One of them there manual safeties would have prevented that. I would be interested to hear the numbers between "accidental" discharges from a handgun with a manual safety and those without.
One of them there manual safeties would have prevented that. I would be interested to hear the numbers between "accidental" discharges from a handgun with a manual safety and those without.
The safety should have been the officer clearing his sidearm while being around a bunch of young children. Having young children myself, you had better expect the unexpected. A curious bunch they are.
One of them there manual safeties would have prevented that. I would be interested to hear the numbers between "accidental" discharges from a handgun with a manual safety and those without.
Banning cops from carrying sidearms would also have prevented that. Requiring the children to wear big leather 'paddle' shaped mittens would accomplish the same. Your point?:silly:
You're looking for a technological answer to a mental problem. How should this all have gone down? First, the parents of little Johnny should have taught him not to touch things that aren't his. Period. Second, the teacher (or whoever was in the class 'in charge' of the kids) should have been alert enough to realize that Johnny was on the fast track to trouble and redirected him. If the kids were crowded around so close that Johnny's actions weren't easily visible, he/she (as well as the cop himself) should have stopped right there until the herd had settled. Period. Third, the cop NEEDS to be aware of his firearm AT ALL TIMES. Whether on the mean streets of Lodi California or some dipsquat backwater burg with a one room schoolhouse, if you're carrying (professionally or otherwise) this awareness is mandatory. Period.
By the way, this was not an 'accidental' discharge. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do. If you want to classify it as a negligent discharge, I'll listen.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Banning cops from carrying sidearms would also have prevented that. Requiring the children to wear big leather 'paddle' shaped mittens would accomplish the same. Your point?:silly:
Your looking for a technological answer to a mental problem. How should this all have gone down? First, the parents of little Johnny should have taught him not to touch things that aren't his. Period. Second, the teacher (or whoever was in the class 'in charge' of the kids) should have been alert enough to realize that Johnny was on the fast track to trouble and redirected him. If the kids were crowded around so close that Johnny's actions weren't easily visible, he/she (as well as the cop himself) should have stopped right there until the herd had settled. Period. Third, the cop NEEDS to be aware of his firearm AT ALL TIMES. Whether on the mean streets of Lodi California or some dipsquat backwater burg with a one room schoolhouse, if you're carrying (professionally or otherwise) this awareness is mandatory. Period.
By the way, this was not an 'accidental' discharge. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do. If you want to classify it as a negligent discharge, I'll listen.
Your right, it wasn't an accidental discharge. My point was, it there was a "manual" safety on the firearm, the kid would have reached in, pulled the trigger and nothing would have happened. A manual safety on a firearm is not always a bad thing as a lot here would believe. Even a backstrap safety like on an XD or 1911 would have most likely prevented this.
Your right, it wasn't an accidental discharge. My point was, it there was a "manual" safety on the firearm, the kid would have reached in, pulled the trigger and nothing would have happened. A manual safety on a firearm is not always a bad thing as a lot here would believe. Even a backstrap safety like on an XD or 1911 would have most likely prevented this.
Manual safety would only work if it was engaged. And the kid could have depressed a grip safety fiddling with the handgun.
To let someone get close enough to your handgun to manipulate the trigger is a real lack of situational awareness. If that's what actually happened.
Manual safety would only work if it was engaged. And the kid could have depressed a grip safety fiddling with the handgun.
To let someone get close enough to your handgun to manipulate the trigger is a real lack of situational awareness. If that's what actually happened.
Again, my point, if there was a manual safety on the firearm and was being used as intended, it would have never happened in the first place. But yes, a lack of situational awareness no doubt.
Your right, it wasn't an accidental discharge. My point was, it there was a "manual" safety on the firearm, the kid would have reached in, pulled the trigger and nothing would have happened. A manual safety on a firearm is not always a bad thing as a lot here would believe. Even a backstrap safety like on an XD or 1911 would have most likely prevented this.
True. So would requiring them to carry guns fitted with trigger locks. Mebbe we should go the continental route and stick to billyclubs? No offense intended, but it's fairly obvious to me that every adult in that room was a negligent fool. As Tennmike will tell you: "Trusting something as 'foolproof' is to underestimate the ability of fools everywhere". Paraphrasing, but there it is....
IOW, a 'safety' is only as safe as the operator. How safe do you think this particular operator was? I'm going with 'not'.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
True. So would requiring them to carry guns fitted with trigger locks. Mebbe we should go the continental route and stick to billyclubs? No offense intended, but it's fairly obvious to me that every adult in that room was a negligent fool. As Tennmike will tell you: "Trusting something as 'foolproof' is to underestimate the ability of fools everywhere". Paraphrasing, but there it is....
IOW, a 'safety' is only as safe as the operator. How safe do you think this particular operator was? I'm going with 'not'.
No offense taken at all. And it am not saying firearms should be required to have one, I just don't see it as a bad thing for gun manufacturers to offer the same gun with a manual safety and one without. I am old school I guess, I have always like a manual safety on my handguns, but that being said still carry a XDS or a Kel-tec PF-9 when I conceal carry. I have really never found a conceal carry semi with a manual safety that l have liked, but if one comes around won't hesitate to try it out.
Again, my point, if there was a manual safety on the firearm and was being used as intended, it would have never happened in the first place. But yes, a lack of situational awareness no doubt.
And if the police officer is inattentive enough to allow the kid that close, do you think that he'll be attentive enough to use a manual safety? Maybe, maybe not. That's what I'm getting at. This is definitely a user issue.
And if the police officer is inattentive enough to allow the kid that close, do you think that he'll be attentive enough to use a manual safety? Maybe, maybe not. That's what I'm getting at. This is definitely a user issue.
Your right, a user issue for sure, I don't disagree with you there. I am just saying a gun where all you have to do is grab the trigger and yank, will go off every time, where a gun with a manual safety that is being used will not.
A point about your 'accidental discharge' post earlier...
I would submit that a very high percentage of ADs are of the "I didn't mean to pull the trigger" variety. I don't have numbers to back my guess up, but I'm thinking the percentage of ADs that are somehow a fault of the firearm is exceedingly small. Semantics? Maybe so, but I feel the point is not only valid, but critical.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
I agree, and I don't think it's semantics at all. An accident isn't always preventable, but negligence always is.
Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
How paranoid would a cop have to be to have to have his sidearm in Condition One with a bunch of kids in the general area? Just having the mag loaded and the chamber empty would have been a good compromise in this situation. How much time does it take to rack a slide after drawing the gun- - - -one or two seconds max? Was there really enough of a threat present that he couldn't have taken a little extra precautions? I don't know any 6-year-olds who can rack the slide on a sidearm!
Jerry
Accidental discharge vs. negligent discharge vs. situational awareness vs. curious children vs. whatever, right now it's all Monday morning quarterbacking, back seat driving, and I told you so. OK, so we're people, and people of all ages, all at varying levels of competence, knowledge and awareness. Guess what - it's not a perfect world, and people don't help it any.
Sometimes a mechanical solution is indeed the solution to an occasional human error. Sometimes it helps to second guess our skills and experience. Sometimes, a manual safety on a pre-cocked automatic pistol just makes sense. In fact, it makes sense every time. I understand that even with a manual safety an AD or ND can happen. We can second-guess anything all day long. We can construct scenarios and arguments to defeat even multiple safeties. So what! The safer we design things to be, the safer they are, inherently, occassional incompetent human interaction notwithstanding.
This was an accidental discharge for the child, and a negligent discharge for the officer. It was the result of a perfect storm of mistakes by all concerned. So, what else is new. Welcome to the human condition. Ask any insurance agent if poo-poo happens. Automatic pistols should have either manual safeties, de-cockers, or long, very heavy triggers.
Automatic pistols should have either manual safeties, de-cockers, or long, very heavy triggers.
That makes no sense to me at all. You make the case that "it's not a perfect world, and people don't help it any", yet you also make the above statement, as if that would be a viable solution. The point that I think is most important to take away from this incident is how preventable it was by any number of simple actions that should have been taken, and could have been, if safety were important enough to those involved to take them. That same manual safety, de-cocker, or long, heavy trigger that you advocate for semi-autos could arguably be the difference between life and death for that same officer in a different situation, not to mention any of us. In any case, it's not a fix-all for negligence by any stretch of the imagination, IMHO.
Unfortunately this may sound like a broken record, but revolvers are carried every day by many, yet it cannot be factually stated that they are inherently more dangerous to handle than a semi-auto in the style of a Glock. What's the difference? The way the individual handles the gun; i.e., negligence or awareness; safe, or not. I just don't buy that anything can take the place of consistent observance of simple rules of safety.
Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
How paranoid would a cop have to be to have to have his sidearm in Condition One with a bunch of kids in the general area? Just having the mag loaded and the chamber empty would have been a good compromise in this situation. How much time does it take to rack a slide after drawing the gun- - - -one or two seconds max? Was there really enough of a threat present that he couldn't have taken a little extra precautions? I don't know any 6-year-olds who can rack the slide on a sidearm!
Jerry
How ignorant blame the gun, what type of holster was it in, was it properly secured, the always Glocks fault, all discharges from glocks have been "STUPID DISCHARGES" look at the facts and then criticize the Glock, nothing is perfect i know a guy that blew his knee off while re holstering a 1911 with all the safeties so go figure?????????
There are arguments for and against, but the fact remains; if the adults in the room had been paying attention-even just a little bit-this doesn't happen at all, thereby rendering the 'manual safety vs. safeaction trigger' argument null and void. Safety starts up here (pointing at my noggin) not on the side of my pistol. Well, actually, there is a safety on the side of my pistol, but you get my point.
As to asking insurance agents anything, I think I'll stick to asking them about insurance policies and premiums and leave gun questions up to folks like us who might actually know a thing or two about the subject. Most of the insurance folks I've met would be perfectly happy requiring their customers to live as bubble folk, only coming out for holidays and the occasional cleaning. No thanks.:nono:
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
I reckon that cop learned how to "Shake A Leg" after this....:tooth:
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
In a perfect world, it's all good. Guess what, it's not a perfect world. Accidents and mistakes are a mathematical and statistical CERTAINTY, they're FORESEEABLE and PREDICTIBLE. They are NOT a variable in life's equation, they're a GIVEN. Sometimes we will fail. NO MATTER WHAT. As I said before, ask any insurance agent if this is so - he'll tell you that despite the best intentions, people still crash their cars, burn their houses down, hurt themselves playing sports, fall off roofs, have unsafe sex, swim with sharks, and a million other things. We don't always die for our mistakes, but EVERYBODY deserves at least one runner-up silver or bronze "Darwin Award."
After half a century plus of owning and shooting firearms, I can happily say I have never had an AD or a ND, and not because I've just been lucky. I've been deliberately careful. I'm sure most of the members of this board can say the same. But I will not be so arrogant as to say that I never will. Advancing age often brings "senior moments." Interactions with others can be unpredictable.
Anyone who has ever pressed the brake pedal on their car and had nothing happen will tell you how grateful they were for that emergency brake. Or that reserve parachute. That pencil eraser has sure come in handy. Thank God for Spell-Check. And System Restore. REDUNDENCY is fundamental! It's common sense. Redundant safety features TEND to mitigate SOMEWHAT the potential danger inherent in the human condition. Safety features usually don't make anything more unsafe. A lack of safety features tends to have the opposite effect.
Anyone who has ever pressed the brake pedal on their car and had nothing happen will tell you how grateful they were for that emergency brake. Or that reserve parachute. That pencil eraser has sure come in handy. Thank God for Spell-Check. And System Restore. REDUNDENCY is fundamental! It's common sense. Redundant safety features TEND to mitigate SOMEWHAT the potential danger inherent in the human condition. Safety features usually don't make anything more unsafe. A lack of safety features tends to have the opposite effect.
The 'emergency' brake analogy doesn't work for me because it involves a second chance at making the original function WORK as opposed to being a second chance at making the intended function to NOT work. Ditto the eraser, Spellcheck, and system restore. Firearms are really quite simple. If you don't want the gun to fire, don't pull the trigger. If you don't want someone else to fire the gun, don't allow them to pull the trigger either. You can put 47 different 'safely redundant' braking systems in the vehicle of your choosing, but if the idiot driving doesn't actually step on the pedal or pull the lever or push the switch...the car probably isn't going to stop when stopping is needed.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
If you don't want the gun to fire, don't pull the trigger. If you don't want someone else to fire the gun, don't allow them to pull the trigger either.
Needless to say. If only it were that simple. If it was, there would never be an accidental or negligent discharge. There is no such thing as an intentional accidental or negligent discharge. Some imperfect person did what comes naturally, and predictably - they either made, or allowed another to make -a mistake. So, when yours or someone else's booger hook engages the bang switch by mistake, for whatever reason, wouldn't it have been nice if that was the only problem...if up to that point, everything else was going right...if before that singular boo-boo, the loaded and chambered weapon had been routinely disabled by a safety, de-cocked by a hammer drop, or rendered a bit more difficult to discharge by a longer heavier trigger pull - heavier than the Glock's mere 5.5 pounds.
Yes, it would have been very nice. The officer involved in this incident would have felt the child's tug on his holster, and nothing more. No Bang! just a tug, and the child would have received a proper reprimand instead of everybody receiving a shock they'll never forget.
"Don't do that" doesn't cut it. Things happen outside the box. I know, I know, no matter what we do they always will, accidents will happen, but that's not the point. We can design our tools so that unintended actions don't always lead to unintended consequences. Sometimes they still will, but not always. When a trigger is pulled on a loaded Glock, it always fires. It cannot be de-cocked except by firing. That is soooo wrong. A safety, a de-cocker, a longer heavier trigger pull would, I believe, make for a better outcome when someone, anyone, makes a mistake.
Needless to say. If only it were that simple. If it was, there would never be an accidental or negligent discharge. There is no such thing as an intentional accidental or negligent discharge. Some imperfect person did what comes naturally, and predictably - they either made, or allowed another to make -a mistake. So, when yours or someone else's booger hook engages the bang switch by mistake, for whatever reason, wouldn't it have been nice if that was the only problem...if up to that point, everything else was going right...if before that singular boo-boo, the loaded and chambered weapon had been routinely disabled by a safety, de-cocked by a hammer drop, or rendered a bit more difficult to discharge by a longer heavier trigger pull - heavier than the Glock's mere 5.5 pounds.
Yes, it would have been very nice. The officer involved in this incident would have felt the child's tug on his holster, and nothing more. No Bang! just a tug, and the child would have received a proper reprimand instead of everybody receiving a shock they'll never forget.
"Don't do that" doesn't cut it. Things happen outside the box. I know, I know, no matter what we do they always will, accidents will happen, but that's not the point. We can design our tools so that unintended actions don't always lead to unintended consequences. Sometimes they still will, but not always. When a trigger is pulled on a loaded Glock, it always fires. It cannot be de-cocked except by firing. That is soooo wrong. A safety, a de-cocker, a longer heavier trigger pull would, I believe, make for a better outcome when someone, anyone, makes a mistake.
YOU sir killed your very own arguement.
"I know, I know, no matter what we do they always will, accidents will happen,.."
There is absolutely no proof a safety or a stiffer trigger pull would have made a difference here. Sure it MIGHT HAVE. MIGHT don't cut it. IF the officer had unloaded his handgun this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. IF the firearm had not been in the room this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. BUT the child COULD have turned off the safety and pulled the trigger or he could have been strong enough to pull the trigger despite the stiffness. To blame the incident on anything beyond inattention is pure folly.
But please tell me how does the mere presence of a safety stop the firearm from firing when the operator forgets to turn it on? How does a stiffer trigger pull prevent the firing of a firearm when the operator doesn't pay attention and jams the handgun into his holster with his booger hook on the trigger hard enough to overcome that trigger pull? How does a decocker prevent such an incident when the operator doesn't use the decocker? Man is prone to mistakes and nothing man can do will change that.
When a trigger is pulled on a loaded Glock, it always fires. It cannot be de-cocked except by firing. That is soooo wrong.
Dude, seriously?
It's a gun. When you pull the trigger, it's job is to launch a projectile.
IT'S A FRIGGIN GUN!!!!!! If you don't want it launching said projectile, don't pull the trigger, don't allow someone else to pull the trigger, don't allow someTHING else to pull the trigger. It's really not rocket surgery.
There is absolutely no proof a safety or a stiffer trigger pull would have made a difference here. Sure it MIGHT HAVE. MIGHT don't cut it. IF the officer had unloaded his handgun this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. IF the firearm had not been in the room this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. BUT the child COULD have turned off the safety and pulled the trigger or he could have been strong enough to pull the trigger despite the stiffness. To blame the incident on anything beyond inattention is pure folly.
I agree with everything you said here. I'm glad we agree that a safety MIGHT have made a difference. And that's all I ever claimed for safeties and heavier trigger pulls. They just mitigate against unintended actions ALWAYS leading to unintended consequences. They don't always work, they aren't always used, operators don't always read manuals, carelessness happens, and so forth, but at least for most of us, who are 99 44/100% of the time sober and competent shooters, the presence of redundant safeties CAN make a big, positive difference. You're right, and we agree, that a more thoughtful officer could have-would have-should have, done a lot of things differently - as I already noted in a previous post, this incident was a perfect storm of mistakes.
Anything you don't use, turn on or activate won't work - firearms safeties included. Anything abused or mishandled can fail. Yes, man is prone to mistakes, to negligence, to laziness, some are so addle-headed that even fall for liberalism. But there is that great big gray area, where usually thoughtful, competent, and knowledgeable owners make a once-in-a-long, long time mistake, or their hand slips, or a friend or child misbehaves, or whatever, where the presence, and use of a safety COULD save the day.
My friends, we are at the point that we must agree to disagree. I will always believe that incorporating redundant manually operated disabling safeties - true 'off' switches - into automatic pistol design is a good idea, and others don't. That's fine with me. Happily for all of us, firearms manufacturers make lots of models that satisfy all our desires. If you're comfortable with "safe action" guns, then by all means acquire them, enjoy them, and live happily (and safely) ever after. Enjoy.
I agree with everything you said here. I'm glad we agree that a safety MIGHT have made a difference. And that's all I ever claimed for safeties and heavier trigger pulls. They just mitigate against unintended actions ALWAYS leading to unintended consequences. They don't always work, they aren't always used, operators don't always read manuals, carelessness happens, and so forth, but at least for most of us, who are 99 44/100% of the time sober and competent shooters, the presence of redundant safeties CAN make a big, positive difference. You're right, and we agree, that a more thoughtful officer could have-would have-should have, done a lot of things differently - as I already noted in a previous post, this incident was a perfect storm of mistakes.
Anything you don't use, turn on or activate will work - firearms safeties included. Anything abused or mishandled can fail. Yes, man is prone to mistakes, to negligence, to laziness, some are so addle-headed that even fall for liberalism. But there is that great big gray area, where usually thoughtful, competent, and knowledgeable owners make a once-in-a-long, long time mistake, or their hand slips, or a friend or child misbehaves, or whatever, where the presence, and use of a safety COULD save the day.
My friends, we are at the point that we must agree to disagree. I will always believe that incorporating redundant manually operated disabling safeties - true 'off' switches - into automatic pistol design is a good idea, and others don't. That's fine with me. Happily for all of us, firearms manufacturers make lots of models that satisfy all our desires. If you're comfortable with "safe action" guns, then by all means acquire them, enjoy them, and live happily (and safely) ever after. Enjoy.
Are you being stupid on purpose?
Care to explain exactly how a safety that has not been engaged would have prevented this incident?
"Anything you don't use, turn on or activate will work - firearms safeties included."
You may not like Glock firearms but to blame them for this incident is wrong. It could have been any firearm in the holster of that inattentive officer. Safety on, safety off, 10# trigger, there is no way to know if any of those things would have made a difference. You mention a 5.5 lb trigger pull and yet you have no clue what the actual trigger pull on that handgun is.
Care to explain exactly how a safety that has not been engaged would have prevented this incident?
"Anything you don't use, turn on or activate will work - firearms safeties included."
You may not like Glock firearms but to blame them for this incident is wrong. It could have been any firearm in the holster of that inattentive officer. Safety on, safety off, 10# trigger, there is no way to know if any of those things would have made a difference. You mention a 5.5 lb trigger pull and yet you have no clue what the actual trigger pull on that handgun is.
Obviously an unengaged safety would not have prevented an unintended discharge. I never said it would have, and I have no idea where that came from. Please re-read my post - I make it clear that safeties have to be used, and for that, they have to exist in the first place. But a "safe-action" pistol has no safety to engage. The option of engagement doesn't exist. Had the Glock design incorporated a disabling off switch (or at least de-cocker mechanism with a correspondingly heavy 10-12 pound first round trigger pull), the officer involved, all his other faults notwithstanding, might have engaged it. If the weapon had been designed with a manually operated disabling safety, no doubt this officer's department would have trained him to use it.
I don't blame Glock for the incident; once again, a careful re-reading of my posts will show this unintended discharge to be the result of a perfect storm of mistakes made by the officer and the child. What I criticize Glock for is not incorporating redundant manually operated safeties in their designs. That's all.
You're right in that we don't know if any of the safety features I support would have made any difference or not. Might have, but we'll never be sure. But we do know this - that not having them available, and not being able to train the officer to use them, didn't help the situation any.
Replies
The safety should have been the officer clearing his sidearm while being around a bunch of young children. Having young children myself, you had better expect the unexpected. A curious bunch they are.
Banning cops from carrying sidearms would also have prevented that. Requiring the children to wear big leather 'paddle' shaped mittens would accomplish the same. Your point?:silly:
You're looking for a technological answer to a mental problem. How should this all have gone down? First, the parents of little Johnny should have taught him not to touch things that aren't his. Period. Second, the teacher (or whoever was in the class 'in charge' of the kids) should have been alert enough to realize that Johnny was on the fast track to trouble and redirected him. If the kids were crowded around so close that Johnny's actions weren't easily visible, he/she (as well as the cop himself) should have stopped right there until the herd had settled. Period. Third, the cop NEEDS to be aware of his firearm AT ALL TIMES. Whether on the mean streets of Lodi California or some dipsquat backwater burg with a one room schoolhouse, if you're carrying (professionally or otherwise) this awareness is mandatory. Period.
By the way, this was not an 'accidental' discharge. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do. If you want to classify it as a negligent discharge, I'll listen.
George Carlin
Your right, it wasn't an accidental discharge. My point was, it there was a "manual" safety on the firearm, the kid would have reached in, pulled the trigger and nothing would have happened. A manual safety on a firearm is not always a bad thing as a lot here would believe. Even a backstrap safety like on an XD or 1911 would have most likely prevented this.
To let someone get close enough to your handgun to manipulate the trigger is a real lack of situational awareness. If that's what actually happened.
Again, my point, if there was a manual safety on the firearm and was being used as intended, it would have never happened in the first place. But yes, a lack of situational awareness no doubt.
True. So would requiring them to carry guns fitted with trigger locks. Mebbe we should go the continental route and stick to billyclubs? No offense intended, but it's fairly obvious to me that every adult in that room was a negligent fool. As Tennmike will tell you: "Trusting something as 'foolproof' is to underestimate the ability of fools everywhere". Paraphrasing, but there it is....
IOW, a 'safety' is only as safe as the operator. How safe do you think this particular operator was? I'm going with 'not'.
George Carlin
No offense taken at all. And it am not saying firearms should be required to have one, I just don't see it as a bad thing for gun manufacturers to offer the same gun with a manual safety and one without. I am old school I guess, I have always like a manual safety on my handguns, but that being said still carry a XDS or a Kel-tec PF-9 when I conceal carry. I have really never found a conceal carry semi with a manual safety that l have liked, but if one comes around won't hesitate to try it out.
Your right, a user issue for sure, I don't disagree with you there. I am just saying a gun where all you have to do is grab the trigger and yank, will go off every time, where a gun with a manual safety that is being used will not.
I would submit that a very high percentage of ADs are of the "I didn't mean to pull the trigger" variety. I don't have numbers to back my guess up, but I'm thinking the percentage of ADs that are somehow a fault of the firearm is exceedingly small. Semantics? Maybe so, but I feel the point is not only valid, but critical.
George Carlin
Jerry
Sometimes a mechanical solution is indeed the solution to an occasional human error. Sometimes it helps to second guess our skills and experience. Sometimes, a manual safety on a pre-cocked automatic pistol just makes sense. In fact, it makes sense every time. I understand that even with a manual safety an AD or ND can happen. We can second-guess anything all day long. We can construct scenarios and arguments to defeat even multiple safeties. So what! The safer we design things to be, the safer they are, inherently, occassional incompetent human interaction notwithstanding.
This was an accidental discharge for the child, and a negligent discharge for the officer. It was the result of a perfect storm of mistakes by all concerned. So, what else is new. Welcome to the human condition. Ask any insurance agent if poo-poo happens. Automatic pistols should have either manual safeties, de-cockers, or long, very heavy triggers.
Unfortunately this may sound like a broken record, but revolvers are carried every day by many, yet it cannot be factually stated that they are inherently more dangerous to handle than a semi-auto in the style of a Glock. What's the difference? The way the individual handles the gun; i.e., negligence or awareness; safe, or not. I just don't buy that anything can take the place of consistent observance of simple rules of safety.
My same thoughts exactly.
As to asking insurance agents anything, I think I'll stick to asking them about insurance policies and premiums and leave gun questions up to folks like us who might actually know a thing or two about the subject. Most of the insurance folks I've met would be perfectly happy requiring their customers to live as bubble folk, only coming out for holidays and the occasional cleaning. No thanks.:nono:
George Carlin
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
After half a century plus of owning and shooting firearms, I can happily say I have never had an AD or a ND, and not because I've just been lucky. I've been deliberately careful. I'm sure most of the members of this board can say the same. But I will not be so arrogant as to say that I never will. Advancing age often brings "senior moments." Interactions with others can be unpredictable.
Anyone who has ever pressed the brake pedal on their car and had nothing happen will tell you how grateful they were for that emergency brake. Or that reserve parachute. That pencil eraser has sure come in handy. Thank God for Spell-Check. And System Restore. REDUNDENCY is fundamental! It's common sense. Redundant safety features TEND to mitigate SOMEWHAT the potential danger inherent in the human condition. Safety features usually don't make anything more unsafe. A lack of safety features tends to have the opposite effect.
The 'emergency' brake analogy doesn't work for me because it involves a second chance at making the original function WORK as opposed to being a second chance at making the intended function to NOT work. Ditto the eraser, Spellcheck, and system restore. Firearms are really quite simple. If you don't want the gun to fire, don't pull the trigger. If you don't want someone else to fire the gun, don't allow them to pull the trigger either. You can put 47 different 'safely redundant' braking systems in the vehicle of your choosing, but if the idiot driving doesn't actually step on the pedal or pull the lever or push the switch...the car probably isn't going to stop when stopping is needed.
George Carlin
Needless to say. If only it were that simple. If it was, there would never be an accidental or negligent discharge. There is no such thing as an intentional accidental or negligent discharge. Some imperfect person did what comes naturally, and predictably - they either made, or allowed another to make -a mistake. So, when yours or someone else's booger hook engages the bang switch by mistake, for whatever reason, wouldn't it have been nice if that was the only problem...if up to that point, everything else was going right...if before that singular boo-boo, the loaded and chambered weapon had been routinely disabled by a safety, de-cocked by a hammer drop, or rendered a bit more difficult to discharge by a longer heavier trigger pull - heavier than the Glock's mere 5.5 pounds.
Yes, it would have been very nice. The officer involved in this incident would have felt the child's tug on his holster, and nothing more. No Bang! just a tug, and the child would have received a proper reprimand instead of everybody receiving a shock they'll never forget.
"Don't do that" doesn't cut it. Things happen outside the box. I know, I know, no matter what we do they always will, accidents will happen, but that's not the point. We can design our tools so that unintended actions don't always lead to unintended consequences. Sometimes they still will, but not always. When a trigger is pulled on a loaded Glock, it always fires. It cannot be de-cocked except by firing. That is soooo wrong. A safety, a de-cocker, a longer heavier trigger pull would, I believe, make for a better outcome when someone, anyone, makes a mistake.
YOU sir killed your very own arguement.
"I know, I know, no matter what we do they always will, accidents will happen,.."
There is absolutely no proof a safety or a stiffer trigger pull would have made a difference here. Sure it MIGHT HAVE. MIGHT don't cut it. IF the officer had unloaded his handgun this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. IF the firearm had not been in the room this incident would not have happened and I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. BUT the child COULD have turned off the safety and pulled the trigger or he could have been strong enough to pull the trigger despite the stiffness. To blame the incident on anything beyond inattention is pure folly.
But please tell me how does the mere presence of a safety stop the firearm from firing when the operator forgets to turn it on? How does a stiffer trigger pull prevent the firing of a firearm when the operator doesn't pay attention and jams the handgun into his holster with his booger hook on the trigger hard enough to overcome that trigger pull? How does a decocker prevent such an incident when the operator doesn't use the decocker? Man is prone to mistakes and nothing man can do will change that.
Nah.
Dude, seriously?
It's a gun. When you pull the trigger, it's job is to launch a projectile.
IT'S A FRIGGIN GUN!!!!!! If you don't want it launching said projectile, don't pull the trigger, don't allow someone else to pull the trigger, don't allow someTHING else to pull the trigger. It's really not rocket surgery.
I agree with everything you said here. I'm glad we agree that a safety MIGHT have made a difference. And that's all I ever claimed for safeties and heavier trigger pulls. They just mitigate against unintended actions ALWAYS leading to unintended consequences. They don't always work, they aren't always used, operators don't always read manuals, carelessness happens, and so forth, but at least for most of us, who are 99 44/100% of the time sober and competent shooters, the presence of redundant safeties CAN make a big, positive difference. You're right, and we agree, that a more thoughtful officer could have-would have-should have, done a lot of things differently - as I already noted in a previous post, this incident was a perfect storm of mistakes.
Anything you don't use, turn on or activate won't work - firearms safeties included. Anything abused or mishandled can fail. Yes, man is prone to mistakes, to negligence, to laziness, some are so addle-headed that even fall for liberalism. But there is that great big gray area, where usually thoughtful, competent, and knowledgeable owners make a once-in-a-long, long time mistake, or their hand slips, or a friend or child misbehaves, or whatever, where the presence, and use of a safety COULD save the day.
My friends, we are at the point that we must agree to disagree. I will always believe that incorporating redundant manually operated disabling safeties - true 'off' switches - into automatic pistol design is a good idea, and others don't. That's fine with me. Happily for all of us, firearms manufacturers make lots of models that satisfy all our desires. If you're comfortable with "safe action" guns, then by all means acquire them, enjoy them, and live happily (and safely) ever after. Enjoy.
Are you being stupid on purpose?
Care to explain exactly how a safety that has not been engaged would have prevented this incident?
"Anything you don't use, turn on or activate will work - firearms safeties included."
You may not like Glock firearms but to blame them for this incident is wrong. It could have been any firearm in the holster of that inattentive officer. Safety on, safety off, 10# trigger, there is no way to know if any of those things would have made a difference. You mention a 5.5 lb trigger pull and yet you have no clue what the actual trigger pull on that handgun is.
Obviously an unengaged safety would not have prevented an unintended discharge. I never said it would have, and I have no idea where that came from. Please re-read my post - I make it clear that safeties have to be used, and for that, they have to exist in the first place. But a "safe-action" pistol has no safety to engage. The option of engagement doesn't exist. Had the Glock design incorporated a disabling off switch (or at least de-cocker mechanism with a correspondingly heavy 10-12 pound first round trigger pull), the officer involved, all his other faults notwithstanding, might have engaged it. If the weapon had been designed with a manually operated disabling safety, no doubt this officer's department would have trained him to use it.
I don't blame Glock for the incident; once again, a careful re-reading of my posts will show this unintended discharge to be the result of a perfect storm of mistakes made by the officer and the child. What I criticize Glock for is not incorporating redundant manually operated safeties in their designs. That's all.
You're right in that we don't know if any of the safety features I support would have made any difference or not. Might have, but we'll never be sure. But we do know this - that not having them available, and not being able to train the officer to use them, didn't help the situation any.