Quote:
If cars were sold new with severely cracked windshields, that state wouldn't be 'broken", strictly speaking.
Ridiculous. If you went to a car lot and looked at a new car with a cracked windshield what would you say to the salesman?
"I didn't know that Glock made cars too!"?
John, that you would find unacceptable a condition in a new automobile that would make it more likely that momentary inattention could result in injury is exactly the point being made. The illustration was provided for a limited purpose.
Broken is broken no matter how one dances around it.
I used the word broken to describe a condition in which a windshield is severly cracked. That condition in a new car would be considered a defect or poor design.
Glocks are not broken, ...
Though they may not be optimally designed.
Quote:
I hope you see the circularity in that.
Nonsense. The argument is well constructed ....
Even if you do say so yourself?
...uses universally accepted definitions. The only way you can answer it is to prove that a person handling a gun can be exhibiting "normal attention and competence" (your words) while failing to follow the BASIC rules of gun safety.
That is incorrect. First you've extracted "my words" and inserted them into a statement of your own position.
I actually stated,
If people use an item with the ordinary care, normal attention and reasonable competence and still routinely suffer injury, the item is a contributing cause to the injury.
We all agree on the importance of observing the rules of gun handling. We can stress their importance, and teach them at every opportunity. That should prevent us from addressing safety in design.
We also know that reasonably competent people who exercise ordinary care and normal attention still have lapses and accidents. Does anyone really dispute that?
An optimal design will minimise the harm resulting from those foreseeable lapses without making the tool less effective. More often there is some sort of trade off. Air bags add weight, expense and complexity to car, but not wearing your windscreen as a neckless in highspeed crashes makes them acceptable to many people.
Let's acknowledge your point that many NDs are the result of someone who thought they were going to dry fire, but didn't check the barrel. (I actually object to loaded chamber indicators since they imply that you don't need to actually check the chamber and could erode good safety practice.)
Would an external manual safety make a Glock less effective? How would it compromise function such that you would object to incorporating that into the design?
