I'm going to be honest here and admit I haven't even bothered to read the article. It's an op-ed piece by the LA times so I take the source into consideration. I would rather take advice from Tass, Pravda or the Brother's Grimm before listening to anything from that liberal fish wrapper.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why officers shouldnt carry Glocks...
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
This logic makes me happy. Thank you for this display of reason.For this to be relevant to a claim that Glocks are problematic from a safety point, it has to be viewed in light of other service pistol candidates, otherwise this is just a problem with guns in general.
So, presumably the author is making the point that because officers instinctively put their fingers on the triggers and that's a problem with Glocks, if they were using other guns, based on a different safety system philosophy, that would prevent this from being a problem in normal use.
How, exactly, would that work? For example, in a gun with a manual safety, is the author claiming that these officers will leave their safeties engaged (per training) so that they can "safely" put their fingers on the triggers when they don't intend to fire? The problem with this kind of argument is that it says that we can solve a training problem by changing to a different operating system and assuming that there won't be any training problems with that new operating system.
Last edited:
I'm going to be honest here and admit I haven't even bothered to read the article. It's an op-ed piece by the LA times so I take the source into consideration.
You did not read the piece or look to see who the author was. If you did you may have seen that it is not a piece by the L.A. Times but a piece in the L.A. Times written by a fella with solid credentials...
Bob Owens is the editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, a rifle marksmanship instructor with Project Appleseed and the author of the short ebook "So You Want to Own a Gun."
You may disagree with him but it's a mistake not to read the article.
http://bearingarms.com/
Here is further discussion of the issue at bearingarms .com
There has been institutional resistance to admitting that Glocks and similar designs are not good guns for law enforcement officers, and for each and every negligent discharge, there is a rush to blame the individual officer and the lack of training time most agencies have with their firearms.
That’s all well and good… and utterly irrelevant.
It has been proven time and again that no amount of training will eliminate the issue. In one videotaped training session after another, about 20% of officers end up putting their fingers on the trigger of their guns when they shouldn’t, and most of them don’t even realize it, and are stunned when they are shown the undeniable truth in the video. According to experts I interviewed who have trained tens of thousands of police officers this is consistent, regardless of the level of training.
http://bearingarms.com/wrong-gun-popular-gun-law-enforcement-mistake/
tipoc
The GLock design may not be "flawed" or "faulty", depending on your point of view and your use of the terms, but it is clearly "less forgiving" of anything but the correct manual of arms than most other designs that I know of.
Tragic an officer was killed due to another officer's incompetence. But in a way, a Glock sets up situations where, with a different design, the risk is less.
The two immediate failures in that incident were the failure to ensure the gun was unloaded, and the failure to keep the muzzle in a safe direction. Those are entirely the user's fault.
A contributing factor is the fact that a Glock requires you to pull the trigger (fire the gun, mechanically) as part of the take down routine.
I'm not well versed on the mechanics of the pistols similar to the Glock system, do any of them require you to pull the trigger to field strip the gun?
None of the "regular" guns I am familiar with require this.
One of the sci-fi books I read had a pretty fair "really basic" instruction for the Glock. Guy and gal are hiding from the aliens who are coming to kill & eat them. She needs a weapon, he shows her the Glock, and explains it this way..
He shows her the loaded magazine, out of the gun, "this is the gas tank"
He inserts the mag and chambers a round, "this starts the engine"
He points to the trigger, "this is the gas pedal"
She asks "where's the brake?"
he replies, "there is no brake"
Here's the deal, how about you don't tell me how Glock is perfection, and I'm going to forget how my gun works under stress, and I won't tell you how yours is a dangerous piece of trash that you are going to shoot your self or someone else with accidently.
Because neither is entirely true.
Tragic an officer was killed due to another officer's incompetence. But in a way, a Glock sets up situations where, with a different design, the risk is less.
The two immediate failures in that incident were the failure to ensure the gun was unloaded, and the failure to keep the muzzle in a safe direction. Those are entirely the user's fault.
A contributing factor is the fact that a Glock requires you to pull the trigger (fire the gun, mechanically) as part of the take down routine.
I'm not well versed on the mechanics of the pistols similar to the Glock system, do any of them require you to pull the trigger to field strip the gun?
None of the "regular" guns I am familiar with require this.
One of the sci-fi books I read had a pretty fair "really basic" instruction for the Glock. Guy and gal are hiding from the aliens who are coming to kill & eat them. She needs a weapon, he shows her the Glock, and explains it this way..
He shows her the loaded magazine, out of the gun, "this is the gas tank"
He inserts the mag and chambers a round, "this starts the engine"
He points to the trigger, "this is the gas pedal"
She asks "where's the brake?"
he replies, "there is no brake"
Here's the deal, how about you don't tell me how Glock is perfection, and I'm going to forget how my gun works under stress, and I won't tell you how yours is a dangerous piece of trash that you are going to shoot your self or someone else with accidently.
Because neither is entirely true.
I don't like Glocks, and I do not dislike them. In fact, I have never fired a Glock.
Three safety points stand out to me for any and all pistols and other handguns:
1. I have been told a police officer is not supposed to pull his firearm from the holster unless he is about to use it.
2. You do not put your trigger finger inside the "finger well" unless you are about to pull the trigger.
3. You always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction and never point it at anything unless you intend to shoot it.
The firearm was not at fault. The human in control of the firearm was at fault.
Three safety points stand out to me for any and all pistols and other handguns:
1. I have been told a police officer is not supposed to pull his firearm from the holster unless he is about to use it.
2. You do not put your trigger finger inside the "finger well" unless you are about to pull the trigger.
3. You always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction and never point it at anything unless you intend to shoot it.
The firearm was not at fault. The human in control of the firearm was at fault.
Many LEO's and other glock folks don't know anything but glock. I've watched folks on two occasions come into a gun shop saying "Where are your glocks?" They have no idea what they look like how they function or anything else only that "glock" is the name you ask for.
At the range they'll ask stuff like "Why did you buy that, did you know it's wasn't a glock when you bought it?" They'll say stuff like "Your funeral" or "My glock shoots itself"
They'll call you everything but stupid when you try and explain a pistol with a hammer isn't some magical mystery machine. "but, but, you don't..."
When they can't get you on reliability they'll fall back on "Well my gun has fewer moving parts to fail."
Lots of times you see Apple and Glock owners go hand in hand.
At the range they'll ask stuff like "Why did you buy that, did you know it's wasn't a glock when you bought it?" They'll say stuff like "Your funeral" or "My glock shoots itself"
They'll call you everything but stupid when you try and explain a pistol with a hammer isn't some magical mystery machine. "but, but, you don't..."
When they can't get you on reliability they'll fall back on "Well my gun has fewer moving parts to fail."
Lots of times you see Apple and Glock owners go hand in hand.
Glocks are less forgiving of human error, and we are ALL human and capable of error.
Pulling the trigger to field strip IS a design flaw. And it is only Glocks arrogance that has prevented it from being addressed.
Anyone here ever reholster a weapon while under extreme stress like after a chase or during a felony car stop? Not so easy. The NYPD issues the Glock 19, the S&W 5946, and the SIG 226. Sit and Smith have hammers. While at the range; the RO will issue the holster command of "sigs and smiths, thumb on the hammer and holster". Totally prevents an ND.
Pulling the trigger to field strip IS a design flaw. And it is only Glocks arrogance that has prevented it from being addressed.
Anyone here ever reholster a weapon while under extreme stress like after a chase or during a felony car stop? Not so easy. The NYPD issues the Glock 19, the S&W 5946, and the SIG 226. Sit and Smith have hammers. While at the range; the RO will issue the holster command of "sigs and smiths, thumb on the hammer and holster". Totally prevents an ND.
So is it also a design flaw in the pistols made by Ruger, Kahr, Springfield, Taurus, Walther and others which require a trigger pull as part of the field strip process?Pulling the trigger to field strip IS a design flaw.
What keeps those manufacturers from addressing the "flaw"? Are they all arrogant too? Come on...
Last edited:
Cheapshooter
New member
For fear of the hammer accidentally being cocked? He probably assumes everyone knows to keep their finger off the trigger regardless of brand or design.the RO will issue the holster command of "sigs and smiths, thumb on the hammer and holster". Totally prevents an ND.
Gats Italian
New member
Go ahead and name all of the old service revolvers which featured a 15 lb DA pull.
While at the range; the RO will issue the holster command of "sigs and smiths, thumb on the hammer and holster". Totally prevents an ND.
Not really. Unless there's something in the holster that is pulling that trigger, how does it stop a ND?
So is it also a design flaw in the pistols made by Ruger, H&K, Kahr, Springfield, Taurus, Walther and others which require a trigger pull as part of the field strip process?
Which HK pistol requires you to pull the trigger to disassemble? The USP series doesn't, the P-series doesn't, the HK-45 series doesn't, the VP9 doesn't. Was there a discontinued design that did that is no longer in production?
2damnold4this
New member
From the article:
Sounds like he is looking for a hardware solution to a software problem. If I'm not mistaken, the NYPD already issues Glocks with 12lb triggers and I'm certain that the NYPD issues holsters. If those two hardware solutions didn't prevent the two unintentional shootings, a slightly longer trigger pull won't either.
Timothy Stansbury died in a New York housing project stairwell in 2004 because he startled a police officer. The officer's surprise at encountering Stansbury caused the officer's hand to clench and his weapon to fire. The death was ruled accidental by a grand jury, though the officer was later stripped of his gun for the remainder of his career.
Akai Gurley died in another New York housing project stairwell last fall. A rookie officer with his finger on the trigger of his pistol tensed as he pushed open a stuck door; the added pressure on the trigger caused his weapon to fire a shot down the stairwell. The round ricocheted off the wall to strike Gurley. Though the shot wasn't intentional and the officer didn't even know Gurley was there, the death has been ruled a criminal homicide, and the officer's trial is pending.
In both of these incidents, the police officers were using the same weapon, a Glock: a polymer-frame, striker-fired pistol with a short trigger pull and no external safeties.
Sounds like he is looking for a hardware solution to a software problem. If I'm not mistaken, the NYPD already issues Glocks with 12lb triggers and I'm certain that the NYPD issues holsters. If those two hardware solutions didn't prevent the two unintentional shootings, a slightly longer trigger pull won't either.
I wanted to point out something brought up earlier, specifically about previous advice from Massad Ayoob. I have a lot of respect for Massad Ayoob, however I acknowledge that he is also a man making a living. For instance, he recently gave the SIG P320 a rather glowing review. The P320 is also a striker fired handgun with no manual safety nor even trigger tab (though they can be added as options for a department from the factory however I haven't seen them set up that way outside of show examples). The example in Ayoob's article had no safety and yet Ayoob did not seem overly concerned by this. Now the P320 has a slightly heavier trigger than a Glock, but on the ones I've handled and the one I own it actually has even less takeup. My point is there is a lot of grey out there and one man's opinion can both change over time and there may be other factors behind that opinion as well. I take all printed or posted opinions with a healthy does of reservation for that reason.
Limnophile
New member
I'm always amused by the empty arguments offered by Glockaholics. Examples:
But, such an old man would be accurate in such a statement IF horses were in fact safer than cars.
But, factual statements have no expiration. Time alone does not invalidate them, although developments may do so.
Classic argumentum ad populum. My favorite example that illustrates the invalidity of this fallacy -- "Eat fecal matter, because billions of flies can't be wrong."
Not if the sky is truly falling, or, in this case, not if Glocks are truly less safe, which, by design, they obviously are.
It's sort of like the old man that says those gosh-darned cars are far more unsafe than a horse.
But, such an old man would be accurate in such a statement IF horses were in fact safer than cars.
What's weird is that given the date of this article it's akin to making that horse vs. car statement in the 1970s.
But, factual statements have no expiration. Time alone does not invalidate them, although developments may do so.
Glocks are already widely used and striker fired safe-action type pistols are the primary weapon of that vast majority of the trainers in this country not to mention most law enforcement agencies. Their popularity is the reason why the final holdovers of the DA/SA pistol developed and now offer striker fired pistols (those companies being SIG and HK, with Beretta supposedly also following suit).
Classic argumentum ad populum. My favorite example that illustrates the invalidity of this fallacy -- "Eat fecal matter, because billions of flies can't be wrong."
It's a bit late to say the sky is falling.
Not if the sky is truly falling, or, in this case, not if Glocks are truly less safe, which, by design, they obviously are.
my Ruger Sr9 does not require a trigger pull to field strip. My LC9-S does but it has a mag disconnect and Ruger supplies a non magazine with the gun to field strip. I'd prefer it not need one, but the manual safety and mag disconnect make me overlook it. I've owned 2 Glocks. And plenty of other guns. Glock is the only one that required a trigger pull to field strip. Any other manufactures that require it are out of the running for me too. I've owned M&P autos too. No trigger pull required. Never owned an XD but have field stripped them. No trigger pull required.
Am I missing something here?
As for the RO commands, of course it's not about the hammer being cocked. It's about a thumb on the hammer preventing it from coming forward if a mistake is made during reholster. Something that happens a lot for a NYC cop.
Am I missing something here?
As for the RO commands, of course it's not about the hammer being cocked. It's about a thumb on the hammer preventing it from coming forward if a mistake is made during reholster. Something that happens a lot for a NYC cop.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.