Negligent Discharge. This is not a rare occurrence. - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > Negligent Discharge. This is not a rare occurrence.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-2010, 06:57 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5732 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Maybe if there was a rule that the second ND should result in the removal of that first knuckle on the trigger finger (ala Cat's Eye the stop smoking part), this wouldn't be such a problem.

Don't be wussies; people declaw cats the same way, sometimes before the cat even gets to claw the furniture once.

__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 08:51 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hunter Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,413
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

The most important lesson I hope my students walk away with (IMHO) is, A safety is a mechanical device and can and will ultimately fail. A safety is not a substitute for safe firearm handling.

In class I refer to a safety as, not a safety. The only actual safety on a firearm is the one between your ears.

Rule #1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.
Rule #2 Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.
Then also remember rule #4. Never put your finger on the trigger unless your going to pull it.

One of the three major causes of firearm incidents each year is lack of skills. Firearms without safeties don't even make the list.

__________________

God, Family, Guns, in that order.

hunter Joe is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 09:39 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post
When LAPD transitioned to Beretta 92F's MANY years ago, they had so many officers holstering COCKED 92F's that the holster policy was revised. It mandated that the holster include a feature that would de-cock the pistol in the event it was holstered while cocked. And my old friend Ken Blocker (Ted Blocker Holsters) was the guy who designed that mechanism for their LAPD holsters.

Point being, that a manual safety or de-cocker is only as useful as the level of it's implementation by the end user (officer).

LAPD issued DA S&W revolvers for years before they went to the Beretta. All their DA revolvers had been neutered and could only fire DA. "Why?", you may ask. One of the reasons was because too many officers were re-holstering COCKED revolvers, often with disastrous results.

The old S&W DA only pistols have the shortest, lightest, smoothest DA trigger I've ever seen. WAY lighter, smoother and shorter than a Glock trigger, but without even as much as a trigger safety. But they were hailed as the "Holy Grail" of trigger systems when they came out. They were vaunted for their "as safe as a DA revolver" design. Did any of you slam THOSE pistols as unsafe?

Poor gun handling is poor gun handling, no matter how many safeties are included on the weapon. Period.

I have un-holstered and re-holstered Glock pistols thousands of times. Fast, slow, strong hand, weak hand, open top, thumb break, duty holster, CC holster, shoulder holster, IWB holster, Mexican carry, blah blah blah. Never had any kind of an issue with it because I PAY ATTENTION to what I'm doing.

Many of my students are pretty serious "gun people". But a few of them have 92F's, Sigs and 1911's. It never fails during class that at some point they stop de-cocking, or stop engaging the manual safeties prior to re-holstering their pistols. These are people who are gun people, and understand how their gear works. One of them practices in front of a full length mirror for at least two hours a day. He is a Black Belt in several Martial Arts and is focused on his task. But he still neglects/forgets to de-cock his P220 at least a couple of times each class he takes. And in every class I catch at least one person re-holstering an unsafe pistol. One guy with a Nighthawk 1911 believed his grip safety would be good enough if he forgot to re-engage the thumb safety.

Many years ago I had a guy show up with his beautiful Belgian Hi-Power (with the tiny little thumb safety). He did not use his thumb safety because it was "too hard to engage one handed".

Take a 1911 with a worn (or poorly fitted) thumb safety. Engage the safety, point in a safe direction and squeeze the trigger. The gun will fire. I've seen it with many military 1911's, with many "home built" 1911's, and with quite a few stock, but well used 1911's. That was the first test I would run on used 1911's when people would bring them into the shop. The second test would be to engage the thumb safety, squeeze the trigger and THEN dis-engage the thumb safety and see if it would fire. Many would bypass the half cock notch and the hammer would drop all the way. But you guys want people to rely on a manual safety as a hedge against unsafe gun handling? That is IDIOTIC.

There was a Deputy US Marshall in Texas (?) many years ago who carried a 1911. One day he had to use the bathroom and did not want his pistol on the floor, so he hung it by the trigger guard on the hook on the back of the stall door. When he was done, he grabbed his cocked and locked 1911, and as he lifted it off the hook, the hook hit the trigger. That fired a round up through the ceiling, between the legs of the person sitting at their desk on the next floor, and the bullet lodged in the desk. By the time the Deputy was done he had fired a couple more rounds up through the ceiling. This Deputy was an experienced gun guy who had used 1911's all his life.

How many 1911's are still out there with pinned grip safeties? Lots.

Relying on any mechanical safety is a recipe for disaster. Instead, rely on keeping your trigger finger off the trigger, and stop making excuses for poor gun handling.

This isn't even a rant FOR Glocks. This is a rant against gun owners using the same argument as the Anti-Gunners, then blaming the gun. It is a rant against those who so blindly trust a manual safety that they think it is perfectly acceptable to handle guns irresponsibly as long as they have a manual safety.

So, let me get this straight. You think that an (careless) Officer can be taught to de-cock another pistol before they re-holster, or engage a manual safety on another pistol before they re-holster, but learning to simply take their trigger finger off the trigger is a skill far beyond their abilities? Seriously? Listen to your own "logic".

The irony here is that Shi posted these links with an inference that Glocks are unsafe, while he is the self ascribed "Sigma Fanboy" on FTF. The very same Sigma that got S&W sued by Glock because the Sigma was essentially the same design as the Glock. Am I the only one who thinks that is ironic?

Blind faith in a manual safety will get someone killed. Seeing "gun people" parrot the same arguments as the Anti Gunners makes me a little sick to my stomach.

The Glock is a terrible design, but the Sigma, DA S&W's, DAO Sigs, DAO HK's, DA Revolvers, and all the other DAO pistols are all awesome.

Or MAYBE, people who feel the Glock is unsafe should man up and admit that they believe that poor gun handling should be perfectly OK, as long as they have a scapegoat?

Nah, you are right and I am wrong. Guns are bad. Blame the gun. The gun did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post
This is EXACTLY the kind of blind faith that gets people killed. Faith in a manual safety, at the expense of safe gun handling, is idiotic.
You really need to take a deep breath and calm down. You have single handedly turned this thread into a pissing contest. You've made your point known so why are you coming after me? Because I disagree with you about a weapon having more then the lone safety being on the trigger?

I agree with you that nothing replaces proper handling of a firearm and everything you've mentioned violates safe handling practices. However, I still believe actively engaging a manual safety or having multiple safeties on a weapon decreases the likelyhood of an accidental discharge. Would I bet my life on any safety? Absolutely not. Do I prefer a weapon having them? Yes I do. I have never had an accidental discharge nor have I ever trusted the fact that a safety was engaged to keep the weapon from going off. Keep you're finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire, safety on or not.

You've called me an idiot more then once today so unless you want to talk like an adult about this matter I'm done here.
__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 10:23 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Bend,Oregon
Posts: 22
Default

The make or type of firearm is unimportant. The operator is absolutely at fault. Accidental discharges come from ignorance and carelessness. That officer should be fined and dismissed. His instructor reviewed to be sure the recruit was properly instructed.

I have been a firearm safety instructor and a chief range safety officer for awhile and in no class I have ever taught or received instruction addresses the use of the mechanical safety. I believe the reason is that they are imperfect as the people who made or try to use them. When I say, make safe, it means open the breach and unload your firearm. It doesn't mean put the safety on. Where is the safety on your revolver?

Here are the fundamental gun safety rules.

#1 Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
#2 Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
#3 Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

If you observe #1 you will go you entire life and never hurt yourself or anyone else.

I personally endorse Glock as THEE firearm of choice for personal protection for people that want an auto because they are simple.

__________________
Straight Shooter Supply
NRA Life Member
Straight_Shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 10:44 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 32 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spittinfire View Post
You really need to take a deep breath and calm down. You have single handedly turned this thread into a pissing contest. You've made your point known so why are you coming after me? Because I disagree with you about a weapon having more then the lone safety being on the trigger?

I agree with you that nothing replaces proper handling of a firearm and everything you've mentioned violates safe handling practices. However, I still believe actively engaging a manual safety or having multiple safeties on a weapon decreases the likelyhood of an accidental discharge. Would I bet my life on any safety? Absolutely not. Do I prefer a weapon having them? Yes I do. I have never had an accidental discharge nor have I ever trusted the fact that a safety was engaged to keep the weapon from going off. Keep you're finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire, safety on or not.

You've called me an idiot more then once today so unless you want to talk like an adult about this matter I'm done here.
I have re-read every word I've written today, and it all seems to make perfect sense. Did I miss something that you caught Spitty?

Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just skim it?

If you've read it, you know I have not once called you or anyone else an idiot, Spitty, so please don't try to turn this into that.

I have called a blind faith in a mechanical safety idiotic. Murphy's law dictates that a mechanical safety will fail at the moment it is most needed. Relying on one is "bad jou-jou". And then I gave some examples of why. I also gave some examples of one of the largest Police Agencies in the Country and issues that they encountered over the years.

And do not mistake a passionate belief in safety (and fairness), for a lack of calm. When people intentionally misrepresent something, I speak up. ND's were common for years and years before the Glock was even invented.

I have pointed out several times in the past (other Glock threads) the built in, passive safeties of the Glock pistol and how they work. So unless you don't read threads before responding, you have ignored that information, but I assure you it is true. You just again mentioned above "a weapon having more then the lone safety being on the trigger", but I think you really do know that Glocks have some pretty solid safeties built in. You just like to stir the pot, which is perfectly OK.

Yet in several of your past posts you go out of your way to point out that Glocks only have the trigger/drop safety, which is not true.

Spitty, I am comfortable debating gun safety with you or anyone else on FTF until the cows come home.

I am also comfortable combating the outright lies and ignorant misrepresentations people tell about Glocks (or other products) until the cows come home.

I am even one of those oddballs that does not mind the Series 80 safety in my 1911's. It is a safety that works to block the firing pin, and does it effectively AND passively. Pre-Series 80 models (of which I own many) are not as safe as series 80's. Most every modern pistol uses some version of this type of firing pin block, including the Glock.

So, unless someone squeezes the trigger, or causes the trigger to be pulled through carelessness and negligence, on a Glock it will not go off. Pure, and simple.

Any gun is only as safe as the person holding it. Making excuses (based upon the company that made the gun) that allow for unsafe gun handling is not smart. (See how I avoided the word Idiotic?)

So, Spitty, I invite you to read what I wrote in it's entirety and see if you think anything I have said is wrong. If you think it is, let's discuss it. Show me what I wrote that is wrong. Anyone?

If standing up for what I believe is right is "single handedly turning this into a pissing contest", I'm flattered.

Maybe some people just don't like being called out on their agenda? People tell all kinds of lies about Glocks. All I do is my best to combat those lies with facts.
__________________
NRA-Life
CRPA-Life

SAF-Life
PEIAPOI


"Obama has ordered the launching of more Tomahawk cruise missiles than All the other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 11:04 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 32 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Straight_Shooter View Post
The make or type of firearm is unimportant. The operator is absolutely at fault. Accidental discharges come from ignorance and carelessness. That officer should be fined and dismissed. His instructor reviewed to be sure the recruit was properly instructed.

I have been a firearm safety instructor and a chief range safety officer for awhile and in no class I have ever taught or received instruction addresses the use of the mechanical safety. I believe the reason is that they are imperfect as the people who made or try to use them. When I say, make safe, it means open the breach and unload your firearm. It doesn't mean put the safety on. Where is the safety on your revolver?

Here are the fundamental gun safety rules.

#1 Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
#2 Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
#3 Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

If you observe #1 you will go you entire life and never hurt yourself or anyone else.

I personally endorse Glock as THEE firearm of choice for personal protection for people that want an auto because they are simple.
You are a brave, brave man Straight Shooter.
__________________
NRA-Life
CRPA-Life

SAF-Life
PEIAPOI


"Obama has ordered the launching of more Tomahawk cruise missiles than All the other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 01:41 AM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

M14, you and I have not disagreed on much since you got here. I respect your last response and I will respond accordingly. I can see you and I share energy in our fights which could cause us to butt heads or misinterpuret. However, my wife is currently in the mood and I see that as being more important. Enjoy your evening, sir.

__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:19 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Bend,Oregon
Posts: 22
Default

"It looks like we've found something.
A concealed weapon.
- Where? - Right here.
Now, the only question is:
Will he actually use it?"

quoted from Days of Thunder.

Be carefull. Live ammo or just shooting blanks?

Enjoy your evening

__________________
Straight Shooter Supply
NRA Life Member
Straight_Shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:29 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
zhuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust
Posts: 2,031
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts

Default

On training: Just a question and point of comparison: how much training/gun-handling experience do LEOs in the US generally get (individual State differences notwithstanding)? How many annual re-qualifications?

I'm presuming many in law enforcement would also have their own weapons, whereas in Aust there would be an infinitely small number who would be civilian-licensed target shooters. As far as I'm aware police in NSW only have one compulsory re-qualifier per year, so after recruit training at the academy unless (god forbid) they have to shoot somone on the job, then the only time they will fire their weapons is that one time a year.



Could be talking out of my arse here, but I can feel that shooting every week is definately reinforcing my own safe-handling skills, so its hard to imagine that a yearly gun-handling would be enough reinforcement. Dunno What do you guys reckon...is training frequency a factor?

__________________

Illigitimi Non Carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Yes, at WalMart, you can pick up a gun, ammo, ski mask and your antidepressants all in one trip. Darn convenient if you ask me...:D
zhuk is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 11:23 AM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

The red lettering is so my thoughts can clearly be seen and no other reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post

I have called a blind faith in a mechanical safety idiotic. Murphy's law dictates that a mechanical safety will fail at the moment it is most needed. Relying on one is "bad jou-jou". And then I gave some examples of why. I also gave some examples of one of the largest Police Agencies in the Country and issues that they encountered over the years.

I agree with you on this but I still believe an active safety offers more in the way of weapon safety then a passive one.

And do not mistake a passionate belief in safety (and fairness), for a lack of calm. When people intentionally misrepresent something, I speak up. ND's were common for years and years before the Glock was even invented.

I am not trying to intentionally misrepresent anything. In fact I do my best to have some knowledge about a subject before I make a statement. You clearly know more about glocks then I do but I am not ignorant of the weapon.

I have pointed out several times in the past (other Glock threads) the built in, passive safeties of the Glock pistol and how they work. So unless you don't read threads before responding, you have ignored that information, but I assure you it is true. You just again mentioned above "a weapon having more then the lone safety being on the trigger", but I think you really do know that Glocks have some pretty solid safeties built in. You just like to stir the pot, which is perfectly OK.

I honestly steer away from most glock threads so please explain to me what safety a glock has outside of the one found on the trigger. I am not one to stir the pot but I do like a good discussion.

Yet in several of your past posts you go out of your way to point out that Glocks only have the trigger/drop safety, which is not true.

Again, please explain this.

Spitty, I am comfortable debating gun safety with you or anyone else on FTF until the cows come home.

I am also comfortable combating the outright lies and ignorant misrepresentations people tell about Glocks (or other products) until the cows come home.

I am even one of those oddballs that does not mind the Series 80 safety in my 1911's. It is a safety that works to block the firing pin, and does it effectively AND passively. Pre-Series 80 models (of which I own many) are not as safe as series 80's. Most every modern pistol uses some version of this type of firing pin block, including the Glock.

So, unless someone squeezes the trigger, or causes the trigger to be pulled through carelessness and negligence, on a Glock it will not go off. Pure, and simple.

This is true for any weapon but what prevents me from holding a glock by the slide and pushing the trigger with my other hand? Would the weapon not go off? Try this with with any weapon that has a backstrap safety or manual safety and the weapon will not fire. One would truely be an idiot to actually try that with a loaded weapon, it was only to make a point.

Any gun is only as safe as the person holding it. Making excuses (based upon the company that made the gun) that allow for unsafe gun handling is not smart. (See how I avoided the word Idiotic?)

So, Spitty, I invite you to read what I wrote in it's entirety and see if you think anything I have said is wrong. If you think it is, let's discuss it. Show me what I wrote that is wrong. Anyone?

If standing up for what I believe is right is "single handedly turning this into a pissing contest", I'm flattered.

Maybe some people just don't like being called out on their agenda? People tell all kinds of lies about Glocks. All I do is my best to combat those lies with facts.
__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Rare gun? rusty9 Glock Forum 5 07-28-2010 05:23 PM
A Rare View CA357 The Club House 13 01-24-2010 07:26 AM
Is it really that rare? dteed4094 Curio & Relic Discussion 9 01-04-2010 12:18 AM
M70 in a rare... vern-m12 General Rifle Discussion 4 09-16-2009 08:07 PM
Rare WWII film. Jo da Plumbr The Club House 6 08-28-2009 01:58 AM