Tactical light on glock - should they be used for home defense?

[fastbolt]

This applies to all people and is rather obvious.

I agree, but just because something may appear obvious to some folks, that doesn't mean it's prudent to allow the 'obvious nature' of something to result in complacency.

This is the argument I anticipated you'd use, and in fact it's why I mentioned it above. So because an extremely small percentage of officers both have poor muzzle discipline and make a mistake when it comes to activating a weapon light, then a citizen will do the same? The use of a firearm by itself is dangerous and there are plenty who have negligent discharges and kill loved ones. This does not mean other private citizens are doomed to the same fate. The same logic applies to weapon lights. There will always be those that lack proper diligence when using a product and result in injury.

My point was that if people who have received some degree of training, supplemented by experience, may still make mistakes when following their training, then it might be prudent for folks without the benefit of such training and experience to approach such practices with due care and consideration.

A straw man if I ever saw one. Yes humans are fallible, no one is saying they aren't. Not all drivers hit the accelerator instead of the brake. Not even most drivers, it's a small subset. You're applying what happens to a small minority and casting it on the whole. By the same logic we wouldn't allow anyone to own firearms in the first place because far more people will die in a year from violating the fundamental rules of safety than anything as specific as weapon lights.

I don't see it as a "strawman argument" in the commonly accepted sense. It wasn't intended as being a superior or misrepresented effort to refute your comments. Instead, it was offered as an example of how a seemingly simple and common skill - like using controls of a car - may get confused in unexpected emergency situations by anyone.

If you'd rather, I could use the example of people using switches on everyday appliances and power equipment may unintentionally try to use them contrary to the desired manner, and stress (or hurry) can sometimes result in mistakes. Making mistakes around triggers (or chainsaws, table saw, etc) can have tragic, albeit unintended results.

It's not a criticism, but an observation and cautionary example using other equipment that's not unfamiliar to a lot of us.

Please point out to me where I said training and experience are not helpful. In fact I said the opposite.

Didn't say you did. Again, it wasn't a criticism, but a simple observation.

... What I'm doing is pointing out that low risk events, while they should be considered, don't condemn a practice on the whole because of the negligence of a few. That was the point of my original response to your article.

I think you meant 'high risk' events?

Risk management and decision making using the combinations of high & low risk and high/low frequency events has been used often enough to help people understand how to gauge risks, and especially in help create training to try and identify and deal with the different combinations of them.

High risk situations that don't occur with common frequency may catch us unprepared to make the correct decisions under stress, and if the potential consequences for the wrong decision/action are dire, it makes sense to try and prepare to deal with such situations without having to 'wing it.

I wasn't 'condemning a practice'.

I was recommending approaching the handling, operation and application of equipment to help prevent unintended problems. Same thing I'd suggest when operating any other inherently dangerous equipment (like chainsaws, table saws & other power tools, operating motor vehicles ... and firearms).

FWIW, I caution the same things when helping train people using hand-held lights at the same time a firearm is being employed, in both training and for actual real world use.

Attention to safety is critical for all of us, especially when using a new type of equipment, including a new configuration of a piece of existing equipment, like attaching a light to a familiar firearm.

That's all.

 

[Jim243]

extra do-hickies to fool with and saying here I am

I view it more like "here I come" than here I am. If it gives an intruder an extra 30 seconds to get out the door without my having to point anything at him then I think that is a good thing.

Stay safe.
Jim

 

[Snyper]

Some of us live in the sticks, and it gets pitch black out.

That's why they make "night lights"

A couple in the right locations will light up the intruder and leave you in the shadows.

A mirror on the wall in the right place will let you see around corners

 

[Sharkbite]

That's why they make "night lights"

Its a rare "night light" that provides enough illumination to POSITIVELY identify a threat. A black gun in a hand is HARD to see, a small knife or screwdriver even more so.

What im hearing here is those that think ambient light or night lights are sufficient are thinking just seeing a vauge figure in the house is enough to justify shooting. I STRONGLY disagree. Just seeing someone in my house does not give me the MORAL justification to use deadly force...even if my state gives me the legal justification to do so.

A POSITIVE identification that the person is a threat and MUST be shot to prevent harm to me or my family is needed before I press the trigger

 

[TunnelRat]

My point was that if people who have received some degree of training, supplemented by experience, may still make mistakes when following their training, then it might be prudent for folks without the benefit of such training and experience to approach such practices with due care and consideration.

You're just repeating yourself. I read the same comment above. Yes a very small percentage of officers violate both muzzle discipline and can't properly use a light. No one is saying don't use caution.

I don't see it as a "strawman argument" in the commonly accepted sense. It wasn't intended to as being a superior or a misrepresented effort to refute your comments. Instead, it was offered as an example of how a seemingly simple and common skill - like using controls of a car - may get confused in unexpected emergency situations by anyone.

If you'd rather, I could use the example of people using switches on everyday appliances and power equipment may unintentionally try to use them contrary to the desired manner, and stress (or hurry) can sometimes result in mistakes. Making mistakes around triggers (or chainsaws, table saw, etc) can have tragic, albeit unintended results.

It's not a criticism, but an observation and cautionary example using other equipment that's not unfamiliar to a lot of us.

I don't believe you're trying to misrepresent my argument, but I believe you're advocating the fallibility of humanity as your argument as if me advocating weapon lights was arguing them to be infallible. The examples you give are that because people are fallible in other skills they will be fallible when using a weapon light. I've explained the motions required to activate one common form of weapon light. It causes you to move your finger AWAY from the trigger. When activating that light, my finger is as far as possible from the trigger, unless I weren't holding the pistol. I'm unaware of any weapon light that causes you to put your fingers in the trigger guard and if such a product exists I would suggest against it and get one of the other products instead. Can people misuse it? Sure, just like people can misuse any product. But forecasting doom (which might not be your intent but is how what you're saying reads) based of the worst possible outcome that is very unlikely is somewhat disingenuous in my opinion.

Risk management and decision making using the combinations of high & low risk and high/low frequency events has been used often enough to help people understand how to gauge risks, and especially in help create training to try and identify and deal with the different combinations of them.

High risk situations that don't occur with common frequency may catch us unprepared to make the correct decisions under stress, and if the potential consequences for the wrong decision/action are dire, it makes sense to try and prepare to deal with such situations without having to 'wing it.

I wasn't 'condemning a practice'.

I was recommending approaching the handling, operation and application of equipment to help prevent unintended problems. Same thing I'd suggest when operating any other inherently dangerous equipment (like chainsaws, table saws & other power tools, operating motor vehicles ... and firearms).

FWIW, I caution the same things when helping train people using hand-held lights at the same time a firearm is being employed, in both training and for actual real world use.

Attention to safety is critical for all of us, especially when using a new type of equipment, including a new configuration of a piece of existing equipment, like attaching a light to a familiar firearm.

That's all.

All I did was point out that the article you link to is discussing an extremely small percentage of users of weapon lights that violated both safety practices and managed to misuse the light. You keep saying that while low in probability the risk in terms of damage is high so it shouldn't be ignored. Once again, no one is saying to ignore risk. I'm merely putting that risk in perspective by bringing up the both the training of the users of the product (to point out that I don't think they should be used as a benchmark for if a product can be used safely) and the fact that the percentage of those affected is very low.

 

[fastbolt]

You seem hooked on being defensive about selection of a weapon-mounted light. No need. Just because I personally prefer not to use one on my handguns (but prefer them on some rifles and shotguns), that doesn't mean I've advocated (now or previously) against their adoption and employment for the appropriate reasons and circumstances.

Look at it this way.

I've had any ample number of instances, while working with both cops and private citizens (volunteered to help teach small classes for 10 years) to watch how average owners/users experienced unexpected issues just when using their own handguns, under the average 'stress' of having to demonstrate proficiency or doing some range drill.

I've long since lost track of the instances where someone meant to press their magazine release, but kept pushing on a slide stop lever .... meant to depress a decocking lever, but pushed their magazine release ... meant to decock, but pressed another control ... meant to release the slide to forward, but dropped their magazine ... meant to insert their magazine, but did so with it oriented backwards ... grasped their locked back slide to release it, but pushed forward without first retracting it and releasing it from the locked back condition ... etc, etc.

Most of the folks were quite surprised to have made such obvious mistakes, and had no explanation for why they'd done so.

In other words, owners/users who were already familiar with their guns, but did something different than intended under stress and making surprising (to them) mistakes.

Lights & lasers? No particular shortage of some owners who have experienced unexpected difficulties in manipulating the switches that required finger activation, while also trying to shoot, or trying to decide when to stop shooting, during normal range drills and qual courses-of-fire. These were usually folks who were comfortable and relaxed in their confidence of being familiar with operating their assorted weapon-mounted lights ... right up to the moment they were required to do something unexpected, or faced with rapidly changing drill situations and conditions ... and then they experienced things like 'hand/finger confusion', startle responses, muscle tremors, etc.

Now, would some further training and practice have helped prevent such things for some or all of those people? Well, equipment & goal specific training does seem to be beneficial for many people when it comes to performing tasks, especially under pressure, and especially when it's supplemented by some sort of periodic refresher training and practice.

I keep offering my thoughts that when someone decides to use some particular piece of equipment, such as a weapon-mounted light, they simply might consider working to become educated and knowledgeable about its proper and safe operation, and carefully consider how its addition to their gun may require some additional training, practice and experience to help make its adoption and usage as safe as possible. Any reason to disagree?

If someone starts to think of their light-equipped gun as a sort of 'flashlight', and becomes complacent about muzzle discipline, it's not a good thing, right?

When a light is held in the hand, it's just a light.

When that light is then attached to a firearm intended for use as a dedicated defensive weapon, it's still a light, but it's also now integral to a deadly weapon, and a higher level of care and caution are merited in its operation and usage.

I suspect you'd not disagree.

So what's the problem?

 

[TunnelRat]

I don't have a problem. I think you're beating a dead horse at this point. No one ever said people are infallible. No one ever said people shouldn't be cautious. I think the statistics show that many people use weapon lights safely while a small percentage don't. No product is perfectly safe when humans are in the loop. I have no problem with people get more training if possible. In fact I advocated it. All I did was point out the limitations of the article you presented and you keep doing this back and forth with me. There is no need. I agree that people should consider the potential complications of adding gear. While I do like weapon mounted lights, right next to that pistol at night is a 4sevens tactical light that I can manipulate with one hand. I see the benefits and disadvantages to both ways.

 

[Snyper]

Its a rare "night light" that provides enough illumination to POSITIVELY identify a threat. A black gun in a hand is HARD to see, a small knife or screwdriver even more so.

What im hearing here is those that think ambient light or night lights are sufficient are thinking just seeing a vauge figure in the house is enough to justify shooting. I STRONGLY disagree. Just seeing someone in my house does not give me the MORAL justification to use deadly force...even if my state gives me the legal justification to do so.

A POSITIVE identification that the person is a threat and MUST be shot to prevent harm to me or my family is needed before I press the trigger

I'm positive anyone in my house at night uninvited is a threat.

If you can't identify them just from your "night light" then obviously it's not bright enough to be of use

A light attached to your gun just tells them where to shoot

 

[TunnelRat]

A light attached to your gun just tells them where to shoot

And walking around turning on the lights tells them where to expect you to come from. If a night light allows you to positively identify the threat then you have a better night light than I've seen. You're right that someone uninvited is a threat, but if you do shoot at a silhouette in the night and it turns out that person was unarmed you may find your time in court longer than you hoped. You may well win the physical battle but the court battle comes into play too and justifying deadly force, even in very pro personal protection states, can be tricky. But it's your house, your call.

 

[Sharkbite]

I'm positive anyone in my house at night uninvited is a threat.

HOW do you KNOW that? To the degree needed to take a life?

Teenage daughters "friend" sneeking in/out. Drunk neighbor in the wrong house. The list of mistaken identity events can go on and on.

Without ADEQUATE light on the issue this is a tragedy about to happen.

Having attended a number of highend low-light classes and worked with weapons mounted lights alot, id rather have it and not need it..then need it and not have it.

 

[jmr40]

A light attached to your gun just tells them where to shoot

This is irrelevant to home defense. If you're trying to sneak up on someone in the dark to kill them it might be an issue. If you're a cop trying to approach undetected maybe. But in a home defense situation none of those apply. You aren't trying to make an arrest.

If turning on the light alerts an intruder to your presence and they leave, mission accomplished. If you have enough light to see them, they already have enough light to see you. And once the weapons light is pointed at an intruder it will blind them and they won't be able to see you anyway. Assuming of course you are using one bright enough. I wouldn't waste my time with one that was not.

 

[Snyper]

This is irrelevant to home defense. If you're trying to sneak up on someone in the dark to kill them it might be an issue. If you're a cop trying to approach undetected maybe. But in a home defense situation none of those apply. You aren't trying to make an arrest.

Giving away your position to a threat is hardly "irrelevant" since they may be intent on harming you

If turning on the light alerts an intruder to your presence and they leave, mission accomplished. If you have enough light to see them, they already have enough light to see you.

No, that isn't always the case. It's just manipulating a scenario to fit your argument.

And once the weapons light is pointed at an intruder it will blind them and they won't be able to see you anyway. Assuming of course you are using one bright enough. I wouldn't waste my time with one that was not.

Most everyone in favor of weapon lights said you don't point at the target before it's identified.

There are too many assumptions going on to make it all work.

 

[Snyper]

HOW do you KNOW that? To the degree needed to take a life?

Teenage daughters "friend" sneeking in/out. Drunk neighbor in the wrong house. The list of mistaken identity events can go on and on.

Without ADEQUATE light on the issue this is a tragedy about to happen.

Having attended a number of highend low-light classes and worked with weapons mounted lights alot, id rather have it and not need it..then need it and not have it.

I know that because I know who is in the house all the time, and who should be in the house, as well as the fact that there is always enough light to tell who is there

It's simple planning, not magic.

Why would you assume there isn't "adequate lighting" or that a drunk neighbor could just walk right in?
Is your security that lax?
Mine in not

It sounds like your "high end classes" didn't teach you how to set up the proper defenses at all.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It sounds like your "high end classes" didn't teach you how to set up the proper defenses at all.

Or you imagine that your security is much better than it actually is. If you're satisfied, whether or not you're actually correct doesn't matter to us. It won't be our problem.

However, it also appears that since you are so sure of yourself you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Sharkbite]

or that a drunk neighbor could just walk right in?

Unfortunately, you just dont get it. Those of us that have spent our lives learning, mastering, teaching and working beside a gun, understand that these events do not happen under ideal circumstances.

It may not be pitch dark in your house at night but i would bet that at 2am its too dark to POSITIVELY identify what is in that persons hands. And again i say that in order for me to be MORALLY right in shooting them, i need to absolutely id them as a threat. Not just someone i didnt know was in the house or even someone intent on burglarizing my home.

Stealing my TV is not enough cause for ME to kill someone. That's what insurance is for. If they pose a threat, then i will shoot. If not maybe (just like a cockroach) they will run when the light goes on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Starting to lose focus on the question presented by the OP. That question has been pretty well discussed.

I'll close this before it becomes a donnybrook.