Live data from Hacker News

Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

nhpr.org

371–380 of 445 posts

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy that Sig Sauer is pushing back on this as lies then. (per featured article)

I don't think that is crazy at all, our whole system incentivizes corporate behavior exactly like this. From your tone I assume that you would expect Sig to come forward, analyze, discuss and hopefully solve these problems as soon as possible. But that would be utterly stupid from their point of view. Public opinion cares very little about the details-- anytime you get associated with issues like this is simply bad f…

Eh, SIG is losing a lot of customers for life with the way they are treating this situation.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#372
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary i…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many modern guns for personal protection do not have manually actuated safeties and instead rely on other mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. For example, glocks have a "trigger safety." Without getting into minutia, these sort of features do a fine job of ensuring the gun does not fire unless the trigger is intentionally actuated. The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters…

> The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary i…

Why is every opinion qualified as "ex-military" always tend to be hyperbolic, technically incorrect and full of appeals to authority rather than actual factual information?

> There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first

There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your shots on target from concealment in under a second - while getting off the "x" - this is a standard I have trained many people to meet first-hand. And it doesn't take a specialist to get this level of training, either; it takes a few years, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance, just like any craft.

> In a real world firefight you're either close enough where martial arts is relevant or you're not. If martial arts are relevant, then the guns are irrelevant.

Disparity of force - another well known concept you ought to familiarize yourself, especially as it is one of the most critical elements of legal defense in a shooting.

> Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety.

Smart people legally carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family only from unexpected deadly threats. They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. The "sheepdog" mentality you've put on display is honestly offensive and gives a bad name to firearms owners.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#374
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't going to stop crime in the US or make dangerous areas in the US really any safer though. Nobody is concerned about someone legally carrying deciding to randomly shoot them.

I live in the Netherlands a country with a huge drug cartel problem and still civilians don't carry guns. Criminals shoot eachother and occasionally they shoot law enforcement if they are really dumb. Normal people when there is a shoot out just hide until the incident is over. You'd have to be stupid to get involved. More guns do not equal more safety- especially not because your average wannabe Rambo can't shoot fo…

Some people choose to cower when there is danger, others choose to act in defense.

You may choose to call one group of people "normal", just as I could about the other, but it is plain to see how silly that is.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#375
post #205
post #129

Ian from Forgotten Weapons posted an interesting video on this a while back: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QusWrho19zE And then a more recent follow up https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XY

Just watching this, and he's saying this model has no manual safety. That's an absolutely wild design choice in my mind!

It may seem wild, but wilder still is having to manipulate small components under extreme duress in a sub-second period of time, while one or more lives suddenly depend on it. This is why almost all individuals who carry professionally or from experience do not use equipment with safety.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#376
post #369
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, it did in reality. And there were clear manufacturing defects found when looking at the gun.

You started with "the FBI was able to duplicate the ‘spontaneous firing of a chambere" And we end with perfect social media claim: "I believe it did happen in reality". I rest my case.

Bwahaha, sure dude. That’s totally what is happening.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#377
post #2

This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or some kind of impact can yield a “design problem”. Can’t they just chamber when there’s a need?

Can't you just put a seatbelt on right before a collision?

A gun carried without one in the chamber is just a totem for emotional coddling, nothing more.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary i…

Why is every opinion qualified as "ex-military" always tend to be hyperbolic, technically incorrect and full of appeals to authority rather than actual factual information? > There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your…

Well said.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t true in robberies where someone pulls a gun as an intimidation tactic. There are plenty of videos where the store owner shoots a robber who pulled out a gun before the robber could fire.

It's rather debatable whether it should be legal for store owners to shoot robbers and call it self-defense; not all states protect shop owners in such circumstances, and state law may differentiate between when robbers pull lethal weaponry and when robbers pull toy guns that were not actual lethal threats. In the US you take further risk if there end up being racial differences between the shop owner and robber. Con…

What does any of that have to do with your stance that carrying with a safety on is just as effective? When root causing problems, it's important to compartmentalize. Whether or not someone should carry a firearm is completely orthogonal. Especially in this instance where clearly it makes sense for military security forces protecting nuclear facilities to carry.

Data has shown that if you have a need to carry a firearm on your person, it is prudent to carry with one in the chamber and the safety off. For this reason, firearm manufacturers have been using this as a design criteria. It's not impossible to design safe firearms which meet this criteria. See Gaston Glock.

Back on topic, the Sig P320 was designed to not have a safety. The military version has one, but that's only because military requirements hardly ever change. The P320 and it's military counterpart, the M17, are designed to be carried loaded with no safety. The fact that they randomly go off when doing this is not a failure of the operator or some systemic societal problem. It's a failure of Sig to meet design requirements.

Stop victim blaming.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety. I think you have misunderstood the order of operations in a violent encounter. The issue of chambering a round is in light of the fact that you have already identified an immediate violent threat and you need to end that threat. Th…

These arbitrary distinctions are in your mind. The real world is messy, and there is an algorithmic fallacy at the core of your argument.

You've carefully laid out why carrying a chambered weapon is critical for minimizing the reaction time to a perceived threat. So you've explained why a suspect has his gun chambered. It's anyone's guess when that suspect decides he has "identified an immediate violent threat" in the cop near him. Now the cop, by definition, must identify and respond faster than the suspect pulling out his chambered weapon. That doesn't work well for the cop, and you've optimized away any time for his to reason and react about the situation he's in.

You haven't reasoned about anything you are saying.

Post reply on HN