Agents accidentally shot while gun being holstered


PDA






mrreynolds
August 16, 2008, 12:21 PM
Two federal agents wounded in an accidental shooting at the federal courthouse were shot when a U.S. Marshal's gun went off as he was trying to holster it, federal authorities said Tuesday.

Officials with the U.S. Marshal Service said a deputy marshal and a U.S. Border Patrol agent suffered gunshot wounds Monday morning when the marshal was trying to holster his gun after removing it from a security locker. The agents were in a secure hallway on the courthouse's third floor.

The agents, whose names have not been released, were treated at a local hospital after the incident and have since been released.

ARTICLE (http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/735526.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "Agents accidentally shot while gun being holstered" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
oneshooter
August 16, 2008, 12:24 PM
"Only law enforcement and the military are trained to safely handle firearms."

Yea, right.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

texas bulldog
August 16, 2008, 12:33 PM
very strange that the gun would just "go off" don'tcha think? :rolleyes:

why can't they ever report it the way it actually happened?
Two federal agents wounded in a negligent shooting at the federal courthouse were shot when a U.S. Marshal had his finger on the trigger of his weapon as he was trying to holster it, a serious violation of safe firearms handling, federal authorities said Tuesday.


there. fixed it.

Steve in PA
August 16, 2008, 12:59 PM
Never mind.

ilbob
August 16, 2008, 01:03 PM
Do the rules require the gun be unloaded when stored in the security locker?

Treo
August 16, 2008, 01:07 PM
he may have been chambering a round when the ND happened

papajohn
August 16, 2008, 01:32 PM
I've never been in a place (like a courthouse) where you had to completely clear the weapon, you generally just unholstered it, and shoved it into the locker, then removed the key to take it with you.

Just a guess, but I'd bet it was a Glock or something similar, and he shoved it into the holster with his finger on the trigger. And I would say something snippy like, "I bet he doesn't do THAT again" but I'm not convinced it's true.

PJ

rondog
August 16, 2008, 01:53 PM
Just a few months ago, a LEO here in the Denver area was holstering his Glock at the range. Apparently, the tail of his jacket got in the trigger guard as he holstered it, and it fired into his thigh.

I have NO desire to own a Glock, thank you very much. I don't care how many folks love them.

230RN
August 16, 2008, 02:06 PM
Glocks are tensioned-striker fired, right?

One of my Rules Of Thumb (hereinafter ROT) is to never own a sprung striker-fired handgun.




ROT 716(G) Part II

(a) Never own a tensioned striker-fired handgun.

(b) Ever. See ROT 716(G) Part II (a)



(From 230RN's book, "Handy Guide to Life and Collected Rules Of Thumb")

csmkersh
August 16, 2008, 02:12 PM
I've never been in a place (like a courthouse) where you had to completely clear the weapon, you generally just unholstered it, and shoved it into the locker, then removed the key to take it with you.

Ah, then you've never carried a handgun on a military reservation, have you. We were required to clear the weapon, point it into a sand barrel and pull the trigger before entry into certain facilities on post.

Vern Humphrey
August 16, 2008, 02:12 PM
Just a few months ago, a LEO here in the Denver area was holstering his Glock at the range. Apparently, the tail of his jacket got in the trigger guard as he holstered it, and it fired into his thigh.

That's the classic Glock ND.

Zeabed
August 16, 2008, 02:18 PM
You can clear a Glock while retaining the trigger by having a Saf-T-Blok plug encased behind the trigger.

http://members.aol.com/saftblok/

FCFC
August 16, 2008, 02:49 PM
Just a guess, but I'd bet it was a Glock or something similar...
I wish the press would specify the make/model/caliber in all gun incident reportings where it is important to the reading public's comprehension of the incident. The press actually seems to avoid publishing those details. :banghead:

I'm also beginning to wonder if there is a political correctness thing happening on forums whereby one style of comments gets made for a member or civilian AD/ND and another, ever so slightly more critical, style of comments gets made for a LEO AD/ND.

The PC thing just crossed my mind..... :rolleyes:

230RN
August 16, 2008, 02:57 PM
I'm also beginning to wonder if there is a political correctness thing happening on forums whereby one style of comments gets made for a member or civilian AD/ND and another, ever so slightly more critical, style of comments gets made for a LEO AD/ND

No boudt adoubt it. I think its part of a not-so-unconscious resentment of the fact that so many non-2A folks out there are injected/marinated with the idea that only LEO's are competent to carry a firearm.

I find that "unconscius resentment," which outwardly seems to be directed toward LEOs, a little annoying, and every time I see one of those "I'm the only one in this room" remarks or thread titles, I cringe a little.

After all, LEOs are not the right target for this resentment. It should be directed toward the injectors/marinators and maybe the unfortunate injectees/marinatees who believe the businees about only LEOs being trained and competent to use firearms.

dmazur
August 16, 2008, 03:08 PM
Not to start a rant about Glocks or other designs without a safety, but the more I read about incidents like this, the more I understand why a 1911 type gun carried Condition 1 is such a good idea.

There are way too many holster designs that have some kind of retention strap, and these can "curl in" and find the trigger guard as you are reholstering. With a Glock type gun, ND can be the result.

With a 1911 with the safety on, you're pressing against a trigger/sear that is blocked by the thumb safety. Eventually you'll figure out why the holster thing isn't working for you, but a ND isn't likely.

Same thing goes for the unfortunate pilot with the lock requirement. Gun probably didn't have a safety, and holstering with the lock ahead of the trigger instead of behind it results in a ND.

Sounds crazy, but if things progress in the "correct direction", with CCW being an accepted fact of life, we may see safe discharge cans (or tubes) in more locations which require administrative handling of firearms. Like courthouses.

There was one of these at a police range where I used to shoot. The protocol was "cold range", so uniformed officers had to show clear before entering the range proper. Part of this was dry firing the weapon into a sand-filled tube. I asked the rangemaster how many times it actually had handled a discharge, and the answer was "Far too many".

So, while bashing LEO's isn't fair, there may also be some truth to the point that they are merely average rather than super-human.

FCFC
August 16, 2008, 03:13 PM
Not to start a rant about Glocks or other designs without a safety, but the more I read about incidents like this, the more I understand why a 1911 type gun carried Condition 1 is such a good idea.
Well, it's pure speculation that it was a GLOCK...

But I can see your point about a benefit from a 1911 in C1.

Condition 3 has the same and other similar benefits too. That's probably why so many people use C3, in 1911s, GLOCKs and other models.

Teufelhunden
August 16, 2008, 04:13 PM
I'm also beginning to wonder if there is a political correctness thing happening on forums whereby one style of comments gets made for a member or civilian AD/ND and another, ever so slightly more critical, style of comments gets made for a LEO AD/ND.


Not being one to normally contribute in cop bashing threads since I AM a cop, I would agree that folks are, and should be, more critical of cops having ND's than Joe Citizen. Joe Citizen might have bought the gun and be otherwise completely ignorant of safety issues surrounding responsible firearms ownership. A peace officer on the other hand, at any level, has been trained in how his weapon operates and how to safely handle it.

If Joe Citizen has a ND, it is often the result of ignorance. If a fellow peace officer has a ND, I consider it a result of professional apathy. He has been trained, and did not engage his brain before he engaged his hands.

-Teuf

Scattergun Bob
August 16, 2008, 04:49 PM
Bob, a grand and great name;)

In my part of the world, strict protocols were in force, in courthouses, we were required to completely download all firearms and place them in safe storage. Upon leaving the secure area of the courthouse there was an spot in the storage area too upload your firearm. Some times there was just a blank wall some times a five gallon bucket of sand, some times a safety tube.

No speculation on weapon or incident. One thing for sure, complacency KILLS, even cops.

Good Luck & Be Safe

DaleA
August 16, 2008, 05:01 PM
FCFC posted
I wish the press would specify the make/model/caliber in all gun incident reportings where it is important to the reading public's comprehension of the incident. The press actually seems to avoid publishing those details.

I seem to noticed newspapers and fiction writers TRYING to appear more 'gun literate' by including firearm details but then things fall apart when they write something like this actual quote (which I used in another thread here on THR) from the Saint Paul MN daily paper :

"-she fired her Glock semiautomatic revolver because she believed her life and safety were in immediate danger."

I'm guessing some writers avoid specifics because of laziness and fear of appearing foolish and perhaps they actually can't find anybody to give them specifics in some incidents.

P.S. And I do remember that Glock is GLOCK.:rolleyes:

DaleA
August 16, 2008, 05:11 PM
We were required to clear the weapon, point it into a sand barrel and pull the trigger before entry into certain facilities on post.

Does that bring back memories. There was no problem with people clearing their weapons on the post I was on UNTIL they installed the clearing barrel.

Seems some folk were unclear on the concept.

They reasoned the sand barrel was there to catch the bullet and if they didn't have a round in the pistol there would be no bullet for the sand barrel to catch so...:eek:

dmazur
August 16, 2008, 05:18 PM
Although Payan couldn't comment on the type of gun the U.S. Marshals' deputy fired, he said deputies are typically issued Glocks 40-caliber handguns.

And even if it was a GLOCK, that doesn't make it any better or worse. It was still a ND.

(But the temptation is still there: "...this heah Glock foh-tay." )

Hoping for full recovery, some leniency on the employing agency's part, and only a couple of weeks of remedial training for the officer involved. I mean, if they terminate him, how can they force him to take remedial training? :)

VegasOPM
August 16, 2008, 05:22 PM
Regardless of the "who" or the "what" it was an ND that caused injury. Holstering a weapon is an administrative task with NO time limits. Care needs to be taken.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2008, 05:23 PM
Before anybody gets too wrapped up in the irony and pure delight over an agent experiencing a ND in a courtroom...think about this:

Right about now, Suzie Soccermom and Briefcase Bob are thinking that guns are SOOOO dangerous...and that if a trained professional can't even keep from having serious and frightening accidents...how can we mere mortal folk fare any better.

Things like this don't help our cause, and revelling in the misfortune of another just adds fuel to their anti-gun fires.

Besides...taking delight in the downfall of another is just wrong. 'Long 'bout the time ya think it can't happen to you...BANG!

MTMilitiaman
August 16, 2008, 05:27 PM
There are way too many holster designs that have some kind of retention strap, and these can "curl in" and find the trigger guard as you are reholstering. With a Glock type gun, ND can be the result.

Have you ever tried it?

My experience leads me to believe this is pure BS.

I got tired of people making such assumptions, so after triple clearing my Glock 20, I tried to get the thumb break or retention strap on my el cheapo Uncle Mikes holsters to fire the pistol. It is damn near impossible to accomplish. In order to accomplish such a feat, the pistol has to be holstered at such an awkward and unnatural angle so as to be barely feasible. It involves cocking the wrist inwards and covering yourself with the muzzle, then pinching the retention strap between the pistol's grip and your index and middle fingers and jamming it into the holster. If you don't feel retarded going through those motions, you certainly would when the gun went off, and it would be a hard-earned and well-deserved hole in the foot.

I don't doubt that other holsters may make it a little easier, but more than likely, the officer had his finger in the trigger guard or something else that was similarly stupid. Because making a Glock go off when holstering it simply isn't as easy as some make it appear.

Lastly, I must point out that this could have easily been a DA/SA or DAO pistol such as the SIG P229 or HK USP LEM that both companies made a big deal of when they acquired contracts. We don't even know for sure it was a Glock.

csmkersh
August 16, 2008, 05:33 PM
GLOCK UDs from retention straps and fingers in the trigger guard have been well documented by NYPD. That is why the world is "blessed" with the NY trigger.

maestro pistolero
August 16, 2008, 05:40 PM
I've made a habit of avoiding any contact with the grip safety when re-holstering either my XD or my 1911. This is a good reminder to maintain that habit.

SCKimberFan
August 16, 2008, 05:58 PM
Keeping one's finger off the trigger helps too. :D

SSN Vet
August 16, 2008, 06:06 PM
I have NO desire to own a Glock, thank you very much. I don't care how many folks love them.

+1 for me....

taking delight in the downfall of another is just wrong. 'Long 'bout the time ya think it can't happen to you...BANG!

+1,000 for all of us

BruceRDucer
August 16, 2008, 07:03 PM
"-she fired her Glock semiautomatic revolver because she believed her life and safety were in immediate danger."

So what's wrong with that? She pulled the pin and threw it.....both barrels! :what::D

SFvet
August 16, 2008, 07:31 PM
Sounds to me like those agents need a CLEARING BARREL! That and some remedial holster training ;)

Rustynuts
August 16, 2008, 07:42 PM
We need this changed to "How a Glock Holsters"

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t67/Krustyboomer/howaglockworks.gif

GRB
August 16, 2008, 07:47 PM
"Only law enforcement and the military are trained to safely handle firearms." And I suppose you could never have an accident! You probably do not know the marshal invloved, probably do not know the circumstances of the shooting, most likely do not know if he is a bragging fool like someone from another fed agency who said he was the only one qualified..., and so on. So why on earth, before knowing if the guy is a big mouth, who brags about being a super gun guru, would you bring that up?

dalepres
August 16, 2008, 07:56 PM
No boudt adoubt it. I think its part of a not-so-unconscious resentment of the fact that so many non-2A folks out there are injected/marinated with the idea that only LEO's are competent to carry a firearm.

From those to whom more is given, more is expected; that's all. LEOs, the Bradys, even the NRA, pretty much everyone that says anything on it says that LEOs are better qualified to own and handle a firearm than the rest of us. So, if that is true, then the shame, embarrassment, or repercussions of an ND from a LEO should be greater.

Oh, and for the guy who said that maybe the LEO was chambering a round - that's not what the article said; the article said he was holstering. Sounds more like a falling finger than a falling hammer. :)

GRB
August 16, 2008, 08:03 PM
So, if that is true, then the shame, embarrassment, or repercussions of an ND from a LEO should be greater. Do you know that this accidental discharge (because indeed it was not PURPOSEFUL) was actually also a negligent discharge or are you guessing? I would guess it was due to some negligence, but it would only be a guess and I have seen the video of it and could not tell the cause with any certainty. If you are certain is was due to negligence, do you know who was negligent? If so please clue me in as to the specific facts; if not, why not wait until the facts come out. I do not say this because he is a federal marshal, I would AND HAVE repeatedly said it for those who are not LEOs too. Wait for the facts before damning someone.

All the best,
Glenn B

Weezy
August 16, 2008, 08:24 PM
"-she fired her Glock semiautomatic revolver because she believed her life and safety were in immediate danger."

http://glockmeister.com/images/grevl.jpg

I'd heard plenty about how Glocks were dangerous due to their safety-free nature, and didn't really have any interest in them. I'd never even handled one until last Wednesday, when my friend who carries a Glock 19 (and swears by it) let me monkey about with it for 20 minutes or so. I guess I can see the appeal to them, and hey, Rule #3 should be the only safety you need.

Regardless of the "who" or the "what" it was an ND that caused injury. Holstering a weapon is an administrative task with NO time limits. Care needs to be taken.
+1

divemedic
August 16, 2008, 09:02 PM
Do you know that this accidental discharge (because indeed it was not PURPOSEFUL) was actually also a negligent discharge or are you guessing? I would guess it was due to some negligence, but it would only be a guess and I have seen the video of it and could not tell the cause with any certainty. If you are certain is was due to negligence, do you know who was negligent? If so please clue me in as to the specific facts; if not, why not wait until the facts come out. I do not say this because he is a federal marshal, I would AND HAVE repeatedly said it for those who are not LEOs too. Wait for the facts before damning someone.


Because anytime anyone has a non-intentional discharge that strikes a person that they did not intend to strike (including themselves) they have violated at least 2 of the 4 rules, more probably 3 of the 4. I would call that negligent.

GRB
August 16, 2008, 09:25 PM
Because anytime anyone has a non-intentional discharge that strikes a person that they did not intend to strike (including themselves) they have violated at least 2 of the 4 rules, more probably 3 of the 4. I would call that negligent Not necessarily so, as I said, I saw the video. The gun apparently was not pointed in an unsafe direction that anyone here would think was unsafe, because it was apaprently going into or part way in the holster when it fired (but that is only my best estimate after seeing the video from the off side). The bullet might have deflected off of the guy's leg who was holstering it, then hit the second guy who was behind him - maybe a ricochet or deflection off of the floor. Pointing it into the hoster is not usually considered unsafe. If the finger was not on the trigger and it was caused by clothing or a faulty holster there goes another of your has to be this way ideas. Wait for the facts to come out, you are rushing to judgement on something here.

I again ask any of you - give me the specifics of what happened that indicate there was negligence and that there was a violation of the so called 4 rules of gun safety. You cannot be specific without knowing the actual facts, can you? I know I saw the video, and I cannot be sure of exactly what happened - so are you telling me you know better or are you just guessing? Sure you could be right, but it is still supposition at best.

If I find out I am at liberty to post the video, I wil do so; but something tells me that could be highly frowned upon at my job - which I do not want to lose just to show you a video to make my point. Any way, the facts will come out sooner or later. It could well have been a finger on the trigger, or could well have been some other factor. I too would guess the nose piker was the cause, but as I said I saw the video and cannot be certain. If you don't want to wait for the fact, okay by me. As for me, I'll wait. I just pefer being factual, I guess it comes with my LE job and my not wanting to arrest folks based upon guesswork, maybe this or maybe that, or it has got to be this way it cannot possibly be any other way kind of thinking. After all, isn't that the kind of thing that many on these forums fault overzealous cops for doing - rushing to juedgement on less than the facts!

All the best,
GB

1911Tuner
August 16, 2008, 09:27 PM
Off-topic for a shake...

Seems to me that since the Glock has kinda earned a rep for discharging when being reholstered...either by the wearer inadvertently pulling the trigger as the gun settles in, or an article of clothing or part of the holster snagging on it...that the thinking man would place his fingertip behind the trigger to reholster the pistol and thus have an extra margin of no-bang.

That might be too simple, though...

GRB
August 16, 2008, 09:36 PM
Actually I settle for placing my trigger finger along the side of the slide, and making sure my holster is clear, and having that finger point the gun into the holster as it should when reholstering. Have you ever tried to reholster a gun with your finger behind the trigger, then suddenly have to draw it with your finger there to reface a threat you thought had stopped but was again coming at you (or a secondary threat you had not seen and who waited for you to holster before firing at you). Maybe that is just complex to imagine, but I keep my finger where it belongs, and that is not behind the trigger.

All the best,
Glenn B

1911Tuner
August 16, 2008, 09:38 PM
I again ask any of you - give me the specifics of what happened that indicate there was negligence and that there was a violation of the so called 4 rules of gun safety.

I can give ya one, and I ain't seen the video.

Pulling the trigger is what fires the gun. If you want it to fire, pull the trigger. If you don't...don't.

SEE to it that the trigger doesn't get pulled. Be extra careful with pistols that have light triggers and no mechanical device to block their rearward movement. If you...speaking generally, and not personally...cause the trigger to be pulled by your finger or by a safety strap or by an article of clothing while reholstering...you really, really need to S-L-O-W D-O-W-N and take a second to T-H-I-N-K...about what you're doing.

GRB
August 16, 2008, 09:42 PM
There were certain holsters that were manufactured that allowed the thumb tab to get inside the trigger guard, thus causing accidental discharges as guns were holstered. Finger never touched the trigger. It happened several times a few or several years back. The thumb tab was made too narrow, and often curved into the holster, and then got inside the trigger guard.

Remington rifles, put on safe, rifle goes bang - no one touched the trigger. Remington knew about the fault for years before they fixed it.

Your has to be this way just ain't so in EVERY case. Sure it could have been in this one, again I ask wait for the facts. Why are you so eager to condemn when you could just as well wait for factual evidence to come out.

All the best,
Glenn B

SFvet
August 16, 2008, 10:02 PM
We were always trained in the military to remove the index finger from the side of the firearm and out along the holster and far away from the trigger when holstering. Accidents do indeed happen - its best to avoid them however....

vtoddball
August 16, 2008, 10:18 PM
This makes me think of the show "Cold Case". They have a security door like an airlock with tiny little lockers in it. When they come in from the street, they have to unholster their weapon and place it in the locker before they are admitted into the office area. Every time I see that I shake my head. First, that they trust each other so little that they feel the need to disarm fellow officers sitting at their desk. Second, I've never, ever heard of a gun discharging while it is properly holstered. I have however heard many stories of guns discharging while BEING holstered or unholstered. It's a feel good measure that in fact, increases the risk for anyone. Of course, it's just a TV show.

I've never owned a Glock, so I'm not qualified to really approve or disapprove of them, but what I like about my XD is that when holstering, I can place my thumb on the rear sight, which results in me releasing the grip safety. This prevents loose clothing or anything else near the trigger from causing a discharge.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2008, 10:34 PM
Have you ever tried to reholster a gun with your finger behind the trigger, then suddenly have to draw it with your finger there to reface a threat you thought had stopped but was again coming at you

Things happen on the street that can't be forseen...but this guy was in a courtroom. Many of the AD/UD/NDs that occur with the design that's obviously in question generally happen in non-threatening environs anyway. Training rooms...Bedrooms...Courtrooms...You get the picture.

If you reholster, and suddenly have to draw again, I'd tend to think that it wouldn't take you any longer to find the front of the trigger from between the rear of the trigger and the trigger guard than it would take to find it from alongside the gun anyway, especially if you only use the fingertip to block the trigger. It's a simple thing. The key to success is, of course...dry practice. As commonplace as these things seem to be getting, it makes sense to install a little safe habit because we don't have to face secondary threats nearly as often as we reholster guns. The effort that it would take to learn the drill is a small price to pay to prevent shooting oneself in the leg. One gives you a small callus on your fingertip, at worst. The other can put you on disability...or in the ground.

Let us henceforth call this "The Glock Finger Safety."

Spread the word. The leg you save could be...well..anybody's.

dalepres
August 16, 2008, 10:50 PM
Do you know that this accidental discharge (because indeed it was not PURPOSEFUL) was actually also a negligent discharge or are you guessing? I would guess it was due to some negligence, but it would only be a guess and I have seen the video of it and could not tell the cause with any certainty.

It was a negligent discharge. The officer had an obligation to make sure his weapon did not discharge. He didn't live up to that obligation. Plain and simple. If it was a design flaw in his gun, he had an obligation to understand those design limitations and adjust his weapon handling accordingly. While there are rare unintended discharges, whether you want to call them negligent or accidental, from any gun, you don't see it happening to such a degree that you can point to a design flaw in the gun such that the gun fires itself. Guns don't fire themselves. Unless you believe that the gun was going to fire whether or not the officer involved was holstering at that moment.

There were certain holsters that were manufactured that allowed the thumb tab to get inside the trigger guard, thus causing accidental discharges as guns were holstered.

That's not an accidental discharge. That's a negligent discharge for which the negligent gun handler blames someone else even though he failed to make sure there were no obstructions before holstering his gun and failed to understand his equipment before using it.

CountGlockula
August 16, 2008, 10:55 PM
Crap happens.

tpaw
August 16, 2008, 11:29 PM
oneshooter:

"Only law enforcement and the military are trained to safely handle firearms." Yea, right.

Another nay sayer. It gets kind of boring oneshooter.

Mike J
August 16, 2008, 11:46 PM
I just hope the officers are okay. I remember an article posted here about a police officer that died from an accidental discharge while holstering his pistol to go to work a few months ago. Happened in Maine I think & believe in that case it was a S & W. Every time I hear about something like this it does make me appreciate the grip safety on my XD though.

230RN
August 17, 2008, 01:39 AM
dalepres remarked,

LEOs, the Bradys, even the NRA, pretty much everyone that says anything on it says that LEOs are better qualified to own and handle a firearm than the rest of us. So, if that is true...

The first part of your statement proves my point that too many people have been immersed in the idea that LEOs are better qualified --including "the Bradys, the NRA, and pretty much everyone..."

"So if that is true...." is simply not true. In my opinion.

Hey, Weezy, that pic you put up of the revolauto was pretty good! LOL!

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 01:46 AM
"So if that is true...." is simply not true. In my opinion.

Then we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard... and we shouldn't give them more access to weapons. We should, however, cooperate when they take reports after an incident because that is what we hired them to do.

LightningJoe
August 17, 2008, 01:51 AM
I think cops are unusual in that while they probably vary widely in their firearms knowledge and competence, they are nevertheless required to be armed. Firearms knowledge varies widely among civilians, too, but the people who know least about guns are not required to carry one.


As a cop, you can probably squeak by knowing very little about guns, but you still have to carry and manipulate one as part of your job.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2008, 06:41 AM
Another nay sayer. It gets kind of boring oneshooter.

I have to agree. When the guy shot himself in the foot in front of the kids after saying that he was the only one, yadda yadda...it was kinda funny...but it's been beaten to death.

Yep. I beat on it a few times myself...

The plain, simple fact is that, handling loaded guns is potentially dangerous. If we have a momentary lapse in our focus, we can have an unintended discharge. The message here is clear. Pay attention! Be mindful of the trigger...because triggers aren't at all intelligent. They don't know whether a finger is pulling them or an article of clothing or a tree branch. We can't afford to let our minds wander...even for a second.

And to say it again:

It's a toy and it's NOT your friend. It's as dangerous as a rattlesnake, and should be regarded as hostile at all times whenever your hand is on it.

Steve Raacke
August 17, 2008, 07:16 AM
I'm am sorry for the officer who had his pistol discharge and for the other officers who were injured. I hope everyone fully recovers and this is used as an educational experiance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papajohn
I've never been in a place (like a courthouse) where you had to completely clear the weapon, you generally just unholstered it, and shoved it into the locker, then removed the key to take it with you.

Ah, then you've never carried a handgun on a military reservation, have you. We were required to clear the weapon, point it into a sand barrel and pull the trigger before entry into certain facilities on post.

I've been to jails and prisons where I had to store my weapons in those little lockers located at the front gate. I always thought it was a sensible policy. The facility says "Nobody can carry a gun inside and we don't want you leaving it in your vehicle where it may be stolen. So put it in here and we will give you a tag to retreive it on your way out." I can deal with that. Anyone here ever driven down to the Angola Prison Rodeo in Louisiana? They ask you at the gate if you have any firearms. If you do it's no big deal. Just pull off to the side, walk to the gate with it and an officer will check it in and give you a receipt. On the way out of the prison after the rodeo you just pull over, give a guard your ticket and they hand you your guns/s. Like valet parking for your firearms. :p
The problem I have is places like chemical plants and manufacturing facilities which prohibit firearms, not only inside the gates but in visitor and employee parking lots outside. It actually took an act of our State Congress and the Govenors signiture to allow citizens to keep their weapons in their cars at work.
I think, if you don't want to allow weapons inside the gates and not in the parking lots you need to arrainge to have a place for people to put their legally carried firearms. "Welcome to Disney World. Please clear your weapon at the sand barrel and check it with the attendant at that booth there. Have a nice day." :D
It's no different than these same places which don't allow cellphones and cameras. If you take my cellphone and camera and put them in a locker then what's wrong with my gun going in there too?

hotshotshoting
August 17, 2008, 07:28 AM
i laugh when i hear people say that law enforcement and military are the only people trained enough to keep firearms...

most law enforcement agency's are only required to fire 100 rds / year to stay qualified your average recreational shooter usually fires that at least monthly.... and i personally fire an average of 3000 rds / week... but its easy for me because i own my own store and shooting range... and i do not consider myself normal

ps im also not saying that all law enforcement only fires 100 rds / year.. im just stating a fact for my area in florida i do not know all law enforcement agencys policys


as for glocks firing by themselves... glocks happen to be 1 of the safest pistols you can own if you dont pull the trigger they dont fire.... however there is the possibility of mechanical failure but it is not that common in glocks in the respect of the gun magically firing... we were only able to get the glock to fire by physically manipulating the sear with a screwdriver but that was not possible without replacing the rear cover on the slide with a modified cover so that we could put a screwdriver into it...

If you enjoyed reading about "Agents accidentally shot while gun being holstered" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!