Another professional wounds himself with a Glock .40
- Thread starter Jubjub
- Start date
- Status
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
alohachris said:
A guy in my department shot himself in the leg a few years ago. He was attempting to disassemble his Glock in his patrol car, and pointed it at his thigh when he pulled the trigger. The officer nearly died from his wound, and probably would have if it wasn't for another officer who heard the shot and came to his rescue.
I'm not sure why this is called "Glock Leg" in your part of the country? This could happen with any pistol, and is a testament to the results of carelessness and bad judgment more than it is a problem with the pistol. Should anyone really be surprised that a gun goes off when you pull the trigger?
Let us review:
1) Never let the muzzle of the weapon point at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
2) Keep your finger off of the trigger and out of the trigger guard until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire.
3) Treat all weapons as if they are always loaded.
4) Always be certain of your target, and what lies beyond.
If you manage to shoot yourself with a Glock without first violating at least two of these safety rules, I'd love to hear about it!
oldfool
Member
yes it is
but it could be a lot worse
if all the not-gun-people who do the same dumb stuff every day got media attention the way not-gun-people cops do, that would scare the snot out of everybody, and we would have a really serious PR problem on our hands, because only about 99% of those stories are never told to anybody, much less the media
but odds are really high that any cop who does that is going to make the news
most LEOS don't practice enough, nor take gun safety seriously enough
which mostly makes them just like non-cops who don't hang out on gun forums and practice enough
being a gun owner requires a few hundred bucks, at most
most anybody can do that, if they want to
ain't defending any cop who can't pay attention
but the notion that cops are any better/worse than the general populace is naive
no argument implied that every law abiding citizen should NOT own guns
just saying that defending rights for all, which do need defending, is no excuse for lack of equal enthusiasm for personal responsibility, but no excuse for cop bashing
idiots come in all make/model/calibers... and all occupations
joe-the-plumber doesn't get his face on TV all that often, and joe-the-baker or candlestick maker doesn't either
but "they" are just as likely to blow a hole in their TV set as joe-the-cop
but when they do, it probably won't be the lead on the evening "news" channel
real likely joe-the-cop will be
thank gawd, all "joes" who do that are not on the TV
even though they all "ought" be (???)
the good news is, a lot more joes are exercising their rights lately
the bad news is, a lot more joes are exercising their rights lately
the worse news is joe ain't you, and freedom cannot be had absent risk
worry a little less about the 'professionals' and worry a little more about non-professional joe-average-me
there are a lot more of me, than there are of them, you know
I know there was a LEO here in the Denver area that was shot in the leg when he was holstering his Glock at the range and the hem of his jacket got in the trigger guard and tripped the trigger. Wouldn't surprise me if there were others it's happened to.
KodiakBeer
member
Or, he made that up after keeping his finger on the trigger while holstering his gun.
Vikingsoftpaw
Member
It sounds like the old 'Loose Nut behind the Trigger' problem.
Yes. And then there's also this:
Unless you're cleaning the gun, I can't see any normal handling procedure that would ever have you covering the barrel with the palm of your hand. Something really went wrong here, such that a person with a firearm was in possession of the weapon yet had no training or no understanding of safe procedures.
From time to time, we discuss here (and elsewhere) the idea that maybe some kind of mandatory training certificate should be required before a person can obtain a firearm. There are reasons why that's a bad idea, but cases like this one argue in the other direction. They don't settle the matter - not by a longshot. Still...
bobmcd
Member
Palm-over-muzzle sounds a lot like the "Bugs Bunny safety" on the M1911A1 ... if the slide is pushed back out of battery, the pistol won't shoot (like Bugs sticking his finger into Elmer Fudd's barrel). Perhaps the ND was due to pushing back on the slide to see if the weapon would shoot?
swinokur
Member
you're not describing a press check are you? you can't see into the chamber of a Glock like a 1911.
If that's not what you're describing, never mind.
If that's not what you're describing, never mind.
trex1310
Member
Even if you had some type of mandatory training certificate, I would bet
my last dollar that someone would still blow a hole in themselves.
bobmcd
Member
No. The 1911 has (if I remember the rigamarole correctly) has one safety and four safety features. The safety is the actual mechanical safety; the safety features are the grip safety, the half-cock notch, the disconnector, and .... uh, something else. (Dang. I knew I couldn't remember them all.)
Anyway, if you push a 1911 into something (like your opponent's torso) so that the slide and barrel are moved back even slightly, the hammer will not fall. Not a safety per se, but a "safety feature". And I believe that a few bored GI's shot themselves through the palm of the hand when "demonstrating" the fact that a 1911 will not fire if the slide is pushed back (for example, by shoving the muzzle into the palm of your left hand).
I don't know if a Glock Fo-tay has such a "safety feature", but like I said in my earlier post: when a guy shoots himself through the palm of his hand, I immediately think about the "Bugs Bunny safety".
Anyway, if you push a 1911 into something (like your opponent's torso) so that the slide and barrel are moved back even slightly, the hammer will not fall. Not a safety per se, but a "safety feature". And I believe that a few bored GI's shot themselves through the palm of the hand when "demonstrating" the fact that a 1911 will not fire if the slide is pushed back (for example, by shoving the muzzle into the palm of your left hand).
I don't know if a Glock Fo-tay has such a "safety feature", but like I said in my earlier post: when a guy shoots himself through the palm of his hand, I immediately think about the "Bugs Bunny safety".
swinokur
Member
training won't help ND. You cannot fix stupid
swinokur
Member
Series 80 Colts and series II Kimbers have firing pin safeties. Maybe that's no. 4?
A Glock will not fire if the slide is out of battery
A Glock will not fire if the slide is out of battery
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Well, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Part of that vigilance is not being around idiots who might hurt you with firearms. Once can either turn over their liberty to the government, and hope that their licenses, courses, agencies, and bureaucracies will keep you safe, or you can keep your liberty but have it be on your own head to keep yourself safe from others. I'll pick the latter.
Steps required to prevent the unintended discharge of human waste:
1. Identify the need.
2. Identify and move to appropriate disposal location.
3. Clear path of clothing for unimpeded access to disposal receptor.
4. Assume proper position over disposal receptor prior to discharge.
Steps required to prevent the unintended discharge of a round from a firearm:
1. Don't pull the trigger.
Amazing how people can maintain the discipline needed to perform the multiple steps required to eliminate human waste, but fail to maintain the discipline needed to perform the ONE task required to prevent a negligent discharge.
1. Identify the need.
2. Identify and move to appropriate disposal location.
3. Clear path of clothing for unimpeded access to disposal receptor.
4. Assume proper position over disposal receptor prior to discharge.
Steps required to prevent the unintended discharge of a round from a firearm:
1. Don't pull the trigger.
Amazing how people can maintain the discipline needed to perform the multiple steps required to eliminate human waste, but fail to maintain the discipline needed to perform the ONE task required to prevent a negligent discharge.
Im 66 years old, retired with 39 years on as a police officer. A friend of mine brought a 380 he bought at a gun show for me to check out. He told me he hadn't loaded it but just to make sure, I dropped the mag., racked the slide several times, pointed it at my tv and promptly killed it. Broken extractor. Unknown how long the weapon had been loaded. You're never too old screw up. I thank God every day it was only a tv.
Coolbreeze8804
Member
Ha! THAT's funny. I, at the tender age of 14 or so, after repeatedly cycling the action of an old winchester 94 that had been leaning in my Grandfathers living room in the corner for over 30 years. (I, and many others had cycled it and dry fired it numerous times. My Gramps had done "triggerwork" on it which was a source of pride for him) Since he "didn't hunt it anymore" he had "filed the end off the firing pin" so that we could all experience his prowess as a gunsmith. Lucky me! I found the round that was apparently stuck up in the mag tube AND discoved that the old dear hadn't filed enough of the firing pin, and adroitly placed a round neatly through the window and through an unsupecting crow on the birdbath out back.
Gramma tongue lashed us for hours, and the cop that showed up thought it was hilarious. Times have changed.
And poop still happens... I'm still glad it was a winged varmint, and not one of the 20 or so relatives there for the holiday...
BTW,, I'd rather blame it on the glock. I don't like 'em. they're ugly. but it prolly wasn't the guns fault.
piece of meat
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 179
i dont get why glock cant put some kind of safety on their guns....there really is no reason not to have one. if they had a simple thumb safety id have bought like 5 of them by now
Carter
Member
Thats why I bought an SR9c instead of a glock 26. I don't always use the manuel safety but I'm glad its their. It stays off while its in the holster. Once I pull it out I flick the safety on if I'm putting it up or w/e. If I'm shooting my finger doesn't go near it. I've done this so much now that its reflex and I don't have to think about it.
Even if glocks did have safeties police probably wouldn't use them. The local LEO's used to have beretta's. They never used the safety except to decock the weapon, then promptly turned the safety off again.
ND can happen. But this one was totally preventable.
General Geoff
Member
The Glock has lots of safety features. The main one being the trigger. Don't pull the trigger and the gun won't fire. I don't see how it could possibly be any simpler.
My theory is that they're taught how to eliminate human waste when they're toddlers, but don't learn gun safety usually until they're well into adulthood. It's harder to learn new routines, the older you get.
Sunray
Member
"...this guy was playing with his new Glock in the car..." It isn't the pistol. It's poor training.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
He put his finger on the trigger and pulled it. I doubt if a thumb safety would have prevented this.piece of meat said:
The Lone Haranguer
Member
What did he think he was "playing" with? 
It's a gun, not a plush bunny.
It's a gun, not a plush bunny.
Very plausible. A revolver, with a ~10-12 lb. pull over a ~3/4-inch arc, is more forgiving of stupid handling than a Glock whose trigger is about half that.9mmepiphany said:
- Status
