this will at least get you to look for modern, home defense rounds and then come to your old conclusions about 5.56 and dry wall... I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, just trying to get you to do some research about modern 5.56/.223 and really just modern ballistic advancement in general.

"The hypothesis turned out to be correct: V-Max bullets started fragmenting within the first sheet of drywall and completely blew to pieces on their way out of the second sheet, leaving dramatic craters." http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

Re: Pistol sights

#330

Post by ethanhunt_ »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #327
ethanhunt_ wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

"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" But that's the problem! The civilian shouldn't be going to jail, either, should they? That is, I don't think the standard for prosecution for killi…

> Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.

Thinking about that for a bit and it sounds reasonable. A cop should only be shooting someone if he believes his or someone else's life is in danger and that's the same standard as civs in most states.

Perhaps cops in the US have more protection with their unions and such. I assumed that there must be a difference between US and UK because UK officers are refusing to carry whereas US aren't, but that difference might be that US officers get fired if they refuse to carry.

Post reply on HN