Rise in accidental gunshots by L.A. County deputies follows new firearm

Status
Not open for further replies.
They have to learn to keep their fingers off the trigger, I thought everyone knew that. Those guns don't go off by themselves. The range officers at my former agency slammed you if they saw a finger in the trigger guard and you weren't actually in the middle of taking a shot.

Sad this guy was injured, but why is it the manufacturers fault if he fails to safeguard his weapon?

"A former Los Angeles Police Department officer who was paralyzed when his 3-year-old son shot him with a Glock has sued the gun manufacturer and others, alleging that the light trigger pull and lack of a safety mechanism contributed to the accident."
 
"A former Los Angeles Police Department officer who was paralyzed when his 3-year-old son shot him with a Glock has sued the gun manufacturer and others, alleging that the light trigger pull and lack of a safety mechanism contributed to the accident."
Click to expand...

Doesn't California make it illegal to allow children access to guns? Or don't the law apply to cops?
 
Glock gets hit by lawsuits like this every year. Glock always takes them to court, and they almost always win. The pistol performed exactly as designed: Someone pulled the trigger, the gun fired. There is no product defect.
 
A lot of cops aren't "gun people" is being polite. Most never saw a real firearm before getting hired and never shoot other than for their annual qualification. Nothing new about it and it has nothing to do with a particular firearm either. Know a guy who was assigned to 'The Bank Car', only one with a pump shotgun, long ago. Neither he nor his partner even knew how to load it.
 
L.A. County sheriff's deputies learning to shoot the Beretta were taught to rest a finger on the trigger as soon as they took aim. The mantra was "on target, on trigger."
Click to expand...
Bad enough to do it subconsciously but to be trained at it??

No mention of SA ND's but given what is commonly taught or at least implied as to disengaging the safety as part of the draw my bet is those SA triggers present more trouble than either of the others. Probably not as high a number because there are fewer out there but given the cause cited (finger on the trigger) the percentage must be greater.
 
One time I was having a conversation with Gaston Glock when the subject changed to accidental/unintentional discharges. Somewhat exasperated, he said, "I did not intend that my gun should be used by idiots!" or words to that affect. The pistol was in fact designed for use by military forces where adequate training could be expected. He did not foresee its popularity with law enforcement agencies or the general public where proper training was either inadequate or nonexistent.

I fully agreed with his comment, and personally would not recommend any of the striker-fired/safety in the trigger face, pistols to anyone who lacked the necessary training and was unlikely to get it. These handguns are intended for professionals, or at least others who have a professional attitude in keeping with they're design and probable use.
 
Their former training is a large part of the problem. There isnt any pistol that should have a finger on the trigger until one is in the process of shooting. Glocks/M&P's etc are every bit as safe as any other gun if the most basic safety training is used and adhered to.

Its been adequetly demostrated that there isnt any loss of time in keeping the finger safely indexed on the frame or slide until its time to fire. Its all about basic training.
 
Old Fuff said:
One time I was having a conversation with Gaston Glock when the subject changed to accidental/unintentional discharges. Somewhat exasperated, he said, "I did not intend that my gun should be used by idiots!" or words to that affect. The pistol was in fact designed for use by military forces where adequate training could be expected. He did not foresee its popularity with law enforcement agencies or the general public where proper training was either inadequate or nonexistent.

I fully agreed with his comment, and personally would not recommend any of the striker-fired/safety in the trigger face, pistols to anyone who lacked the necessary training and was unlikely to get it. These handguns are intended for professionals, or at least others who have a professional attitude in keeping with they're design and probable use.
Click to expand...
I think his aggressive marketing towards le agencies implies the opposite.
 
As a Sheriff's Deputy I must say, this is an officer/ deputy training issue not a firearm issue. You do not put your finger on the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire. Walking around with your finger on the trigger is just asking for a ND to happen.
 
One time I was having a conversation with Gaston Glock when the subject changed to accidental/unintentional discharges. Somewhat exasperated, he said, "I did not intend that my gun should be used by idiots!" or words to that affect. The pistol was in fact designed for use by military forces where adequate training could be expected. He did not foresee its popularity with law enforcement agencies or the general public where proper training was either inadequate or nonexistent.

I fully agreed with his comment, and personally would not recommend any of the striker-fired/safety in the trigger face, pistols to anyone who lacked the necessary training and was unlikely to get it. These handguns are intended for professionals, or at least others who have a professional attitude in keeping with they're design and probable use.
Click to expand...


I'm not disagreeing with your statement but if that was indeed his intent he certainly didn't expect much of a market, what is the percentage of Special Operations in any given military in the world? Certainly under 5%. If he had high expectations of highly trained handgunners in the military that must have been his target group.
The later in bold brings the 1911 to mind a well.
 
I'm not disagreeing with your statement but if that was indeed his intent he certainly didn't expect much of a market,
Click to expand...

At the time we had the conversation, his pistol was relatively new in the U.S. market, but domestic law enforcement agencies were starting to change to it.

In the beginning the design was the result of a procurement competition inaugurated by the Austrian Army. Handguns were largely limited to officers. World wide recognition didn't come about until after it was adopted by one of the NATO members.

I agree with your observation about the 1911 Colt pattern, but it can be carried with the chamber loaded but the hammer fully at rest, or cocked but locked by a manual safety. Neither option is available on most (but not all) of the popular striker-fired pistols.

And I also agree that what we are looking at is a training failure, and not the gun's fault. The problem is caused in most cases when an agency adopts the pistol, but is unwilling to pay for the very much needed training to go with it. The same can be said about many individual purchaser's. The solution in my view is to recommend a different handgun when it's clear that the training isn't likely to happen.
 
Old Fuff said:
One time I was having a conversation with Gaston Glock when the subject changed to accidental/unintentional discharges. Somewhat exasperated, he said, "I did not intend that my gun should be used by idiots!" or words to that affect. The pistol was in fact designed for use by military forces where adequate training could be expected. He did not foresee its popularity with law enforcement agencies or the general public where proper training was either inadequate or nonexistent.

I fully agreed with his comment, and personally would not recommend any of the striker-fired/safety in the trigger face, pistols to anyone who lacked the necessary training and was unlikely to get it. These handguns are intended for professionals, or at least others who have a professional attitude in keeping with they're design and probable use.
Click to expand...
Around here I notice the Glock seems to be the status choice.
 
I see nothing in the article to suggest a manual safety would have prevented these accidents.
Click to expand...

Most of the unintended discharges that happen come about when the user has their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't. Admittedly this isn't the pistol's fault, but if the action was blocked or locked by a manual safety (not mounted in the trigger face) the probable BANG! wouldn't have happened.
 
Around here I notice the Glock seems to be the status choice.
Click to expand...

I dont know if status has as much to do with it as simply that theres TONS of them out, and are a known quatity, generally very reliable, and even among fans of other makes/models, generally accepted as a good choice in general.
 
As a Sheriff's Deputy I must say, this is an officer/ deputy training issue not a firearm issue. You do not put your finger on the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire. Walking around with your finger on the trigger is just asking for a ND to happen.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I carry an M1911 and I practice drawing with both thumbs over the safety, but leaving the safety engaged, and the trigger finger indexed (outside the trigger guard.)

There's no time lost in firing, however -- as the sights come on target, I simply close my hand, wiping off the safety and pressing the trigger at the same time.
 
Giving your average

cop a pistol with no safety lever is like giving a 4 year old a live grenade.
 
"We call them [accidental discharges] training scars - Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers"
Seriously?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Remember, the narrative is that "guns are dangerous". This plays to their belief that they are only for "professionals" and the elite, and too dangerous for mere citizens to have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top