Danoobie,
My question was a response to your absurd request that I explain "Glock Leg Syndrome" to Glocks. Let me re-phrase the question with "party neutral pronouns".
Why should a person (as in you, I, or the little old lady who lives down the lane) worry about other people pointing or firing firearms at them if they're doing that to their self?
Firearms of any description don't cause ND's. People shoot themselves with their own firearms for one of two reasons, so far as I know:
1. Purposefully - Typically suicide, although I'm sure there's some hard core individual out there who shot through him or her self to kill someone else.
2. Negligently - Always incompetence (and if someone was careless with something that could kill them, then they're STILL incompetent). Since we don't blame cars and alcohol for drunk driving, we shouldn't blame firearms when people accidentally shoot themselves.
You keep personifying firearms in your comments as if they had behaviors of their own. Firearms don't do anything at all, ever, to anyone or anything, without human interaction. Human behavior is the only common factor in negligent and competent firearms usage.
In the previous case of Tex Grebner, his Kimber 1911 style pistol didn't shoot him. He shot himself with his Kimber 1911 style pistol because he inadvertently disengaged that little "safety" lever (that far too many people falsely believe will "protect" them from bad firearms handling practices) when he drew his pistol (or he never had it engaged to begin with), he pulled the trigger, and that Kimber did exactly what it was designed to do (which was entirely different from what he intended to do). Tex stated that he had previously performed the same "fast draw" drill with his Glock earlier that day without incident. There was nothing "safe" or "unsafe" about his 1911 or his Glock. I don't blame Kimber or 1911's or Glocks for people like him. His Glock didn't fire a bullet into his leg because he didn't pull the trigger when it was pointed at him. That is the ONLY reason he suffered from "1911 Leg Syndrome" versus "Glock Leg Syndrome". To me, there is only "Incompetency with Firearms Syndrome". People who have insufficient training or coordination to handle firearms can and do make mistakes because they don't have the skill required to operate firearms. Giving people firearms with more design features that they don't know how to use won't help and clearly didn't.
Tex is not unique. When the US military issued 1911's, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with 1911's. Before that, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with revolvers. When Berettas were issued, we had inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with Berettas. Now that we're issuing SIG's and Glocks, we'll have inadequately trained service members shooting themselves with SIG's and Glocks. There's a pattern there, but it's not the side arms issued.
I think this entire line of reasoning that one design is better than another when the person buying the pistol doesn't know how to use a firearm to begin with is just asking for ND's. I don't care what type of pistol someone uses. I only care that they know how to use what they have and that starts with training. When someone starts telling everyone else about how one design is better than another design because it has extra features or "looks cooler than the next", I'll point out all the instances where no specific design has ever produced better results in untrained hands. The cost, weight, size, and complexity of operation of a machine generally affects real world usage and firearms are not an exception to that general rule. Those are the only characteristics for which modern design and materials have positively affected firearms and they are quantifiable things. Even so, modern machinery still isn't good for much without a competent operator.