171–180 of 445 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know where we’d draw the line for “quality first” but I’d argue Toyota at minimum qualifies That doesn’t mean they’re perfect: cars are incredibly complex machines and mistakes are inevitable. But the airbag issue was a vendor (used by many companies) and IIRC the acceleration issue wasn’t that much bigger in Toyotas than other makes
There were no reports of the unintentional acceleration in other makes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently got into handguns and training. I recommend everyone who has access to it go into training where you take a real handgun that's been modified to shoot laser and has CO2 recoil. The setup is that you have a screen (perhaps all around you), playing out a scenario. You're in a convenience store, and something may happen that requires you to defend yourself. Even with a fair amount of training, the adrenalin s…
> saw a video where someone 3 yards away draws a machete and runs at the other person. It's probably best to be realistic about what is possible. If somebody tried to whack you on the sidewalk with a machete, they would win 100% of the time, because you're not living 24/7 in a hyper-alert paranoid state keeping an incredibly close eye on everyone 360° around you. Unless you've drawn your weapon 100s of times in near-…
This is absolutely true, but security in depth, right? Just because it's easy for you to die in public, whether from a premeditated attack or an accident, doesn't mean it's pointless to add on a few layers to make that less likely. After all, everything happens in the margins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the only sensible reply in the thread. Everything else is theory-crafting.
Plenty of people spend time and money preparing for low-probability but highly catastrophic events. Purchasing insurance that covers your home for fire damage is one such example. The fact that the chance of a well-maintained home burning down is vanishingly small doesn’t make this an imaginary risk. Thinking about how to protect yourself from violent crime and deciding to purchase and carry a gun doesn’t seem fundam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t read nabla’s comment as accusing the deceased of being an idiot. Rather, it was a statement that the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) and therefore any standard issue weapon should be designed appropriately. A gun that can go off on its own even when handled properly is the opposite of idiot-proof.
> the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) The Air Force is not. (The average Air Force servicemember is older, better educated, better paid and subject to more demands than the average servicemember in the other branches.)
It's crazy how the P320 has such a bad reputation, while the P365, a 9mm micro-pistol by Sig Sauer, is a phenomenal piece of kit by comparison. I purchased mine in 2018 and it's seen thousands of rounds put through it with zero issues encountered.
As someone who has never touched a firearm, I'm curious: what are you doing firing thousands of rounds? Is it target practice?
Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose…
> Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. This information should be kept in mind whenever anyone, especially a gun advocate, expresses dismay at the frequency of police shootings in America. America is so awash in guns, and people willing to use them, that for the average cop it is better to shoot first and ask questi…
This is only true in certain circumstances, though it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to discuss.
Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose…
Colloquially, the word is often used to describe an external safety that must be manually disengaged (otherwise there is no bang even if the trigger is pulled). However, in modern firearms, even those with external safeties also have internal safeties that mean that even with the external safety disengaged, if you dropped the firearm or hit it with a hammer or something, it would not fire.
As others commenters have said, in the case of the P320, the claim is that it would fire without the trigger being pulled; and in the specific case of the airman, it is further claimed that there wasn't even a precipitating physical shock like it being dropped or hit.
Lordy, who knew Hacker News had so many gun enthusiasts? I learned something new today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know only an average amount about guns/gun laws (which is to say, not very much), but this seems pretty off to me. If someone is going to attack me with a knife, but then I draw a gun and they run away, surely that's not illegal because I didn't shoot them.
Search "brandishing laws"
It seems like then it would be legal to draw a gun without firing if it was in self defense? I have a hard time believing that there are any cases where shooting someone in self defense would be legal, but scaring them away wouldn't.