My trigger finger is my safety

[DT Guy]

Just wanted to weigh in to comment that I appreciate the hilarity offered up in this thread. The best was using the NY "We only shoot bystanders" PD as an example of how to train.

The 'safest' gun would have a solid barrel and be welded shut. Everyone arguing that 'everyone's training fails eventually' should run out and buy one of those, as they're arguing that's the only way to prevent an ND.

For the rest of us, THINKING seems to work OK.

Larry

 

[Homerboy]

Just wanted to weigh in to comment that I appreciate the hilarity offered up in this thread. The best was using the NY "We only shoot bystanders" PD as an example of how to train.

The 'safest' gun would have a solid barrel and be welded shut. Everyone arguing that 'everyone's training fails eventually' should run out and buy one of those, as they're arguing that's the only way to prevent an ND.

For the rest of us, THINKING seems to work OK.

Less than 1/10 of 1% of NY cops fired their weapons last year. How many rounds will you fire if you are faced with a gun? And are you going to even think about the HUNDREDS of people on a crowded NYC street?

Unless you have been in a shooting, don't judge. Go to youtube and type in 'police shootings'. Watch the dash cam of REAL shootings. See how rounds those cops fire, and see how the suspect DOESN'T immediately fall down.

As for hitting bystanders, it's much harder to hit a bystander in mayberry or on some Oklahoma highway than in mid-town Manhattan.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom De Forum, the data you seek is in the Annual Firearm Discharge report. Don't know if it is public but I know what I read and what I saw. Guess you'll just have to take my word for it

Homerboy,

Thanks for the lead. I hope all will review and analyze the following links.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...ypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

Start with page 47.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...ypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2012.pdf

Start with page 36.

At first glance the numbers are really low for the number of individuals and pistols involved. It is interesting that in one year semiautos that are not Glock types had more NDs.

I don’t have the time right now to write more and I need to do some more research and reading. For the time being though: GUYS LIGHTEN UP! Let us find hard data to support our opinions and try to keep the thread being closed for being what Old Dog aptly described.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Less than 1/10 of 1% of NY cops fired their weapons last year. How many rounds will you fire if you are faced with a gun? And are you going to even think about the HUNDREDS of people on a crowded NYC street?

Unless you have been in a shooting, don't judge. Go to youtube and type in 'police shootings'. Watch the dash cam of REAL shootings. See how rounds those cops fire, and see how the suspect DOESN'T immediately fall down.

As for hitting bystanders, it's much harder to hit a bystander in mayberry or on some Oklahoma highway than in mid-town Manhattan.

Homerboy, I agree that comment was dreck and completely uncalled for. I hope the maker of it will now attempt to impress us with keen analysis after disgusting us with pathetic insult.

 

[JRH6856]

As for hitting bystanders, it's much harder to hit a bystander in mayberry or on some Oklahoma highway than in mid-town Manhattan.

And it is much easier to hit a bystander when they are not doing their part and seeking cover at the first sign of danger. But if a legally armed person who is armed in anticipation of danger has to be reminded to be ever vigilant against possible danger, it applies more so to the unarmed person who is probably blissfully unaware that there is even a possibility of danger.

 

[Homerboy]

Only problem is that in the real world there is not always time to seek cove or even a hint of danger. Where is the cover on a non-felony car stop or when you walk into a robbery? Most police shootings happen with no warning. If there was one they would call ESU

 

[Master Blaster]

The NRA 3 rules are counter-intuitive to self defense. Following #3 would mean that the firearm should be carried unloaded with the ammo carried separately and the weapon loaded only when the need for defense arose. I actually do know some people how do this, but as for self defense, they are only defending themselves and others from themselves.

If a firearm is used only for sport or recreation, the 3 rules are applicable and useful.

That is utterly false, carrying a gun for self defense is an example of an instance where you are Ready to Use the Gun so it would be loaded when you are ready to use it just like rule three states.

 

[JRH6856]

That is utterly false, carrying a gun for self defense is an example of an instance where you are Ready to Use the Gun so it would be loaded when you are ready to use it just like rule three states.

SD can be required at anytime, at any place, so all of my guns are loaded 24/7. So much for rule #3.

And since an SD situation often means the gun will be pointed AT someone, or in what may be an unsafe direction for someone, Rule #1 is out as well. So we are back to keeping the finger off the trigger. :banghead:

 

[DT Guy]

Nope. Comment stands, no defense necessary. "If you can't hit your target, don't shoot!" is fairly simple....


Larry

 

[Homerboy]

And how many shootouts have you been in, Oh Wise One? I always scored expert at the range. But the one time I fired my gun (at a pitbull charging me) I hit him twice out of 7 shots. Paper doesn't shoot back. A weekend at Blackwater may make you FEEL like some "operator" but your just a chair borne ranger. Not even a has been. More like a never was

 

[Nom de Forum]

Homerboy,

Don't feed the Troll. He obviously isn't here to contribute anything of worth. He craves attention and pathetically can only taunt people to get it.


Do you happen to know what year the NYPD approved the Glock and what year it became the predominately used pistol?

 

[TestPilot]

Let's not forget that NYPD Glock is not a regular Glock. It has a 12lb trigger. Let's also not foret that it has a long take up. Although the last step of firing is short, the entire pull is certainly not a 1911 short pull. The take up needed for the first shot is quite significant compared to a SAO. If I remember correcrtly, those NY trigger Glocks' take up is more firm too, not the free "slack" of a regular Glock.

So, after all that modifications, I feel it is silly that Glock is still being blamed.

P226 DA pull is about the same and S&W may even be smoother than that, judging from my experience.

Also, what is the distribution rate between Glock, SIG, and S&W? Glock is the majority.

 

[DT Guy]

Twice, both attacking animals, both two for two.
Sorry.

Ad hominems ignored.

Larry

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Homerboy:
And how many NRA members have negligent discharges every year?

I'm sorry, but that statement is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People are people. They get tired, sick, complacent (biggest issue out there). They make MISTAKES. And when you screw up with a pistol, somebody (usually not the dumb operator) gets hurt or killed.

Of course. Mistake with the trigger can kill. So can mistakes with additional levers and buttons to make guns not fire that needs to be switched on and off manually. Misses from harder to pull trigger can kill too.

The point is that each of those mechanical solutions comes with their own set of risks.

Hey, why does my lawn mower and chain saw have a kill switch?

Because the designers did not think them not working when kill switch is pressed would have negative consequences, unlike a gun when needed for self-defense.

Why do we put child safety caps on drugs and cleaning products? People are supposed to lock up their cleaning products and drugs if they have kids around, aren't they? But they don't always do it, do they?

Was getting a pill out of a drug bottle or cleaner out of a Clorox botte ever a life and death matter to you?

Bill Jordan, legendary shooter, once killed another officer with his Model 19 he "thought was unloaded". If a Marine war veteran and survivor of God knows how many shootouts can screw up, you think you can't?

Of course anyone, even the best, can screw up. However, not's not forget that even the best can screw up with any gun. Let's also not forget that there is a reason why those experts chose the gun they did.

If he pulled the trigger because he thought it was unloaded, then any features that disables firing function would have been be disabled, so it would not have mattered.

 

[Old Dog]

Mistake with the trigger can kill. So can mistakes with additional levers and buttons to make guns not fire that needs to be switched on and off manually.

Once again, hopefully for the last time: waiting breathlessly for a documented case in which someone actually died because an "additional lever and buttons to make guns not fire that needs to be switched on and off manually" (WHEW! Ain't that a awkward mouthful?) didn't get properly switched off by a user.

If you can't offer one up (and I'm not talking about a case of a manual safety failing, even though the two examples previously provided were with an AR and a bolt-action rifle) -- then maybe it's just time to quit.

 

[TestPilot]

Once again, hopefully for the last time: waiting breathlessly for a documented case in which someone actually died because an "additional lever and buttons to make guns not fire that needs to be switched on and off manually" (WHEW! Ain't that a awkward mouthful?) didn't get properly switched off by a user.

If you can't offer one up (and I'm not talking about a case of a manual safety failing, even though the two examples previously provided were with an AR and a bolt-action rifle) -- then maybe it's just time to quit.

First, if there's just a body on the ground, then who can tell if the person forgot,attempted but failed?

If the person did survive, what is the incentive in admitting it?

According to instructor Rob Pincus and Gabe Suarez, it is a fairly frequent occurrance.

If people make those mistakes in training, what makes you think they'll fare better in combat?

That does not mean I believe all of you will fail the manipulation when it comes down to a gun fight, but the probability cannot be ignored.

 

[Old Dog]

Ah, Pincus and Suarez again.

You have no argument.

If people make those mistakes in training, what makes you think they'll fare better in combat?

Heh, with a combined 40 years active duty military and law enforcement, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most of us feel the time to make mistakes is in training.

If the person did survive, what is the incentive in admitting it?

Well, for those of us who've actually spoken in person with survivors of gunfights, you'd be surprised at how forthcoming these people can be. Or have to be.

Still waiting for documented cases of manual safeties causing loss of life. Waiting ...

No do-overs on the street ... unlike video-games.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Old Dog,

Absence of evidence proves no point is a classic example of Argument from Ignorance. Why should anyone think it is time to quit? Ever hear something like this: Give enough monkeys typewriters and enough time and they will type the text of Hamlet. Considering how many people have used pistols with manual safeties for so many decades it is likely given enough searching an example will be found. I feel the way you do, but about mag safeties preventing a shot that would save a life, but I would not bet the farm on it not have happening.

Take a look at the links I posted from the NYPD. Very interesting that for one year Glocks were not the number one semi for NDs and I suspect they were overwhelmingly the number one pistol in use. I have more links to post but am not ready yet. It is late. Good night all.

 

[Old Dog]

Absence of evidence proves no point is a classic example of Argument from Ignorance.

Huh?
Ah, no.

You make an argument, you back it up. If you're gonna talk about all the "negative consequences" of manual safeties, at least have the courtesy to provide some documented examples.

"Argument from ignorance?" Hardly. I'm not the one trying to prove a point; just the guy trying to generate some evidence.

C'mon now, don't you remember from high school debate: the burden of proof is on the affirmative?

 

[Old Dog]

And, while I'm at it ... arguing that guns sans manual safeties are intrinsically better -- or safer -- somehow than guns with manual safeties ... is akin to arguing that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla. Really, why do you guys even want to argue this stuff?

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Old Dog:
Huh?
Ah, no.

You make an argument, you back it up. If you're gonna talk about all the "negative consequences" of manual safeties, at least have the courtesy to provide some documented examples.

"Argument from ignorance?" Hardly. I'm not the one trying to prove a point; just the guy trying to generate some evidence.

C'mon now, don't you remember from high school debate: the burden of proof is on the affirmative?

There are plenty of things which are prudent to be cautious of that was manifested during testing or training before it caused problem in real life.

Anyway, you may have got what you wished for.

The following is from Shooting to Live by Fairbairn, and Sykes(p14).

"There are too many instances on record of men being shot by accident either because the safety-catch was in the firing position when it ought not to have been or because it was in the safe position when that was the last thing to be desired."

 

[JRH6856]

"There are too many instances on record ...

So, there is a record? At least we have some progress. Where? Let's see it.

 

[TestPilot]

So, there is a record? At least we have some progress. Where? Let's see it.

I gave you the source.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by JRH6856:
And since an SD situation often means the gun will be pointed AT someone, or in what may be an unsafe direction for someone, Rule #1 is out as well. So we are back to keeping the finger off the trigger

If you do intend to shoot in self-defense, why would your finger be off the trigger?

 

[JRH6856]

Good question. But then, I'm not the one making up these rules.