Posted on 10/22/2012 1:14:11 PM PDT by Altariel
Your girl is purdy ... and she’ll always be “14”! ... Cradle robber.
She’s “18”, legal and shoots straight. LOL
I have read all of the posts in this thread, including yours and mine, and the responses to each posting. In my opinion, ‘thou dost protest too much’. It is obvious, from all the opinions/comments expressed here that...
1. Glocks have no safety. Unless one is an expert and never makes a mistake, one should never carry a Glock.
2. One should NEVER carry a Glock except in a holster.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt, and when a Glock is involved, that is catastrophe about to happen.
I will not carry nor will I own a Glock. To each his own. It is not for me.
Finally, why are Glocks so much desired? What makes them special? What does a Glock have that is not available in a safe carry pistol?
Glocks are desired because they are among the finest firearms ever made. They are rugged, accurate, will feed any ammunition and personally fit my hand perfectly. They have, again, in my opinion, the best safety ever designed. One has to intend to fire it OR one has to handle it foolishly. Since I am not a fool around firearms, I can point to 25 years of fault-free experience with Glocks.
I’ve owned, until the tragic boating accident, Sigs, Colts, S&W, Beretta, Ruger and a bunch of others. Nothing beats a Glock. Nothing.
Your mileage may vary.
You beat me to it. Good work.
I always comment on that. I *hate* the term “accidental”. It’s a negligent discharge, and this should be hammered everywhere.
I once got a letter printed in the local fishwrap that made this correction. Two cops in an evidence closet managed an ND with a shotgun.
So I assume you never touch revolvers?
I own several, why? The ergonomics of a revolver are similar to those of a Glock except (most) revolvers don’t have a safety. By that I mean that with glocks snd revolvers, there is insufficient energy behind the firing pin to effect ignition until the trigger is pulled.
I wish FR had separate To: and cc: addressing fields.
I thought by context it was pretty well implied you were a cc: on that one. I guess I should have said so.
These GLOCKS ARE INHERENTLY UNSAFE! guys crack me up.
Cars, silverware and guns are inherently unsafe in the wrong hands. Don’t be the wrong hands is the message I guess.
Nice tagline, BTW. Especially since apparently we are to have UN election observers this year.
As matter of fact, modern revolvers do have some sort of an integrated locking device. But it's not intended for quick operation like a typical safety button.
I use revolvers, but I have to be doubly cautious with them; I swing the cylinder out whenever possible (such as at the range when not actually shooting this firearm.) This can't be done in the field, so if I carry a revolver when hunting I have to be particularly aware that it is only one [long] trigger pull from firing. But if I carry a semi-auto then I am much farther from firing (insert the magazine, rack the slide, release the safety, fire.)
Far more accidents (outside of a theater of war or a forest full of hungry bears) are caused by weapons firing when they shouldn't than by weapons not firing when they should. For that reason my bias is toward weapons not firing until specific steps are taken to activate them. GZ benefitted from carrying in Condition One, but his volunteer duties required that (such as approaching strangers who are likely to be criminals, or under influence of drugs, or both.)
>>As matter of fact, modern revolvers do have some sort of an integrated locking device.
Tell us more. Perhaps an example model and details of this?
Of course. Here is the link. Please see page 15. The manual covers all "modern" revolvers that S&W makes, but this lock was added only after 2001. I have this lock, that's why I knew about it. The S&W Web site doesn't talk about it, and not even one photo exists that shows the gun from the other side (where the latch is.) You have to read the manual to see the lock.
I hadn’t realized that sort of thing had been added to revolvers; clearly I haven’t looked closely at modern revolvers in the last decade, if this has become common/routine.
Still, I don’t think this feature bears on the issue of self-defense carry safety. And the fact remains that people managed to carry loaded revolvers safely for many decades, and still do today, and many people manage to carry loaded Glocks in Condition One safely, some for a couple decades already, without a button safety. A button safety is simply not a be-all end-all to safe carry. And that is what this issue/discussion boils down to.
Asserting that Glocks are inherently unsafe to carry in Condition One is simply absurd, and this is what several have done here, including you. They are quite similar to revolvers when it comes to carry safety and handling. Hundreds of thousands, millions even, of people carry loaded revolvers and Condition One Glocks successfully. Now, if you feel unsafe with carrying Glocks, or loaded revolvers, that’s fine. But don’t try to shift blame for your fears and limitations onto what is a perfectly functional piece of hardware that serves many quite well.
I suppose. To me the trigger pull of a GLOCk compared to say a typical .38 is markedly lighter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.