This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Guard Dog]

Thanks for trying to clarify, but I need your continued assistance. In the Uk the cops will take ten minutes to half an hour to turn up, assuming they do at all! But that doesn't mean (in general) we would rather have everyone dispensing 'justice' in person. I might gently observe that efforts would be better spent on trying to stop people busting into so many houses!

We are not talking about dispensing 'justice' in the vigilante style. We are talking about the last defense of life, limb, and property. As to efforts in crime deterrence it has be pointed out earlier in the thread that areas with the highest level of private gun ownership have the lowest crime. That is no coincidence.

 

To fix all of the social ills (like crime) of America today you would need one of two things, a government that is willing to do the unpopular thing and radically change a welfare system that traps the poor, or a time machine. And even if it were fixed there would still be violent crime. The best you could hope to do is mitigate it. I would not ask a single citizen to give up their means of self defense, or enjoyment of safe and legal sports, if they do not wish to do so simply beacuse "the rest of the world is doing it". And the law of the land forbids the federal, state, and local governments to do so.

[Guard Dog]

The American psyche is just different than Europe. The Kelo v New London ruling by the Supreme Court probably would not have even made the news in Europe because the mindset is that the benefit of society is of greater import than individual freedom. In America it is the other way around (to a point) and that is one of the hottest politcal subjects right now. I think (and devoutly hope) it will be overturned shortly if one of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court will do us the service of dying.

[alanschu]

As to efforts in crime deterrence it has be pointed out earlier in the thread that areas with the highest level of private gun ownership have the lowest crime. That is no coincidence.

 

I have often heard this statement, and with some introspection it makes sense, but I've never seen much in the way for significant studies. You did mention that crime rates went down after gun laws were made lax in Florida (which is good), but I'm curious if there are other confounding variables that I'm unaware of. After finding out how ineffective the death penalty seems to be at reducing murder rates, I'm curious if our commonsense is leading us to a false conclusion with this as well.

[Guard Dog]

As to efforts in crime deterrence it has be pointed out earlier in the thread that areas with the highest level of private gun ownership have the lowest crime. That is no coincidence.

 

I have often heard this statement, and with some introspection it makes sense, but I've never seen much in the way for significant studies. You did mention that crime rates went down after gun laws were made lax in Florida (which is good), but I'm curious if there are other confounding variables that I'm unaware of. After finding out how ineffective the death penalty seems to be at reducing murder rates, I'm curious if our commonsense is leading us to a false conclusion with this as well.

I also said it is difficult to directly prove since we do not track gun ownership. However the counties with the highest gun sales have the lowest gun crime. That we know is true. And since the background checks, waiting periods, etc are the same statewide it makes sense if you are buying a gun, you will do it close to home. Over the last 10 years we have had two governors (a dem then a repub) and three attorney generals. The per capita income of the state as climbed slightly above the national average, poverty levels (according to the 2000 census) ranks Florida 19th of 50 (on the good side of the median). Our population is increasing at the second fastest rate in the US which usually means an increase in crime but that did not happen. I cannot credibly claim relaxed gun laws are the sole reason violent crime is down but it is hard to deny the numbers. Other than that I cannot think of a thing that would change the crime dynamic one way or the other. But that is just according to the site I linked and the US Census.

[alanschu]

I also said it is difficult to directly prove since we do not track gun ownership. However the counties with the highest gun sales have the lowest gun crime. That we know is true.

 

I'm looking for evidence, not your statements unfortunately. I would not have posed the question if I had considered myself part of the "we" when you say "That we know is true."

 

 

This isn't some sleight against you. I'm looking for the evidence for my own personal interest.

Edited February 9, 2007 by alanschu

[Aram]

What the hell do you need night sights for a hand gun for? You plan on killing people in the dark Eddo?

 

According to the FBI, the vast majority of self defense shootings happen in low-light conditions and at a distance of less than ten feet.

 

Anyone who thinks there's something sinister about glowing gunsights need to just go ahead and slap themselves across the face.

[alanschu]

If the distance is less than 10 feet, would one really have enough time to use the sights anyways?

[Sand]

Depending if you are sneaking up from behind or not.

[alanschu]

With the larger amount of time you'd have, coupled with the fact that the distance is less than 10 feet, would you still need night sights?

[Sand]

Well, if you are going to kill someone, you need to do it in style.

[Lucius]

The american way!

[Aram]

If the distance is less than 10 feet, would one really have enough time to use the sights anyways?

 

Yes. Any sort of self defense training course would teach you to always be looking at your assailant through your sight picture, and to aquire it immediately as you draw. Another reason you'd have the glowing sights is that it makes it infinitely faster to aline them with your target. There are only pros to clearly visible, brightly highlighted sights and zero cons and if you insist on saying there's something wrong about having them I'm going to assume you're a nutcase and move on.

[alanschu]

I'm asking questions for a reason (the reason of course, being that I don't have any experience aiming pistols with armed intruders).

 

Any sort of self defense training course would teach you to always be looking at your assailant through your sight picture, and to aquire it immediately as you draw.

And trained firefighters will still kick down a door without checking it for heat if it's their children on the other side of that door. Training is a nice thing, but you'll never know how you'll react unless you're actually put into the situation.

 

 

There are only pros to clearly visible, brightly highlighted sights and zero cons

 

Then why aren't they standard on all guns?

 

 

But hey, if you wish to assume I'm a nutcase and move on, have a nice life.

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Dark_Raven]

The american way!

Do it the Chicago way, with a Tommy gun.

[alanschu]

How expensive are night sights?

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Aram]

And trained firefighters will still kick down a door without checking it for heat if it's their children on the other side of that door. Training is a nice thing, but you'll never know how you'll react unless you're actually put into the situation.

 

So how does that make night sights a bad thing?

 

Then why aren't they standard on all guns?

 

Plain sights are cheaper, for the most part.

 

I had a smith put Novak tritium sights on my .45. It cost about $250.

Granted, they're a bit more complicated than the ones on Eddo's M&P.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Aram

[alanschu]

So how does that make night sights a bad thing?

 

I'm curious as to their usefulness, particularly at close range home defense, and you were talking about how basic self defense courses are going to train you to look down the sights. Are they really necessary, or is it a cash cow market? And is someone that has taken a basic self defense course typically someone that has the mental fortitude to aim their pistol properly with these?

 

Assuming a shoulder width of 2 feet, with the maximum distance of 10 feet (since you specified most encounters will occur at less than 10 feet away), you'll have roughly a 12 degree horizontal range to still hit your target. If someone has taken a self defense course (which would provide the training for the use of night sights) and trained in the use of a pistol, would they still suffer a 6 degree shift in accuracy? If the light is so bad that you need the night sights in order to prevent a 6 degree shift in horizontal accuracy, wouldn't you have problems identifying the intruder period?

 

 

I was thinking about one thing, as you commented that there are zero cons to night sights. Wouldn't they also provide an opportunity for the intruder to spot you before you spotted them? I can't imagine it's a safe assumption that you'll always spot them before they spot you.

 

 

 

EDIT: Changed "questioning" to "curious" in the first statement.

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Aram]

And is someone that has taken a basic self defense course typically someone that has the mental fortitude to aim their pistol properly with these?

 

For someone with any experience with firearms, sight aquisition isn't something that requires "mental fortitude." It's a natural part of shooting, as natural as shifting a manual transmission or hitting the quicksave button before a boss fight. The fact is that in any situation, proper aquisition of the sight picture is a very, very necessary part of accurate shooting. If you can't see your sights, you're going to miss, simple as that. Maybe if you kept spraying bullets like an idiot you'll hit something, but in a life-threatening situation you probably won't have the leisure to keep trying over and over to hit your target, nevermind the danger all those stray rounds will pose to persons other than your target.

 

I'm not saying you can't live without night sights. I'm just saying that in low light conditions, they're an incredible help.

 

If you're curious about the mechanics or guns and shooting, anything I tell you is going to be of very little use. I really recommend that you buy yourself a .22 pistol or rifle and try it yourself. Nothing is going to teach you more than that. You live in Canada, so I don't think it would be impossible to acquire one. Follow the four rules of safety, use your head, and it won't pose any danger to you, and it shouldn't be too expensive either depending on the model. Who knows? You may even like it.

 

I was thinking about one thing, as you commented that there are zero cons to night sights. Wouldn't they also provide an opportunity for the intruder to spot you before you spotted them? I can't imagine it's a safe assumption that you'll always spot them before they spot you.

 

This is about basic self defense, not a Tom Clancy novel. I doubt three tiny glowing dots are going to expose any invisible ninjas lurking in the shadows.

 

My home defense weapon is a 12-gauge shotgun with a flashlight mounted under the barrel more powerful than your car's headlights. It wouldn't just reveal and intruder, it'd probably blind him for close to a minute.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Aram

[Eddo36]

How expensive are night sights?

 

So I paid roughly $725. As opposed to $625

 

On the M&P, night sight addition is $100 more. I chose to buy mines already done from S&W, rather than wait and have a gun smith to do it for about the same price. The radioactive glow of the Tritium will last 10-12 years before it needs to be replaced.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[Laozi]

"I chose to buy mines already done from S&W"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know the word is mine, not mines, right?

Edited February 10, 2007 by Laozi

[Walsingham]

I think it's sensible to buy something that tells you which way the gun is pointing in the dark. Hell, you need that on a can of deoderant!

 

GD, on the subject of whether gun owenership reduces property crime I'm finding I can disagree little with your conclusions based on the facts you have observed. As Alan says this makes it almost imperative that you track down these figures.

 

However, I would ask you to consider my observation that well-trained, regulated gun owners would make a more effective deterrent to both criminals and government, and be a smaller hazard. I really cannot retreat from that position yet.

[alanschu]

For someone with any experience with firearms, sight aquisition isn't something that requires "mental fortitude." It's a natural part of shooting, as natural as shifting a manual transmission or hitting the quicksave button before a boss fight.

Well, I have actually seen poor shifting of a manual transmission in an emergency situation (well, typically remembering the shift is something that goes out the window entirely. Even with an automatic transmission few people will think to place the car in neutral if they find themselves losing control of their car for some reason). It may be a natural part of shooting, but if pressure didn't affect things, then a typical Green Army Recruit would be just as effective in a firefight as a multi-year veteran.

 

 

If you're curious about the mechanics or guns and shooting, anything I tell you is going to be of very little use. I really recommend that you buy yourself a .22 pistol or rifle and try it yourself. Nothing is going to teach you more than that. You live in Canada, so I don't think it would be impossible to acquire one. Follow the four rules of safety, use your head, and it won't pose any danger to you, and it shouldn't be too expensive either depending on the model. Who knows? You may even like it

 

I have fired 9mm pistols at a firing range. My experiences don't go into night shooting, nor shooting at live targets though. Since I had never fired a gun before, I only had the target about 30 feet away or so, and I was pretty accurate at firing the pistol. It was on this experience that led me to the opinion that hitting something 10 feet away would not require the utmost of precision, since I tried doing a variety of things with the 50 or so rounds I bought. I did a "rapid" fire (I use the term "rapid" loosely, as it was hardly fast) as I was curious to see how accurate I could be emptying a magazine quickly. I would return the pistol to eye level after each shot, but wouldn't take my time to ensure that the sights were as lined up as I could make them. Accuracy degraded, but I don't recall missing the figure on the target paper. I tried 9mm variants of 5 different pistols, a Glock, a Beretta, a Sig, an H&K, and some other manufacturer I was unfamilar with. I found myself liking the Beretta the best. I kept jamming the Glock because my inexperience frequently had me absorbing the recoil with my wrists rather than with my elbows. But my experience was in daylight. If it was dark enough that I couldn't actually make out what direction my gun was pointing in, then yes I'd want night sights. But if it's that dark, outside of a silhouette if there happens to be some backlight from a window or something, how exactly could you be sure that you were pointing at the intruder. I'd likely have to see it in order to appreciate it, since the only experience I have shooting stuff in limited light was friends with toy dart guns.

[Guard Dog]

GD, on the subject of whether gun ownership reduces property crime I'm finding I can disagree little with your conclusions based on the facts you have observed. As Alan says this makes it almost imperative that you track down these figures.

 

However, I would ask you to consider my observation that well-trained, regulated gun owners would make a more effective deterrent to both criminals and government, and be a smaller hazard. I really cannot retreat from that position yet.

"Well trained" and "regulated" I take you to mean the government issuing some kind of license. The rights described in the Constitution are guaranteed. The government cannot go in after the fact and oblige you to ask their permission to invoke your rights. Something you request from the government may be denied. That is why there are so few federal gun laws and we fight so bitterly to ensure there are not more. Now under 10th amendment provisions most states have imposed waiting periods, background checks, and other measures. In Florida at least (and most other states as well) if you wish to obtain a concealed carry permit you will need to take a safety class. If you wish to hunt or shoot on public land or public ranges you will need a safety card. But the difference is the state cannot deny you these things so long as you pass the background check, pass the test and pay the fee. To sum up, one does not ask the government's permission to exercise a right.

 

As to yours and Alanschu's request I'm working on it now. It is pretty definitive IMHO.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

[Walsingham]

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

 

But what we're saying is that if the firearms are intended to deter the government those are precisely the weapons that you would need.

 

With regard to regulation I'm curious to know whether YOU personally think regulation would be a good thing, because as I say it should have many benefits in harmony with your stated objectives.