Pistol sights • Hacker News Board

Re: Pistol sights

#151

Post by antisthenes » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #114

dfsegoat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above. Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our…

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 that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part.

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).

Not necessarily saying they're right, but there is another side to gun control.

Re: Pistol sights

#152

Post by CapitalistCartr » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #141

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the constitution was written, repeating rifles existed. Lewis and Clark took one on their famous expedition.[0] Owning cannons was legal, and people did. During the American Civil War, wealthy men outfitted their own company of men and led them. American history has some crazy stuff in it. Private ship owners acting as privateers, for instance. My (lawyer) wife dearly wants a "letter of marque"[1] ever since she…

A curiosity that was also cutting edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle It seems to have taken to ~1850 for practical military repeating rifles. edit: Your comment is still young, but I'll note for history that I replied with the wiki link before you had added it to your comment.

Yeah, thank you. It took me a bit to get there. My Google-fu is weak today. I need mind-linked cyber-Google . .

Re: Pistol sights

#153

Post by bmelton » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #89

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…

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.

Re: Pistol sights

#154

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #149

maxerickson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag…

> but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill. Without meaning to be glib, this is exactly the reason I would not recommend a machete to my grandmother for personal defense, but I would recommend her a Ruger LCR, or a Smith & Wesson M&P. The fact that she is physically disadvantaged against almost anyone would do her harm is a use case that…

I'm happy to be glib about it.

Undermining your grandmother's ability to defend herself is worth it if the policy that does so statistically reduces violence (or even statistically reduces the consequences of violence).

Re: Pistol sights

#155

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #116

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.

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.

Re: Pistol sights

#156

Post by kjlaaskssss » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #114

dfsegoat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above. Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our…

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…

> In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else.

That explains a lot about the current situation in your country, honestly.

Re: Pistol sights

#157

Post by dfsegoat » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #140

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…

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.…

Did not know this about the US Constitution - that is good stuff!

Ref: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bo...

Re: Pistol sights

#158

Post by Programmatic » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #143

coredog64 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always shocked and amazed that progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work? Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"? (I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)

> There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one.

I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...

Re: Pistol sights

#159

Post by kjlaaskssss » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #140

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…

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.

Re: Pistol sights

#160

Post by bmelton » Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

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've been around a lot of suppressed arms, and aside from one competition rifle that was specifically designed to be silent (and cost many thousands of dollars to get that way), can't recall a single one in which ear protection wouldn't have been dramatically preferred for indoor shooting.

Even for that one (subsonic, small rounds, suppressed, nitro piston), it would probably have been irritating to fire indoors.

Edit: In hindsight, I suppose a suppressed, rimfire 22 would be pretty quiet.