Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Free Plaxico
Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel in the Wall Street Journal:
New York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.
To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun. But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City's draconian gun laws.
Mr. Burress had previously had a handgun carry permit issued by Florida, for which he was required to pass a fingerprint-based background check. As a player for the Giants, he moved to Totowa, N.J., where he kept a Glock pistol. And last Friday night, he reportedly went to the Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants. Because New York state permits to possess or carry handguns are not issued to nonresidents, Mr. Burress could not apply for a New York City permit.
This seems about right. Burress was stupid with his careless handling of the gun. But he's being charged and facing mandatory prison time for merely carrying the gun, not mishandling it. Kopel concludes:
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.
Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself. Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.
The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
Chris Sprow wrote about how pro sports leagues are more worried about their image than the safety of their athletes in reason in January of last year.
|12.4.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Hm. This tests my 2nd Amendment principles, for sure. Dude was carrying a loaded weapon in a crowded club. If it went off that easy, anybody could have bumped him and made it go off. He could easily have killed somebody.
bubba|12.4.08 @ 12:00PM|#
If Plaxico had bothered to use a $20 holster, we wouldn't be
having this discussion.
Moron.
It's like fighting for the 1st Amendment rights of 2 Live
Crew.
Gee, thanks.
|12.4.08 @ 12:03PM|#
But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be
safe,
You know, by having Plaxico Burress bumping and grinding next to
you in a crowded club with a gun in his pocket.
In all seriousness, that statement assumes facts not in evidence.
It's an effort to steal bases. The "people deserve to be safe"
argument can be made the other way, too.
Maybe the answer is a "careless handling" law, equivalent to a
"driving to endanger" law.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Wait. Hold on a moment. He was in a club . . . with sweatpants? LMAO!
|12.4.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Screw rights. Throw Plax in jail forever. And the rest of the
Giants. And the Cowboys.
Go 'Skins!
|12.4.08 @ 12:12PM|#
"In all seriousness, that statement assumes facts not in
evidence. It's an effort to steal bases. The "people deserve to be
safe" argument can be made the other way, too."
That just means he ought to be held responsible for the gun
accidentily going off not for having it. Lots of states have
conceled and carry laws. Go find a link to even one case where
someone was accidentily shot in one of those states by someone
carrying a weapon. I bet you find damn few.
This whole case just shows how racist our enlightened media is. If
this had been Bret Favre having a hunting accident there would have
been some laughing at him but no one would have portrayed Favre as
a thug and a criminal.
Last I looked possessing a gun is a Constitutional right. I think
this guy is probably right that in light of Heller, New York's gun
laws, where it is practically impossible to obtain a permit, are
Constitutional. More importantly, consider the predicament of many
famous black athletes. Many of them come from very bad
neighborhoods. Since they are famous and come from such places,
they are known by a lot of very bad people. Worse still, they are
known for being famous and being rich. Moreover, many of them have
large extended families that may or may not be on the up and up and
even if they are have God knows who for friends. That is what
happened to Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor last fall. He
was not a criminal and was not known to hang around them, but one
of his cousins had a criminal thug boyfriend who broke into
Taylor's house and robbed him shooting him fatally in the
process.
Considering all of this, it is not surprising that many black
athletes carry guns. I certainly would if I were in their position.
But the media never talks about any of the reasons to carry a gun
beyond being a criminal. All the media ever sees is a big scary
young negro with a gun. It is disgusting and racist and perpetrated
by people who claim to be liberal and enlightened. The liberal
superstitions about guns trump all forms of decency including
racial tolerance.
The NY gun laws are a joke and immoral. No way does Burris deserve
prison time.
|12.4.08 @ 12:17PM|#
If this had been Bret Favre having a hunting accident there
would have been some laughing at him but no one would have
portrayed Favre as a thug and a criminal.
Legally bringing a rifle out into the woods to hunt.
Illegally bringing a gun into a crowded club. In your pants pocket.
With the safety off.
Race Card John strikes again.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Glocks don't have a safety, joe. Spluh.
Naga - isn't he a felon? He will be soon if he's not now, I'm
sure.
|12.4.08 @ 12:20PM|#
John,
"...Many of them come from very bad neighborhoods. Since they are
famous and come from such places, they are known by a lot of very
bad people....."
"All the media ever sees is a big scary young negro with a gun. It
is disgusting and racist and perpetrated by people who claim to be
liberal and enlightened."
Do you see what you did there?
|12.4.08 @ 12:21PM|#
While I'll wait until I here more evidence about all of this I
have to say 3 1/2 year minimum for just carrying a weapon is crazy.
Especially when there is no realistic way to get permit in
NY.
I'd really like to know how it went off. The only way a Glock is
going to go off is to pull the trigger. I know that sounds obvious,
but with Glock's safe action dropping it or banging on it won't
make it go off. And if it's a stock trigger a not neglible amount
of force is required to pull it.
My guess is he reached down to adjust it and inadvertantly pulled
the trigger. Wearing sweat pants and carrying a gun may have been
the dumbest thing I have read in awhile.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I should correct myself. Glocks do have a safety, but it's a trigger safety and you can't turn it on or off. So there's no way to fire a Glock without pulling the trigger.
|12.4.08 @ 12:24PM|#
I was pretty shocked too, i assumed he was being charged with something having to do with the discharge of a weapon in public or something, but he's literally looking at 3.5 years mandatory minimum for simply having a gun that Michael Bloomberg didn't know about. It's the people who pass insane laws like that that should be in prison, not Plaxico Burress.
|12.4.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Warty | December 4, 2008, 12:20pm | #
Glocks don't have a safety, joe.
Oh, good Lord! He didn't just forget to put the safety on, he went
out and bought a gun no safety, then brought it into a club in his
pocket?
It must have been awfully difficult for Burress to choose between
the NFL and the research gig at Bell Labs.
|12.4.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Plax is certainly a careless buffoon but I have to agree with
John and say that even by the normal ESPN talking head standards,
the opinions expressed on this case are self-righteous drivel.
Especially coming around the anniversary of the Sean Taylor murder
(which was initially labeled as his own fault somehow), the
Shooting of Jacksonville's Richard Collier over the summer, and the
Jan 2007 murder of Darrent Williams.
None of those men were complicit in were responsible for what
happened to them, yet Burress has been faulted for not feeling safe
when he goes out. I guess the fits the "modern athletes are out of
control primadonnas" narrative that sportswriters love to push.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 12:25PM|#
joe,
No pockets in sweatpants. The damn fool must have tucked it right
next to his junk.
|12.4.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Sutpendous Man,
Can you read? Apparntly not very well. Noting the fact that black
athletes come from bad neighborhoods where many criminals live says
nothing about the athletes themselves. Lots of very good people
grow up in bad neighborhoods. Indeed, the majority of people in bad
neighborhoods are quite good people. It only takes a small criminal
minority to make things bad for everyone.
The fact is there has been a very distrubing trend of athletes
being victimized in the last few years. The problem now is that
when the players go to a club the skells follow them home to stick
them up or to do a home invasion. Stephen Smith of the Giants was
robbed at gunpoint last week. Eddie Curry of the Knicks had a bunch
of knuckleheads burst into his home and tie him and his whole
family up while they robbed them. Antoine Walker had the same thing
happen. Paul Pierce of the Celtics was pierced by about a hundred
stab wounds a few years ago in a club. So these guys feel that they
have to protect themselves and their families. So they get a
gun.
The media never talks about the safety issue. The only see a black
man with a gun and assume he is a criminal. Realizing the fact that
many black athletes come from bad areas or are the targets of very
bad people says nothing about them personally or their race.
|12.4.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I thought he being faulted for bringing a gun into a nightclub and causing it to go off, shooting him in the leg.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Plaxico has a shitload of money and is a big asshole, so he's not going to like the idea of cutting a deal. Maybe he can do us all a favor and get New York's handgun law overturned in the Supreme Court? It would be the only way he could redeem himself for having been a Steeler.
|12.4.08 @ 12:28PM|#
"I thought he being faulted for bringing a gun into a nightclub
and causing it to go off, shooting him in the leg."
If he was, 3.5 years would still be rediculous but it would
certainly be fair to charge him with a crime. Burriss is a dumb
ass, but the New York gun laws are rediculous.
|12.4.08 @ 12:28PM|#
It must have been awfully difficult for Burress to choose
between the NFL and the research gig at Bell Labs.
While you're probably right, I sense some underlying bitterness
about Burress' TD during the waning moments of Superbowl XLII.
|12.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Naga,
Some sweats have pockets. The stories I've seen all mentioned his
pockets. Like a track suit.
God, I hate people who walk around in track suits.
And the Giants. Stupid track-suit-wearing,
gun-in-the-pocket-carrying, Giant mofo.
"Send the house" he says. "Eli will panic" he says.
Grrrrrrr....
OK, maybe I'm not entirely objective here.
kinnath|12.4.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Heller complied with the law and sued to get it
overturned.
Burress broke the law, acted with total disregard to the safety of
others, and is now looking for forgiveness.
The gun laws in NY are most likely unconstitutional. This does not
absolve Buress of being a complete dickhead.
|12.4.08 @ 12:30PM|#
I gotta agree, 3.5 years is absurd.
Unless there's some New York Giants penalty enhancement that comes
into play.
|12.4.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Burris is a jerk. But the fact that he is a jerk shouldn't cloud people's judgement about his case. A criminal conviction for his real crime of discharging a weapon in a night club and maybe a few weeks in jail and some community service would be fair. But making him a felon and sending him to prison for three years is just wrong. Burris being a stupid jerk shouldn't change that.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Sweat pants have pockets now? Damn . . . time to make out the will, start complaining about youngsters on my lawn, and get myself fitted for a . . . cane?
|12.4.08 @ 12:32PM|#
You know what's ironic?
If the legal penalty for bringing a gun into a nightclub was to be
shot in the leg, the law would be thrown out in a second for being
cruel and disproportionate.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Plaxico was carrying a Glock .40. Clearly, he was not the only one in the room, that I know of, professional enough to handle a Glock .40.
|12.4.08 @ 12:37PM|#
In a blatant attempt to redirect this thread, I'll ask: Is Burress really that good of a receiver that the Giants will miss him? Or is he simply the best receiver on a team that gives superstar status to barely above-average players (Shockey, Hilliard, Toomer, Hostetler)?
|12.4.08 @ 12:37PM|#
"Can you read? Apparntly not very well. Noting the fact that
black athletes come from bad neighborhoods where many criminals
live says nothing about the athletes themselves."
How do you know that they there are many bad people in these
neighborhoods? My point was you make assumptions that support your
point but if others do (because there's race involved) you cry
foul. You don't know their motivations or feelings about
race.
"Can you read?" you sound like an asshole.
sage|12.4.08 @ 12:38PM|#
I don't even need to click Abdul's link to know what it is. Funniest damn video evah!
sage|12.4.08 @ 12:39PM|#
My sweatpants have pockets. That's where I keep my ipod and stopwatch when running. What's wrong with that?
|12.4.08 @ 12:41PM|#
"My point was you make assumptions that support your point but
if others do (because there's race involved) you cry foul. You
don't know their motivations or feelings about race."
I am not assuming anything. I gave examples (Taylor, Pierce and
others) of black athletes who have been victims recently. They have
legitimate fears and legitimate reasons to carry guns. The media
never reports that.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Sage,
The guy in that video is Lee Paige, a former professional football
player! Quite a coincidence, no?
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
sage,
Relax. I just never owned a pair that had pockets. I got nothing
against them or their owners. Unless you go to a CLUB wearing
SWEATPANTS. Then you need to be prepared for ridicule . . . hmmmm .
. . maybe thats why he was carrying a gun. Nothing ends an argument
like firepower.
|12.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I thought he being faulted for bringing a gun into a
nightclub and causing it to go off, shooting him in the
leg.
I don't exactly know what you mean by faulted. He is being
charged with the crime of carrying a concealed weapon
without a license and facing a "mandatory 3½ years in prison and
the end of his football career".
I think CCW permits, like driving licences, should be valid in all
jurisdictions. Congress could do that via the the omnipotent
commerce clause.
|12.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Is Burress really that good of a receiver that the Giants
will miss him? Or is he simply the best receiver on a team that
gives superstar status to barely above-average players (Shockey,
Hilliard, Toomer, Hostetler)?
Kind of. He's not Randy Moss but at he best he's nearly impossible
to cover.
|12.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Funniest damn video evah!
I like the way he brags about how qualified he is RIGHT BEFORE he
shoots himself.
It's like Jim Carey doing the Fire Marshall Bill character.
I am not assuming anything. I gave examples (Taylor, Pierce and
others) of black athletes who have been victims recently. They have
legitimate fears and legitimate reasons to carry guns. The media
never reports that.
Yes, yes, and the Sean Taylor episode was particularly vile. The
racist scumbag sports talk radio guys in Boston - Dennis and
Callaghan - spent, like, three solid days saying things like "He
didn't get away from his HOMIES," and "These guys, they never leave
the 'hood," and talking about what bad business he must have been
wrapped up in.
So that's a legitimate point, John, but c'mon - bringing your gun
into a night club? How many of those shootings and robberies were
in clubs with bouncers all over the place? You bring your gun into
a club because you're a criminal, or a wanna-be.
|12.4.08 @ 12:47PM|#
As a Florida CWL holder, let me point out thing--Plaxico would be in big shit had this happened in Florida, too. Even if his license had not expired, he was carrying in a "forbidden zone", which include bars, nightclubs, etc.
ed|12.4.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Is it a crime now to be stupid?
How and why does a human in New York have fewer rights than a human
in Florida?
Burress should take his millions and hire the best constitutional
attorney he can afford, and fight it all the way.
|12.4.08 @ 12:52PM|#
When your stupidity rises to the level of endangering others' life and limb, yes.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Joe's right about that. In any other jurisdiction that allowed Buress to carry a gun, he'd still get a reckless endangerment charge.
|12.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#
"So that's a legitimate point, John, but c'mon - bringing your
gun into a night club? How many of those shootings and robberies
were in clubs with bouncers all over the place? You bring your gun
into a club because you're a criminal, or a wanna-be."
Fair enough. If they were getting him for that, I wouldn't have a
problem. Leave the gun in the car for God's sake. Certainly
accidentily discharging a gun in a nightclub ought to be a crime.
Sadly, it doesn't seem to be. Instead just having it was the crime.
Nuts.
Seward|12.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#
joe,
Not to defend Plaxico, but one has to enter and leave the club and
presumably that requires some time traveling to and from a vehicle.
In a state where gun possession was a liberally enforced right one
could just check the weapon at the door like one checks a coat,
hat, etc.
SIV|12.4.08 @ 12:58PM|#
How many of those shootings and robberies were in clubs with
bouncers all over the place?
joe,
Boston local news doesn't lead every night with a roster of the
previous day's African-American nightclub shootings? How quaint and
provincial.
Mad Max|12.4.08 @ 12:59PM|#
"You bring your gun into a club because you're a criminal, or a
wanna-be."
Then charge him with a real crime - perhaps disturbing the
peace.
Or is this the cyberbullying case all over again? We will only
invoke our legal theories against defendants who are bad on other
grounds - the breach of the law is only the legal angle we're
exploiting in order to punish a bad person.
Would Burress' behavior have been better if he'd discharged a
*registered* gun in a nightclub? What if he'd done this in one of
the states where he *has* a gun license?
Even Florida might find a way to charge someone who set off a gun
at a nightclub, licensed or not.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Mad Max,
Word. It's not like he shot a woman's nose off like P. Diddy
did.
|12.4.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Actually, SIV, violent crime gets covered a lot in Boston.
You hear a lot about shootings. In the street, in the subway, in
people's houses.
Haven't heard of one in a night club that I can remember. People
tend not to commit crimes where they're going to get jumped,
beaten, and held until the police arrive. Fancy that.
|12.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
joe,
Ummmmm . . . no. Stupidity is not a crime.
Acts of stupidy are charged as crimes all the time.
You want to get semantic about this, take it up with ed.
ed|12.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#
When your stupidity rises to the level of endangering
others' life and limb
Hell, that happens every time you take your car out on the highway.
It's like Burress had a flat tire and skinned his knuckles jacking
it up. He harmed only himself. Sure, he might have injured
someone else. But he didn't. Since when is it a crime for
not hurting someone?
SIV|12.4.08 @ 1:08PM|#
joe,
In and just outside nightclubs is one of the more popular place for
shootings in the ATL.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Since when is it a crime for not hurting someone?
Ever since New York's legislature passed this law:
Penal Law § 120.20, "a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in
the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which
creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another
person".
Whether NY's restrictive gun licensing scheme is constitutional or
not is up for some debate. But there's really no debate that he
created a risk of injury.
|12.4.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Driving on the highway is not the equivalent of clubbing it up with a glock in your pants pocket.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Too true joe. You're more likely to be injured or killed on a highway.
|12.4.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Haven't heard of one in a night club that I can remember.
People tend not to commit crimes where they're going to get jumped,
beaten, and held until the police arrive. Fancy that.
I know when I was in the Army there at least 3 clubs outside the
base that were declared off limits because of shootings in
each.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Naga,
There's caselaw that helps define "reckless" and "substantial
risk." But discharging a firearm in public, with no specific
target, is generally considered reckless.
PC|12.4.08 @ 1:19PM|#
I'd comment on this "felonious crime" but I am still trying to identify the victim.
ed|12.4.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Gestapo Chief Bloomberg weighs in:
"Our children are getting killed with guns in the street. Our
police are getting killed," the furious mayor said in demanding
Burress get no special treatment for his alleged crime and coverup.
"I think it would be an outrage if we didn't prosecute to the
fullest extent of the law."
So much for the legal process. Heil!
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Abdul,
LoL. I didn't mean to suggest that a glock discharging in a club is
not considered reckless. Precedence and interpretation in how a law
is used is important. I was merely asking if you knew how twisted
out of its original meaning it may be.
Populist Fascist|12.4.08 @ 1:21PM|#
"Naga Sadow | December 4, 2008, 1:15pm | #
Too true joe. You're more likely to be injured or killed on a
highway."
Let us make swerving on the road a felony to be consistent. Oh wait
I drive cars so I don't want to criminalize that. Oh well, let's
but the cigarette taxes up 25% until I can think of something
original.
|12.4.08 @ 1:24PM|#
In FL, even with a CWL he could not carry into "any portion of
an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is
primarily devoted to such purpose."
FL Stat. 790.06(12). That violation alone is a second degree
misdemeanor, which can get you 60 days and a $500 fine. The
negligent discharge of the weapon (which it surely was) is a whole
other issue. So even here in the relative wild west of Florida,
he'd have issues.
I am not defending NY's crappy laws, just saying the guy was an
assclown regardless.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Are you aiming that at me or joe? Cuz I was merely showing joe's logic was weak. Cigarette taxes? WTF?
ed|12.4.08 @ 1:27PM|#
So give him 60 days and suspend his strip-joint privileges. Some in his "community" would consider that cruel and unusual punishment.
|12.4.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"In and just outside nightclubs is one of the more popular place
for shootings in the ATL."
You are hip SIV. They are also popular places for stabbings. Just
ask Ray Lewis.
Regardless of what you think of Buriss, Nanny Bloomburg is a
disgrace.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Also, I drive monopoly speeds upon occasion which is felonious if I'm caught. No complaints on my end if I'm ever caught. I'll fight the charge but take a plea agreement the first chance I get.
SIV|12.4.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Naga,
ATL is kind of like PBR. It was around well before it became hip
and trendy. ATL is the airport abbreviation.
Atlanta used to be called Marthasville until some guy in the
railroad station began labeling crates "Atlanta", a made up word(or
mispelling of Atalanta?) which caught on.
|12.4.08 @ 1:30PM|#
which is worse, taking a gun in a nightclub and accidentily shooting yourself or being mayor of a major city and insisting that someone is guilty and deserving of years in prison before they have been indicted much less convicted?
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Depends on you're the aforementioned mayor up for re-election or trying to make a name for yourself.
|12.4.08 @ 1:31PM|#
ATL is the second best nickname for a city behind "Chocolate City" for Washington DC.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:32PM|#
PBR is hip and trendy? How can it be hip and trendy if I don't drink it?
SIV|12.4.08 @ 1:34PM|#
A quick peek at gun forums and they are making fun of "Glock safeties" and the "superior stopping power" of the .40 S&W cartridge.
|12.4.08 @ 1:35PM|#
"John,
Ahem. "Chocolate City" is New Orleans my friend."
I am told that. But I heard DC referred to it before I heard New
Orleans referred to it. Perhaps it is not unique to either
city.
|12.4.08 @ 1:35PM|#
John hit it there.
I was going to say something about the midget dictator of NYC who
is all over the tv convicting a suspect in the media and stating
that anyone who carries a gun deserves to be locked in a cage for a
minimum of 3.5 years.
Free Plaxico! Free Prodigy!
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Did I scare Joe off or something? He posted as populist fascist and *poof* he's gone?
|12.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#
"the "superior stopping power" of the .40 S&W
cartridge."
I am only a casual gun nut but I thought a .40 cartridge was
supposed to be a nice round. Not quite a hand cannon like a .45 or
a .44 but still much better than a 9 mm and a good compromise
between a true big bore and a 9mm or .38.
ed|12.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#
John hit it there. I was going to say something about the
midget dictator of NYC
Ed said it first, but he is not bitter.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I never really thought of a .45 as a hand cannon. Horribly inaccurate(or my shooting?) but decent enough. Plus you can shoot around corners with it. Good times.
|12.4.08 @ 1:42PM|#
And whats with all the fascist "pre-crime" people hanging out
here?
Yeah he was an idiot and he "could have hurt somebody." But he DID
NOT.
He shot HIMSELF. That is punishment/justice in itself. Surely the
victim ( himself) does not require further punishment of or
restitution from his attacker ( himself).
If you think someone should be locked up for harming HIMSELF you
are an idiotic anti-American asshole. If you think he should be
thrown in a cage because "someone could have been hurt, but no one
was"..ditto.
And if you think he should be locked up for just carrying a gun?
WHAT THE FUCK???!!!!
|12.4.08 @ 1:44PM|#
non-bitter Ed,
I am sorry. As I often do, I only read a few comments before making
my own comment, at which point I saw John's comment because it was
at the bottom right over the new comment field.
Naga Sadow|12.4.08 @ 1:44PM|#
John C. Jackson,
Relax, man! You're gonna have a coronary. I agree that a felony is
a bit much but a fine should be well in order.
matt2|12.4.08 @ 1:45PM|#
I agree that the best possible scenario would be Burress v.
City of New York in the Supreme Court docket. I can't imagine
anything more entertaining.
Constitutional issues aside, he certainly deserves a reckless
endangerment charge. As a Patriots hater, I'm all for considering
his work in last year's Super Bowl as a mitigating factor,
though.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Oh, where to start. joe's ignorance has already been exposed in
regards to Glocks and safeties, without even resorting to a striker
fired pistol being classified as Double Action Only by a number of
jurisdictions.
The guy shooting himself with the Glock 40 is a video we used to
use in training people. He checks the chamber, but has a loaded mag
in at the time. He actually had the audacity to sue for the video
being released, since he's been made out to be the ass by everyone
watching it. Imagine that.
Typically these types of negligent discharges, such as PB had,
involve someone stuffing a handgun in their pocket then playing
with it while in their pocket. It is possible to have something
catch in the trigger guard as you're holstering or putting it into
your pocket, thus pressing the trigger and causing a discharge. We
had everyone with a plastic tension holder on their coats
(typically a jacket with an elastic band which you can tighten). It
happened at least once where someone was reholstering during a
competition where it caught and the act of pushing the handgun into
the holster pressed the trigger.
However, as I said, the vast majority of these type of negligent
discharges are caused by "can't keep my hands off it"
disease.
John-"Big Bore" might apply to a 44mag, but not a 45.
Statistically, a one shot kill with a 45 is like less than a tenth
of a percent more than the lowly 9mm. Now, a 454 Casull, or 45LC
Mag, that would be "big bore", but with the typical it's more about
where you put it. If you do your job, the bullet will do its
job.
He should get charged for endangerment, though I'd rather he gets
something on the NYC stupidity, and hopefully recognizing other
state's permits.
|12.4.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I am only a casual gun nut but I thought a .40 cartridge was supposed to be a nice round. Not quite a hand cannon like a .45 or a .44 but still much better than a 9 mm and a good compromise between a true big bore and a 9mm or .38.
Dickering over the "power level" of various pistol rounds is a
time-honored internet gun forum tradition.
It's also completely useless.
Kolohe|12.4.08 @ 2:00PM|#
If the 3.5 year thing goes through, Burris will receive more jail time for shooting himself than Vick did for killing dogs. And both will serve more jail time than other NFL players have received for shooting other people.
|12.4.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Also, I will take the Burress incident as an example of yet
another dumbshit jock douchetard doing something he shouldn't, and
basically demonstrating to everyone who watches that the handful of
synapses he actually does possess are obviously not firing
properly.
As to greater implications for society? Well, I suppose that if you
do something exceedingly stupid, like negligently discharging a
firearm into your leg in public, you probably ought to be punished
for it by the justice system.
|12.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#
"John-"Big Bore" might apply to a 44mag, but not a 45.
Statistically, a one shot kill with a 45 is like less than a tenth
of a percent more than the lowly 9mm. Now, a 454 Casull, or 45LC
Mag, that would be "big bore", but with the typical it's more about
where you put it. If you do your job, the bullet will do its
job."
I will the first to admit that I am very old school in that to me a
.308 is a high powered rifle and .45 is a big bore handgun. Yes,
today they make .50 caliber pistols and rifles. But since I don't
hunt elephants or water buffalo I have never paid much attention to
them.
I have never seen a wound from a .45 but have heard the stories
about them from World War II when people carried Tommy Guns. I find
it hard to believe that it is an equivilent round to the 9mm.
Mad Max|12.4.08 @ 2:16PM|#
'If you think someone should be locked up for harming HIMSELF
you are an idiotic anti-American asshole. If you think he should be
thrown in a cage because "someone could have been hurt, but no one
was"..ditto.'
If I owned a nightclub, and one of the patrons caused a disturbance
by shooting off a gun, that *might* affect my business. So it's not
a victimless crime. One of the implied conditions of admitting
people to my club is that they behave respectable; maybe if I knew
they would be firing off guns, I wouldn't have let them in. Maybe I
wouldn't have let him in if I knew he had a gun, precisely because
I was worried about this sort of incident.
Putting people in reasonable fear of physical harm - which
discharging a firearm without cause tends to do - is also not a
victimless crime, although it shouldn't be treated as a felony.
People don't necessarily come to a nightclub to be scared (unless
it's a theme nightclub), they come to have a good time, they pay
money for this privilege, and their enjoyment may be affected by an
incident like this.
These are just some examples of how the government could reasonably
pass a law against this kind of behavior without denying the right
to bear arms.
|12.4.08 @ 2:23PM|#
In Texas where they have very liberal conceal and carry laws, I
think it is illegal to take a gun in any place that serves
alchohol. All the bars have signs saying that guns are prohibited.
It doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
I had never thought about the full faith and credit clause applying
to conceal and carry permits. Basicaly, that would mean universal
conceal and carry in many ways.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 2:25PM|#
John-Illegal to carry concealed in most places. Open carry is ok. Not sure about TX specifically. Loads of fun in VA when a group sits down for dinner in a restaurant that serves alcohol, everyone breaking out hardware so it's open carry.
|12.4.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Plaxico won't serve the sentence. He'll maybe spend the night in the county lockup, hire a lawyer, and they'll waive the jail sentence in lieu of him doing public service that involves going to schools and telling kids to stay away from guns.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 2:32PM|#
I have never seen a wound from a .45 but have heard the
stories about them from World War II when people carried Tommy
Guns. I find it hard to believe that it is an equivilent round to
the 9mm.
I know, MG, it's pointless, but I have to say it here...
John-Think barrel length. I have a Kahr Sub 2000 in 9mm, has a 16"
barrel. Due to the barrel length it supposedly can shoot through
ballistic protection, though I'd grant that I haven't tried it as I
don't want to spend $700 on a vest to use as a target. I also have
a Kahr K9, with a 3.5" barrel. Vastly different bullet speeds due
to the length. I'll take the Sub 2000 and it will kick ass on
anything you have in 45 with a typical handgun barrel.
The sane rule of thumb is if you carry, and you practice, you're
fine with 9mm or even .380. If you carry, and you don't practice,
in my opin you shouldn't be carrying. The statistical difference in
1 shot 'kills' is very quickly overcome by me putting five on
target and having ten in the mag in the time it takes you with a 45
to put 2 on target, the second being off due to the additional
recoil.
|12.4.08 @ 2:33PM|#
"John-Illegal to carry concealed in most places."
Not if you have a permit. Yes open is legal in most states, which
is really funny when you consider most liberals react to a gun like
a vampire does to a cross.
|12.4.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Horribly late to this thread - but can I say that even in
Virginia, home to constitutionally protected open carry without
liscensure, it is a felony to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant
where alcohol is served or consumed.
Must be something that my grandad told me the first time I ever
picked up a gun (along with a long list of other safty rules).
"Never handle a loaded gun when you've been drinking" Told me that
at 10 years old, guess he was being on the safe side. Anyway - the
New York laws are a complete travesty - but I still hope Burress
gets done on them for two reasons.
1) it will bring a lot of attention to NYC draconian
prohibitions
2) he is a huge distraction for the team.
not necessarily in that order....
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I had never thought about the full faith and credit clause
applying to conceal and carry permits. Basicaly, that would mean
universal conceal and carry in many ways.
It would, but you'd be subject to some states, like MD, with
cranial rectal insertion further than joe is inserted. I have
nonresident permits in VA, FL, PA, and WA, with reciprocity with a
number of states as a result. This does not include my home state,
where they actually had the audacity to tell a friend of mine that
due to his efforts to clean up the neighborhood from crack houses
and other drugs, he was "bringing it on himself" in regards to his
permit app.
It would be wonderful, the downside is that you'd have people
disenfranchised due to the lack of nonresident permits. Nonres
permits would no longer be justified.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 2:36PM|#
it is a felony to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant where
alcohol is served or consumed.
Absolutely incorrect. It is illegal to carry concealed. Open carry
is fine. VCDL pushes this all the time, it can be quite
entertaining.
|12.4.08 @ 2:37PM|#
"The statistical difference in 1 shot 'kills' is very quickly
overcome by me putting five on target and having ten in the mag in
the time it takes you with a 45 to put 2 on target, the second
being off due to the additional recoil."
Maybe it is just me, but I can fire a .45 ACP quite quickly and
don't find the recoil to be bad at all. I find recoil depends more
on the size of the pistol than the size of the round. The small
glock .40 or 9mms kick like mules. A large, well balanced pistol
like a 1911 or an old Colt Python .357, one of my favorite weapons
ever, absorb the recoil and rest right back to where you were
pointing them.
I hadn't thought about barrell length. All of the horror stories
about .45s taking people's heads off, come from them being shot
with Tommy Guns which had very long barrells.
|12.4.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Oh - and chalk me up to the side that says it's ok to punish someone for a reckless act even though it resulted in no harm to anyone else. There is an overriding public interest in discouraging behaviour that puts the public at risk. While I am aware that there is a very good slippery slope argument to be made against this view - I think that discharging a firearm in a crowded room is reckless anough to be sanctioned - like driving drunk (though 0.08 BAC is a joke) It's all about the level.
Mike M.|12.4.08 @ 2:42PM|#
It's a good thing Mr. Burress didn't commit a truly heinous and vile act, like smoking a cigarette, or Bloomberg might be pushing for a life sentence.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Other Matt,
You have a lot of experience with the Glock .40. Doesn't it seem
like this particular handgun is less idiot-proof than most? Maybe
it's only anecdotal evidence, but I seem to read more "Moron shot
off his gun in wrong place" stories involving the Glock .40 than
any other type of gun.
|12.4.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Absolutely incorrect. It is illegal to carry concealed. Open
carry is fine. VCDL pushes this all the time, it can be quite
entertaining.
I stand quite corrected
|12.4.08 @ 2:48PM|#
No safety Abdul. For some reason people like to pull the triggers on pistols. Most pistols have a safety that renders the trigger inoperable. Glocks don't. But you still have to load the beast and chamber a round and pull the trigger. How you can manage to accidentily pull the trigger is beyond me. But people do.
|12.4.08 @ 2:48PM|#
but I seem to read more "Moron shot off his gun in wrong
place" stories involving the Glock .40 than any other type of
gun.
One of the most common guns in America - and especially popular in
the intercity - where few people actually practice and train with
their firearms...
|12.4.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Smaller guns, especially the straight blowback autos like the
Walther PPK tend to have nasty felt recoil as a result of their
size and operating system.
Service-size or full size pistols are easier to manage because
there's more grip to hang on to, and any that are made by a decent
company use operating systems like the one Browning designed.
In similarly-sized guns, recoil from caliber to caliber is more of
a personal preference than anything else. 9mm's run at higher
pressures, pushing the bullet faster, and therefore imparting a
"snappier" feeling to the recoil, whereas with .45 ACP, the
pressures are much lower, the bullet is going a lot slower, and the
recoil impulse is spread over more time, so recoil feels more like
a "push."
With a .40 or .45, the guns will tend to cycle slow enough that I
can watch the slide retract, the front sight rise, and the gun
settle back down. My vision/perception/whatever isn't fast enough
for the slide movement on a 9mm to register as anything by a fast
blur.
As to which I'd shoot faster, probably my 9mm, but I've been
running that weapon in Production division for IPSC and Steel
Challenge matches for about two years now, and haven't done any
practical competition shooting with a .45 ACP.
Paul|12.4.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants.
Jesus h. Christ. Amateur. You never carry a loaded pistol
in...*shudder* sweatpants.
Paul|12.4.08 @ 2:52PM|#
You know, by having Plaxico Burress bumping and grinding
next to you in a crowded club with a gun in his pocket.
That wasn't a gun, he was just happy to see you.
Kaiser|12.4.08 @ 2:52PM|#
This is the sort of thing I always talk about when I say
"LIberals aren't really for civil liberties." (and Republicans
aren't truly for free markets either but that doesn't apply here)
The gun laws in our most liberal cities are atrocious to say the
least. San Francisco's laws are just as bad if not worse. It is sad
to see laws trample on the constitution, and worse, on peoples
lives. Not to mention to see people calling for his head. I mean he
is in the NFL, I am sure he has money and will be ok, but for the
average joe a felony on your record could be pretty
devastating.
I guess if you had the time and money you could file lawsuits
against these cities, but not many people have those resources, and
even less care.
|12.4.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Doesn't it seem like this particular handgun is less idiot-proof than most? Maybe it's only anecdotal evidence, but I seem to read more "Moron shot off his gun in wrong place" stories involving the Glock .40 than any other type of gun.
Glocks chambered in .40 S&W are one of the most ubiquitously
issued police sidearms in the country. They are also very widely
owned among the citizens at large.
SIV|12.4.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Glock's don't have external safeties.If a round is chambered and
you pull the trigger they go bang.Cleaning a Glock you have to pull
the trigger to disassemble, if it is still loaded it goes bang.
They are issue service pistols for a lot of cops(most of whom are
not gun enthusiasts and have minimal firearms training /practice)
and wildly popular with enough people that there is a substantial
dumb ass subset.Popularity + design = negligent discharges.
other matt,
Keltec makes the Sub2000.How reliable does yours run?
|12.4.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Hey, give the guy a break. Not everyone has the combination of
brains and balls that it takes to walk around unarmed.
OTOH, he is lucky that he didn't go off half-cocked.
|12.4.08 @ 3:03PM|#
They are also very widely owned among the citizens at
large.
I have one, but prefer my Ruger 9mm with Hydra-shok for carry (back
when I didn't live in the Peoples Republic of NJ). Nice manageable
recoil for the range - and plenty of power at probable ranges. For
home defense I'll take a 12 ga. with #00 buck any day...
|12.4.08 @ 3:08PM|#
"For home defense I'll take a 12 ga. with #00 buck any
day..."
I am not sure there is any more terrifying sound than the sound of
a pump action shotgun chambering a round. I prefer a revolver for
home defense. Unlike an automatic, if I pull the trigger and the
round doesn't fire, I just keep pulling it until one does. I have
an old Python .357. It was the king of the hangguns before the .44
and was the standard sidearm for highway patrol for many years.
Yeah, it doesn't have 14 rounds, but if someone is big enough and
bad enough not to be bothered by six rounds, he can have my
stuff.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Yeah John, you just rack that shotgun and most burglars will keel over and die right there.
|12.4.08 @ 3:17PM|#
"Too true joe. You're more likely to be killed on the
highway."
Cite. I've never seen any information on mortality rates for people
in clubs where someone has a gun in their pocket. What's that,
neither have you?
I know when I was in the Army there at least 3 clubs outside
the base that were declared off limits because of shootings in
each.
This wasn't some honky-tonk outside a military base; this was a
Manhatten night club.
|12.4.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Naga Sadow | December 4, 2008, 1:36pm | #
Did I scare Joe off or something? He posted as populist fascist and
*poof* he's gone?
No, Naga, I have a job.
Driving recklessly on the highway is already a felony.
But nice try!
|12.4.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Oh, where to start. joe's ignorance has already been exposed
in regards to Glocks and safeties
Actually, that was ed. And in case you didn't notice, "gun threads
of full of people making fun of Glock safeties."
But nice try!
Oh, look, lots of people who know more about Glocks than you have
confirmed that they don't have safeties.
But nice try!
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Maybe it's only anecdotal evidence, but I seem to read more
"Moron shot off his gun in wrong place" stories involving the Glock
.40 than any other type of gun.
Glocks with a standard trigger have a trigger pull of 5lb. A NY
trigger is 8lb. A target trigger is 3lb. Most of the time the ND
(Negligent Discharges) I've seen are due to poor handling, which is
an argument against "checking your guns" going in. Glocks, due to
the trigger safety meaning if you press the trigger, nothing will
stop the gun from going off, tend to be more subject to idiots than
a double action or one with a safety. Also, it has the "street
rep," meaning people who are idiots will buy it because of the rep.
For example, people in Baltimore City I know refer to the 40SW as
the "Glock 40", just due to the street reputation.
So, I guess idiots are prone to buy Glocks, though the converse
isn't true. Glocks are decent firearms, I don't particularly like
the grip shape (for me, promotes overgripping) nor the grip angle,
but at one time I had as many as 8 of them. Now down to about
two.
Keltec makes the Sub2000.How reliable does yours
run?
Thank you, I had Tommy Gun on the brain and the fingers came up
with "Kahr". Sorry for the confusion.
The 40 sucked, I sold it. The 9 is great, never had a jam with
about 3K rounds through it. The 40, they sent me a new bolt, didn't
help, ejector broke, jammed every fourth round when wasn't broken.
Not what I'd use for times when needed.
|12.4.08 @ 3:27PM|#
The "safety" on a glock is not at all the same thing that one would normally call a safety. That said the best safety for a gun that was ever devised is called "don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to put a hole in something/one"
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Oh, look, lots of people who know more about Glocks than you
have confirmed that they don't have safeties.
joe, you're still a
fuckwit. It has three safeties. They are all disengaged when
you pull the trigger, as any shooter knows the number one safety
rule is trigger discipline (meaning, don't put your finger on the
trigger, much less press, unless you're on target and want to kill
something).
I don't expect you to understand what you're talking about, but at
least google or something.
|12.4.08 @ 3:32PM|#
This wasn't some honky-tonk outside a military base; this
was a Manhatten night club.
If Burress got into the club wearing sweatpants I can't believe it
was that swanky.
|12.4.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Gotcha! Ha ha.
Just can't leave well enough alone, can you?
A safety, as domo just confirmed, is generally used to refer to a
device that keeps the weapon from firing when you pull the
trigger.
So now you do what you always do, and struggle to insist that the
commonly-understood definition isn't the real one.
It's ok - it isn't obvious at all.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 3:33PM|#
One of the most common guns in America - and especially
popular in the intercity - where few people actually practice and
train with their firearms...
i.e. my "street cred" comment. Since joe is the self proclaimed
expert on inner city living, I'm sure he'll confirm that.
|12.4.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Pain,
Professional athletes and other big-money celebrities can get away
with an awful lot.
Probably why they didn't pat him down, either.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 3:36PM|#
A safety, as domo just confirmed, is generally used to refer
to a device that keeps the weapon from firing when you pull the
trigger.
As you describe it, perhaps, but then again you're always big on
claiming "I didn't mean that, I meant THAT" when you show your
ass.
I don't know what domo's background is. He's probably trying to
explain it to you in words you can understand without realizing it
isn't about you undersanding.
How many rounds have you sent downrange again, joe? I forget.
|12.4.08 @ 3:40PM|#
John Moses Browning | December 4, 2008, 12:11pm | #
no external safeties,molded plastic, Glock Perfection!
Warty | December 4, 2008, 12:20pm | #
Glocks don't have a safety, joe. Spluh.
Gaston | December 4, 2008, 12:29pm | #
Keep your finger off the trigger is the only damn safety you
need.
SIV | December 4, 2008, 1:34pm | #
A quick peek at gun forums and they are making fun of "Glock
safeties"
John | December 4, 2008, 2:48pm | #
No safety Abdul. For some reason people like to pull the triggers
on pistols. Most pistols have a safety that renders the trigger
inoperable. Glocks don't.
SIV | December 4, 2008, 2:55pm | #
Glock's don't have external safeties.
domoarrigato | December 4, 2008, 3:27pm | #
The "safety" on a glock is not at all the same thing that one would
normally call a safety.
Neener neener neener.
This really wouldn't be worth arguing about, but it's so damn fun
to get you red faced.
And on your 'home turf,' too!
Oh, my my my. And here I am, just a liberal who's never owned a
gun.
|12.4.08 @ 3:43PM|#
As you describe it, perhaps,
Oopsie.
How many rounds have you sent downrange again, joe? I
forget.
Whether that number is 10, 50, or 10,000, you are still
pwned.
Ha ha.
The awesome part is, I don't give the slightest fraction of a
flying fuck about this, while you've decided your entire manhood
and identity depend on it, and I still get to do this to you.
I have a really awesome idea - keep calling me out. It works out
really, really well for you, doesn't it?
|12.4.08 @ 3:46PM|#
joe | December 4, 2008, 12:17pm | #
...
Illegally bringing a gun into a crowded club. In your pants pocket.
With the safety off.
Warty | December 4, 2008, 12:20pm | #
Glocks don't have a safety, joe. Spluh.
joe | December 4, 2008, 12:24pm | #
...
Oh, good Lord! He didn't just forget to put the safety on, he went
out and bought a gun no safety, then brought it into a club in his
pocket?
You see what I did there? Acknowledged I was wrong, changed my
thinking accordingly?
You should try that, Other Matt.
|12.4.08 @ 3:55PM|#
T-Vic,
I judge that the supreme court is unable to compell NYC to lift
it's ban. I also predict DC will endlessly pass ordinances
regardless of their enforceability - they will simply bury the
supreme court in legislation.
T|12.4.08 @ 3:58PM|#
I love the way Glocks cause sputtering and insanity when the
discussion of the safety features of the design come up. Short
answer: not nearly enough, based on the number of rounds that get
NDed out of them.
Not that I care, since all the pistols I really shoot are 1911s of
some kind.
|12.4.08 @ 4:07PM|#
That's funny, where'd he go?
Episiarch, if you're there, I have to say, I can understand why you
get such a kick out of this.
|12.4.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I don't know what domo's background is.
former military, currently in finance. Glock owner with 1000's down
range in my gun - though I prefer my Ruger (with a real safety that
can be operated both-handed - and a hammer that doesn't catch on a
holster). I know Glock calls their trigger contraption a "safety" -
but it's clearly a different animal than ANY of the other safeties
on guns that I've used. I'm not a gun queer, so I don't memorize
stats - but I suspect there is nothing else like it on the market.
I think of it as a "saferty" as in it's safer than nothin'. When I
first got the gun, I tried to dry fire it in a variety of ways that
I thought could cause accidental discharge. Nothing realistic
worked - that said, putting it in my sweatpants pocket and grabbing
at it through my pants wasn't one of the strategies I tried.
Probably since I didn't ever dream that would a realistic place to
put a loaded gun - but hey...
Joe\'s Manager|12.4.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Hey, we at the store wished he would wear the sweats version of our standard uniform. No, he always picks the tight little T that make his pot belly poke out, and the black kakees that ride mercilessly around his bulgy ass. Then he snickers at the guests (what we call the customers here at Target) for wearing sweats.
Abdul|12.4.08 @ 4:21PM|#
My concealed carry gun is a Kahr k9 too. I've found it very reliable. It has no external safety either, but my gun safety instructor taught me never to see if the gun was loaded by looking down the barrel and pulling the trigger, so I figure I'm safe as long as I follow that advice.
Fluffy|12.4.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Here's one question I have:
Guns are property.
Aren't the states prohibited from preventing a citizen with
property lawfully acquired in one state from being it into another
state?
When was Dred Scott overturned, anyway? It's an ugly
decision because it recognized a person as property - but it's an
absolutely sound decision when applied to any other sort of actual,
non-human property.
The states can't regulate interstate commerce. The states can't
take away property without due process of law, since the 5th
amendment has been incorporated. So how can a state tell me that
property I lawfully bought in Florida is not lawful for me to
possess if I carry it over a state line into New York?
I'm sure there's an answer - probably some poorly-decided SCOTUS
case - I just don't know what it is.
Fluffy|12.4.08 @ 4:22PM|#
That third paragraph should read: "...from bringing it
into another state?"
Sorry.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 4:26PM|#
To piggyback on what domo is saying: it's impossible to
accidentally fire a Glock, but it's easy to
negligently fire one. That is, the gun can only possibly
fire if you pull the trigger. No discharges from dropping it or
anything like that.
Judging by the number of idiots who hurt themselves with Glocks,
I'd say that old Gaston severely underestimated the stupidity of
his customers.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:31PM|#
joe,
He isnt pwned at all. Glock claims 3 safeties. And they happen to
be right. Everyone else you quoted in the thread is wrong.
It does have 3 safeties, by pulling the trigger, you are turning
all 3 off. When you release the trigger, they all reengage.
Some pistols design their safety so it prevents a trigger pull.
Glock works differently.
|12.4.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Fluffy,
count me interested in that line of thinking. I know in NJ - I can
bring in any gun that I acquired out of state when I was a
citizen of another state but now that I'm a NJ resident, I am
subject to NJ law in purchasing guns, even if I go into another
state. So if I went to PA and bought a gun and brought it to home
in NJ, I would be in violation for buying it without the liscense
that NJ requires of it's citizens, but not for transporting it
across state lines (presuming I locked it up properly etc.)
Not sure if this goes toward what you were getting at, and I'm
curious what the actual involvement of NJ will be in the PB case
since apparently one of the other players took the gun into NJ.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 4:36PM|#
When I first got the gun, I tried to dry fire it in a
variety of ways that I thought could cause accidental discharge.
Nothing realistic worked -
Exactly, as I said, it's a handling thing. Glocks are inherently a
safe firearm, you can drop them, throw them, run over them, etc,
and they won't go off. The funny part is, there's at least one
thing I read (and I don't know the cite, I can try to find it but I
believe the forum that had the link is no longer there) where an ND
a police officer had was judged to be not fit for punishment
because "Glocks are known for that."
Glock did have a problem with their cases, initially, and I do know
one long time officer that put a round through his leg. They had
the plastic that depressed the trigger as you put it into the case.
Since a number of individuals were accustomed to putting their
handgun in storage in a hot condition, which makes sense if you
have to grab it, the results were less than desirable.
but I suspect there is nothing else like it on the
market.
The difference is that Glock is striker fired, which is kind of a
strong innovation from other hammer fired firearms. There's another
manufacturer putting out something similar, they added a grip
safety but no external safety (actually, I think Ruger just came
out with something too, making another on the market, can't
recall). Taurus put out something which was similar, and had an
external safety in addition to the internals as well as a lock, I
believe it was the PT and the 24/7 versions.
Anyway, that's why there's nothing else like it, or wasn't till
recently, on the market.
All of this sums to it's a very safe firearm unless you press the
trigger. Sweatpants aren't any different than a pocket in a jacket,
the trigger won't depress on its own. Even in a waistband, won't
happen, unless you're handling it. Since one of the safeties makes
it so the striker cannot release unless the trigger is depressed,
you can drop it out of your pants and have it hit the floor, still
won't go off. Erego, PB was playing with it, had to be, or had
something in his pocket he pulled out which depressed the
trigger.
though I prefer my Ruger (with a real safety that can be
operated both-handed - and a hammer that doesn't catch on a
holster)
Rugers are good, thouh I had a couple Ruger semi's I sold as the
bore/top of hand distance was too great for me and it felt like it
would roll back too much. I prefer CZ's of late.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Warty,
Sorry, so you were right after you were wrong. Twice.
I didnt go thru the whole thread trying to pick it out.
I have made the same mistake saying that "Glocks dont have a
safety" when what I mean to say is "Glocks dont have an external
safety".
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 4:38PM|#
So if I went to PA and bought a gun and brought it to home
in NJ
Don't think you'd get past the background check for that. You can
sell long guns to a resident of another state, but not handguns or
Class 3's, or anything prohibited or regulated specially in that
other state.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Other Matt,
Doesnt Glock have a film of tying a bunch of their pistols to the
back of a vehicle like cans after a wedding and driving it around
on a gravel road with none of them accidentally discharging?
|12.4.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Some pistols design their safety so it prevents a trigger
pull. Glock works differently.
You can't just define "safety" however you like - it's clearly
different. No one calls having the hammer on their revolver
decocked a "safety" - though the gun can't be fired unless that
condition changes.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Louisville PD switched to the glock a decade of so ago. They had
4 discharges, including 2 officers shooting themselves in short
order. One involved a cop running, slipping on the sidewalk and
putting a round in the gutter above a couple of bystanders'
heads.
Im still trying to figure out what dumbass runs with his finger on
the trigger.
|12.4.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Cheddar Plax has to do some time. Shooting a gun in a crowded
room (even by accident) is pretty much like the internet staple
definition of assault.
3.5 years for the license violation is backasswards though.
Also they have some tape of the incident.
http://cdn.kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com-s1.simplecdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/burressbullet.gif
Sorry for the bum link I suck at teh html.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 4:45PM|#
but my gun safety instructor taught me never to see if the
gun was loaded by looking down the barrel and pulling the trigger,
so I figure I'm safe as long as I follow that advice.
A wise person, to be sure.
He isnt pwned at all. Glock claims 3 safeties. And they happen
to be right. Everyone else you quoted in the thread is
wrong.
Thanks, rob, but let him run. The more he does so, the more obvious
it is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
It would be like me commenting on urban planning when I, oh, wait,
no, sorry, back in graduate school we had a few hours on that,
never mind.
|12.4.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Don't think you'd get past the background check for that.
You can sell long guns to a resident of another state, but not
handguns or Class 3's, or anything prohibited or regulated
specially in that other state.
Probably not - though I don't think the background check checks for
residency requirements. Most gun shops probably wouldn't sell
anything to a NJ resident since my state is such a pain in the
arse. But some probably don't know any better. But that would make
the gun "illegally acquired" and posessing it in my home would be
illegal. freaking NJ...
|12.4.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Mad Max-2:16
The power to pass such laws was not specifically granted to the
feds in the federal constitution and ditto for the original
constitutions of the 13 states.
The fact that your business "might" be affected by a patron's
accidental discharge of his firearm is no basis upon which to
unleash the gun grabbers and totalitarians in our midst. You have a
remedy-sue the patron if he actually caused damage to your
nightspot.
|12.4.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Yes, robc, like "public use" and "recession," you are the
ulitimate arbiter of definitions, and its everyone else who is
wrong. Why do you think this keeps happening?
Anyway, on the link OtherMatt provided to try to CYA, Glock didn't
even try to claim they had a safety, but a 'safe action'
design.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:50PM|#
domo,
Glock has 3 devices that prevent firing unless you specifically
give orders to fire. You do that by pulling the trigger. Those 3
devices are called safeties.
Glock also makes a little wedge thingy you can put behind the
trigger to prevent a pull. You have to tap it out from the side,
then pull the trigger, if you really want an external safety.
|12.4.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I'm clearly less experienced than some people here, but can
someone explain why so many gun-owners seem to leave rounds
chambered in otherwise idle guns?
It only takes 1/2 second to pull back the slide. Maybe, for some
people, that 1/2 second will matter, but I figure that on the whole
it is justified by the complete elimination of the chance of
accidental discharge.
One thing I love about my new Remington 870 is it's safety
features. It looks designed to be left with shells in the tube but
make it very very hard to "accidentally" chamber and then shoot a
round.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:51PM|#
joe,
You arent arguing with me, you are arguing with Glock, and other
gun manufacturers. Are you saying Glock doesnt have 3 safeties?
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Doesnt Glock have a film of tying a bunch of their pistols
to the back of a vehicle like cans after a wedding and driving it
around on a gravel road with none of them accidentally
discharging?
I don't know, but I'd believe that someone has tried. People do all
kinds of things with Glocks based on the name. I've heard stories
of guys digging them up after being buried for years, cleaning
them, and they work fine. They're a great firearm, good to have one
in a ziplock in the shower if you really have reason to worry.
However, people make too much of them I believe, they're just a
firearm.
Im still trying to figure out what dumbass runs with his finger
on the trigger.
Same kind of dumbass that capped a compliant drug suspect a couple
years ago in NOVA. Had his "I'm a badass" CDP 45 all slicked up,
and ND'd the guy and killed him. He was SWAT, obviously, as he had
the he-man handgun. People overestimate how much training cops
get.
You can't just define "safety" however you like - it's clearly
different. No one calls having the hammer on their revolver
decocked a "safety" - though the gun can't be fired unless that
condition changes.
Actually, yes, if it disengages the transfer bar. At that point you
can beat on the hammer with, well, a hammer, and it won't fire. I
don't know how old you are, but the real joke I was taught way back
in the days of the Colt 1911 being the officer sidearm was that it
had a "safety" by depressing the slide. You were taking it out of
battery, but the fools they had teaching actually called it a
"safety."
What you're speaking of is an external safety, which Glock doesn't
have, I agree, nor does any of my Kahrs (nor Abdoul's for that
matter), nor do many of my CZ's, though I have two that do have
external safeties, nor does the wife's Taurus, nor do most
revolvers.
|12.4.08 @ 4:52PM|#
The more he does so, the more obvious it is that he doesn't
have a clue what he's talking about.
Damn, you just proclaimed that SIV, domoarrigato, John, and whoever
posted as "John Browning" don't know anything about firearms!
Oh, no wait, you didn't. Even though that's exactly what you meant,
you won't say that, because your argument isn't that I'm incorrect
on the facts, just that I must be wrong becasue you don't like me
personally.
So everyone else, including the people who plainly know more about
the subject that you, who are saying the same thing are right, but
I'm wrong.
Good thing you're not letting your silly obsession with me back you
into a corner or anything.
robc|12.4.08 @ 4:55PM|#
joe,
Glock didn't even try to claim they had a safety, but a 'safe
action' design.
Reading is fundamental. From the link:
All three pistol safeties are deactivated when
the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated when it is
released.
To quote you, pwned!
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I'm clearly less experienced than some people here, but can
someone explain why so many gun-owners seem to leave rounds
chambered in otherwise idle guns?
Depends on how you train. I was originally taught to carry with the
tube dry. Problem is that if you're one handed, you're done. Now, I
tend to have the hot box guns in the house with a full mag in, but
tube dry, but for the bedroom gun which has the mag out. It's a
self regulation device, if I'm not awake enough to put the mag in,
I'm not awake enough to have a loaded firearm in my book. Others
can do what they feel they need to, this is for me. It's slower,
but someone would have to get by three locked doors, two dogs, and
an alarm system to get to my bedroom so I believe I'd have
time.
Sometimes also people chamber rounds unintentionally, by checking
the chamber with a magazine in the well. There are also the
standard allotment of idiots, you see them driving, getting in bar
fights, etc. Just because you put a firearm in their hand doesn't
increase or decrease their idiot factor.
|12.4.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Glock has 3 devices that prevent firing unless you
specifically give orders to fire.
Only because their unique design means the firing pin is always
cocked with energy in - they aren't necessary in an ordinary
gun!
You do that by pulling the trigger.
Until glock came along there was no device that would be reaonably
called a safety that could be disengaged by pulling the trigger. In
fact the point of a "safety" is to make the user go through an
additional step to operate the gun.
Those 3 devices are called safeties.
By Glock. Why don't we just define an ordinary trigger as a
"safety". My Ruger now has an additional "safety" some people refer
to as a "trigger" - it works great! Unless I pull the
trigger/safety the gun won't go off!
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Glock also makes a little wedge thingy you can put behind
the trigger to prevent a pull. You have to tap it out from the
side, then pull the trigger, if you really want an external
safety.
rob-If you absolutely have to have a mechanism to prevent it from
firing since you can't help but pull the trigger when you don't
want to shoot, there's a guy who came up with a design to give you
an external safety. It's in the same area as the 1911 safety,
though it's closer to the frame as it's a Glock.
They also have an "integral gun lock" if you're worried about
storage. Locks the striker.
|12.4.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Are you saying Glock doesnt have 3 safeties?
Actually, what I'm saying is that it is plainly incorrrect to say
that "a Glock doesn't have a safety" is a demonstration of
ignorance.
Whether the pro- and anti-Glock people are ever going to agree on
whether Glock's vaunted "safe action" design features count as
safeties or not...I don't have a dog in that fight. If the
defnition of the term "safety" changes so that features that are
not commonly considered to be a safety, but which are intended to
accomplish the same task, are considered "safeties," fine by
me.
Thanks, rob, but let him run. Ah, yes, that's usually what
you do when you think you've caught me in a mistake; just stop
replying to me and "let me run." Uh huh.
The more he does so, the more obvious it is that he doesn't
have a clue what he's talking about. You mean like the
majority of gun owners on the thread, who disagree with you?
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:03PM|#
In fact the point of a "safety" is to make the user go
through an additional step to operate the gun.
Which is exactly why a number of people who live in dangerous
situations don't like them. However, to be pedantic, the trigger
lever on the trigger of the glock is an extra step one has to go
through. They were just nice enough to put it where you'd normally
press for the trigger. However, I did once have an issue where I
misgripped the Glock as I was in 95 degree weather sweating my ass
off, and I hit the side of the trigger, and it worked as it should
have.
As I said, if you absolutely cannot keep from pulling the trigger
when not wanting to shoot someone, then by all means please do have
an external safety, as I may be in front of you at that time.
However, don't deride internal safeties simply because of poor
trigger control. It would be like claiming democracy doesn't work
because the govt ended up with a different solution than you
liked.
|12.4.08 @ 5:04PM|#
external safety/ safety.
semantic argument - I give up when it come to semantics. Clearly
its easier to ND a glock then one with an external safety engaged.
Thats the real meat of the discussion anyway - not how we define
things. gotta go drinking - smell you losers L8R.
|12.4.08 @ 5:04PM|#
In fact the point of a "safety" is to make the user go
through an additional step to operate the gun.
This is the important point here - the mechanism of a safety is
distinct from the action of pulling the trigger. A safety is a
design element that, when engaged, will not allow the gun to fire
when the trigger is pulled.
robc|12.4.08 @ 5:04PM|#
domo,
Unless I pull the trigger/safety the gun won't go
off!
If your Ruger is designed like the Glock so that this is absolutely
true, then, yes, it is. If the Ruger could accidentally fire
without a trigger pull, then it isnt a safety.
Fluffy|12.4.08 @ 5:06PM|#
My eyes are glazing over trying to follow this safety
argument.
Now I know what it must have looked like the day me and joe argued
about the proper translation of a Latin term for three hours.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Thanks, rob, but let him run. Ah, yes, that's usually what
you do when you think you've caught me in a mistake; just stop
replying to me and "let me run." Uh huh.
joe, I don't have to say anything, you're showing your ass quite
nicely. Please continue. You so obviously have no clue what you're
talking about, it's hilarious. You have not come up with one
original statement, other than partially and misquoting others,
because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Please continue. As I said, let you run.
|12.4.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Which is exactly why a number of people who live in
dangerous situations don't like them.
So, no, it doesn't have a safety.
However, to be pedantic, the trigger lever on the trigger of
the glock is an extra step one has to go through. They were just
nice enough to put it where you'd normally press for the
trigger. So, no, it doesn't have a safety (a device that
requires an additional step, as you just agreed was the
definition).
semantic argument Exactly. Almost like something someone
would bring up if they don't actually have a point or an argument
at all, but want to be able to have something to hang their hat on
when insulting somebody.
robc|12.4.08 @ 5:07PM|#
joe,
A safety is a design element that, when engaged, will not allow
the gun to fire when the trigger is pulled.
Close but not quite right. The definition is more generic. A safety
is a design element that, when engaged, will not allow the gun to
fire except when a specific series of steps are performed.
In the case of the Glock, that "series of steps" is pulling the
trigger.
In the case of many more traditional firearms, it is turning off
the safety then doing something else. The something else may be
pulling the trigger. It may also be dropping the gun in the wrong
way, or manually pulling back the hammer and releasing or etc.
|12.4.08 @ 5:07PM|#
joe, I don't have to say anything, you're showing your ass
quite nicely. Please continue. You so obviously have no clue what
you're talking about, it's hilarious.
Oh, clearly. That must be why most the gun owners on the thread
agree with me.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:08PM|#
My eyes are glazing over trying to follow this safety
argument.
Note joe is involved with both.
While I agree with your point about transferring property, what
they typically say is not "you cannot own it", but "you cannot have
it HERE." I believe that's what allows the dodge around your point,
though I do agree with the gist of it. In CA, when they outlawed
cosmetically incorrect rifles, a whole cottage industry sprung up
in NV where people store their rifles, for example.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:09PM|#
In the case of the Glock, that "series of steps" is pulling
the trigger.
The process of which disengages three separate safeties in a
sequence.
Had to fix that for you, rob, carry on.
robc|12.4.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Had to fix that for you, rob, carry on.
Thanks.
As you point out, there really is two steps anyway, depressing the
trigger lever, then pulling the trigger. Not owning a glock, I
kinda forget about that bit until every time Im about to fire one.
Has a different feel to me.
|12.4.08 @ 5:15PM|#
""""The states can't take away property without due process of
law, since the 5th amendment has been incorporated.""""
Asset forfeitures?
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:16PM|#
I didn't think Plaxico was a safety anyway. Isn't he a wide
receiver?
Now that was good. As a wide receiver, he obviously wouldn't want a
safety anywhere around him, if he could avoid it, right?
robc|12.4.08 @ 5:18PM|#
saf-t-block is the external safety for a Glock, if you really feel the need.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:21PM|#
""""The states can't take away property without due process
of law, since the 5th amendment has been
incorporated.""""
As I stated, they aren't taking it away as such, they're just
saying "You can't bring it HERE". New York is good for that. In MD
I could come in with 55 handguns with no issues, as long as I
purchased them legally where ever I did. However, the next handgun
has to go get the state's permission, though the cheesy bastards
stamp your form "Not Disapproved", because they don't want the
state to "Approve" anyone having firearms.
Plaxico bringing a firearm across state lines wasn't a problem
either, Federal law protects him IF he was headed from and to a
place where he could legally have it (though DC police will
regularly lock you up and you have to prove yourself innocent for
this). Where he ran afoul is to have it in a ready condition, not
locked up in a box, and stopping along the way in NY City. Had he
been heading to, say, a vacation home he had in Ohio someplace, he
would have been ok.
If he hadn't boneheaded and shot himself, Gura might be interested
in taking up the case. As it is, I agree he'll probably end up
doing community service, while some other poor jerk will end up
doing the 3.5 years simply because they don't have his money or
celebrity value.
Warty|12.4.08 @ 5:35PM|#
I love being pedantic about guns, and even I think this has gotten out of hand.
|12.4.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"""If he hadn't boneheaded and shot himself, Gura might be
interested in taking up the case. As it is, I agree he'll probably
end up doing community service, while some other poor jerk will end
up doing the 3.5 years simply because they don't have his money or
celebrity value.""""
It's a mandatory 3 1/2 years. NYC doesn't care who you are when it
comes to handguns.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I love being pedantic about guns, and even I think this has
gotten out of hand.
I agree, joe is being joe. For record purposes, going to Wikipedia
as I'm feeling lazy at the moment, and while not right all the time
it's mostly right most of the time, and is correct here, it
says:
In firearms, a safety or safety catch is a mechanism used
to help prevent the accidental discharge of a weapon, helping to
ensure safer handling.
Safeties can generally be divided into subtypes such as internal
safeties (which typically do not receive input from the user) and
external safeties (which typically allow the user to give input,
for example, toggling a lever from "on" to "off" or something
similar).
So, in other words, there are two types. It is a correct statement
to say that Glocks have no external safety. It is an incorrect
statement to say that Glocks do not have a safety, they in fact
have three internal safeties. This is as I said originally.
It's a mandatory 3 1/2 years. NYC doesn't care who you are when
it comes to handguns.
Interesting. I guess my point is, it would be a lot cleaner if the
guy wasn't an idiot and ND'd. In that case his celebrity value
could work for the cause as he'd be a minority individual with
celebrity pull, who people disliked so he'd obviously have some
reason to have apprehended fear (to use shitty MD's wording).
Unfortunately, he fumbled it, so it most likely cannot be used.
|12.4.08 @ 5:51PM|#
robc,
In the case of the Glock, that "series of steps" is pulling the
trigger.
A series means more than one. If it's just one step, that's not a
series.
It's the necessity of completing that second step that's the
important part.
|12.4.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Oh boy, wikipedia. If there's one source to get accurate
information on a question that's the subject of debate, it's a web
site where the content is provided by self-selected members of the
public.
So what have we learned? That some gun people use the term "safety"
to mean any mechanism that prevents accidental discharge, and
others use it in the traditional sense of a device that you have to
disable before firing a gun.
And that feelings run high on the matter in some quarters.
|12.4.08 @ 6:08PM|#
I love being pedantic about guns, and even I think this has
gotten out of hand.
I agree, joe is being joe.
Actually, you brought it up, and made a big deal out of it. That's
probably because you, you know, care.
|12.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#
I agree, joe is being joe.
Deflating you after you beat your chest and made a scene, forcing
you to retreat into semantics?
Yes, joe is being joe.
Please, keep doing this on future threads. I tend to wear your sort
out rather quickly (anyone remember rob?), and it's always fun to
take the air out the self-important.
PS - I can't resist this: The more he does so, the more obvious
it is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
It would be like me commenting on urban planning...
No, it would be like you commenting on having sex with women. "You
know when you touch a woman's breast, and it feels like a bag of
sand?"
Off to play with the kid now.
SIV|12.4.08 @ 6:16PM|#
joe,
You are in waaay over your head here:
GLOCK "SAFE ACTION" PISTOL
THE top product among the small arms of the world is without doubt
the GLOCK "Safe Action" pistol. It employs innovative safety
features which makes the pistol easy to operate. No other pistol
offers a better price-performance ratio. Its minimum weight and
legendary GLOCK reliability are unsurpassed.
It is exactly these characteristics that meet the requirements of
police, special units, security services and the military.
Extremely tough tests by public law enforcement agencies prove time
and time again that GLOCK "Safe Action" pistols function without
compromise, even under the most extreme conditions.
ACTION
Safe and ingeniously simple: Contrary to conventional, the trigger
is the only operating element. All three pistol safeties are
deactivated when the trigger is pulled -and automatically activated
when it is released.
The safeties referred to are internal and keep the pistol from
discharging by any action other than pulling the trigger.
To keep it simple there are three rules of Glock safety for the
operator:
1: Keep your finger off the trigger.
2: Keep your finger off the trigger.
3: Keep your finger off the trigger.
|12.4.08 @ 6:17PM|#
but I suspect there is nothing else like it on the market.
The Springfield XD and Smith and Wesson M&P both have trigger
safeties similar in form to the Glock.
Also, as has already been noted, double action revolvers do not
have manually-operated thumb safeties, either. People have been
carrying DA revolvers for the better part of two centuries, and no
one's ever made a big fuss about those designs being inherently
unsafe.
The issue with people ND'ing with Glocks is purely a training
issue, and not one indicative of a design flaw.
|12.4.08 @ 6:23PM|#
SIV,
Nobody is questioning whether Glock refers to its internal safety
devices as "safeties." If that terminology catches on in common
usage, wonderful. That's how language evolves.
It would appear that Glock has a bit of a PR issue on this, and is
working hard to make that happen.
The safeties referred to are internal and keep the pistol from
discharging by any action other than pulling the trigger.
Where as - whatever term you want to use, "actual safeties,"
"external safeties," "traditional safeties" work by preventing the
gun from firing even if the trigger is depressed.
|12.4.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Episiarch, if you're there, I have to say, I can understand
why you get such a kick out of this.
For Whom It May Concern
Epi is spending a long weekend with his, um, "partner" and won't be
back until next week.
This only has to be awkward if you guys make it that way...
The Angry Optimist|12.4.08 @ 6:33PM|#
I have always found Glock's use of the term "safety" to be
entirely specious and misleading.
Safeties = external safeties, i.e. things that have to be toggled
to be able to pull the trigger.
"Safeties" are, and should be, defined as things that prevent
accidental (or negligent) "pulling of the trigger". Yes, you should
not have your finger in the well until you're prepared to shoot.
No, Glocks do not have safeties.
|12.4.08 @ 6:51PM|#
The point, really, though, is that if you're going to carry a
sidearm, you need to have a proper understanding of how it
works.
Glocks, like nearly any other firearm, are designed to fire when
the trigger is pulled. Plaxico's gun functioned exactly as it is
designed to. The trigger was pulled and the weapon fired. I don't
understand why people would get upset about that.
The lack of an external, manually-operated safety is not the issue
here. It's Plaxico's utter stupidity in opting to carry a firearm
while neglecting training, a proper holster, or even a sturdy
belt.
The Angry Optimist|12.4.08 @ 6:58PM|#
mediageek - I know it is not the issue, but it seemed to be a
side issue on this here thread.
And people are probably upset about it because discharging a
firearm in a nightclub is stupid and dangerous.
SIV|12.4.08 @ 7:06PM|#
The point, really, though, is that if you're going to carry
a sidearm, you need to have a proper understanding of how it
works.
Absolutely."Training" isn't enough as evidenced by the ridiculously
high number of NDs by LEOs.
jabberwocky|12.4.08 @ 7:37PM|#
I think the Second Amendment should apply to all Americans, with the exception of dumb crybaby showboating nigger athletes.
alan|12.4.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Jeez, you guys get so wrapped up in these details. What about
the big picture.? What does it mean for the Giants/Panthers game in
three weeks?
I know, it depends on which Panther team shows up, the one that
holds LT to thirty yards one game, or the one that can't tackle for
shit in the very next. Hard team to watch.
thoreau|12.4.08 @ 8:02PM|#
This thread feels incomplete without Dave W. explaining that Glockmaker should be sued for the manufacture of firearms lacking a safety-catch.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 8:07PM|#
The point, really, though, is that if you're going to carry
a sidearm, you need to have a proper understanding of how it
works.
Absolutely."Training" isn't enough as evidenced by the ridiculously
high number of NDs by LEOs.
Precisely. Though, as I believe I said above, if you simply cannot
refrain from depressing the trigger when you shouldn't, by all
means use an external safety. Please do. Actually, don't even touch
a handgun, or any other firearm for that matter if you can't stop
yourself, seriously.
Other Matt|12.4.08 @ 8:11PM|#
I have always found Glock's use of the term "safety" to be
entirely specious and misleading.
Safeties = external safeties, i.e. things that have to be toggled
to be able to pull the trigger.
Not that I'm any great fan of CA, but they specifically require a
"drop safety", for example, designed to prevent discharge if a
firearm is dropped. A mag disconnect is defined as a "safety" by
those laws requiring it, etc. Therefore, you're free to opine that
it "should" be defined a certain way, but when you say it "is",
you're entirely wrong. Such sloppiness in referring to firearms is
at the root of many a heinous firearm law. The whole "internal
safety lock" silliness has resulted in nothing more than the
manufacturers of a couple of systems (Omega Lock, Versa Lock)
getting rich based on a definition issue.
robc|12.4.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Checking out the manual on my Sig Sauer, it isnt just Glock that
defines safety that way. Sigarms agrees with Glock.
My Sig has an "automatic firing pin lock" which is describes as a
safety. This prevents firing without pulling the trigger.
Sig doesnt use the term "external safety", it uses "manual safety"
to distinguish from an "automatic safety".
This isnt just glock trying to change the meaning of words, it
seems to be pretty consistent across the industry.
Mike madry|12.4.08 @ 9:55PM|#
FREE HIS ASS THE ONLY REASON HE WAS CARRYING A GUN IS BC OF STEVE SMITHS ROBBERy
Mad Max|12.4.08 @ 10:06PM|#
"The fact that your business "might" be affected by a patron's
accidental discharge of his firearm is no basis upon which to
unleash the gun grabbers and totalitarians in our midst. You have a
remedy-sue the patron if he actually caused damage to your
nightspot."
I acknowledge that I am not blessed with libertarian purism, but
even on libertarian terms, this seems erroneous. If the government
has a basis for imposing *civil* liability for this sort of
conduct, then *criminal* liability would not violate any 2nd
Amendment principle. Criminal liability might be excessive (I don't
think so - only *felony* liability would be excessive) but if this
is a question of abstract right, then neither criminal nor civil
liability would be acceptable.
|12.4.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Absolutely."Training" isn't enough as evidenced by the ridiculously high number of NDs by LEOs.
Most cops qualify once, maybe twice a year. The ones who are good
shoot in their spare time.
The boo|12.4.08 @ 10:31PM|#
joe | December 4, 2008, 6:24pm | #
O.K., NOW I'm going to play Yahtzee with the boo.
Daddy, I'm still waiting to play. When are you getting off the
computer? Daddy?
VM|12.5.08 @ 8:34AM|#
oh, Nutra Sweet.
You know that the "partner" is the Noam Chomsky Blow Up doll he
borrowed from Mr. Steven Crane...
sigh.
PB was so incredibly fucking stupid with this. Also, what's the
club's policy on bringing in loaded guns?
Due to his fucking stupidity and how absurdly stupid this behavior
was, it's probably not a good 2nd amendment poster case...
How many rounds have you sent downrange again, joe? I
forget.
mercy! internets tuff gai. in his "UFC" stance. tuff! gai!
|12.5.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Meanwhile,
the NFLPA has weighed in.
They apparently don't believe he should forego a paycheck for the
remaining games, just because he, through his own stupidity,
rendered himself unable to play.
Geotpf|12.5.08 @ 10:54AM|#
He should be charged with something along the lines of "Handling a gun in such a stupid manner that he almost shot his own manhood off with it," not the crime of merely having the weapon.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245