Bob Owens is my friend, a simple sentence I’m proud to be able to write. He gave me my start in blogging at the now defunct Confederate Yankee blog, and when Bob wanted to focus on gun blogging, we went our separate blogging ways most amicably. In fact, Bob is kind enough to regularly post my work at Bearing Arms. It was therefore with some trepidation that I read Bob’s article in, of all places, The LA Times — talk about missions behind enemy lines — taking GLOCK handguns to task, some of the most popular and well-tested firearms on the planet. Since that article, some have accused Bob of betraying the cause, of giving anti-gunners ammunition, of failing to cry upon the death of Old Yeller, and of bad-mouthing Winnie the Pooh . . .
As one might expect, such hyperbole is, well, hyperbolic. What Bob did is raise some points familiar to those who live with and carry firearms. These points aren’t just semi-regular points of debate within the gun community, they’re matters not well known by that portion of the public unfamiliar with firearms, and all but unknown and ignored by those whose life’s work seems to be disarming the law-abiding and honest. At the very least, Bob has done a worthy public service by raising awareness — leftists should love that; they’re always raising awareness about this or that — of fundamental issues of firearm practice and safety that cannot be discussed often enough. We’re not dealing with issues of absolute right and wrong, but of focus and priority.
I’ve been around long enough to see a variety of arguments in gun circles about a wide range of arms, many passionately expressed. This gun or that gun is dangerous, this mechanism or that mechanism is superior to all others. You name it, I’ve heard it and watched virtually all of them eventually peter out as time and experience allowed more practical experience and individual wisdom to seep in. In all of these arguments, there were valid points, but ultimately, all came down to this: human beings have an almost endless variety of preferences and can be quite passionate about them.
Bob opened his article with stories of two New York police officers that accidently shot and killed citizens. Both carried GLOCKs. As Bob noted:
“It’s a popular handgun for law enforcement in New York and beyond. The Los Angeles Police Department has a number of firearms approved for use, including nine GLOCK models. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department recently began issuing new recruits the Smith & Wesson M&P, a handgun with a short trigger pull that operates in much the same way.
GLOCK uses the marketing term ‘Safe Action’ to describe its firing-pin system, but the truth is that GLOCKs are accident-prone. They contributed to more than 120 accidental discharges in the Washington Metropolitan Police Department from 1988 to 1998. Anecdotes of increased accidental shootings have followed the pistol for more than 30 years wherever it has been adopted by police officers and citizens alike.”
By way of full disclosure, I began my police career many years ago with .357 magnum revolvers, which were the only weapons allowed us. Capable of double action fire with a relatively long and heavy trigger pull and no external safety, police revolvers were also capable of single action fire. By thumbing the hammer back, the trigger pull was transformed to a very short and light pull.
During those years, I also owned a variety of weapons, which I carried off-duty, including several Colt 1911 pattern pistols, a Browning Hi-Power, a Smith and Wesson Model 59, a Browning BDA .380, and a variety of others. The 1911s and Hi-Power were single action designs with an external safety lever. The Smith Model 59 — much modified — and the Browning BDA were double action pistols, also with external safety levers, though I never used them; the relatively long — shorter than a revolver — and heavy — lighter than a revolver — double action trigger pulls were more than sufficient safety mechanisms, particularly since I always kept — and keep — my finger away from the trigger until a millisecond from firing.
When GLOCKs came to America, I bought the first GLOCK 19 I could find and I’ve never looked back. Note: GLOCK’s numbering scheme has nothing to do with the capabilities of the respective weapons. The 19 was GLOCK’s 19th patent. These days I carry a GLOCK 26.
In the 1990s, my final police agency eventually transitioned to GLOCK 22s in .40 S&W. I was amused by the transition because prior to that decision, management proclaimed the S&W model 686 .357 revolvers and the 125 grain jacket hollowpoint cartridges we used to be the finest police combination ever conceived, absolutely irreplaceable. Suddenly, though, the GLOCK 22 and the .40 S&W were the finest combination ever conceived. It was apparently a sort of road to Damascus conversion.
One of the other issues Bob raised concerns GLOCK’s disassembly procedure:
“Just last month, Ocala, Fla., Police Officer Jared Forsyth was shot and killed by a fellow officer after a GLOCK training session. The fellow officer failed to do a chamber check before pulling the trigger as part of the handgun’s normal disassembly procedure. When the gun fired, the bullet went through a gap in Forsyth’s body armor. Despite the efforts of paramedics to keep him alive, the young officer died on the way to a hospital.”
Bob notes there are “few flaws” with the GLOCK design, but we must be certain about what “flaws” means where firearms are concerned. A design with inherent mechanical issues that make it possible for a gun to fire when the user doesn’t intend to fire, or which can prevent firing when it is necessary to fire, has flaws, in essence, making the design fundamentally unreliable or unsafe. In the case of GLOCKs, Bob is clearly referring to design features which, if ignored or misused, can lead to negligent discharges. He continues:
“The underlying problem with these pistols is a short trigger pull and the lack of an external safety. In real-world encounters, a short trigger pull can be lethal, in part because a significant percentage of law enforcement officers — some experts say as high as 20% — put their finger on the trigger of their weapons when under stress. According to firearms trainers, most officers are completely unaware of their tendency to do this and have a hard time believing it, even when they’re shown video evidence from training exercises.
For more than 35 years, officer-involved accidental discharges with GLOCKs and GLOCK-like weapons have been blamed on a lack of training or negligence on the part of the individual cops. What critics should be addressing instead is the brutal reality that short trigger pulls and natural human reflexes are a deadly combination.”
How short is a GLOCK trigger pull? About 1/2 inch, which is actually a lot longer than it sounds, though it’s not nearly as short as that of a 1911 and a bit longer than many double action pistol designs. It’s also shorter than virtually all revolver triggers. The S&W Bodyguard .380 pistol has a double action only trigger with a pull much heavier than a standard GLOCK, and its trigger travel is only about ¾ inch. And it’s much harder to shoot accurately than any GLOCK.
How heavy — how much force is required — to fire a GLOCK? Standard GLOCK triggers are 5.5 pounds, but parts swapping requiring only minutes can make that trigger pull much heavier. New York City requires 12-pound triggers on their duty weapons, including GLOCKs. As I noted in an earlier article, that unfortunate fact, and mediocre and infrequent training has resulted in a great many instances of officers accidentally shooting innocent citizens. Bob suggests a possible solution to negligent police shootings:
“Though short trigger-pull guns dominate the law enforcement market, they aren’t the only game in town. A number of major and minor agencies use guns with much longer double-action triggers that are just as easy to fire deliberately but that are much harder to fire accidentally. The half-inch difference of trigger travel may not sound like much, but it can be the difference between life and death.”
Circa 2015, GLOCK owns a substantial portion of the law enforcement market and a substantial portion of the civilian market as well. GLOCKs are among the most proven, field-tested firearms ever produced. They are so widely appreciated because they are absolutely reliable, accurate, rugged, and safe. It is worth remembering that revolvers also have no external safeties, which is one reason so many police agencies that previously used revolvers transitioned to GLOCKs. The other primary issue is hit probability.
As I noted in a recent TTAG article, police officers tend to be poor shots. Even at inside-a-phone-booth ranges, they often miss their targets. The simple truth is those agencies that transitioned from revolvers with relatively long and heavy trigger pulls, to GLOCKs, experienced much higher hit probabilities, which is not at all surprising. Long and heavy triggers make shooting accurately and repeatedly difficult. This is particularly true in New York City, whose politicians and police executives obviously do not trust their officers, forcing abominable triggers on them as a substitute for proper training. Unfortunately that strategy inevitably causes officers to miss the bad guys and shoot up innocents, as in a 2012 case where two officers shot and killed a man who had just murdered a coworker…and in the process shot and wounded nine bystanders as well.
Shorter and lighter trigger pulls enhance accuracy and hit probability. External safeties are not a factor in this balancing act. Proper employment of the model 1911 — one of the most popular and widely-used handguns in history — requires flicking off the safety with the thumb as the weapon goes to ready. In other words, it’s in exactly the same state as any GLOCK, but with a shorter and lighter trigger. Relying on an external safety to prevent tragedies with people who can’t manage to keep their fingers off the trigger is a questionable strategy. GLOCKs are popular with law enforcement because they strike the correct balance between safety and ease of use and high hit probability. The rest is a matter of training and practice.
The police must, when necessary, be able to accurately hit their targets, and only their targets. Their duty handguns must make this not only possible, but easy. Trying to compensate for poor initial and ongoing training and officers that shouldn’t be carrying firearms in the first place with external safety levers and long, heavy double action triggers only make it far more likely that innocents will be shot.
As Bob noted, taking down a GLOCK for cleaning requires pulling the trigger. If there is a round in the chamber, the gun will fire, but it doesn’t matter if that trigger is 5.5 or 12 pounds, a trigger pull is a trigger pull. If that happens, the problem is the person who failed to perform the basic safety procedure of removing the magazine, repeatedly cycling the slide to remove any chambered cartridge, and visually and manually inspecting the chamber.
Interestingly, GLOCK’s extractors protrude from the slide when a round is chambered providing a tactile red flag. So it’s not actually necessary to cycle the slide to tell if there’s a round in the chamber. When I clean my GLOCKs, I perform the necessary clearance drill, and before I pull the trigger, I do it once more. One can never be too safe.
Bob is absolutely right. Many people are careless with firearms. Human beings have short attention spans. Human beings have certain other tendencies, which if ignored or not compensated for in training and practice, can contribute to or cause unintentional discharges. The solution, however, isn’t to abandon a safe, reliable and effective design, but to institute proper training and practices, including absolute familiarity with the correct manual of arms and basic safety practices…regardless of which firearm is employed.
Bob mentioned the high dollar payouts some municipalities and law enforcement agencies have made after accidental shootings — an important issue. If even a fraction of that money was spent on effective training and reinforced basic handgun safety at least once a week, the taxpayers would be shelling out a great deal less and attending far fewer funerals.
Police agencies must train for safety and accuracy to ensure their officers not only know when to shoot and when not to shoot, but to hit what they aim at, and only that, when shooting is necessary. Any gun that detracts from these goals–long, heavy trigger pulls do just that– should not be embraced.
Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
In California our tyrannical overlords impose a “roster” of “safe firearms” that guns must have certain characteristics to be on, and their manufacturer must pay a yearly bribe to the DOJ to remain on.
What Bob did was give tacit support for this kind of anti-2a legislation by claiming to be from “our side” while saying certain widely used guns are bad and that segments of the population should not have them. Who needs enemies when you have friends like that?
Pro-gun people are strong because we don’t break ranks. In fact, we shun people that do. This is why the Left is winning the culture war on all fronts except for guns. We can win, if we *want* it bad enough.
Clickboom is 100 percent right. The idea that a Glock safe action pistol is somehow faulty is absurd. That this guy wrote an opinion column helps fuel the persistently anti 2d A politicians in California.
Yes, but LE is exempt from the “Not Unsafe” gun list.
I cannot say that I disagree. I know that Glock pistols are nearly sacrosanct and that striker-fired style pistols have become both popular and common in law enforcement and with the private citizen but the mechanics of safely handling these weapons requires more then a basic understanding of the four laws.
However, we have individuals in law enforcement who are not necessarily firearms enthusiasts who have been issued a weapon with which they will receive only basic training in safe handling. As always, it seems to be a training issue.
How can someone EVER be hurt if you follow the four laws? If the gun is Not pointed at something you are not willing to destroy, how can someone ever be injured? If your finger is NOT on the trigger until you are ready to fire how can can you shoot someone accidentally?
For someone to be injured, or even to have a negligent discharge you must violate the four laws.
You’re right, following the four laws will reduce an individual’s chances of having something go wrong to nearly zero. That said, I meant that it isn’t enough to just understand the concept of the four laws.
Law enforcement officers who are issued Glocks who are not firearms enthusiasts will memorize the four laws but they won’t practices those safety precautions under stress.
Annicdotal story: when I went through one of Florida’s law enforcement programs more then half the class had never even handled a handgun. After completing the weapon training block there were several who had passed their qualification whom I wouldn’t have trusted with a rubber band gun. They could punch paper in the prescribed pattern but they dodn’t understand safe handling practices.
The idea that an external safety would reduce these negligent discharges is laughable as well. If Officer Itchy Triggerfinger is creeping up a stairway expecting to make imminent contact with a bad guy, then it’s safe to say that he will have removed his safety already. So what do we have then? Likely a hammer-fired single action pistol with an even lighter and shorter trigger pull than a Glock, and, most certainly, the poor sod who happened to step into the hallway at the wrong time is still dead.
Keep your damn booger picker off the bang switch until your muzzle is pointed at a target you wish to destroy, and 98% of these incidents are gone.
In my not so humble opinion anyone who says that glocks are inherently NOT less safe, is simply wrong.
I own two glocks and I have carried them from time to time, but when I did, I did so KNOWING that they were less safe than other options.
Its the “quantification” of how “less safe” they are that is the real question.
To say they are “No less safe” than any other gun is just stupid.
There’s a reason I like the XD platform. When a glock goes off in a purse it’s negligent and glocks are “infallible” and the owner was an “idiot” but when a cop shoots someone with a glock its still somehow an “accident” with an XD there are two mechanisms that 99.9% ensure the gun being fired was due to someone holding it to fire. That’s why glocks are faulty. By relying only on a trigger, no matter how good it’s designed, it’s still setup to fail.
Whether a semi-auto pistol has a mechanical safety (Beretta), a trigger safety only (Glock), a trigger safety and a grip safety (XD), a mechanical safety and a grip safety (1911), or any other combination thereof once the safety is disengaged and your finger is on the trigger they all have the same chance of an ND. Period. If you pull the trigger, the gun goes bang and whatever is in line with the muzzle gets hit. That’s the way guns are made to work and it doesn’t matter what brand the gun is.
As for Glocks having a greater chance of going off when carried lose in someones purse, pocket, backpack or whatever . . . okay, sure. But why in the heck is anyone stupid enough to carry a cocked and locked gun loose in any container, pouch, pocket, etc. rather than in some kind of a quality holster that covers the trigger? Get real and drop the Liberal tactic of blaming the gun for a person’s stupidity or intent.
All these people who shoot themselves in the leg with any gun have one thing in common, they either didn’t know or didn’t pay attention to what they were doing and they allowed something (finger, shirttail, holster security strap, etc.) to pull the trigger. It is rare in the extreme for any gun to go off unless the trigger is pulled. If it does it is faulty and even a safety might not have prevented it. I once had an old, beat up Iraqi AK go off without touching the trigger, but that’s another story.
Cops? All of them follow the law? Haha lol. There is way too many bad cops that do not follow the law. And the so called “good cops” cover for them
“For someone to be injured, or even to have a negligent discharge you must violate the four laws.”
Somewhat simplistic, sort of like thinking the input into the computer must be then the outcome that. While literally true, real life does not work that way, especially when several people at one time are involved in a life-or-death crisis. The difference between different types of firearms is how far from ideal your performance has to be before you are in danger of an ND. As per most reports, Glocks are extremely reliable, very rarely have any malfunction that could lead to an ND. But that record depends on them being handled exactly right, 100% of the time. There is no fault to throw at Glock, their product performed just exactly as advertised, but a few hundred grains of metal are sizzling along at 1000 fps when nobody intended for that to happen. “The user screwed up!” Stops sounding quite as good after several thousand times, which other designs have not experienced. It is just too easy to screw up, and denying that doesn’t help. Most of us will never have an ND, until we do. Then, if someone we care about is injured as a result, we’re not going to be as quick to say “It’s OK, I just screwed up!”
Bruce you only need to violate two rules together, not all four!!!!!!
“but the mechanics of safely handling these weapons requires more then a basic understanding of the four laws.”
You just proved the point that it is the individual, not the firearm that is responsible for ND’s.
Alot of agencies I see going to the Sig Decocker platform. Back in the 90s it was Smiths Gen 3 decockers.
If I had my choice, my duty gun would be a Sig 226 Tac Ops in 9mm and Federal HST 124 grain +P ammo.
You mean like the PA State Police? During their transtion training to Sigs one of their instructors pointed a loaded P227 at a young officer and pulled the trigger, killing him. His response? I didn’t know it was loaded.
You can’t make guns idiot proof and still work when needed.
Bob’s article is nothing short of a betrayal. There is no way around that fact.
I love me some Bob Owens. But that pooch must have dressed really provocatively on this occasion.
I hate Glocks. Hate the mindless fanboyism they engender. They’re ugly. And they feel like a brick in my hand. Do have great commercials though. And they sure work for a lot of others. The single most popular handgun in America. For a reason. Not sure exactly what that reason is, but…
To write an article, especially for a gun unfriendly rag, denigrating a proven gun as inherently unsafe due to the careless handling of users is irresponsible. That way lies “smart” guns. To allow for stupid users, we need smarter guns. And we all know what a GREAT idea that is.
My CZ 75b is the DA/SA option, with safety and it is entirely capable of a negligent discharge in careless hands.
Me thinks Bob has suffered a negligent discharge at his keyboard. And inflicted an unnecessary wound on himself, and the gun community.
How about an “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day” trophy for this article?
My CZ 75b is the DA/SA option, with safety and it is entirely capable of a negligent discharge in careless hands.
A fine choice. Mine is…OMG I left it in the other room (*scurrying sounds*) right here next to me!
I don’t hate Glocks as much as you do, but I don’t think I’ll ever love them.
AND on top of all of this, this good fellow Bob has an annoying tendency to remove critical comments from his own blog spot. Try it for yourself. I disagreed with him when he insisted that every gun owner, no matter what circumstances, needed a gun safe or be held responsible criminally if some bad guy broke into your house and stole your gun.
Bob makes makes me made too with his choice of articles, contrary opinions are like that. But we need to be able to put on our big boy pants and think about contrary thoughts.
Besides, I mostly carry Rugers, they don’t need hookers, strippers, and to bribes sell their guns.
Rugers don’t make it to the winners circle much in USPSA or IDPA though… so… now what?
Bobs revision of a recent phrase:
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
“Don’t hate the insufficient weapons training by some LEO Depts.
Hate the most popular pistol purchased by LEO Depts.
Brilliant Bob. Based on reading several of his articles on BA, the comments there seem to support the angst and frustration felt by more and more wondering if the FUDD factor is catching up with ol Bob.
There was a German government study commissioned to find out why their cops had NDs. The result-almost 3 in ten officers touched the triggers of their Sig Sauer pistols , without consciously realizing it. In my observation as an NRA range officer, there are shooters who keep putting their finger on the trigger and don’t even realize they’re doing so until corrected.
The answer would seem to be advanced training, and in an ideal world this would be possible. For many folks both in and out of LE, that’s just not logistically possible. Some individuals have kids to feed and overtime to work. How is a single parent supposed to find time to “tactically train” ? It’s the same problem with LE.Would you rather have officers on the street, or officers sitting in gun school? We committed gun geeks think nothing of spending $$$ shooting, because we like it . But few police agencies can allocate a $300+* monthly range cost per member across an entire agency. For a small town PD that’s $3000 per month,assuming ten officers total including detectives and desk staff.Larger city agencies? $300 per person x 22,000 officers of the NYPD for example? They’d frankly be better off financially paying lawsuit settlements from NDs. Worse, gun training scares the desk warriors and those of lacking reproductive organ fortitude.Add in risk averse admin culture to the money problem, and gun training for LE isnt going to increase from the status quo.
As such, fixing this problem in the public sphere isnt possible. Either we increase training, which is beyond the budgets and admin inclinations of most agencies who aren’t already doing so , or we go back to issuing revolvers. And even that wouldn’t fix it, because the grim and ugly truth is that gun owners and users like LE and military come from society as a whole, and society has worked diligently to banish any expression of firearms manipulation in our schools and communities.The proper place to learn about the basics of guns is at the family home as a kid, not the public law enforcement or military range on the taxpayer dime as an adult. Qualification exists to check existing skills learned over an upbringing of shooting before entering the agency, not to build them up from scratch for a recuit whose never seen a gun before.By then, its really too late. Unless the individual decides to commit the time and money themselves to improve , improvement in safety and skill is unlikely. Thus the NDs will continue, and likely get worse as the years go on and guns become even less exposed in society.
*(range expense including $15 per week lane fee x 4 weeks ,plus $50 per session ammo fee )
Bingo. Police training isn’t cheap. Police already have salaries, facilities, fleet management, lawsuits, equipment, and other expenses.
However, I would still like the department to send me to Frontsight. Not gonna happen, but it would be nice. I’m probably going to go anyways, just need to clear my schedule first.
As a taxpayer I am more than happy to suggest that officers spend two shifts per month every month on firearms training. It would just make things easier and safer for everyone, including and especially the police.
There must be some way to ‘train up’ police ofc.s affordably;
Encourage department shooting competitions, let then buy department ammo at cost to participate, start a bi-monthly airsoft senerio or game or SOMTHING of that nature. devote some pre-shift time to dry fire practice.
The department could host cpl and other classes at their facility to offset costs.
These things may Beable to be done affordably, and would give ofc.s more time to get comfortable with their pistols
How about fire the officer if he doesn’t qualify coupled with civil and criminal liability if he acts in a negligent manner? That’s how things are done in other professions. If I wouldn’t be justified in pointing a firearm at someone then a cop shouldn’t either.
Also, end the tyrannical “War on Drugs” and we’ll see the number of officers needed drop to a level that these issues won’t be a big problem.
‘Would you rather have officers on the street, or officers sitting in gun school?’
I’d rather have them in gun school. We already have too many LEOs on the street enforcing too many laws. Laws prohibiting consentual behavior. Laws that primarily exist to generate revenue for our bureaucratic overlords. The same overlords who like to claim that we mere civilians are not to be trusted with our firearms because we are not trained professionals like the police. Truth is we are much safer and more proficient with our weapons because we train because we like to train, not because we have to. And when the time comes that I need a cop to draw his gun I’d rather have one or two that know what they’re doing than 50 Barney Fifes in tactical gear.
Trouble is, gun safety isnt something you can learn off of a PowerPoint.
Its akin to driving-Law Enforcement would have a lot more accidents if academy applicants never drove a day before showing up to class. You can’t train 5+ years of accumulated , real world driving experience into a three hour or even three month training bloc ON TOP of the advanced driving topics. You could try, but then your fail rate is 90% and your department is chronically understaffed.
So it goes for guns. Back in “the day” gun knowledge wasn’t just the domain of the enthusiast and the government man. Factory workers taught their kids how to shoot the family rifle/.38 revolver, and often enough that if Junior signed up for the military or LE he knew the Four Rules by heart. Thus , public training could focus on the career specific gun stuff.
With decades of anti gun academic rot happening on gun knowledge, we now have the sad state where most folks joining LE and military never even touched a gun in real life before , to say nothing about actually firing or handling it. So training has to begin at Square One, and there’s just not enough time to get someone acclimated enough with their pistol by merely Academy/Basic Training time alone. We could make expert firearms knowledge a hiring requirement, but then you may as well just shut down the PD for lack of qualified applicants.
Training is now about tossing some basic knowledge at officers/troops and hoping the low statistical probability of a UOF incident safeguards the agency , versus climbing the massive logistical mountain that is ground-up expert gun training.
We could make expert firearms knowledge a hiring requirement, but then you may as well just shut down the PD for lack of qualified applicants.
I like that option.
I think you missed the part where I think there are already far too many police and they are far too poorly trained. Granted, for my utopian ideal to happen there needs to be some sweeping changes to our laws, but if we decriminalized consentual behavior (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.) and stopped policing our traffic laws so enthusiastically (for revenue generation), we’d find that we have 3 or 4 times as many officers as we need.
The police are SUPPOSED to be the trained experts. I’d rather have fewer cops that know what they’re doing – even if that meant paying them to spend half their time on a range or in a classroom – than to have a bunch of Keystone commandos driving their MRAPs around like idiots with kneepads with their booger hooks on the bang switches of their fully automatic M4 rifles. Or Glocks.
Bob Owens is iffy on gun rights. This isn’t the first time he’s been caught with views that are more in line with the gun grabbers than with the people of the gun.
Here’s a facebook thread where he thinks people who don’t lock their guns up from teenage children deserve to be jailed. More or less.
I happen to agree with Bob. True, any gun can have an ND and it is possible to operate Glock-type guns safely. But LEOs have had too many mishaps with them to ignore that the possibility that it may be a type of gun that requires more standardization and discipline than a sizable segment of these public employees are able to sustain. I see the Glock-type, striker-fired “safety-trigger” guns as being too sophisticated for the average cop.
Point and shoot is too sophisticated to many cops? Lol kk. The reason there are more NDs with Glocks is because they are 70% of the market share in law enforcement. That’s basic logic. Stop drinking the cool aid; barring actual mechanical flaws, Glocks are no more responsible for NDs than any other gun.
I agree with Bob; Glocks are bought by police because they are cheap. If “training” is the issue then they can train to manage DA/SA designs.
A poor carpenter blames his tools. Decrying the pistol, an inanimate object, vs. the training the human being, has got to be one of the worst, short-sighted analyses I’ve ever seen, let alone an entire article written about it.
This too is my opinion. I have a scar on my left thumb. It’s not the screwdrivers fault. Training or maybe some people should not be in Law Enforcement.
A good carpenter doesn’t use poor tools.
Ah yes, but a great carpenter uses no tools at all; just Jedi mind tricks.
I bet the LA Times jumped at that one.. On a blog its interesting, at the LA Times its propaganda.
So let me recap: it isnt the human being’s fault, it is the inanimate object’s fault for the shortcomings of humans. Sounds a LOT like assault weapon ban mentality…
My Glocks have never once discharged themselves towards innocents. Maybe mine are defective….More likely: im not a careless moron.
No kidding. This bob guy gave an example of a cop(which people think are gun experts but they all aren’t) killing a fellow cop by a dumbass move and blamed it on a paperweight. i hate seeing these guys cover for each other after writing a dumbass article. I love guns buuut… He can shove it.
Bob Owens “I support the 2nd…but” is so big it’s got it’s own zip code.
He bad mouthed Winnie the Pooh?
Well written response. Really enjoy your work, Mike.
+1. Big fan of Bob too, but he goofed on this article, imho.
I tgink we POTG might sometimes worry too much what the anti-gunners or Reliable Party Organs will do if one of us says something too provocative.
That assumes non-gun journalists and politicians understand technical details like shoulderthingeys, and
That they are objective and write with integrity…you know, the facts as news.
Since even the youngest generation gets it, that a and b are false, and only 11% polled trust the media, we might be chewing on an old bone no one else much cares about, ie Glock triggers, safeties, suitability for cops or no, and over imagining bad things if someone chews that bone in public.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
Why do you capitalize all the letters in Glock? Do you need a new editor? I’ve nothing to do.
Because their trademark is all caps. So when discussing a GLOCK-brand GLOCK, the proper form to use is the all-caps one, GLOCK.
Correct. If it’s a revolver or any other brand semi, correct usage would be “Glock”. Mmkay? Everybody knows that!
People die in cleaning accidents because they don’t follow the most basic rules, it goes without saying to always clear your weapon and keep your finger off the trigger. And some cops suck with guns probably because they never shot before they were cops and only train annually. Unsat.
Training takes time. Time is money. As a LEO, it is my contention that prior to attending an academy, all potential recruits must be able to meet a high standard of proficiency with pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns before being accepted into an academy. Just as recruits need to pass physical agility tests, written tests, medical tests and psychological tests, they need to pass firearms proficiency tests. Lay the money burden on the recruits. Let the recruits prove they can safely and accurately handle a firearm.
Agree. I can’t understand why police officers won’t take their own time to become proficient with their weapons. After all, their goal is “to get home safely”.
When I started a high paying job, that had a pre-hire phase that I had to qualify, I was only allowed to train on the clock for one hour. I worked another 11 hours, then trained at home because I wanted the job.
This snipe from a supposed 2A enthusiast from behind enemy lines was completely unexpected. Why did it occur? If anyone knows Owens they should ask why he put this anti-Glock piece in an anti-gun newspaper? Measure twice, cut once. Think twice before writing.
NDs occur with all sorts of firearms. ALL SORTS. In another arena Owens claims that NDs increase when departments switch to Glocks, but he provides no citations. Does this mean that he has no reputable sources?
In any case, conservative mentalities say take personal responsibility for your own actions. Regarding this topic, that translates into learning and training and accepting fault when your finger actuates the trigger (when it shouldn’t). But Owens blames a firearm in extremely widespread usage around the world. Maybe he should footnote the article, our cops are too clumsy to do what everyone else does correctly.
Ok, circa 2015…and we are still absolutely and tragically relying on the weakest element in self-defense to be 100% correct so as to not endure an unintentional discharge? If airplanes were still designed to rely ultimately on a pilot being 100% correct, our air safety record would be abysmal. Progress in mechanical things should always be moving to minimize (if not eliminate) error (or maybe 6-Sigma is just all sales mumbo jumbo). The fact that people accept inadequate built-in safety for firearms is remarkable. No matter how many times we scream “4 Rules), we cannot overcome (delete/destroy/remove/eliminate) mechanical dark ages of firearms. Yes, safety lies between the ears. But how many people have honestly (yes, gut check) say they never have or never will violate one of the 4 Rules? The fact that those violations did not result in an unintentional discharge fails to remove the inherent unsafety (my word) of the mechanics of firearms. I like manual safeties, magazine safeties, drop safeties, guns that can be fixed/cleaned without pulling the trigger. And yes, I would be very interested in owning a revolver with a 7lb DA and a manual safety. Relying 100% on the human element is a proven failed concept.
Flying a plane is a little more complicated than not putting your finger on the trigger. Simple as that. The 3 safeties in a Glock work perfectly for preventing an accidental discharge. What they will not stop, what no safety with stop, is someone pulling the trigger at the wrong time.
Pulling the trigger to release a slide is not too swift. Not to mention unnecessary with proper engineering.
Or some THING pulling the trigger at the wrong time, like a twig, a set of keys, a belt, a lipstick in a purse, an infant, anything.
The GLOCK has 3 safeties because….why?
Should we conclude they were added as additional profit generators for the manufacturer/retailer?
Were they added because there was plenty of scrap material laying around the production floor, and the safeties were created in order to use up the excess?
Safeties on a GLOCK are completely unnecessary if…..the user just follows the 4Rules.
No one seems to run around saying, “Hey bozo, just don’t drop the gun.”
Now we have 5Rules
Ask John Moses Browning.
Full hand on the along back of the grip, proper grip position, and then making the slide ready to travel.
As easy as 1, 2, 3. Good design to get good grip and intention to use. Works, too. This is an example of increasing safety with better design and making it natural to do. The best designs don’t have lots of added pieces to use material, but to improve function and safety, along with reliability. Design for safety and reliability has improved greatly since the invention of the SA firearm in 1896, less than a decade before powered flight. Compare a modern handgun to the 1896 Mauser and you will see all the changes that have gone into design since then: just as aircraft have gone from single-seater, fly by the seat of your pants devices to modern highly automated jets, so, too have firearms improved. Although the revolver and lever action era before SA designs also put a lot of safety functions into designs, so firearms got a head start in the game.
If the contention is that SA firearms have not increased in safety due to complexity, then may I point out that more points of failures leads to designs that need higher overhead and maintenance? If a safety isn’t made to help the end-user utilize the firearm properly, then it is getting in the way of it being used and will be disabled by the end-user, or circumvented. Making something safe with proper function is something that is appreciated by end-users as it improves reliable use through proper handling. Training for the surrounding safety of the firearm, of what the end-user must do to ensure that they have situational awareness and practice safety takes the one thing we are unwilling to invest time in: practice, practice, practice. That is not learned at a desk or in a classroom, but on a range or on a training course, which includes proper field maintenance done by the individual and not by the departmental cleaning group. That training costs time and money, often things departments are short on. And every other piece of equipment that is used in the field must also be trained with, used properly and maintained. Take a look at the kit being carried every day in the field and ask yourself: is there any way to slim the entire kit down, make it more functional with less overhead and maintenance? Invent better ways to do that, and you will make lots of money.
Not at all. The point was to remind GLOCK owners that if the four safety rules were completely adequate, then GLOCKs would not have three safeties built-in. Too many posters seem to take the arrogant position that they never violate even one rule, and that makes them superior. And their GLOCK makes them safe because they don’t have safety features to make-up lapses in following the four safety rules. The overriding thrust of my post is that improvements in firearm safety is a good thing (and happens even to GLOCKs). That no one should dismiss the fact that the entire field of human factors research is designed to overcome known human failings with technical assists.
Thought about the airplane metaphor and decided it was a bit beyond most folks experience. Maybe the best illustration is automobiles.
Back in the 50s, cars had very few safety features, beyond hydraulic brakes and rear/side mirrors. Seat backs only reached the shoulder blade area, dashboards were metal, most shiny stuff inside was pot-metal, there were no seat belts. About 50,000 people died in car crashes every year. Jump to 2015 and what do you have? All these Buck Rogers devices to protect us from ourselves because…..people are people. And there are more devices in our future. Why ??? Because….people are people, yet with all the safety measures we can’t seem to get below 35,000 auto deaths per year. We gladly accept/encourage technological change in an effort to remove risk from driving, but complain loudly when someone takes the position that guns are woefully inadequately safe if we continue to believe that humans can be shames/trained to never, ever violate any of the 4Rules. Is the mantra about the 4Rules based on evaluating the real environment, or simply a macho thing where we validate ourselves that we are too superior at gun safety to require more built-in safety features?
I expect nothing less from a Dr. Seuss character. However just because you’re incompetent and irresponsible doesn’t mean everyone else is.
Thank you for making my case.
I look forward to reading about your ND and trial.
“I like manual safeties, magazine safeties, drop safeties, guns that can be fixed/cleaned without pulling the trigger.”
None of those things would solve the issue of cops indexing their fingers on the trigger due to poor training and then pulling it when something happens and they tense up. As far as disassembly, yes, other guns can be disassembled without pulling the trigger, but it is still a huge training issue if you are having people go to work on their guns without making sure they are clear first.
Agree regarding current technology not quite adequate to totally eliminate the need for good tactical training (tactical meaning deploying a firearm under stress). What about this:
– safe gun
– – Bluetooth communication with user (even available when sleeping)
– – Firearm activates when sensing body heat contact for 5 milliseconds
– – Firearm sends signal to user, “are you sure you want to shoot?”
– – User responds “yes/no”
– – Trigger guard opens upon “yes” command
– – User presses trigger
We already have technology to allow military weapons to be targeted
wherever the user is looking. And soon those weapons will be able
to sense user intent. Civilian firearm industry should leverage the
technology, then due to large population over which to spread the
cost, advance to technology to bypass the mythical Bluetooth
communicator, and go on to having the gun fire on thought command,
and the bullet travel to where the user is looking (allowing the user to
look at the ground to avoid unintended injury/damage..
Good one, Sam I Am.
California and Michael Bloomberg would love that idea, especially since it would make guns too expensive for anyone except millionaires like Bloomberg to own. XDD.
If Bloomie and Shannon glom onto my idea, you think I will get published credit?
Sorry, not a chance, Brother.
They’ll take all the credit, especially if there is a buck to be made off it. 😉
Just Rats !
Having taken a gunsite class in no way makes you an expert on policing or use of deadly force while policing. Owens was far over his head with that article and lacked the needed experience to discuss the subject. On monday morning everyone is Tom Brady, but, on Sunday afternoon there is only one guy making the plays with a 265lb linebacker trying to drive him into the ground.
Until Bob has faced a non-compliant subject in a dark stairwell, or been in a street fight at 3am with a drunk 1% patched biker, or had some fat chick jump on his back after cuffing her her abusive boyfriend; he should stick to crap he was doing and write fluff pieces and gear reviews. He had no clue what he was talking about that that story, maybe it was just an attempt to drive traffic to his blog and get on another TV news show as their so called expert.
Reading the comments, it occurs to me that absolutism can cut both ways. For all those folks that are saying, “it has nothing to do with the inanimate object, it’s totally the training”–well, conceptually, I guess that is right. But it is foolish to deny that in real life, some guns are inherently harder to handle safely than others. The ultimate example would be that late-WWII Japanese pistol with the exposed sear–all you had to do was grip it “wrong” to fire it unintentionally. I had a single-action pistol (not a revolver) with a frame-mounted safety that due to its position and lack of tension could easily slip into the “fire” position. It also lacked a half-cock notch for the hammer. It couldn’t be safely carried with a round in the chamber “cocked and locked” because the safety could too easily come off safe, and it couldn’t be carried safely uncocked because the hammer was all the way down on the firing pin. The only really safe way to carry it was with an empty chamber, which I gather was exactly what it was intended for (it was Euro police-issue). So yes, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss design features that make a particular gun more difficult to safely carry than some others might be. It doesn’t make you anti-gun.
That has nothing to do with “absolutism”. It’s about preference and ability.
Not sure what you thought I meant by “absolutism”, but what I was talking about was those commenters who are saying the gun design has absolutely nothing to do with how safe the gun is to handle and use. So yes, the discussion has to do with that. In reference to that late-war Nambu, I suppose–maybe–someone could be “trained” to handle that thing safely and still be able to use it in some kind of actual real-life manner. But it would be a damn sight harder than “training” someone to handle a normal double-action revolver safely. Frankly, given the inherent weakness of the design, I question whether it could be done in any kind of practical, real-world way. Similarly, my Zastava could be rendered extremely safe to carry by the simple expedient of carrying it with an empty chamber. But having to do it that way puts a much bigger burden on the user in terms of the other elements of actually using the gun as a self-defense tool. Design matters, and some are potentially a great deal safer to use in an everyday manner than others.
A firearm that is inherently unsafe when loaded and not touched by anyone is a flawed firearm. To take the rare case and apply it to the general is improper. Some firearms are more easily controlled and properly used than others, just like many other tools. Unless we are specifically discussing the few truly unsafe outliers, then it remains a question of preference and ability as the tool is not particularly dangerous as an inanimate object. Only when coupled with an operator does the risk potentially increase.
Of course the inanimate object, gun or otherwise, is not dangerous until it is touched. Even that Nambu was not dangerous loaded and just sitting somewhere unmoved. No one here is talking about pistols that no one is ever going to touch–the original article concerned pistols being used as part of someone’s every-day job equipment. And as you recognized, some designs are easier to handle and use safely in the real world than others, because some designs are inherently more safe to handle than others. There are still gradations between what you term the “outliers” and other guns; that’s why I used a second example. If you want a more common example, try DA revolvers with the transfer-bar mechanism. In the real world, things are going to be dropped or knocked off tables or what not. The transfer-bar mechanism makes the handgun inherently safer, aside from any training issues. In the end, I’m not sure we’re really all that far apart, I’m just saying that someone who says design has no influence at all on how safely a gun can be handled–handled, not just sitting on a floor untouched– is off the mark.
Perhaps, as you began to explore, our contention lies with the term “absolute”. I do absolutely believe that a firearm generally is not a dangerous object and any danger only begins to be a possibility when someone begins to handle it. I am trained but do not prefer GLOCK brand Glocks or DA revolvers. I own DA revolvers but usually choose to not carry them as I prefer another level of safety device. My favorite is the single action revolver followed by the 1911. I wouldn’t recommend a GLOCK or a DA revolver to a newbie or someone who doesn’t seem to be able or want to learn how to safely handle them. The same goes for the 1911 because it might be a bit more complicated for them. To me, that doesn’t mean that the GLOCK or DA revolver is inherently more dangerous or unsafe. It simply means that it perhaps might take a bit more skill in handling to avoid an ND.
So, please tell me, do we have a disagreement or did I misunderstand your original comment?
As a software engineer I would strongly argue that Glocks have an inherent design flaw. In the software field we are rightly criticized for releasing software that is difficult to use correctly. I go out of my way to design my software so that it is difficult to use improperly. Designing a firearm that requires a trigger pull (which one of the four safety rules says NOT to do unless you have a target) in order to disassemble it for cleaning is a usability design flaw. It isn’t a functional design flaw but a usability design flaw. That said, it is still the user’s fault for using the device incorrectly.
This was a good article. As someone who carries IWB appendix religiously, my cock and balls are constantly under duress. I love me some Sig Sauers, but carry a 30S. There are literally ones of ladies who would care if I shot my dick off, but thus far Glock has been an absolute rock for me. I trust it, and the mechanism, implicitly.
My one complaint about the Glock is this: When open carried, as most cops do, if the gun is snatched from the holster all the bad guy needs to do is pull the trigger to shoot the officer. An external safety would potentially give the officer a chance to get the pistol back before the bad guy can locate and disengage the safety.
Thank you for a much better-balanced and level-headed write up than the click-bait oriented Op-Ed that Mr. Owens authored.
On a somewhat related note, Glock needs a Gen 5: stainless steel barrel and slide, take down lever that doesn’t require trigger pull for disassembly, steel sights, less slop in the trigger, stainless steel guide rod and recoil springs, better frame, etc.
Personally I think metal framed DA / SA pistols are better suited for police work. However, I still believe in training and choice. I’d have everyone qual with a Sig 226 9mm or similar gun. After that, they could purchase and maintain / upgrade to a number of different guns as long as they are 9mm – .45. I’d set up ranges near local offices with 3 gun style courses. The Qual would be a run n gun after a Code 3 response with random shoot / don’t shoot scenarios.
For me, the idea of purchasing a glock ends at two words. “Glock Leg” I see no point in considering any firearm that results in enough ND’s inflicting wounds to have it’s own accident named after it. If this offends you, let me slap you with a dead fish. I own an H&K USP too! If you choose that firearm, that’s your choice. Not mine.
The reason you don’t hear about “Caracal Leg” or “Mateba Leg” isn’t because they’re more safe than Glocks, it’s because the number of people using them is minuscule compared to the number of people using Glocks.
Basing a buying decision on a simplistic gun-board insult, divorced from any real analysis of frequency and danger, is just silly.
Generally you see a negligent discharge it will be a Glock. Just something wrong about depending on not pulling the trigger for a safety. I won’t own one.
Let the Glock disciples pile on now.
Blaming the Glock’s trigger for an ND is silly at best. The trigger is fine. Someone negligently pulled the trigger, and that person alone bears the entire blame for the ND.
The other issue I have with Owen’s article — not Mike’s rebuttal — is that he assumes that some if not all of the discharges were inadvertent. I’m not so sure. I think it’s way too easy, after gunning someone down, to say “OMG! I didn’t mean to do it! The gun just went off!”
Roger that !!
Most NDs occur when handling the pistol for some other reason then shooting it. A 1911 can be handled without ever disengaging the grip safety so despite its very short trigger pull it is difficult to cause the gun to go off even with the thumb safety disengaged. The XD series is almost as safe but requires you to disengage the safety to rack the slide. Either pistol is less prone to NDS than a Glock.
Sounds to me like someone is selling something. Don’t know Bob, couldn’t care less but this usually comes down to somebody pushing something.
I’ve shot Glocks for years as well as 1911s, S&W revolvers, and SIGs… even a P7. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a people problem. Too many just want to protect their sacred cows or their “expert” opinions.
If you go to a pistol competition you’ll see mostly striker fired pistols and 1911s. Wonder why that is? Why handicap yourself w/ a gun that is harder to shoot well? DA/SA guns just plain stink in comparison. Don’t take my word, come and watch for yourself. If one won’t even make an effort unless they are paid and all equipment is paid for, what makes you think they’ll make any effort w/ a different type gun?
Most people want to blame someone/something else for their own shortcomings, but they can only see it when others do it. Good luck w/ that.
“Just follow the four rules” people say, as an argument against those who would condemn a gun that has one less external safety than most. By this logic a gun with 0 mechanical safeties (sorry, the trigger dingus (TM) doesn’t count since you disengage it by pulling the trigger, and the point to a safety is to prevent the gun from firing when the trigger IS pulled) is no less safe than one with one or two such safeties.
To hear them tell it, the four rules are enough by themselves, there’s no need for an additional “layer” (or layers) of safety afforded by (say) a lever and/or grip safety.
What they miss is that the four rules themselves are layered! You could avoid ALL NDs by following just one of the four rules. Yet we have FOUR rules? Why is that? Because the four rules were crafted by someone who understood that all people are fallible. Let me say that again: All. People. Are. Fallible. Thus the rules were designed so that you would have to break at least two of them for something truly bad (as opposed to embarrasing) to happen.
So why the refusal to admit that a gun with fewer layers of safety is more likely to have those layers circumvented by someone who is failing?
I am responsible for every bullet that comes out of a gun that is under my control. It’s incumbent on me, therefore, to do everything I can to minimize the chance one will come out when I don’t want it to, or will go where I don’t want it to, and one of the easiest ways to backstop my own fallibility is to have a lever safety.
I’ll say it yet again. ALL. PEOPLE. ARE. FALLIBLE. There seem to be two kinds of people in the world, those who realize that applies to them, and those that think everyone else is a screwup but they themselves don’t make mistakes. I hope I am NEVER in a firefight side by side with the latter.
Those who rely on the human element to prevent an ND are relying on the weakest link in the safety chain.
Game, set, and match !!
@SteveInCo, I disagree with you to this extent — pulling the trigger is more an act of will than leaving the damn thing alone, especially when the trigger is a NY Glock requiring twelve pounds of force. It’s harder to pull the trigger than to leave it alone.
Don’t pull the trigger — how hard is that?
I wasn’t addressing poor trigger discipline by cops under stress, but rather the thread re whether Glocks are “unsafe” or not. For what it’s worth, I think the NYPD 12 lb trigger “solution” to Glocks is about as stupid (and deadly) a bureaucratic diktat as I’ve heard of this side of the Atlantic.
Actually my biggest concern re the unmodified Glock design is with the accidental holstering trigger snag; you’re not consciously pulling the trigger. Maybe something gets in your holster and snags the trigger and you got distracted (easy to have happen under stress) and forgot to check and…BANG! “WTF?” Or maybe you even left your finger in the trigger guard as you holstered, which would be a more culpable fail. They happen. With a locked safety neither one of those incidents would have been anything more than embarassing. As I said three times, and now this will be Number Four, All People Are Fallible. If you have NEVER made a mistake in regard to guns, Ralph, let’s just agree you are the Second Coming and be done with it. Otherwise you are fooling yourself if you seriously think you are incapable of an ND.
Re: “Glocks are unsafe” I think everyone (other than full-retard hoplophobes) agrees that a Glock sitting on the table is not going to just go off; in that sense it’s as safe as a bar of soap. So are a lot of things though, like a case of nitroglycerin, which won’t do anything if you just leave it the hell alone. So honestly I have little patience for people who seem to think the “Glocks are unsafe” crowd are alleging the gun will go off if it’s sitting on a table. It’s called a strawman counterargument. They aren’t saying one on the table will just go off, so why accuse them of saying so?.
Glocks are by all accounts “drop safe” too. By the way, no one seems to be bothered by drop safeties; no one just says “hey, dumbass, just never drop your gun.”
It has often been noticed that aviation accidents happen when a whole chain of things goes wrong–one thing having gone right would have saved lives. Similar with gun “accidents” though the chain is a lot shorter: You violated TWO of the Four Rules and now someone has an orifice (or two) he didn’t have a few seconds ago. Personally I know I am capable of mistakes, I will want a gun whose design is much more forgiving of my mistakes than one that isn’t. Am I blaming the gun? Hell no! But I wonder, would it make sense to blame the *purchaser* of the gun for purchasing a gun that is less likely to backstop mistakes? In other words, “Gee, not only did you make a mistake, you bought the wrong gun for someone who makes as many mistakes as you do.”
“Actually my biggest concern re the unmodified Glock design is with the accidental holstering trigger snag; you’re not consciously pulling the trigger. Maybe something gets in your holster and snags the trigger and you got distracted (easy to have happen under stress) and forgot to check and…BANG! “WTF?” Or maybe you even left your finger in the trigger guard as you holstered, which would be a more culpable fail. They happen. With a locked safety neither one of those incidents would have been anything more than embarrassing”.
This requires the assumption that the firearm safety will be re-engaged 100% of the time, while distracted, or under stress. 😉
Not really, Red.
Even if you forget fully half the time, you’re half as bad off with a safety that’s ALWAYS off because it’s not there.
I’m NOT talking about foolproofing, That would be asinine, the fools continue to become more ingenious no mater how much we try to adapt to them. I *am* talking about taking steps to reduce risk, or not…but if not, acknowledging what it is you are (not) doing, instead of hiding behind “don’t blame the gun” (I don’t, and that line of argument misses the point) or “no gun is perfectly safe” (I never said one was), as some people do.
As to the NY1 trigger spring. I have the minus connector and the NY1 in my daily carry the Glock 41. While attending the Glock Armorer’s Corse we put the NY1 trigger spring in the Glock 19 we were working with and I liked how it felt compared to the stock trigger spring. I have another minus connector and NY1 spring I will be putting in my Glock 36 soon. I shot an IDPA course of fire with my Glock 41 last month and really didn’t notice a big change. If I go to the indoor range and shoot 100 rounds through the Glock 41 with this combination I do notice it wears on my trigger finger a bit.
I still believe if a LEO can’t not keep their finger out of the trigger guard when they are supposed to they shouldn’t pass qualification. It’s very simple, don’t blame the engineering of the firearm. I train daily taking every time I put my Glock 41 in my IWB holster and every time I take it out. I feel the combination of the minus connector and the NY1 spring might help me prevent a negligent discharge in the day to day handling of my weapon. That and if I am every put into a situation where I have to use deadly force, no one can make the whole “hair trigger” argument about by firearms.
My first semi auto: browning hi power. Arguably the best balanced 9mm ever made. Single action only with an OK at best safety: no thanks for carry. I then tried to pick up a Glock: horrible. And cheap looking and feeling. Terribly balanced, sights awful, strange trigger. This was MY perception, based on my one real reference for comparison; my hi power.
Picked up a Sig DA/SA. Good balance, very high quality build, great sights, no safety since to me the decocker with 10Lbs DA then ~5 lbs is THE SAFETY. Also have a striker fired P320 subcompact. Like it.
So….is the Loooong First Pulllll of a Sig such a major risk that 1000’s of police departments, numerous branches/specialists of our military, FBI and secret service etc have no clue about? What a crock of sh#t Glock lovers will cook up to defend their plastic wonder.
I’m pretty sure Glocks are a good bit cheaper than Sigs. It would not surprise me if (in expert hands) Glocks are also more accurate than Sigs, looking down a new Glock barrel is pretty stunning. Figuring out how many different ways you could have an ND is the reason mine has an empty chamber.
The solution. Is not a condition.3 Glock but a Springfield XD/m with a grip safety.
The solution, however, isn’t to abandon a safe, reliable and effective design, but to institute proper training and practices, including absolute familiarity with the correct manual of arms and basic safety practices…regardless of which firearm is employed.
Either you have the high speed low drag operators be given more intensive training or have them carry the GLOCK without a round in the chamber Israeli style. The GLOCK is a poor gun for Barney Fife. One thing to remember is that the M1 Carbine was furnished in WWII because most slob soldiers and officers were totally incompetent with a pistol. I am not saying GLOCKs are evil, I am just saying that most cops are incompetent.
If training were the solution, would the problem not be solved already? The human cannot be trained to 100% reliability. St. Samuel Colt invented the Patterson revolver, which had no trigger guard because the trigger was tucked away in the frame until the hammer was cocked. How could that go wrong? Apparently it did, because soon a trigger guard was added, and the trigger exposed all the time. Then came the Colt and S/W new models, which were DA/SA. There was a reason for the DA, and it was not convenience or coolness. In the last 120yrs there have been constant safety improvements to fire arms (even John the Master incorporated both the grip and slide safety. Why?
Because humans could not and cannot be relied upon to follow the 4Rules, 100% of the time. Reducing human error through engineering has been a hallmark of inherently dangerous tools. Early desk fans did not have a cage, early table saws did not have blade brakes, there were so many unsafe toys and items throughout the 1900s that were made “child proof”. Why do we insist that firearm safety be dependent on people alone?
If training were the solution, would the problem not be solved already?
You’re making a huge assumption that cops are trained.
If I asked a hundred New York cops about the Four Rules, fifty of them would be dumbfounded and most of the others would think it has something to do with calling in for lunch.
Re: cops and training….agree. Have seen them on the range, off duty; shocking (don’t even get started on private security guys). It has been a while since I wrote the comment, but I think I had in mind the general gun-owning population,
I tried to find any police dept. that issued 1911s exclusively and could not find one. Therefore, there is no direct comparison between 1911 ND and GLOCK ND stats. However, there are many stories of NDs with 1911s from military and civilian use and even some police. One or more of the Rules is neglected and you get an ND. Some NDs occur during dry fire practice, some while trying to clean and some while carrying the 1911 without the trigger guard covered such as pocket carry(!?) or stuffed in the waistband. All NDs are caused by not following the 4 Rules no matter what platform you use. The 4 Rules have to be inculcated into the user until that person performs them at an unconscious level. They have to be performed at all times everywhere. That is why most police training falls short.
As for cleaning a GLOCK, once you have learned the takedown procedure you can do it with your eyes closed including safety checking for a loaded round in the chamber. If I’m not mistaken, J.M. Browning demonstrated that same method for the Army before they adopted the 1911 or maybe on of his other designs. Police training and any other training can’t repeat this too often. And if an officer can’t achieve a minimum level of competence then he/she shouldn’t be issued a weapon and allowed to patrol with it. Most police are not gun guys/gals. They have to be trained up until they are. If they aren’t we will continue to get the same results we are currently getting. If they have a Barney Fife level of competence then they should have a Barney Fife level of firearms carry – one round in the pocket and revolver on the hip. If they don’t want to carry that way then they need to get themselves trained up. If I were a police chief there would be a minimum level of competence before an officer could carry a pistol on their hip. And dry fire/manipulation practice is free.
It just occurred to me that in most martial arts there is a belt system to show what competence level the wearer has achieved. There should be a corresponding system for the art of gun-fu. As others have said on this thread: Don’t blame the tool for your incompetence.
Belt System: (feel free to add/name levels)
1. Barney Fife (beginner)
2. Police Academy grad. (Newbie)
8. Operator operating operationally (expert)
And, yes, I have had an ND during dry fire practice but with a backstop.
Bob Owens meets Dick Metcalf. I tend to fall into the “What the hell was this guy thinking?” group. The gun-control movement is in such a state of high dudgeon right now that even the most innocently benign attempts at conciliation from a gun-rights figure will be seized upon and politicized. Owens, who writes for a living, surely knows this. But then Dick Metcalf (anybody remember him?) attempted to do the same thing with similar results. Note to writers who should already know this: Gun controllers are not nice people. They will see you’re attempt to make nice as a weakness and turn your words against you. I know writing and getting read by lots of people is a real ego builder, but never, ever, even think that your august personage is commanding enough that you can part the ideological waters of a social movement, even one that’s failing, and bring calm and understanding to warring foes. Dick Metcalf thought he could do that. I wonder if they’ve removed his head from the Guns and Ammo wall yet?
Bob Owens has been my best friend for 50 years. Fortunately, he is not *this* Bob Owens.
Blah, blah… more sacred cow defense. Shoot what works for you but don’t pretend that it’s somehow “superior” because it’s your baby. SIGs, Berettas, 3rd gen S&Ws are all good guns but the striker fired guns are easier to shoot well. What works for SEALs (or any other highly trained group) is not necessarily the best for cops. A SEAL could beat you w/ a #2 pencil, so what does a pistol have to do w/ the price of tea in China? Besides, I don’t think the SEALs have to play by the same rules as cops.
There were plenty of NDs in the age of the revolver too. History didn’t begin 20 years ago, do the research. There were also plenty of gunsmiths who made a living making those revolvers easier to shoot well.
Not to mention the amount of complaining about the triggers on many guns from the factory… this is what the FBI would call a clue.
Shoot what you like, makes no difference to me. But… if you want to test it, bring it out to a competition… less shooting your mouth off and more shooting your pistol.
And I agree with you Al. I’ll keep my cheap Taurus with a manual safety…and outshoot the GLOCK brand GLOCK boys at the range.
Amen! I was thinking the same thing when I read that article, training that “about 20%” needs more training or the don’t qualify, period. At my LGS you can take a qualification course and if you pass they will allow you to rapid fire. Next course you pass, you can draw from your holster. Put your finger in the trigger guard when you’re not supposed to, you fail, pure and simple. I’ve see them ask others to leave for putting their finger in the trigger guard when they are NOT supposed to. Again blame the properly functioning inatimate tool instead of taking responsibility for proper training. Wish I had a dollar for everytime I’ve seen millions of dollars wasted trying to correct the human involvement when more and/or better training would have sufficed at a much lower cost usually.
Glocks are not accident prone. If anybody bothers to keep track of my name here, you know I’m the first to talk sh!t about Glock. But facts are facts…
No gun is accident prone… But the “It’s not loaded, and it’s a Glock so point it wherever and ignore trigger finger discipline” attitude pervasive in LE is only exacerbated by the “safe action” advertising…
There’s nothing inherently wrong with Glocks that makes them more prone to being found in accident, except that they are marketed towards, and put in the hands of, really, really, really, irresponsible d!ckabgs… That’s just the demographic they end up being owned by. Every gangsta wants a Glock. Cops can’t be trusted to handle anything else, and even then, they can’t be trust with Glocks, either; because of their general lack of adherence to the rules of guns safety…
There is a point to be made when one realizes that you have to pull the trigger to disassemble it… But Glock isn’t the only gun for which this is true… It does train a bad practice.
I prefer other poly frames anyway. Glock has always turned me off by the people it seems to attract… And the attitude of the maker… Glock attracts irresponsible douche bags. Not all Glock owners are irresponsible, but “Irresponsible (douche bag) Gun Owner of the Day” probably has a Glock…
Generalize much? Choosing a pistol because of who else does or doesn’t have one is almost as silly as bringing SEALs into this discussion.
Glock is a victim of their own success, which, I think, someone else already pointed out. There are a lot more of them out there and the rest follows (good and bad).
I shoot Glocks best but that’s just me. I don’t want to buy overpriced mags, new holster, ect. for another gun which will be, at best, only as good as what I already have. Not to mention that I can fix most problems (on the rare occasion that one occurs) myself in 5 mins at the range rather than sending the gun off for 2 months to outer Mongolia. But hey, to each his own.
I guess I’ll just say this: too many folks w/ opinions spend a lot more time talking about guns/shooting than they do shooting. Also, most shooters don’t bring up SEALs when discussing guns. Instead, they reference their own experience… and they do it quickly because they’d rather be shooting.
Bob Owens is an idiot who has made a career and a fortune off gun owners, and now he writes an article for the LA Times, of all rags, that gives anti-gun Liberals ammunition to attack guns and gun owners, not to mention police.
As Shakespeare said, “This above all: to thine own self be true.” Bob has obviously taken this to heart to the detriment of America’s gun owners, and so then must I. I no longer subscribe to the Bearing Arms blog.
Glock disassembly is flawed. Requiring the trigger pulled to field strip teaches users that the trigger has two functions. The only function the trigger ought to have is to fire the gun.
Bob Owens failed because he neglected to have someone peer-review his words. Essentially, he failed to speak the truth. He is demonizing Glock for no apparent reason. And why? Is it because he’s trying to influence the choice of the next DoD standard firearm? Is it because he owns stock in S&W or Springfield?
This anti-Glock rhetoric about them not being “safe” is old and worn out, and thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere. Maybe it’s time Bob Owens stop writing, if he’s getting up in years and can’t be objective or logical.
Like one of the posters, I began my police career with a Smith & Wesson .357. BAck then we carried .357, 115 gr Super Vel Ammo. We then went to the 124 Gr Winchester. I have no problem with carrying a wheelgun, my favorite being a .44 special or a .41 mag with LSWC.
I own one glock, only because it is a 10mm. Many departments had issues with ADs due to the pulling of the trigger to remove the slide. Bad design. Personally I have seen more Glocks lock up than both of my 1911s. NOt a fan of Gastons gun. OH well
Why is everyone so up in arms about pulling the trigger to disassemble a Glock? Are you folks telling me you never pull the trigger on your gun? Dry fire training? Checking actions after reassembling your gun? Measuring trigger pull? I’ve disassembled my Glock a hundred times or more, and haven’t had it go bang yet.
The secret to this is simple . . . clear your weapon before cleaning or disassembling. Drop the magazine. Rack the slide several times. Visually inspect the chamber. NOW you can safely disassemble the gun. Really. I promise.
If people are so stupid that they don’t have enough common sense or training to unload the gun before disassembling, carry it in a secure holster that covers the trigger, and keep their fingers off the trigger until they’re ready to fire, then they really shouldn’t be carrying a gun. There is no way to completely idiot proof any gun.
I guess this is what it is when you’re the ‘big dog’ on the block. You get all the attention, whether it’s positive, or negative. GLOCK isn’t the only pistol that requires the trigger to be pulled in order to field strip, yet when the topic comes up, it’s a GLOCK flaw. It’s not a flaw. It’s how the gun is field stripped. Anyone, ANYONE who pulls the trigger of a ANY firearm, without checking the chamber, is a criminally negligent idiot. You never, ever, pull the trigger on a firearm unless you:
1) Know what you’re pointing the firearm at, and intend to shoot it.
2) Know that the firearm is empty because you visually and physically checked the chamber/cylinder and removed the magazine from a pistol.
The only way pulling the trigger to field strip could be considered a ‘flaw’ is if an idiot owns the pistol. Yes, an idiot. Only an idiot pulls the trigger on a firearm without checking the chamber/cylinder. Human nature this, mistakes that. BS. People don’t “ooops” and stand in the middle of a fire because, well, only an idiot would do that. The same applies here. If pulling the trigger to field strip is a design flaw for you, I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news.
As to no external safety, others have already pointed out that if you have your weapon drawn (which presumably means you fear for your life and feel the need to defend it), you better have that safety off. If you are concerned about a coat string, or a shirt/jacket getting into the trigger guard and ‘snagging’ the trigger, I suggest maybe you don’t need to reholster so damn fast and pay attention when you do it. A fast draw is crucial to self defense. A fast reholster? Not even remotely necessary.
Funny how people ‘hate’ the pro-GLOCK position, and accuse those people of being kool-aid drinkers, ‘fanbois’, etc. Yet their “anti” stance is every bit as enthusiastic and is ALWAYS followed up by “My has this, doesn’t have that, and is just as good or better”. Really? Rip on the GLOCK owner, but then ya gotta throw in the plug for your favorite pistol. Just don’t. As much as you don’t care about someone who has a preference for GLOCK, I imagine they don’t give a rats ass about your preference for your CZ, or your M&P, or your 1911, or whatever totally awesome non-GLOCK you carry. How about just carry what you like, and leave it at that?
Bob’s article was complete bunk. From beginning, to end.
Well said, Dave.
It’s no secret that you have to CLEAR you weapon before disassembling it.
It makes no difference if the gun is loaded or not you point the gun in a safe direction. The first rule of firearm safety is treat all guns as if they are loaded. Point the gun at the ground to dry fire it for field stripping. If a police officer cannot manage to keep their gun pointed in a safe direction they need more training. We have around 600 fatal gun accidents every year in the US. A disproportionate number of these fatal accidents happen to Law Enforcement Officers. There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US and 100,000,000 private gun owners. Obviously law enforcement needs much more safety training.
I disassemble my G19 no less than 5 times Saturday, while testing out different recoils spring weights(700+ rounds fired). Wanna guess how many times I shot a hole in myself, my truck, or my buddy?
The gun went off by itself seventeen times.
(Did I come close?)
To those who take Owens’ ill-advised column as an opportunity to Glock bash, there are two points.
1) I’ve seen more NDs with 1911s than with Glocks (4 or 5 versus 0).
2) Contributing to the “Glocks are a menace” argument plays into gun banners hands. If you think that this argument may only adversely affect Glocks, then think again.
i’ve been on this blog for two years. read all the posts about glock NDs. read all the retorts that glocks are no worse than….
anyone have stats on all NDs? which firearms represent the most NDs, which the most NDs per owner population (total sales)?
those answers should end the matter.
Negligent Discharges start with negligence. No amount of straw-man, false equivalence, post hoc or non-sequitur is going to change that.
I don’t know if anyone brought this up, but, if you can’t train them to keep their fingers off the trigger until ready to fire, or clear a firearm before disassembly,how the hell are you going to train them to engage a manual safety?
The last time I checked the manual safeties on my pistols didn’t do anything if you didn’t engage them.
In any “Glocks Suck Because They Don’t Have A Little Switch On The Outside” rant I’ve ever endured, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone express how safe an un-engaged manual safety is.
You get the same kind of crap about Blackhawk Serpa retention holsters no matter what the pistol
USE THE SAFETY BETWEEN YOUR EARS….
This is the dull knife theory. The dull blade ends up being more dangerous to use. The heavy trigger causes more pulling and hitting unintended targets when panicked shooting starts.
Any gun that is designed so you have to pull the trigger to disassemble it is a potential safety issue. Can you train around that issue? Sure. Can you encourage people to remove the magazine and rack the slide several times before pulling the trigger. Sure. But the flaw is still there and a ND will crop up now and then due to that flaw. IF a round is accidentally left in the chamber and you have to pull the trigger then you have only one of the main 3 safety procedures left and you damn well better have it pointed in safe direction when you pull that trigger. Me, I like my Beretta PX4, with a hammer and a safety. And my SCCY CPX-2, with a 2D trigger and no safety. Neither of which require me to pull the trigger to take them apart. But that’s just me.
…and like deactivating (or inadvertently activating) a manual safety had never caused a problem. I have seen numerous 1911 lovers convert to the Glock to avoid dealing with a manual safety.
Having fired over 10,000 rounds from Glocks I don’t recommend sticking one in your pocket or pants without a holster. If you use a fanny pack I recommend a pistol with a safety. Other than that they are hard to beat.
Only a FOOL considers themselves so elite and infallible that they don’t need a safety on their gun.
Maybe Bob is secretly working for Sig…
Bob Owens is just the latest Jim Zumbo, and the enemy LA Times is more than happy to print his opinion. Along with that, Bob’s article is a load of crap.
There is a higher risk associated with any semi-automatic firearm if the operator is careless, ignorant or under the influence. Morons, like small children, should not possess firearms. Yes, some cops are morons.
This is my response that I posted to Bob Owens’ article on bearingarms.com:
Mr. Owens, in reading your blog and this article, I noticed that you are a proud Gunsite graduate, and use same to lend authority and credibility to your pontifications on the subject of defensive handguns and shooting – so, I got to wondering which pistol you used for Gunsite 250?
Oh, a Walther PPQ – ummmm, that looks a lot like one of those “unforgiving” polymer-frame, striker-fired pistols with a short trigger pull and no external safeties…
Wonder what the trigger’s like on that pistol?
“Quick Defense Trigger: Smooth, light 5.6 lb trigger pull for all shots. Short .4″ trigger travel and .1″ trigger reset for fast, accurate second shots. Facilitates double-taps. Superb trigger feel aids accuracy.”
By Jove, that sounds an awful lot like…a Glock or a S&W M&P. But, since it’s a *Walther*, it must be OK…
So, how did you do at Gunsite with your “NotAGlock” Walther PPQ?
“Yes, I “died” three times at Gunsite.
In two runs on different indoor simulators I got tunnel vision. I cleared the rooms with deliberate intent, focusing so closely on every interior corner and angle that I simply failed to notice solitary bad guys standing outside the windows as I passed by.
My third “death” was simply mortifying. I successfully cleared a room, and then encountered a target almost right on top of me in the narrow hallway beyond. I pointed, instead of looking at the front sight, and yanked the trigger instead of pressing it. I missed twice at five feet.”
Golly gee willikers, you went to some of the best defensive handgun training in the world, and during a run in the Gunsite Funhouse – still regarded as one of the premier facilities for police gunfight and CQB/house-clearing training – you STILL ganked a couple of close-range shots with “a polymer-frame, striker-fired pistol with a short trigger pull and no external safeties.”
Guess “the brutal reality that short trigger pulls and natural human reflexes are a deadly combination” worked out somewhat differently for you…
If only you’d been using one of those “DA/SA handguns like the Sig Sauer “P”-series, the Beretta 9 series and PX4 series, CZs, Smith & Wesson’s metal-frame semis,Ruger’s SR series, etc.” “with much longer double-action triggers that are just as easy to fire deliberately but that are much harder to fire accidentally,” as the founder of Gunsite, the late Col. Jeff Cooper advocated – oh wait, here’s what Col. Cooper ACTUALLY said about DA/SA pistols:
October 1973–“Double action in an auto pistol seems to me an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.”
“In reflecting upon a recent all-cop pistol session we conducted over in California, it is apparent once again that cops, as a group, are pretty hard to train. Those who are stuck with the crunchenticker – and these are many – will persist with the slow-crunch technique in spite of all advice to the contrary. This system is almost universal in the law enforcement establishment. If it is done accurately it is too slow. If it is done rapidly it is inaccurate. It is possible that I am paying too much attention to unrealistically high levels of performance, which are really not necessary in gun fighting. Still, I like to see people do as well as they can. It is bothersome to see them make no effort to do so.
There has never been much question about it, and it is indisputable after decades of observation that the single-action self-loading pistol – the Colt 1911 and its clones – is the easiest, heavy-duty sidearm with which to hit. The crunchenticker is the most difficult, and the Glock is somewhere in the middle. Shooting a Glock is simply shooting a single-action self-loader with no safety and a very poor trigger. If real excellence is not the objective, this is a satisfactory system to employ.”
Perhaps Buz Mills should consider revoking your Gunsite 250 certificate for “blatant public hypocrisy unbecoming of a national gun-rights advocate,” or at least requiring you to repeat the course with a Beretta or SIG DA/SA pistol “with much longer double-action triggers that are just as easy to fire deliberately but that are much harder to fire accidentally” – and you yourself might want to read Matthew 7:1-5 before attempting to pander to low-information readers again…
This is my response to a later rebuttal elsewhere on Facebook:
I’m glad that Bob Owens got to graduate from Gunsite, and I greatly enjoyed the articles he wrote about his experience when I first read them.
I’m OK with the fact that he used what many would consider a “gamer gun,” his 5″ longslide Walther PPQ, even though he admits that “The Kahr CM9 is my current every-day carry gun.” (http://bearingarms.com/mine-nine/2/) He’s not alone in training with a range gun and carrying a subcompact pocket pistol, although I’d say it’s a shame to throw away 5 days and 1000’s of dollars and rounds worth of top-notch training and “muscle memory” by not carrying the same gun that he trained with(or at least stick with the same operating system, by carrying a Walther PPS).
I like and own several of the DA pistols Bob referenced in this latest post, and I actually agree with him that they’re not that hard to shoot, once you learn how. I just wish he would have argued FOR DA pistols based on their own merits, instead of AGAINST short-trigger, no-external-safety pistols like the one he himself used at Gunsite.
I don’t even have a problem with the fact that he completely missed a target under pressure at extremely close range – I’ve done the same in IDPA matches, and as long as we didn’t harm or endanger ourselves or a fellow shooter, honestly acknowledge our own fault, and learn from the experience, it’s OK(all of which Bob Owens did, to his credit: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/11/13/gunfighter-school-n1914586).
However, what beggars his credibility and my credulity, is less than a year later, while speaking in a national forum as a national advocate and authority on gun rights and gun ownership, blithely dismissing the same kind of human fault and error as being an unavoidable part of human nature, and instead assigning blame to the inanimate tool. It’s as if Bob Owens unilaterally decided that cops and other folks who carry Glocks and similar pistols can’t reasonably be expected to learn and adhere to Cooper’s Rules of Gunhandling(as he was personally taught at Gunsite itself mere months ago), because training is “utterly irrelevant,” when “humans are gonna be human,” and instead they need guns designed to take more of the burden of safety out of our frail, fallible, merely-human hands. I can’t imagine that Col. Cooper would have tolerated that for a second, as staunch an advocate of personal responsibility and training as he was, and I doubt that the current staff of Gunsite would feel any differently.
I have to wonder, why the change? Did Bob Owens have an epiphany at Gunsite, or shortly after, that suddenly made him realize why short-trigger, no-external-safety pistols like Glocks and S&W M&Ps(AND his Walther PPQ, AND the Springfield XD9 he ALSO used to own) are such a bad idea? Did Bob, or a fellow student, have an AD under circumstances similar to the cops he cited in his article? Did Bob somehow come to the realization that he wouldn’t have been “killed” in the Gunsite Funhouse if his pistol had had a long, heavy double-action trigger like his Kahr CM9(which he DIDN’T shoot at Gunsite)?
If so, why didn’t he say so in his article? Space limitations aside, surely he could have squeezed in a simple sentence or two about how his personal experience owning short-trigger, no-manual-safety pistols and shooting same under stress at Gunsite made him realize how unforgivingly dangerous they are?
At least he could have covered himself by acknowledging that such pistols are indeed safe(r) in the hands of trained, conscientious handlers – that would have been merely “elitist,” and wouldn’t have offended thousands of Glock owners who ARE trained and conscientious(or at least regard themselves as such).
As it is, the tone of his L.A. Times op-ed and his follow-up article strongly suggests to me that Bob Owens decided to pander to the current popular narrative that “cops shoot too many [non-white]people,” and chose to lay the blame at the feet of the guns used(which are strikingly similar to the ones he himself admits to owning and training with), because that line of reasoning was easier to sell to the Times’ editors and readership…
I recently tested a Walther PPQ vs. a H&K VP-9. The PPQ’s reset is so light and short I found myself double-tapping inadvertently. I learned not to, and love, love, love that gun but . . . definitely more of an “expert’s gun” than a GLOCK.
Great analysis of a great weapon.
I’m a gun novice–I just bought my first pistol, a Browning Buck Mark .22, for target practice–and I gotta say, the unintended discharges described by Mr. Owens are things we covered in the FIRST HOUR of the NRA Basic Pistol course that I completed last month. “Advanced training” doesn’t seem necessary. Basic (literally) training should cover it.
An excellent way to keep the police from massacring innocent civilians in every cops quest to come home alive even at the cost of the innocent civilians downrange would be to fire the officer involved in the shooting and possibly the officer who trained that one and impose a million $ penalty on any municipality that allows its police to kill wound unintended targets of police fire paid to the victim or that victim’s family.
That should do it.
Regardless of Bob Owens knowledge of guns, dedication to gun rights, or personal integrity, the main function of his LA Times article was to provide ammo to the Left–the anti-American, Constitution-hating, Marxist Left. Thus, Owens is nothing more than a “useful idiot.”
Great web site you’ve got here.. It’s difficult to find good quality
writing like yours nowadays. I seriously appreciate individuals like you!