Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nhpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 445 posts

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

#391

Post by Tadpole9181 »

franktankbank wrote: post #350
antonymoose wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s crazy if you have good morals and care about your fellow man. If you want to make boatloads of cash and don’t care about lives, you follow the rules and the same playbook as Remington did when their rifles suffered a similar self-firing phenomenon that killed customers. Delay, deny, defend yourself and take in as much cash as possible until you are legally boxed in. Hope at that point your profits are greater th…

Delay, deny, defend is a pretty bold position when your customers are guaranteed armed.

Are you seriously suggesting their customers would commit murder over this? And how would admitting their faults make such an unstable, revenge-bent person not want to kill them?

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

#392

Post by TheAmazingRace »

harimau777 wrote: post #182
djoldman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has never touched a firearm, I'm curious: what are you doing firing thousands of rounds? Is it target practice?

It's fairly common advice that if you are carrying for self defense then you should be firing at least 100 to 200 rounds a month at the range to maintain your skill. That's not all that difficult to do; especially with a relatively high capacity handgun like most 9mm.

You're absolutely correct. Part of why I have not been conceal carrying lately, is because I haven't prioritized consistent practice at the range in recent times. I want to ensure I'm proficient if I'm going to carry.

I should have clocked tens of thousands of rounds by now, at least one order of magnitude larger. Especially since micro-pistols like the P365 need the user to be more consistent with training, given that it's more difficult to be accurate with than with a full size gun. But life happens and I need to readjust my priorities before I get back to consistently visiting the range again.

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

#393

Post by franktankbank »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #391
franktankbank wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delay, deny, defend is a pretty bold position when your customers are guaranteed armed.

Are you seriously suggesting their customers would commit murder over this? And how would admitting their faults make such an unstable, revenge-bent person not want to kill them?

Normal people don't get bent toward murder until all other options are exhausted. I mean this whole thing seems very rare so probably not, but jesus take some fucking ownership. Bald faced lying is pretty fucking enraging and despicable. I'm not sure what you are so worked up about.

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

#394

Post by tremon »

efitz wrote: post #248
refulgentis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad because, straightforwardly, there's no penalty for just saying PEBKAC. Gun industry has tons of US legislative-granted legal immunity lest they ever accidentally become victim of a legal process that holds them accountable for, say, a mass shooting. They've been saying it was a political witchunt and avoiding dealing with it. This, hopefully, breaks the dam.

The issue here is a question of whether the product is defective. The various legislation passed to protect firearm manufacturers against nuisance “defective product” lawsuits in the specific case where the product functioned as intended and was used illegally by a violent criminal, do not apply. This is not a political issue. This is a discussion about whether a product is defective.

This is about lots of money, which always is a political issue, especially in the US. The fact-finding discussion is only relevant in court.

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

#395

Post by [deleted] »

probably_wrong wrote: post #304
BeetleB wrote: post #96

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…

> Another thing I thought was crazy: People sleeping with a loaded gun by their bed. To me this sounds like not putting your seatbelt on in case you ever need to get out of your car underwater: you're improving your chances at a statistically-unlikely event (home invasion) by making your chances worse at a much likelier event (accidental discharge).

[deleted]

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

#396

Post by fireflash38 »

lazide wrote: post #371
myrmidon wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well yeah cause they get shot.

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

#397

Post by refulgentis »

tremon wrote: post #394
efitz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is a question of whether the product is defective. The various legislation passed to protect firearm manufacturers against nuisance “defective product” lawsuits in the specific case where the product functioned as intended and was used illegally by a violent criminal, do not apply. This is not a political issue. This is a discussion about whether a product is defective.

This is about lots of money, which always is a political issue, especially in the US. The fact-finding discussion is only relevant in court.

To be fair, they're just straight up Wrong, capital-W. Trying to apply a general idea of legislation to a very specific scenario with lots of details and specific legislation. See sibling comment, Zimpenfish.

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

#398

Post by jedmeyers »

wl wrote: post #324
jibe wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of an external safety is not a defect. Many guns, probably a majority of new sales don’t. Anyone buying P320 knows there is no external safety. Sig should be liable for defects, and potentially negligent design, but seems reasonable not to be able to sue them for not including an external safety.

The US military uses the M17 and the M18, two versions of the P320 that have manual safeties.

And it still does not help, because the safety only blocks the trigger but not the striker from firing, thus the Air Force incident that started, this topic, became possible.

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

#399

Post by tshaddox »

esseph wrote: post #141
tshaddox wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One common thread is that there's virtually no time between when you realize you're going to need your sidearm and when you need it. I would be surprised if this is true for the majority of situations. I'm sure there are situations where you have very little time, but also many situations where the additional time it would take to chamber a round is negligible.

Most states prevent you from drawing without firing, because it is considered brandishing / threatening. So you either draw and fire and call the police and tell them what happened, or you don't and just... deal with the consequences of whatever happened instead.

Which states don't have self-defense exceptions to brandishing laws? Note that shooting someone is also assault, but self-defense is an exception to assault.

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

#400

Post by tshaddox »

asa400 wrote: post #216
why_at wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm familiar with the idea of "brandishing" being illegal, but I looked it up anyway. I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing which says "Self-defense is often explicitly given as an exception." 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…

This is not exactly what you’re referencing but I bring it up to show just how complicated things can be: Minnesota recently ruled that you do not have the right to use deadly force if you have the opportunity to escape. And this is the crucial bit, quoting the article: “The court decided the principle also applies to people who merely use the threat of force — meaning one cannot pull a weapon in self-defense if ther…

But again, there's no distinction between brandishing and shooting. The Minnesota law applies both to brandishing and to shooting.
Post reply on HN