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

261–270 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#261

Post by mirimir »

MrFantastic wrote: post #211
maxerickson wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than . I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).

Shooting someone that is running away is murder not self-defense.

I have no argument with that.

Re: Pistol sights

#262

Post by nether »

chrissnell wrote: post #11

Going target shooting is incredibly relaxing and a great break from the workday. The focus required to sight in a target and control one's breathing, arm, and finger movement is a very powerful relaxant to me and melts stress away. I work from home and I live in the burbs so pistol or rifle shooting is not possible. However, I've gotten really hooked on shooting (of all things) my Red Ryder BB gun. It doesn't make a…

I found it difficult, stressful, and kind of boring. I'm probably going to sell my handgun soon, it's been sitting in its locked box for two years.

Re: Pistol sights

#263

Post by nether »

chrissnell wrote: post #11

Going target shooting is incredibly relaxing and a great break from the workday. The focus required to sight in a target and control one's breathing, arm, and finger movement is a very powerful relaxant to me and melts stress away. I work from home and I live in the burbs so pistol or rifle shooting is not possible. However, I've gotten really hooked on shooting (of all things) my Red Ryder BB gun. It doesn't make a…

I found it difficult, stressful, and kind of boring. I'm probably going to sell my handgun soon, it's been sitting in its locked box for two years.

Re: Pistol sights

#264

Post by e12e »

Inconel wrote: post #21
binarytransform wrote: post #16

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

I don't mean to turn this into a CoD/Splinter Cell nerdfest, but while I've seen many vets post on HN, I don't recall anyone from JSOC doing so, do you mind sharing anything about your experiences? Assuming there is anything you are able to share freely. Does what you did in JSOC have anything to do with your current career? Are there any skills or lessons that you have found particularly useful in your civilian life…

This sub-thread reminded me of "the interdictor" blog from Kathrina: http://interdictor.livejournal.com/2005/08/28/

Looks like the Internet Archive have saved some of the photos:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050908070029/http://interdictor...

Might be of interest for those who haven't seen it before.

Wikipedia provides a little context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdictor_(blog) Unfortunately

Re: Pistol sights

#265

Post by JshWright »

Inconel wrote: post #25
binarytransform wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to derail the thread too much so I'll keep it short. I did technical "things" that correlate to my current civilian career. Lessons: biggest one was to eat humble pie and realize past performance =/= future success when different domains are involved (mil vs civ). Useful things: I'm generally pretty chill when things are going wrong. I.e. client meeting goes horribly -> "Hey at least we're not in X country…

I imagine after being in that kind of environment most "crises" at your civilian work seem quite mundane. I appreciate your response and if you ever feel like sharing more I'm sure most here wouldn't mind the occasional derailed thread.

This has certainly been my experience (from a slightly different background). I work full time as a developer, but part time as a firefighter/paramedic.

Nothing is _literally_ on fire? Meh...

Re: Pistol sights

#266

Post by sethrin »

Bartweiss wrote: post #206
TallGuyShort wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO. edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because,…

Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly. The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about. The NRA is…

2nd Amendment issues are that warped and conflicted.

When this country was founded, there were no police. Our adversarial justice system was you deciding you were wronged, going and swearing out a warrant in front of a magistrate, and then executing said warrant with the aid of whatever bruisers you could muster. Generally clubs would be preferable to pistols, and there was no chance of using a musket. Also, while there was not an explicit prohibition on maintaining a standing army, the time limit on military appropriations was intended to limit military spending to war-time.

To some degree this changed in 1812, when the far-more-numerous American militia failed to contest the burning of the nation's capital. To some degree it changed in 1847 when Samuel Colt became a successful revolver manufacturer. But to whatever degree this nation has changed its ideas about firearms, these have not been reflected in law, and we've been papering over the situation for the last century at least.

Where the NRA fits into this is to demand protection and expansion of the individual right to bear arms without any consideration whatsoever of the original context of the second amendment. I don't necessarily object to their viewpoint, but their myopia on the subject does make it rather difficult to discuss. Generally I think the way this goes is, ["Founder's intentions", "individual right to bear arms", "standing army"] : pick any two.

Re: Pistol sights

#267

Post by dfsegoat »

maxerickson wrote: post #254
dfsegoat wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-st…

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

Re: Pistol sights

#268

Post by 15155 »

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.)

Before the US had a standing navy, the majority of our naval firepower (see: cannons, mortars, etc.) was privately owned.

This was accepted and understood at the time the Constitution was penned.

Re: Pistol sights

#269

Post by dfsegoat »

vkou wrote: post #257
dfsegoat wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-st…

Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted. The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2] So, yo…

> but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.

Re: Pistol sights

#270

Post by 15155 »

iamatworknow wrote: post #174
kjlaaskssss wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit…

> It took 11 months

Maybe it should take 11 months to register to vote?

> I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns

That's awesome for you, truly! The government is notoriously bad at making subjective decisions for the population at large, however, which is why staunch regulation is met with such resistance.

> home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse

I need to defend my home: I am not physically capable, nor should I be required to take the risk of engaging a violent, felonious aggressor or his posse with my bare hands.

I can't afford to live in a great area, so burglaries are quite common. Do I have less of a right to defend myself because I am poor?

--

Simply put: the Second Amendment grants me the right to keep and bear a firearm, as affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't need any excuse or rationalization: jurists much smarter than I have done that for society at large.

Post reply on HN