So, how did this ND happen?

[dorminWS]

You are not wrong.
It takes a smart person to recognize the fact they are a danger to themselves and others unless they have multiple safeties on their gun.

Maybe carrying it unloaded or at least with nothing in the chamber would be even safer.

While some people can benefit from training but there seems to be a lot of untrainable people out there.

However, I would prefer you to think, some people, but not everyone, needs 4 or more safeties instead of 3.

screwedbygoogle
original username modified by google

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

tut, tut, tut.

I figure if I can disengage the safety on a shotgun, shoulder it, and hit a flying target I had no warning was going to appear, I can thumb the safety off on a pistol while I'm presenting it. Has nothing to do with being a danger to myself and others. It has only to do with minimizing avoidable risks.

Remember what I said; it is my opinion. You can have a different opinion without snarky derogation of me for mine, you know. But if it makes you feel smart or superior, go right on ahead. No skin off'n my nose.

[MarcSpaz]

dorminWS, not sure that was directed toward you per se. There are some people in the world that are clueless and it takes a big person to recognize and adjust actions based on the known ignorance.

Basically, I have never operated a backhoe. If someone says "the controls work like this..." some people are dumb enough to rent a backhoe and start digging stuff up like they are Howard Carter.

I am posting this because I think its funny, but your comment reminded me of this picture...

[screwedbygoogle]

You can sometimes get a person's attention and they will think about what was said.
But some people simply get offended, fold their arms over their chest and close their ears as well as their minds.

I try to listen to the other side of an issue and consider it. Such as additional safeties. I have tried the safeties and I own pistols with 5 factory safeties.

When I see people that simply are not competent enough to carry a gun without relying on additional mechanical devices it concerns me that they put me as well as themselves in danger.

And that is sad because I believe in the right to keep and bear arms - PERIOD!
No restriction and no limitations. However, it falls on the citizen to become proficient with their gun, or car, or chainsaw, etc. so as to not endanger anyone.

I have never advised against not using a safety because it slows you down. You can train through all kinds of things. And you should train so everything happens without the shooter having to think about it.

Glocks, for instance, are very safe guns. I have never seen one go off by itself. I have knowledge of several that went off with some assistance from humans, however. So where does the extra safety need to be installed?
I believe, it should be installed on the human.

I really don't care if a person puts 15 safeties on their gun. I'm not worried about those little mechanical devices.
I do worry that some people are a danger to themselves, their loved ones, neighbors, friends, and me.
The fact that a person advocates extra safeties alerts me they are lacking in training and confidence and I should stay as far away from them as possible.

There is another person that takes a lot of heat and that is the guy that feels he should not carry a round in the chamber.

While I feel he is doing a dis-service to himself and others because he is not trained and fully ready, he at least recognizes he does not possess the qualifications to safely carry a loaded gun. I would not object if he was to lock his gun and ammo in the trunk of his car until he feels the need to load it.

Go ahead and get offended and claim you arent.
Go ahead and get offended because I feel you should not carry a gun unless you are as proficient as you can afford to be.
Go ahead and get offended because the army taught you how to shoot and I'm not impressed.

But, please, please, please, call the range or gunshop and schedule yourself for some more training, some advanced training, some fun training.
Look into getting into some competetion. Keep it fun.

GSSF (Glock Sport Shooting Foundation) holds indoor and outdoor shoots around the country. Try this or something similar and watch your scores go up, your confidence levels improve and your attitude change.

GSSF by the way gives away all sorts of prizes, most by drawing. Even the lowest scorer stands a chance of winning a new Glock.

Indoor shoots require 1 box of ammo. At outdoor shoots you will need 2 boxes of bullets.
At outdoor shoots Glock provides one of their Armorers to service your Glock, free of charge.

See you on the range.

screwedbygoogle
original username modified by google

[sos24]

I think the point of having a good leather or kydex molded holster is valid, but I also prefer additional safety aspects as well.

Safety versus no safety seems to be an ongoing debate. On another forum, a guy was bashing people who wanted a thumb safety on a striker fired gun for not understanding the inherent safety of striker fired guns. This article shows why my striker fired gun has a thumb safety. If others don't feel the need it is up to them but they should know the risks and take measures to prevent them.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[grumpyMSG]

You are not wrong.
It takes a smart person to recognize the fact they are a danger to themselves and others unless they have multiple safeties on their gun.

Maybe carrying it unloaded or at least with nothing in the chamber would be even safer.

While some people can benefit from training but there seems to be a lot of untrainable people out there.

However, I would prefer you to think, some people, but not everyone, needs 4 or more safeties instead of 3.

screwedbygoogle
original username modified by google

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

tut, tut, tut.

I figure if I can disengage the safety on a shotgun, shoulder it, and hit a flying target I had no warning was going to appear, I can thumb the safety off on a pistol while I'm presenting it. Has nothing to do with being a danger to myself and others. It has only to do with minimizing avoidable risks.

Remember what I said; it is my opinion. You can have a different opinion without snarky derogation of me for mine, you know. But if it makes you feel smart or superior, go right on ahead. No skin off'n my nose.

dorminWS, there are plenty of others who hold similar opinions to yours. I have said many times that the first firearm of any type that you shoot sets the bar that all others will be compared to. It doesn't matter whether it is a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun. Folks who learn on a Glock have an inherent bias towards "Glock Perfection". 1911 folks tend to like multiple safeties. Can Glocks be safely handled without accidental/ negligent discharges? They sure can. But with the number of US Police departments running Glocks at 65%, it should be roughly 2/3rds of the A/ND incidents in Police cases. Unfortunately it seems to be far more than that. Is it because of poor training, lack of training time or is it because the officers involved choose to do as little with firearms as possible? I believe it could be any of the three. Just as a reminder, he is the only one prefessional enough...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0

Look at how many older weapons where your thumb was the safety, single action revolvers, single shot and double barrel shotguns and rifles to name a few. I have heard the revolver versus semi-auto pistol argument for most of my adult life. I don't know of any revolvers that had an external safety and the double action variety, aside from a usually longer and heavier trigger pull go bang when you pull the trigger like a Glock. There are other double action only and double action/ single action semi auto pistols that would also go off if the trigger is pulled hard enough. Where I think the biggest number of problems with Glocks discharging accidentally or negligently is when the trigger is pulled so the pistol can be disassembled.

P.S.: dorminWS, you can take solace in the fact, you know how to use the little quote button.

[screwedbygoogle]

Several people here seem to be offended because they think i am advocating that no one should use a safety.

I never said that.
I also never said you are an idiot for using a safety. Quite the opposite.

The people that scare me are the people that blindly rely on a safety (and more often than not, multiple safeties) rather than practicing safe gun handling.

There is no substitute for being smarter than a mechanical device.

I question the need for redundant safeties and the people that demand them.

Hand a 5-safety pistol to another person and watch them create more unsafe conditions than they solve.
Any person that sincerely believes he is safer with 5 safeties, needs training.
I am fairly certain I am correct on this issue.
If that offends him, good. Maybe it will get him to thinking and save a life.

Sure, we can each believe whatever we want to and none of us can force the other person to believe our way.
But we learn (or we should) from discussing our differences rather than getting offended, name calling or changing the subject to how the poster's mommy dresses him funny.

Ensuring your safety is on before resting the muzzle of your shotgun on your boot is NOT a safe act.
If you have 5 safeties on your shotgun, it is still NOT safe.
Not pointing your shotgun at anything you are not willing to destroy IS a safe act.

screwedbygoogle
original username modified by google

[Reverenddel]

Funny thing, we were talking about gun safeties the other day, and people who chose XD's over Glock mentioned three things why:

1.) Slimmer grips
2.) metal mags
3.) GRIP Safety like a 1911.

(shrugs) I'm of the opinion, get whatever gun feels comfortable, and practice/practice/practice.

Whether it has a trigger safety only, or five safeties.... learn the weapon, and holster it properly.

[WRW]

The requirement of redundant safeties comes with the realization that mechanical failures happen. I have utilized backup systems (redundancy) at work due to mechanical failures. I have taken a shotgun out of service due to safety failure. Stuff does happen in the real world. To question the need, or desire, for redundancy shows me a certain level of naivete.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

I'm going to go one step further and ask that folks consider the first time handgun buyer. He is told by some that the only way a certain gun will fire is a finger on the trigger, but it is the best, most dependable firearm out there. After the purchase and some subsequent reading it is brought to his attention that the cheaper holsters are inadequate and can depress the trigger so a new purchase is in order. Well, but clothing can do it also, so clothing must be a consideration as well. Toggles and drawstrings might best be removed from jackets. Oh, yeah. That new holster that meets all the requirements is a hazard because it has a retention strap and a retention strap can depress the trigger.
Perhaps, prior to the purchase, the more knowledgeable owners should help the first time purchaser make a better informed decision.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

To question the need, or desire, for redundancy shows me a certain level of naivete.

I don't question the need for redundancy and I don't think SBG does either. What I have a problem with (and what SBG seems to be saying) is people using those systems and redundant systems to justify reckless or careless behavior. That is not excusable. Its stupid. Practice proper handling safety methods. That's the best safety there is.

And why draw the line at 2 safeties? or 5? How bout we add 15 safeties? or 35 safeties? When is redundant too much?

I use to have a gun that had a palm grip safety, a thumb safety, a trigger safety, a "missing mag" safety, and a turn key safety that used a detachable key. Why they hell did someone invent a gun that literally had an integrated key lock system to disable the trigger? Stuff like that is dumb. If I need the weapon, I'd be dead long before I turned all that stuff off.

Lets say I leave the key safety off... now that safety system is worthless. But what if I don't have a firm grip because I am struggling for my weapon and the palm safety wont let me fire? Or the mag isn't seated right, even though its locked, and that won't let me fire?

So, yea, if you want to walk around with a gun that doesn't have a round chambered, has a trigger safety, mag safety, palm safety, thumb safety, key lock safety, all tucked into a concealed level 3 retention holster... knock your self out. I prefer to practice safe firearm handling and have no safety. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with either of us.

My built-in redundancy is the second gun I have in case the first one fails. And that one doesn't have a safety either. LOL

[WRW]

To question the need, or desire, for redundancy shows me a certain level of naivete.

I don't question the need for redundancy and I don't think SBG does either. What I have a problem with (and what SBG seems to be saying) is people using those systems and redundant systems to justify reckless or careless behavior. That is not excusable. Its stupid. Practice proper handling safety methods. That's the best safety there is.

And why draw the line at 2 safeties? or 5? How bout we add 15 safeties? or 35 safeties? When is redundant too much?

I use to have a gun that had a palm grip safety, a thumb safety, a trigger safety, a "missing mag" safety, and a turn key safety that used a detachable key. Why they hell did someone invent a gun that literally had an integrated key lock system to disable the trigger? Stuff like that is dumb. If I need the weapon, I'd be dead long before I turned all that stuff off.

Lets say I leave the key safety off... now that safety system is worthless. But what if I don't have a firm grip because I am struggling for my weapon and the palm safety wont let me fire? Or the mag isn't seated right, even though its locked, and that won't let me fire?

So, yea, if you want to walk around with a gun that doesn't have a round chambered, has a trigger safety, mag safety, palm safety, thumb safety, key lock safety, all tucked into a concealed level 3 retention holster... knock your self out. I prefer to practice safe firearm handling and have no safety. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with either of us.

My built-in redundancy is the second gun I have in case the first one fails. And that one doesn't have a safety either. LOL

"I question the need for redundant safeties and the people that demand them." His words, not yours or mine.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

ah... Yea... I missed that one.

[WRW]

"Why they hell did someone invent a gun that literally had an integrated key lock system to disable the trigger?"

To make them attractive to Californians, where there is a law requiring firearms be disabled during storage?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

California really needs to be their own country.

[wittmeba]

I'm also trying to figure out how he was wearing the holster?!? It is a right-handed holster and he managed to shoot nearly straight down his left cheek! Seems either he was wearing about 5:30-6:00, or it managed to get snagged and yanked around quite a bit.

Looks to me as a Left handed IWB holster. If he wears it IWB at 6:00/6:30 small of back then the grip would extend where his left thumb is in the first picture; top of gun would be upper part of holster. Makes sense to me the trajectory would do as it did - left cheek vertical direction.

[louisaguns]

Training, training and training. It doesn't matter what holster you use, pay attention while holstering your gun. Observe for anything that might be in the way. It's not a speed race to see who can holster fast enough. I've seen an Uncle Mike's holster that looked similar to the picture above, except this one was flat worn out as it was worn every day for a few years.

Oh yeah, training.