FNS-40 Issues with Baltimore Police...cured by GLOCK

Glocks are broke....why don’t Glock fix ‘em ?
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m not clear enough. Glock pistols have a history of AD/ND in service. Unlike many other companies, Glock has adamantly refused to accept that their design correlates with AD/ND. ....and they don’t have to because they have created a fan base like no other. ...not just supporters, but worshipers of the Glock name.

How do they keep PD’s quiet? Low prices and I suspect a great sales program.
 
Maybe I’m not clear enough. Glock pistols have a history of AD/ND in service. Unlike many other companies, Glock has adamantly refused to accept that their design correlates with AD/ND. ....and they don’t have to because they have created a fan base like no other. ...not just supporters, but worshipers of the Glock name
Click to expand...

Their design doesn't correlate with AD/ND. Poor firearm handling correlates with AD/ND. Their design is less tolerant than some others, but a finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be is not a good situation.
 
How do they keep PD’s quiet?
Click to expand...
They don't have to "keep PD's quiet". Pulling the trigger on a loaded gun when there is no intent to fire the gun is clearly negligence.

How can a PD blame the gun or the gunmaker because it's unsafe to break one of the three primary rules of gun safety? Of course it's unsafe to break the rules of gun safety. That's why they're called the rules of gun safety.

If the guns were going off by themselves, then Glock would be in trouble. But (and it's kind of sad to have to state this explicitly since it's a tautology) as long as the problem is people failing to follow one of the three basic rules of gun safety, the problem is people failing to follow the gun safety rules.
 
TunnelRat said:
Their design doesn't correlate with AD/ND. Poor firearm handling correlates with AD/ND. Their design is less tolerant than some others, but a finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be is not a good situation.
Click to expand...
Thanks, what he said..this 'Glock design CAUSES AD/ND' is tiresome...
 
....this 'Glock design CAUSES AD/ND'....
Click to expand...

Who said that?

I said:
Glock pistols have a history of AD/ND in service. Unlike many other companies, Glock has adamantly refused to accept that their design correlates with AD/ND. ....and they don’t have to because they have created a fan base like no other. ...not just supporters, but worshipers of the Glock name.
Click to expand...

I think the last 2 posts make my point. The logic that if a user violates some “gun laws” which they have no legal responsibility to know or care about....Are these department policy and they are bound to them contractually?

Does Glock make its buyers enter in to some agreement that finger on trigger absolves Glock of all responsibility? I’m just asking.

For background...I own a Glock 23. I trust it. It has a light on it. I trust its mechanism to function. I trust myself to handle it safely. I will not carry it. It is too wide. I have narrower and safer guns to carry.
 
Last edited:
The logic that if a user violates some “gun laws” which they have no legal responsibility to know or care about....Are these department policy and they are bound to them contractually?

Does Glock make its buyers enter in to some agreement that finger on trigger absolves Glock of all responsibility? I’m just asking.
Click to expand...
No, of course there's no contract. In the same way you can buy a car without contractually promising not to be negligent, you can buy a gun without promising to follow the accepted rules of gun safety.

And no, of course that makes no difference in who's responsible if the user is negligent.

To hold the gun company responsible, you have to show that they are responsible in some way.

If the unintentional discharge was the result of the user failing to follow the basic rules of firearm safety (being negligent) it's very difficult to show that the gun company is in any way responsible.

If a driver fails to pay attention to the road (is negligent) and has a wreck, is the car company responsible? Of course not. In the same way, if a gun "driver" is negligent, the gun company isn't responsible.

So, to get back to your original question--there's no need for Glock to "keep PD's quiet" because negligence on a user's part does not imply responsibility on Glock's part.
 
Lol, it always comes down to the Money. And when Baltimore is involved in a million dollar bid or contract or anything to do with money, then do not let a few deaths get in the way. Some politician see's a opening to make a buck and Bingo!
Read about Ole, Gaston, he was a master of selling under the table. The Tupperware man knew how to make a fast buck.
Someone in Baltimore is laughing all the way to the bank. You can bet on that.
 
Lol, it always comes down to the Money. And when Baltimore is involved in a million dollar bid or contract or anything to do with money, then do not let a few deaths get in the way. Some politician see's a opening to make a buck and Bingo!
Read about Ole, Gaston, he was a master of selling under the table. The Tupperware man knew how to make a fast buck.
Click to expand...
Just a little thought will make it obvious that it's impossible to build a solid, long-lasting business model based on selling volumes of guns known to be a dangerous design to militaries and police departments.
 
JohnKSa said:
Just a little thought will make it obvious that it's impossible to build a solid, long-lasting business model based on selling volumes of guns known to be a dangerous design to militaries and police departments.
Click to expand...
Glock, like Apple, gets no love..maybe because they are the 'big kids' on the block.

Thousands have carried and used thousands of Glock handguns for a long time w/o any problem or issue. Glock isn't the Firestone tire of handguns.
 
We all know that somewhere down the line the Baltimore PD is going to be involved in a questionable shooting. Do you really want the officer being able to say he or she did not intend to discharge the firearm?

The FN had a flaw in it allowing the firearm to discharge when the finger was not fully pulled and when no intent to discharge was present. YES FN CAN FIX THIS. But, from a liability and practical stand point, it is far easier to switch firearms entirely. Why? Because then the supervising officer, and indeed the individual officers, do not have to worry if the gun they are currently carrying actually had the upgrade done. Maybe it got missed? Maybe the armorer was in the middle of a phone call? Any number of errors could occur. Easier to just switch companies and put this issue, which could be a future point of concern, to rest.

Does that mean the FN product is bad, unrepairable, and should not be considered in the future? Not at all. This was an unlikely problem that only occurred in abnormal (and questionably safe) circumstances. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are depressing it to fire and this problem never occurs as I understand it. This is a result of a partially pressed and then released trigger - a fundamental "no-no" in the use of a firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top