I'd never shoot it, but it would make a great impression hanging over the mantle.
-Siege
Full Version: Guns
I have to admit - I kinda want the revolver chambered for the .50 round.
I'd never shoot it, but it would make a great impression hanging over the mantle.
-Siege
I'd never shoot it, but it would make a great impression hanging over the mantle.
-Siege
I think it all goes back to the old saying: necessity is the mother of invention.
At the moment, firearms using 'outdated' technology can kill people in acceptably efficient manner, and aren't necessarily made obsolete by modern body armor. Because of this, the major focus of technological advancement at the moment is in armor: we already have guns that can kill people, what we need is armor that can keep people from being killed by gun.
Should advancements in armor reach the point where light, flexible, inexpensive body armor can defeat even rifle rounds consistently, the tables will be turned. We'll need new guns that can beat this hypothetical new armor.
Shadowrun armor doesn't seem miraculously better than current body armor, so there probably hasn't been enough of a need to create better guns to compensate.
At the moment, firearms using 'outdated' technology can kill people in acceptably efficient manner, and aren't necessarily made obsolete by modern body armor. Because of this, the major focus of technological advancement at the moment is in armor: we already have guns that can kill people, what we need is armor that can keep people from being killed by gun.
Should advancements in armor reach the point where light, flexible, inexpensive body armor can defeat even rifle rounds consistently, the tables will be turned. We'll need new guns that can beat this hypothetical new armor.
Shadowrun armor doesn't seem miraculously better than current body armor, so there probably hasn't been enough of a need to create better guns to compensate.
Well, that and some people just love to tinker and as of yet, nobody's tinkered the next great innovation that can survive a field test.
-Siege
-Siege
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, that's nuts. Who'd think a gun manufacturer could get away with something so insane and unsafe? You pull the trigger, and a bullet comes out! Madness! |
Stop being deliberately obtuse. If you'd bothered to look into Glock safety records with police forces, or taken a look at how Glock safety groups work, rather than act like I've been huffing paint, you'd know what I'm talking about.
As most of you know, in a standard pistol, there is a manual safety. The gun goes from cold to hot by virtue of flipping a switch (Edit: Or pushing a button, or a lever, yadda yadda). Every Glock pistol I have ever handled, seen, or heard of goes from hot to cold by putting an extremely small amount of pressure on the trigger. There is no manual switch - only a sub-trigger. Glocks have three safeties, they say. This is true. But all are taken off of 'safe' by the sub-trigger. Glocks were specifically designed this way so that law enforcement or military personnel wouldn't be slowed down in case they needed to fire quickly. While this is a fine feature, this has (over the years) caused quite a number of accidental discharges - which is why now, for an additional 125 dollars, you can get a manual safety.
Now, I've known a lot of very responsible gun owners. I've also known a lot of very irresponsible gun owners as well. Given the choice, I'd rather people who carry guns around me carry ones with a manual safety. I'd rather not trust my physical safety to someone just being careful with how they handle their sidearm. Mechanical backup is always nice. Look at it this way - I trust other drivers on the road not to hit me, but I still wear my seatbelt.
This is the reason many police forces in the United States have stopped using Glocks as issue firearms, if they ever started in the first place.
| QUOTE |
| Manual safeties don't keep people from doing stupid shit. If you break the rules, something bad is likely to happen. There are also distinct advantages to not having any manual safeties to worry about, and those are especially relevant when it comes to concealed carry. |
This is absolutely true. I just personally would prefer those around me have to take a specific action other than 'grip the trigger' to disengage a safety. And there are advantages.
Mostly, I'm just tired of getting pissed on for stating an opinion.
i dunno. people are idiots. people who are holding guns are not an exception. one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety is, you don't put your finger in the trigger guard unless you're planning on shooting something. despite that, i have yet to be around a group of people with firearms where i didn't spot at least one guy breaking that rule. i broke it myself, once, back in boy scouts (and nearly got my finger broken by the scoutmaster in return).
manual safeties don't keep people from doing stupid shit. but they do keep bad things from happening when people do stupid shit.
manual safeties don't keep people from doing stupid shit. but they do keep bad things from happening when people do stupid shit.
Safeties don't mean much when you don't use them. Many people carry their weapons with the safety off regardless. Personally, I prefer a single-double action with a decocking lever. It a double action does eleminate the need for manually recocking the weapon if a cartridge fails to fire on the first strike.
| QUOTE (Lucifer) |
| I think it all goes back to the old saying: necessity is the mother of invention. At the moment, firearms using 'outdated' technology can kill people in acceptably efficient manner, and aren't necessarily made obsolete by modern body armor. Because of this, the major focus of technological advancement at the moment is in armor: we already have guns that can kill people, what we need is armor that can keep people from being killed by gun. Should advancements in armor reach the point where light, flexible, inexpensive body armor can defeat even rifle rounds consistently, the tables will be turned. We'll need new guns that can beat this hypothetical new armor. Shadowrun armor doesn't seem miraculously better than current body armor, so there probably hasn't been enough of a need to create better guns to compensate. |
Of course, the proliferation of light body armor, rather than the advancement of such armors, has sparked weapon systems such as the P90/Five-Seven combo and the MP-7. PDWs, compact, ergonomic fully-automatic weapons firing ammunition designed to penetrate body armors. IMO PDWs are some of the coolest advancements in small arms ever.
Regarding the negligent discharges with Glock pistols, one should also look at how the majority of them happen.
From what I understand, there are 2 main reasons people have negligent discharges with Glocks.
1. Reholstering. Either their finger is on the trigger while reholstering, or a piece of fabric such as a shirt tail gets caught on the trigger. This seems to be the most common reason for a negligent discharge.
2. Dropping the firearm. Or, more specifically, trying to catch the firearm when it is dropped. If one were to drop a loaded Glock pistol, it is very unlikely that it will discharge from the impact alone. Now, if you were to try to catch a loaded Glock that you dropped, it's fairly likely that you might end up with a finger somewhere on or near the trigger. Combine this with the fact that if you do manage to catch it by the trigger guard, it's probably going to spin around to point directly at you. Sounds like fun, huh?
As one last note regarding the number of negligent discharges involving Glock pistols, one must also look at how many Glock pistols are out there. As the number of Glocks in service increases, the number of reported incidents will also increase.
From what I understand, there are 2 main reasons people have negligent discharges with Glocks.
1. Reholstering. Either their finger is on the trigger while reholstering, or a piece of fabric such as a shirt tail gets caught on the trigger. This seems to be the most common reason for a negligent discharge.
2. Dropping the firearm. Or, more specifically, trying to catch the firearm when it is dropped. If one were to drop a loaded Glock pistol, it is very unlikely that it will discharge from the impact alone. Now, if you were to try to catch a loaded Glock that you dropped, it's fairly likely that you might end up with a finger somewhere on or near the trigger. Combine this with the fact that if you do manage to catch it by the trigger guard, it's probably going to spin around to point directly at you. Sounds like fun, huh?
As one last note regarding the number of negligent discharges involving Glock pistols, one must also look at how many Glock pistols are out there. As the number of Glocks in service increases, the number of reported incidents will also increase.
The manual safety is a more important feature for law enforcement/security types who fear a gun snatch. A perpetrator who isn't intimately familiar with that particular type of firearm will take several seconds to figure out how to fire it - buying its former owner time to escape or draw a backup weapon.
Glocks may be marginally more difficult to manage than a standard DAO or DA/SA with a manual safety - but I seriously doubt they're the sort of menace some people make them out to be. They're still an improvement over earlier designs which were decidedly not drop safe - even if they don't stack up to the absolute pinnacle of safety today.
Glocks may be marginally more difficult to manage than a standard DAO or DA/SA with a manual safety - but I seriously doubt they're the sort of menace some people make them out to be. They're still an improvement over earlier designs which were decidedly not drop safe - even if they don't stack up to the absolute pinnacle of safety today.
| QUOTE (Musashi Forever) |
| Of course, the proliferation of light body armor, rather than the advancement of such armors, has sparked weapon systems such as the P90/Five-Seven combo and the MP-7. PDWs, compact, ergonomic fully-automatic weapons firing ammunition designed to penetrate body armors. IMO PDWs are some of the coolest advancements in small arms ever. |
I think the NATO planners contemplating a new standard to replace 9mm, anticipating the proliferation of light body armor is what sparked weapon systems like the P90 and MP7. I don't think this situation has come to pass, so these PDW weapons address scenarios which sare rare.
and I'd rather have something like 5.7x22mm GIAT which is has some compatability with 9mm Parabellum but GIAT dropped their own project when they bought FN probably because 5.7x28mm had greater marketing potential.
reminds me of an old discussion about the proliferation of body armor in SR
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...pic=4079&st=100
Ahhh, one can only but pine for the days when subdermal Smartgun Links in your palm will connect your brain to the gun, so it only goes "Barkie!" when you want it to, and won't fire otherwise even if someone starts tapping it. With a sledgehammer.
Yes, untill you get the triggerless DNI only version of the weapon and accidently think about shooting someone when you really don't want to fire.
That's the scary part of cyberware - I've yet to meet a game that touches on it, although Cyberpunk referenced it indirectly.
Getting wired and having all these voices whispering in your head means accidents are just an errant thought away.
To say nothing of getting chipped with firearms and poor reflex control.
-Siege
Getting wired and having all these voices whispering in your head means accidents are just an errant thought away.
To say nothing of getting chipped with firearms and poor reflex control.
-Siege
| QUOTE (Adarael @ Nov 14 2005, 06:25 PM) | ||
Stop being deliberately obtuse. If you'd bothered to look into Glock safety records with police forces, or taken a look at how Glock safety groups work, rather than act like I've been huffing paint, you'd know what I'm talking about. |
I wasn't being "deliberately obtuse." I was being "fucking sarcastic, to try and show the world how stupid you were being." I have looked into Glock safeties, both before and after purchasing my G 19, and I -- like a couple million other people, police departments notwithstanding -- realized that there was nothing wrong with the Glock safety that trigger finger control cannot fix.
You make it sound like a manual safety is a gun-stopping magical bullet proof vest for the world, and AD's and ND's are wholly impossible due to the miraculous button some guns make you press before you can shoot them. You also make it sound like Glocks are fiendish death machines, cocked and ready catapults simply waiting for an excuse to kill people at the slightest glance towards a trigger. And yet somehow, miraculously, I've owned and fired (and brought my wife a few times, and had her fire) my Glock for a couple years now, and managed not to blow up the city while carrying it.
Could it be that that "extremely small amount of pressure on the trigger" you're talking about isn't all that "extremely small" after all? Like maybe it's not quite so "extremely small" it goes off for no reason?
I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't agree with her that Glocks are quite that unsafe, but DAO weapons make me uncomfortable in general, and Glocks especially. Everything Glock has said about the three safety trigger being completely safe unless pulled deliberately is utter crap, and the reality is that Glocks, by default, have a noticably lighter trigger pull than is common DAO handguns, and lighter still in the hands of the NYPD. That makes me uncomfortable.
Here goes that polarity you were talking about, otomik. 
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| Stop being deliberately obtuse. If you'd bothered to look into Glock safety records with police forces, or taken a look at how Glock safety groups work, rather than act like I've been huffing paint, you'd know what I'm talking about. |
If you've got figures, post them.
| QUOTE |
| As most of you know, in a standard pistol, there is a manual safety. The gun goes from cold to hot by virtue of flipping a switch (Edit: Or pushing a button, or a lever, yadda yadda). Every Glock pistol I have ever handled, seen, or heard of goes from hot to cold by putting an extremely small amount of pressure on the trigger. |
I suppose "extremely small amount of pressure" is a subjective term. The factory standard Glock trigger is set for ~5.5 lbs (it actually tends to break heavier than that, still about half of most other double action triggers, but hardly what I would consider and "extremely small" amount of pressure). Also, the trigger has to travel rearward about 0.5" (12.5mm), during which each of the safeties are disengaged before the gun will fire a round.
| QUOTE |
| There is no manual switch - only a sub-trigger. Glocks have three safeties, they say. This is true. But all are taken off of 'safe' by the sub-trigger. |
You mean that little lever that is actually attached to the trigger itself? That is only one of the three independent safeties within the trigger mechanism. Depressing it alone does not render the weapon hot. If it is not pressed in, the trigger is prevented from both rotating upward and moving the trigger bar rearward. The second safety is a firing pin safety, a spring-loaded block within the slide which is pressed upward and disengaged by a lug on the trigger bar as the trigger is pulled rearward. The third is the drop safety, which prevents the trigger bar from releasing the striker unless the trigger is pulled through at full pressure, under the influence of both the trigger spring and firing pin spring. Here.
| QUOTE |
| Glocks were specifically designed this way so that law enforcement or military personnel wouldn't be slowed down in case they needed to fire quickly. While this is a fine feature, this has (over the years) caused quite a number of accidental discharges |
Here's the problem with that rationale: The inanimate object did not cause the accidental discharge. It can't fire unless some external force acts upon it. The only way a Glock can fire is if the trigger is pulled through. By design, it cannot fire any other way (for example, by being dropped). The three safeties prevent that from happening. The negligent jackass who pulled the trigger or allowed it to be pulled is what caused the discharge, by not consciously having safety in mind. If a gun fires while it is in your posession, it is your fault. Period.
| QUOTE |
| which is why now, for an additional 125 dollars, you can get a manual safety. |
Not from Glock, but from an aftermarket gunsmith (Alex Hamilton started all that).
| QUOTE |
| I'd rather not trust my physical safety to someone just being careful with how they handle their sidearm. |
Whether a manual safety is there or not, that's exactly what you're doing.
| QUOTE |
| Mechanical backup is always nice. Look at it this way - I trust other drivers on the road not to hit me, but I still wear my seatbelt. |
Great. I like airbags. They deploy automatically when the car impacts above a certain velocity. Manual safeties can fail, just like seatbelts. Neither prevent the accident from happening. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. If you want a manual safety on a Glock, have at. I won't stop you. But because you don't feel safe without one doesn't mean that I should have to have one.
| QUOTE |
| This is the reason many police forces in the United States have stopped using Glocks as issue firearms, if they ever started in the first place. |
Well, they'd have a lot of convincing to do in order to change the minds of the other >60% of US police forces who continue to issue or allow the Glock pistol for duty carry.
| QUOTE |
| This is absolutely true. I just personally would prefer those around me have to take a specific action other than 'grip the trigger' to disengage a safety. |
I'm a pretty ardent 1911 user, and it, even with a manual safety, is regularly considered to be less safe than the Glock. I think the Glock (and Springfield XD and Steyr M and S&W Sigma/M&P and...) is plenty safe without a manual safety. It's just too bad that complete muppets get ahold of guns.
| QUOTE |
| Mostly, I'm just tired of getting pissed on for stating an opinion. |
Perhaps you shouldn't express such strong opinions, then. I don't mind that you don't like the Glock. It isn't my first choice, either. I mind that your opinion on the matter appears to be based more on urban myth than fact. Back up your statements with evidence, or wear a raincoat. *shrug*
Eh, I got the impression that the only real safety problem from 1911s was being dropped onto the barrel, which could be solved with aftermarket springs.
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| The manual safety is a more important feature for law enforcement/security types who fear a gun snatch. A perpetrator who isn't intimately familiar with that particular type of firearm will take several seconds to figure out how to fire it - buying its former owner time to escape or draw a backup weapon. |
Pffft. If that were a significant factor, Glock wouldn't have that >60% police market share here in the US. Odds are if the cop has his gun drawn, it's going to be off safe anyway. It's a non-issue.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't agree with her that Glocks are quite that unsafe, but DAO weapons make me uncomfortable in general, and Glocks especially. Everything Glock has said about the three safety trigger being completely safe unless pulled deliberately is utter crap, |
How is that?
| QUOTE |
| and the reality is that Glocks, by default, have a noticably lighter trigger pull than is common DAO handguns, and lighter still in the hands of the NYPD. That makes me uncomfortable. |
The NY trigger spring for the Glock is actually heavier than the standard trigger, breaking at 7-8 lbs. The NY+ trigger spring brings it up to 10-12 lbs, bringing the Glock to about the same level as a DA revolver.
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| Eh, I got the impression that the only real safety problem from 1911s was being dropped onto the barrel, which could be solved with aftermarket springs. |
There is no drop safety on the original "Series 70" 1911 (though Colt put a trigger-actuated firing pin block in the Series 80 decades ago and Kimber introduced a grip safety-actuated firing pin block a few years ago, which the S&W 1911 also uses). A heavier firing pin spring might help, but it's not a complete solution to the problem.
| QUOTE (Raygun) |
| How is that? |
Because negligent discharges happen all the time. Plenty of argument exists about statistics being inflated substantially because of Glock's dominance of the market, but there's really no getting around the fact that Glocks can go off with the trigger being caught on something and not pulled deliberately.
| QUOTE (Raygun) |
| The NY trigger spring for the Glock is actually heavier than the standard trigger, breaking at 7-8 lbs. The NY+ trigger spring brings it up to 10-12 lbs, bringing the Glock to about the same level as a DA revolver. |
Wait.. I thought it was 3lbs less than the default? I guess I was mistaken, and 7-8 is more reasonable. The default trigger pull being in between 'normal' DA and SA still makes me uncomfortable, though. Obviously, shooter safety matters quite a bit, and very arguably quite a bit more than the trigger pull, but Glocks just never appealed to me because of that. I find the DA/SA system on the P99 something I could be much more comfortable with.
Everything else aside, I don't like the fact that in order to clean Glock pistols you have to drop the hammer. Err, the striker. Whatever. That's the bulk of where the accidents happen.
The rest of it is all ergonomics, although I would say its a preference if the Glock Safe Action system or whatever they call it is safer than the 1911 thumb/grip twofer. Each has its detractors, and in the end, it all comes down to plastic and tennifer or wood and steel. Classy or new-fangled, you pay your money and make your choice.
As for safetys and police, I don't think that it has anything to do with it. The revolver lacks any and all external safeties (until some chucklehead brings up the old S&W, that is), and that was quite a sufficient issue weapon for many a years.
I consider the Ares Viper Slivergun an advance in technology. However, about everyone agrees it is too advanced compared to every other gun in the system to the point of being laughable.
Also, on the tangent of vehicle improvements, I have to look in shock. The widespread use of alternate types of engines and gridguide seems advanced. All the subcompacts are electric or methane powered and 3 out of 4 are 3 wheelers, one with an inline seating arrangement. I'm thinking these are mass produced and among the most common vehicles on the street.
Gyroscope mounted motorcycles that can be remote operated, flying bricks aka t-birds, RVs with great handling, and low cost hovercraft all seem pretty advanced.
I have to admit, fuel economy sucks.
Also, on the tangent of vehicle improvements, I have to look in shock. The widespread use of alternate types of engines and gridguide seems advanced. All the subcompacts are electric or methane powered and 3 out of 4 are 3 wheelers, one with an inline seating arrangement. I'm thinking these are mass produced and among the most common vehicles on the street.
Gyroscope mounted motorcycles that can be remote operated, flying bricks aka t-birds, RVs with great handling, and low cost hovercraft all seem pretty advanced.
I have to admit, fuel economy sucks.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Because negligent discharges happen all the time. |
Yes, they do, unfortunately. With every kind of gun.
| QUOTE |
| Plenty of argument exists about statistics being inflated substantially because of Glock's dominance of the market, but there's really no getting around the fact that Glocks can go off with the trigger being caught on something and not pulled deliberately. |
That's all great in theory, but can either of you show us that these kinds of accidents occur at a higher rate as opposed to non-Glock-like handguns? DA revolvers can do the same thing. If an asshole is going to jam a Glock into a holster until it pops, he's probably going to do the same with something with a heavier trigger. Because he's an asshole, and assholes do stupid shit.
I will reiterate: The problem here is training and possibly equipment selection. The gun works fine. There is no problem if you don't break Rule 3 and there is no problem if you choose the right holster.
| QUOTE (gfen) |
| Everything else aside, I don't like the fact that in order to clean Glock pistols you have to drop the hammer. Err, the striker. Whatever. |
The very first rule to cleaning a gun, in any case, is to make sure that it is unloaded. It's not rocket science, and if you don't follow that rule you probably deserve to blow a hole through your kitchen table (or worse).
| QUOTE |
| That's the bulk of where the accidents happen. |
Source, please.
This is pretty sad. I don't own a Glock and I don't even like them all that much. But here I am...
| QUOTE (Raygun) | ||
Source, please. This is pretty sad. I don't own a Glock and I don't even like them all that much. But here I am... |
I've heard this one from law enforcement officers, but maybe that's just how a lot of gunshot wounds get reported to avoid prosecution.
| QUOTE |
| I don't agree with her that Glocks are quite that unsafe... |
I think this is actually the sixth time someone has mistaken me for female on Dumpshock. Not that it bothers me, I just find it funny.
| QUOTE |
| If you've got figures, post them. |
Sure thing. Let me dig around and pull up some hard facts - if I can't find any studies to support the number of news reports I've read, I'll admit my nervousness may be quite unfounded. Give me a bit to look for credible numbers, though. As to news reports, here's one just off the cuff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local...olice4page1.htm
As to 'small amount of pressure', I was referring to the amount of pressure required to depress the trigger safety, not the amount of pressure required to pull the trigger. Though on one case in New Jersey, a policewoman shot her son's classmate while drawing the weapon, because she had altered the trigger pull pressure to be less than factory-issue. (That story was, I believe, linked off of Dumpshock. I followed a follow-up via the AP wire.)
It also appears I have misunderstood how Glock's triple-safety worked. The way I read their FAQ a while back, it sounded like all three safeties were released simply by depressing the trigger safety.
Two more things:
My issue is not with people owning Glocks. It never was. If you look back, I said, "Why would your Networking prof carry a glock?" The initial response was along the lines of, "Because he CAN! You got a problem with that?!?" To which my response is: I have no guarantee, as a student, that my professors are responsible enough with their firearms not to be asshats. I deal with many a professor on a daily basis. Most of them couldn't find their own ass with a map. If said Networking professor is resposible, more power to him. But most of the ones I deal with I wouldn't let anywhere near me with a gun, especially one that - as far as I was aware (and am still checking on) - is generally more prone to accidental discharge in the hands of uncautious people than other handguns.
The issue has never been with the object. Equipment works, equipment doesn't lie, equipment never makes a mistake. But people? Most people I meet lie, fail to work as intended, and make mistakes.
Critias: You seem to be upset that I do not like the idea of someone I do not know and am unaware of the safety habits of carrying a weapon you happen to like. I'm sorry if I happen not to trust people I don't know to be safe around me if I don't have to. Your reductio ad absurdum has no place, since you are attacking arguments I have not made, simply ones you assume I have made.
If guy carries concealed, and what's more carries concealed on a campus (which in most cases, in the states it's even allowed in, requires additional testing and special legal status), you can rest assured he's been tested for handgun proficiency and handling safety (in which case the lack of a manual safety is, like in most cases, a complete non-issue; finger off the trigger, everything is fine).
That, or he's a complete batshit psycho who's carrying illegally on a university campus, biding his time and waiting for the planets to line up just right so he can hear the voices tell him to start shooting (in which case he doesn't want a manual safety in his way, and he may have gone to the trouble to install a nice magwell and some extended controls to decrease his reloading time and increase the body count).
That, or he's a complete batshit psycho who's carrying illegally on a university campus, biding his time and waiting for the planets to line up just right so he can hear the voices tell him to start shooting (in which case he doesn't want a manual safety in his way, and he may have gone to the trouble to install a nice magwell and some extended controls to decrease his reloading time and increase the body count).
Of 150 colleges polled (the 150 largest in the US) only 22 (15%) required additional safety instruction. Additionally, only 5 (3%) required campus registration of the firearm.
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/student/...lege_survey.pdf
(This survey is from a gun control website, I admit. But these are pretty basic facts - there's not much numbers-twisting you can do with these.)
Given these numbers, I assume two things.
1) The professor does not carry the weapon when on campus. At least if he is law abiding, which I figure most people are in cases of weapons transport.
2) The professor in question does not necessarily have additional training - there is a roughly 15% chance that he does. Nor does he necessarily have no training.
See my prior statement about reductio ad absurdum having no place.
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/student/...lege_survey.pdf
(This survey is from a gun control website, I admit. But these are pretty basic facts - there's not much numbers-twisting you can do with these.)
Given these numbers, I assume two things.
1) The professor does not carry the weapon when on campus. At least if he is law abiding, which I figure most people are in cases of weapons transport.
2) The professor in question does not necessarily have additional training - there is a roughly 15% chance that he does. Nor does he necessarily have no training.
See my prior statement about reductio ad absurdum having no place.
Adarael: If you are really so worried about other peoples' negligence affecting your life you might as well lock yourself in the basement. There are plenty of idiots out there that could kill you by their moronic actions without coming within three miles of a gun.
That article begs some sarcastic comments.
| QUOTE (Deputy Chief Rodwell Catoe) |
| "An unholstered Glock in the 'street load' mode with the trigger safety mechanism pressed is a profoundly dangerous weapon, even in the most ideal conditions." |
A loaded pistol with the trigger patrtially depressed might fire if the user accidently adds a little too much pressure. I did not know that. Is this guy's nickname Deputy Chief Obvious?
| QUOTE (Officer Adam K. Schutz ) |
| "I was moving my hand to lower the slide and it jumped forward. I had assumed the gun was unloaded." |
It is somewhat sad that Officier Schultz shot himself in the hand instead of the head. Obviously, he could continue to live a healthy life without a brain.
Always assume that a firearm is loaded. Out of all gun safety rules, that is the one that is drilled into your head with a diamond tipped bit by any class, book, pamphlet or web site. It takes very little effort to remove the magazine and clear the chamber.
| QUOTE |
| Nine months later, the 2-year-old daughter of a D.C. police officer died after accidentally shooting herself in the head with her father's pistol in their Northwest Washington house. |
Of course, loaded firearms make perfect toys are toddlers. The fact that glocks aren't safe for 2 year olds to play with is an unforgiviable design flaw and will certainly cause Glock to loose the lucritive infant shootist demographic.
| QUOTE (Officer James Dukes ) |
| "He was playing with the weapon. This was the second time I had told [Mayberry] during that tour of duty not to point the weapon at me." |
And here we have the trifecta of incompotence. He was treating his weapon as a toy. He was poing his weapon at people who he did not want to kill. And he had his finger on the trigger.
| QUOTE |
In June 1996, Officer Terrence Shepherd shot and killed 18-year-old Eric Anderson as Anderson sat unarmed in his car at a routine traffic roadblock in Southeast Washington. Although Shepherd said he fired because he thought Anderson posed a threat, his captain testified that Shepherd told him at the scene that he had his finger on the trigger and the gun "went off." The shooting, the captain added, appeared to be accidental. |
Of course. Glock should quicken a detect enemies spell on all its weapons so they'll only fire at people who really are threats and the gun owners can overreact all that they want.
| QUOTE |
| In May 1991, an officer accidentally shot Kenneth McSwain, 18, in the back when the officer slipped while serving a search warrant in Northeast Washington, court and police documents show. McSwain, who was unarmed and was not charged with any crime, collected a $42,000 settlement. |
Somehow, I think that the gun wouldn't have gone off if he didn't have his finger on the trigger like an idiot.
| QUOTE |
| In August 1991, an officer accidentally shot Stephen Wills in the chest during a drug bust in Southeast Washington, according to court and police documents. Wills, who was unarmed and was not charged with any crime, collected a $40,000 settlement. |
Accidently, right. Like I accidently missed class today.
"I didn't mean to shoot the drug dealer. The gun went off accidently." Do you think a Shadowrunner could get away with that?
The sheer idiocy of the police department in question is actually exactly what I find fascinating about the article. These are people who should be more careful with weapons than the average joe, not less.
But whatever, I'm done. Most of you are totally fixated on the machinery of the situation or calling me a sissy for my opinion, so screw it.
Call me when you need some info on Japan, cyberware mechanics or the way magic works in game.
But whatever, I'm done. Most of you are totally fixated on the machinery of the situation or calling me a sissy for my opinion, so screw it.
Call me when you need some info on Japan, cyberware mechanics or the way magic works in game.
Your argument about gun safety measures and idiots needs to expand to all guns, not only Glocks. This is about as bad as the Assault Weapons Ban going by the looks of guns rather than their technical specifications.
Idiots are idiots, no matter what gun they have, no matter what kinds of safeties, stupid people are going to find ways to do dumb things with them.
Idiots are idiots, no matter what gun they have, no matter what kinds of safeties, stupid people are going to find ways to do dumb things with them.
"The Trifecta of Incompetence." I like that.
Yeah, really. This just blows my mind. These are people I would expect to be MORE competent with their guns, not INcompetent!
Yeah, really. This just blows my mind. These are people I would expect to be MORE competent with their guns, not INcompetent!
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
| "The Trifecta of Incompetence." I like that. Yeah, really. This just blows my mind. These are people I would expect to be MORE competent with their guns, not INcompetent! |
A lot of cops (especially from large urban police departments) have a reputation - deserved or not - of being completely useless with a gun.
I briefly did riflery in college, and my coach, who also taught various gun training courses, used to complain about their "cowboy" attitude. I figure it's a combination of machismo and insufficient training - range time costs money.
Money spent on the range saves money in funeral costs.
Most cops qualify with a shottie and their carry handgun at the Academy, and then (in KY, at least), their service weapon once a year and the shotgun every other year. The qualification test takes less than an afternoon, from warm-up shooting to qualification, to finish. A few of the officers I've spoken with don't touch their guns except for a week or two before their annual qualification. I shoot more often and just as proficiently as they do, and I'd never touched a handgun before purchasing mine less than a year ago.
Why? Ranges cost money, bullets cost money, firearm maintenance costs money, cops getting overtime for going to ranges and firing bullets and then maintaining guns costs money... it all adds up real quick. So most departments don't require anything (or even approve of it on their dollar, much less suggest it) but that annual qualification. Add all that up, compare it to the number of times your average cop has to use his handgun in self defense, and compare the numbers. Pure money.
One chief I know of was involved in a shooting about six months back (it took him about four months to recover and get back on-line to chat with us) -- he's lobbied and changed his department's policies... but the sad truth is it takes something like that to get a department's policies to change, and (to be honest), I doubt that his reforms will stay in place once he retires (the new chief will most likely be pressured by city gov't to relax about it again, and save them all that money).
It's all about the $$$$. Shadowrun's not as far off-base as we think, about some things.
Why? Ranges cost money, bullets cost money, firearm maintenance costs money, cops getting overtime for going to ranges and firing bullets and then maintaining guns costs money... it all adds up real quick. So most departments don't require anything (or even approve of it on their dollar, much less suggest it) but that annual qualification. Add all that up, compare it to the number of times your average cop has to use his handgun in self defense, and compare the numbers. Pure money.
One chief I know of was involved in a shooting about six months back (it took him about four months to recover and get back on-line to chat with us) -- he's lobbied and changed his department's policies... but the sad truth is it takes something like that to get a department's policies to change, and (to be honest), I doubt that his reforms will stay in place once he retires (the new chief will most likely be pressured by city gov't to relax about it again, and save them all that money).
It's all about the $$$$. Shadowrun's not as far off-base as we think, about some things.
I agree that training supplied by police departments is lacking in many cases. I also agree that this lack of training is the result of low funding and in many cases, indifference.
The end result is that for Peace Officers to be proficient with their handguns, they must work on it themselves. However, a lot of Peace Officers don't have the time or resources to devote to shooting ranges and live-fire practice. In these cases, other options are available. Using Dummy Rounds and doing safety drills at home are free, and will sustain the officer's skills in between live fire opportunities.
In reality, the only reason a Cop isn't correctly trained is through his own negligence. The end result, nobody is perfect (except some who post here) and accidents will happen, no matter what the gun. The good thing about Glocks, if you are 'accidentally' shot by one, it's easy to sue the cops.
The end result is that for Peace Officers to be proficient with their handguns, they must work on it themselves. However, a lot of Peace Officers don't have the time or resources to devote to shooting ranges and live-fire practice. In these cases, other options are available. Using Dummy Rounds and doing safety drills at home are free, and will sustain the officer's skills in between live fire opportunities.
In reality, the only reason a Cop isn't correctly trained is through his own negligence. The end result, nobody is perfect (except some who post here
) and accidents will happen, no matter what the gun. The good thing about Glocks, if you are 'accidentally' shot by one, it's easy to sue the cops.
This passage caught my eye - can anyone verify this?
| QUOTE |
Officers are told during training to avoid such accidents by being attentive to the Glock's unique, simplified design: An officer cleaning a Glock has to pull the trigger before removing the slide to get access to the gun barrel. In many other pistols, taking the magazine of bullets from the gun renders it unable to fire. But the Glock has no "magazine safety" – if an officer leaves a bullet in the chamber, the Glock will still fire if the trigger is pulled. |
You have to pull the trigger in order to remove the slide?
Which, of course, doesn't explain why officers failed to clear the chamber before attempting to strip the Glock.
-Siege
Yes, you do have to pull the trigger to remove the slide. So, yes, you should have emptied the gun before you decided to sit down and clean it. But, yes, you should empty the gun regardless of whether it's a Glock or not, when the time comes to take it apart.
I have field-stripped a G19, and didn't have to touch the trigger.
Perhaps if someone watched a Glock be disassembled they thought the person was pulling the trigger.
EDIT: Critias, you do have to pull the trigger? What does that do? I really don't remember having to pull the trigger, but it was years ago.
Perhaps if someone watched a Glock be disassembled they thought the person was pulling the trigger.
EDIT: Critias, you do have to pull the trigger? What does that do? I really don't remember having to pull the trigger, but it was years ago.
| QUOTE (Raygun) |
| That's all great in theory, but can either of you show us that these kinds of accidents occur at a higher rate as opposed to non-Glock-like handguns? DA revolvers can do the same thing. If an asshole is going to jam a Glock into a holster until it pops, he's probably going to do the same with something with a heavier trigger. Because he's an asshole, and assholes do stupid shit. |
You're misunderstanding me. I am not saying the trigger design makes Glocks substantially more prone to negligent discharges. I am saying that there was a lot of myth out there about how amazingly safe the trigger was because it would only fire the weapon if depressed intentionally, and that is verfiably false.
Personally, I feel that that the overall design and ligher-than-normal DAO trigger make Glocks less safe than other handguns, but not by much, and even most of what I hear on an anecdotal level seems to support that it is simple carelessness or stupidity that causes accidents.
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| I think this is actually the sixth time someone has mistaken me for female on Dumpshock. Not that it bothers me, I just find it funny. |
Sorry about that. I think I have you mixed up with someone with a similar name.
For what it's worth in all of this, I think this is the 'best' Glock negligent discharge story I've come across.
| QUOTE ( The Major Cause of Gun Accidents— People's Own Stupidity @ by Brian Carnell) |
| A woman in Milton Township, Michigan, discovered a Glock .40-caliber pistol in her kitchen. She put it in the oven. That night, the family decided to cook a pizza and preheated the oven. There was a round in the chamber, and the intense heat caused the weapon to discharge, killing a male infant who was sleeping about 25 feet away in the living room. |
| QUOTE (Ed_209a) |
| I have field-stripped a G19, and didn't have to touch the trigger. Perhaps if someone watched a Glock be disassembled they thought the person was pulling the trigger. EDIT: Critias, you do have to pull the trigger? What does that do? I really don't remember having to pull the trigger, but it was years ago. |
http://www.topglock.com/info/fieldstrip.htm
Honest. Look at step two: you gotta pull the trigger.
That said -- look at step one, while you're at it. If you do this stuff in order, you ain't gonna shoot someone.
| QUOTE (Musashi Forever) |
| If you are really so worried about other peoples' negligence affecting your life you might as well lock yourself in the basement. There are plenty of idiots out there that could kill you by their moronic actions without coming within three miles of a gun. |
This is a bad solution. The proper way to address this issue is to get out there and start killing them. People might make a fuss if you use guns, so I suggest knives or your bare hands and teeth.
~J
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
http://www.topglock.com/info/fieldstrip.htm Honest. Look at step two: you gotta pull the trigger. That said -- look at step one, while you're at it. If you do this stuff in order, you ain't gonna shoot someone. |
Of course, you have to remember to clear the magazine before you clear the chamber.
That's the sort of mistake you only make once.
-Siege
If you clear the chamber enough, you'll eventually get it done either way
~J
~J
| QUOTE |
"I didn't mean to shoot the drug dealer. The gun went off accidently." Do you think a Shadowrunner could get away with that? |
Funnily enough, yes.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
This is a bad solution. The proper way to address this issue is to get out there and start killing them. People might make a fuss if you use guns, so I suggest knives or your bare hands and teeth. ~J |
If you use knives people will want to ban knives. If you use teeth people will want to ban teeth. If you use hands people will want to ban hands.
I recomend silly string. Shove the nozzel up their noses and spray untill it is filled their sinuses, their airways, and their lungs. Then masturbate while watching them slowly suffocate to death.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
Money spent on the range saves money in funeral costs. |
In these cases, time on the range would have done jack shit. These negligent discharges are not the result of a lack of skill. Missing 17 out of 18 shots at ten feet is a result of a lack of skill. These are the result of an abundance of stupidity. It seems that these people dont believe that guns are deadly weapons. They probably know it intellectually but don't really understand it emotionally. Shooting at paper targets won't help with that. What they need is to see what a bullet can do to someone when fired from a gun. They need to spend time at the morgue looking at gunshot victims. They need to watch training movies based on cliche driver's ed films.
They need to be shot themselves.
When training with peper spray officers have to be sprayed. When training with tasers officers have to be tased. Applying the same principal with firearms would ensure that the officers understand exactly how deadly they are, if they survive.
Yes, I am being absurd, but I am half serious about it. Cute little paper targets that get these perfect little holes like being shot is all sunshine and candy isn't going to cut it. To teach one the power of a firearm there must be gore.
Training at the range is a surreal experience compared to actual shooting. There are ways to make it more realistic. Pop-up targets that fall when they are shot, for example. But nothing can convey the actual blood and guts of it except actual blood and guts.
Time on the range mandates handling of the weapon and repetition drills home safe practices.
It's one thing to know safe procedure, it's another to use safe procedure when you're not actively thinking about it.
And quite frankly, I do think officers need to put more time in on the weapons range - if only because accuracy is a good thing.
Of course, I argue that officers need to have mandated unarmed combat practice as well, but that's just me.
-Siege
It's one thing to know safe procedure, it's another to use safe procedure when you're not actively thinking about it.
And quite frankly, I do think officers need to put more time in on the weapons range - if only because accuracy is a good thing.
Of course, I argue that officers need to have mandated unarmed combat practice as well, but that's just me.
-Siege
| QUOTE (hysmarca) |
| They need to watch training movies based on cliche driver's ed films. |
No, no, that won't do, those are too educational given the target audience... they need to be modeled after something...
Sexual harrassment videos.... THAT is the caliber of video they need to be in...
"this, is a females ass... This is a man's hand... This is the mans hand, meeting the female's ass.. and THAT is sexual harrasment!" <fade to black>
The problem is that cops need to be good at too many things. For every time they'll need to draw a weapon, there will be a thousand times they need to use unarmed/wrestling/aikido/whatever on someone. For every time they've got to grapple/brawl someone into submission, there will be a hundred times they've just got to talk someone out of doing something stupid, and defuse a situation. For every time they've got to actively defuse a volatile situation, there are a dozen times they're too late and they've got to interview/interrogate people, pay attention to detail, know when they're being lied to, and know the laws backwards and forwards.
Etc, etc, etc.
Which do you drill the most? Which do you practice the most? Which is the most important?
I'm in the process of getting an LEO job right now, myself, and I can honestly say that from the interviewing I've done of a little over a dozen officers (and this is something I've been actively pursuing for going on nine months now, educated myself every bit as much as I've been working on getting myself into physical shape), both on and off line, I still have no idea.
You know why? Because they're all equally important. They've all got to be done right the first time, the second time, and every time after that. When you need to talk to someone, you've GOT to do it right. When you need to subdue someone, you've GOT to do it right, too. And God knows, when you need to shoot someone, you've got to do it right. It's just that the results are a little more spectacular, and the failures quite a bit more visible, with that last option.
More range time would help with negligent discharges, yeah. But to get enough, you'd need to cram about an extra eight hours into the day, and a good $5-10k a year per cop into the budget.
Etc, etc, etc.
Which do you drill the most? Which do you practice the most? Which is the most important?
I'm in the process of getting an LEO job right now, myself, and I can honestly say that from the interviewing I've done of a little over a dozen officers (and this is something I've been actively pursuing for going on nine months now, educated myself every bit as much as I've been working on getting myself into physical shape), both on and off line, I still have no idea.
You know why? Because they're all equally important. They've all got to be done right the first time, the second time, and every time after that. When you need to talk to someone, you've GOT to do it right. When you need to subdue someone, you've GOT to do it right, too. And God knows, when you need to shoot someone, you've got to do it right. It's just that the results are a little more spectacular, and the failures quite a bit more visible, with that last option.
More range time would help with negligent discharges, yeah. But to get enough, you'd need to cram about an extra eight hours into the day, and a good $5-10k a year per cop into the budget.
Persuasion and good social skills are great, but those are tough to teach - and coming from someone in a uniform, you're already fighting an uphill battle.
I believe the emphasis should be put on:
I don't list the Law as a high priority because street cops will never be as fluent as lawyers and outside of very specific parameters, will not be called upon to interpret the law but rather enforce it as handed down through the chain of command.
Unfortunately, being an effective police officer is not like other jobs that can just stop when you get off the clock. Expect to adjust your hobbies accordingly, like exercising, running, spending an hour or so at the range once a week and very possibly join a martial arts club.
Is that fair? No, it's not. Do you want to do your job to the best of your ability and have the best chance of you and your fellow officers coming home at the end of a shift?
You might want to consider taking Red Cross cert courses in CPR and first aid.
In some respects, it's like being a teacher - you'll never be paid enough and be prepared to invest a lot of yourself.
-Siege
I believe the emphasis should be put on:
- Firearm use
- Unarmed combat
- High speed driving
I don't list the Law as a high priority because street cops will never be as fluent as lawyers and outside of very specific parameters, will not be called upon to interpret the law but rather enforce it as handed down through the chain of command.
Unfortunately, being an effective police officer is not like other jobs that can just stop when you get off the clock. Expect to adjust your hobbies accordingly, like exercising, running, spending an hour or so at the range once a week and very possibly join a martial arts club.
Is that fair? No, it's not. Do you want to do your job to the best of your ability and have the best chance of you and your fellow officers coming home at the end of a shift?
You might want to consider taking Red Cross cert courses in CPR and first aid.
In some respects, it's like being a teacher - you'll never be paid enough and be prepared to invest a lot of yourself.
-Siege
Critias, just wait till you finish the academy, then you'll really know how much you don't know.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.