TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah, I actually went and confirmed this last night with an empty casing. Maybe I have common sense or something but I always unload my gun before field stripping it.

Glocks are inherently dangerous. You should immediately bring all Glocks to me for safety reasons.

GrillKing wrote:Glocks are inherently dangerous. You should immediately bring all Glocks to me for safety reasons.

Grillking is correct. Glocks are extremely dangerous. He is handling the south Texas collections and I will be handling the North Texas collections.

Catfight wrote:Yeah, I actually went and confirmed this last night with an empty casing. Maybe I have common sense or something but I always unload my gun before field stripping it.

I trusted the poster to know what he was talking about and I did the same test. I now have a hole in my wall.

Liberty wrote: I hate entering into this discussion because so many Glock owners seem to get emotional when mention of Glocks that doesn't suggest they aren't the perfect blaster.

To be fair, there are lots of DA/SA owners who get emotional when others suggest that a manual safety cannot be depended upon to save people from themselves. It seems to me that we could go around in circles with regard to who is more emotionally attached to their favorite firearm. I don't think Glocks are perfect because they certainly have their faults. But as "medical devices" designed to cause hemorrhaging go, Glocks work exceedingly well.

Liberty wrote: I have viewed the film several times, and its never been clear to me whether it was a finger, holster component, or an article of clothing that pulled the trigger. It is painfully obvious that he was negligent and fully responsible for the incident, It doesn't take away from the fact that if there was a manual safety (and, yes, if it was activated ) We wouldn't be discussing this incident today.

We obviously have different opinions here. Even the agent himself has since admitted to a “slip of the finger.” I will say again the design of the Glock and the absence of a manual safety had little to do with the incident. If we are going to acknowledge the agent's negligence as the primary factor, we can't turn around and still blame it on the gun. That's like admitting it was negligent and stupid to drive drunk and then saying if only the car had required keys to start rather than a push-button starter, you wouldn't have gotten into an accident.

You've said it's your opinion that if this firearm had a manual safety, and the agent had activated said safety, the incident would not have occurred. While that may be true I contend that had the agent first removed the source of ammunition and subsequently inspected the firearm himself rather than having someone else nod in agreement as he declared the gun unloaded, that the presence of a manual safety would be irrelevant. The fact that basic administrative tasks were skipped and/or forgotten strongly suggests it is unlikely the agent would have remembered to activate a manual safety even if the gun was so equipped.

YMMV.

Wasn't it Ron White who said, "You just can't fix Stupid."