Hacker News Reader

Comment by flyingfences | Hacker News Reader

> “We’re looking for explosive vests, we’re looking for assault rifles. We’re not necessarily looking for smaller weapons that don’t have the ability to inflict mass casualties.”

What, like a handgun? Size doesn't matter. Plus, you don't really need an x-ray machine to see if somebody's carrying a rifle.

> “Any surveillance we can get these days is better than none,”

I think that's a really dangerous mindset. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to be hearing it from so many people these days.

On top of that, I'm really peeved about the quotes and anecdotes that they included in their article. Every single "average joe" who they chose to quote in this article is in support of the scanners. They barely mention the privacy concerns except when the folks involved are making empty promises that we have nothing to be concerned about. Again, disappointed but not surprised to see this sort of "journalism" in the mainstream.

View on HN

> What, like a handgun? Size doesn't matter.

No, but magazine capacity tends to.

edit: my point is that you can do a lot more damage with a rifle with a big magazine than you can with a handgun. I can't tell if I'm confused reading the replies, or replies are confused reading my comment.

What about knives? Vehicles? Rocks? This is a slippery ass slope. I'm not a gun guy, but I am wise enough to know that there is ZERO logic behind believing "they'll only regulate this, not that."

You bring up valid concerns, but knives are already effectively illegal - the police in New York have a lot of leeway in deciding what constitutes a "gravity knife".

This is why "1%" bikers favor ball-peen hammers - they know they can always carry one legally.

A very common handgun might have a magazine capacity of almost 20 rounds.

Not in California (if its legal). Max is ten rounds.

This isn't correct. The real world accuracy record of people with handguns, even supposedly trained professionals like police, is pretty dismal. Sight radius is very significant, by something like a multiplier of several times. This is why all military organizations and all special police forces use long guns if they can.

Magazine capacity is significant, but slight by comparison to handgun vs. rifle, especially in the context of mass shooting and terrorism. Magazine capacity is most significant when it comes to gun vs. gun.

Correct. Even at close range, trained police officers are subject to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

"75-80% of rounds fired by trained police in lethal force encounters miss their intended target"

"Out of 16 rounds, expect 12-13 to miss"

I don't see how that is relevant. If anything, handguns will typically fit more bullets within the same volume of magazine. A 100 round 9mm Glock magazine is smaller than a 60 round magazine for an AR-15. FWIW both are illegal in California.

Turns out the 'stopping power' of handguns is largely the same regardless of caliber. Larger caliber has a high chance of stopping someone, but there are fewer rounds in a magazine. So the statistics work out about the same for all handguns across each category (full-size, compact, subcompact)

> Turns out the 'stopping power' of handguns is largely the same regardless of caliber

This is absolutely false. Compare a .22 round to 10mm. You can probably be shot by .22 ten times or more and walk away. A 10mm round will stop an elephant on bath salts. Both can be shot from handguns.

In California you will have the same number of rounds in your 9mm Glock 17 (10) as you will in your .45 ACP Glock 21 (10).

In any case you are only limited by how many rounds you can carry, modern semiautomatic pistols can be reloaded in two seconds.

Finish reading the statement? The 9mm pistol can hold more rounds (ok CA artificially reduces this but I don't live there). If you empty the magazine, the stats come out very similar

You can find extended mags at whatever capacity you want.

Has to fit in the pistol.

I'm not sure about that one. Getting hit with a 45 cal. is going to do some serious damage compared to a 9mm.

While .45 ACP is higher grain, the velocity is lower and the rounds tend to "overpenetrate" (meaning, exit the body entirely). One of the reasons 9mm was widely adopted was the penetration properties - 9mm tends to stay in your body (making more of a mess). Even with these advantages, it is unlikely you will be killed by a single 9mm round to your torso.

But generally you are right - the larger rounds like 10mm and .500 will smash whatever they hit while .22 and other smaller calibers are likely to only make the intended target very angry.

But keep pulling the trigger on the 9mm. A similar sized pistol can hold many more rounds (15?) than the equivalent 45 (6)

This story is about California where mag capacity is limited to 10.

The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts

> This story is about California

The article mentions trials and future rollouts in a number of other places.

> where mag capacity is limited to 10

Isn't the whole idea behind these scanners to catch people who aren't following the law?

> The only .45's with a capacity of 6 are subcompacts

You're right, the 1911 holds a whopping _seven_.

The New York times is an integral part of the police state/big government propoganda machine

Reply on news.ycombinator.com