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

311–320 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#311

Post by ENTP »

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…

Once, when visiting the states, i had the opportunity to take such a course and it did change my opinion (very anti before course). I got a buzz out of it and am thoroughly glad i did it. That being said, the reality is that it ultimately relies on the owner being of sound mind at all times, which is not guaranteed. So whilst i agree that it really is a good thing to do and would even recommend it, i'm glad i live in a society where 99.9% of the time I don't need to worry about getting shot because the other person is having a bad day.

Re: Pistol sights

#312

Post by vsl »

iamatworknow wrote: post #212
angersock wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.

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…

> The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information

I'm Czech ("the Texas of EU", with ~3% of population having a carry permit) and finally a gun owner after EU's decisively not common-sense latest round of gun control regulations (proving, by the way, the fear of ever-sliding next round "compromise", to be a very real one).

I have mixed feelings about such registries.

On one hand, that's what we have here, and it works reasonably well - and gun owners are mostly content with well-balanced legislation that is neither too permissive nor too restrictive.

On the other hand, the risk of such registries is not theoretical for Czechs. In 1939, when Germany invaded [what remained of] the country, one of the first things they did was to confiscate all legally owned weapons — which was only made possible by the registry, and significantly impaired armed resistance. Lesson learned, and practiced decades after the war ended: hidden illegal arms are better than legal ones.

By the way, on the subject of the rest of your comment: everybody needs a permit here and we're fine with the system. Unlike in most of the rest of the EU, you have a legal right for a conceal carry permit, provided that you meet the legal requirements that I think amount to a background check in US: no recent (or, if serious, ever) crime record, no recent relevant misdemeanor (basically DUI or getting into fights, i.e. just the kind of irresponsible person you don't want to have a gun), no relevant medical problems (basically impairing judgment or motor skills). And you have to pass an exam, akin to driver's license, that tests for your knowledge of the law and practical ability to safely handle firearms and hit a target.

You need a permit for every gun too, with paperwork involved in any sort of sale, but the permit is automatic, just bureaucracy (except for firearms with restricted sale in EU, most notably full-auto; the you need to demonstrate a need and may or may not be granted a permit).

Re: Pistol sights

#313

Post by baby »

tim333 wrote: post #31
baby wrote: post #22

Kind of off-topic. But I had a thought the other day: without the US we wouldn't have action movies like James Bond or FPS and other shooters video games. It's interesting to see that guns are rare in other countries' movies/discussions. Maybe FPS would all be like Nintendo's octopus thing.

Dunno - James Bond is kind of English. Not just the character but the writer and the film production. The character was actually fairly closely based on the author http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11026227/I...

Good point, but the James Bond of nowadays (Jack Reacher, john wick, etc...) are all American movies now.

Re: Pistol sights

#314

Post by baby »

rkangel wrote: post #120
baby wrote: post #22

Kind of off-topic. But I had a thought the other day: without the US we wouldn't have action movies like James Bond or FPS and other shooters video games. It's interesting to see that guns are rare in other countries' movies/discussions. Maybe FPS would all be like Nintendo's octopus thing.

James Bond comes from a time before handgun control in the UK (the films are based on books written in the 50s and 60s). Gun culture existed in the UK then in a way that it doesn't now. That doesn't mean we can't and don't produce creative works involving it these days. Plenty of gunplay in prime time British drama.

1. Examples of gunplay in prime time british drama?

2. this might still be because we're influence by the movies in the US

Re: Pistol sights

#315

Post by CWuestefeld »

JoshMnem wrote: post #307
CWuestefeld wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."

Re: Pistol sights

#316

Post by dfsegoat »

maxerickson wrote: post #302
dfsegoat wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.

Re: Pistol sights

#317

Post by uberchet »

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.

I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for.

In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark.

Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't.

As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.

Re: Pistol sights

#318

Post by deno »

ecopoesis wrote: post #252
deno wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odds are for your average moron, not for me (I am very smart). So they are not convincing. This is similar issue as with motorcycle statistics. You’re also arguing to the wrong side of the brain. In face of danger, I will never ever choose to remain helpless. It goes against every single instinct a man has.

> (I am very smart) Citation needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Re: Pistol sights

#319

Post by angersock »

srean wrote: post #310
angersock wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Given the massive number of people that have been wounded in car accidents of all sorts, and in terror attacks using machetes and cars recently, I would venture that it is not, in fact, a false equivalency.

Re: Pistol sights

#320

Post by Infernal »

roninb wrote: post #259
Infernal wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok - but that is ballistic gelatin penetration. The comment I replied to claimed both expansion and lack of penetration in drywall, neither of which is at all a realistic expectation for extant 5.56 rounds, to my knowledge.

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 hole, and I don't know how you could say it "would not significantly harm" a person on the other side. See some tests here w/ photos regarding drywall and 5.56 penetration: https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-14-rifles-shotg...

Pistol calibers very well may penetrate further after passing through drywall (as the FBI tests indicate) but there is no evidence to claim that 5.56 is less than lethal after passing through a sheet of drywall.

Post reply on HN