5 ms·

They have the only "real" safety: keep your finger out of the trigger guard. :-)

by general_ai 10y ago

bnolsen 10y ago
or for conceal carry...don't catch your shirt on the trigger...
- general_ai 10y ago
  Glocks have triggers that are pretty heavy, and you don't have to carry with a round in the chamber unless you're in _really_ bad places. Safety has its own issues: what if you don't completely disengage it or forget to do it at all? What if you forget to engage it and do something stupid because you thought your gun was on safety?
- RyJones 10y ago
  Who carries without a holster?
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    Both Jules and Vincent. Don't movies reflect real life?
    - RyJones 10y ago
      Plaxico Burress as well. I did notice the little things in Europe, though; that part of the movie reflected reality.
- easychewie 10y ago
  Dude. I've been daily carrying a Glock since 2006, never had a negligent discharge.
  - Uhhrrr 10y ago
    Survivor bias - someone who has is less likely to post.
    - easychewie 10y ago
      You can't just say "survivor bias" and think you have a solid argument. Let's examine your objection more critically. I mentioned I'd carried every day since 2006. Suppose this isn't quite true, and I've only carried 330 days per year (this is too low, but still). Further, we just started 2017, and I started carrying in August 2006. This means I've carried roughly 3,437 days. If my carrying a Glock on any given day is as high as 99.9% safe (i.e., I have a 0.01% chance of a negligent discharge), then I should have a "survival" probability of only 3.2%. If my daily safety probability drops to only 99.7%, my probability of getting to now with no ND is 0.0%. Decreasing my daily safety probability to only 99% means my probability of no ND is 9.95e-14. Now think about what this means. Either: 1. Carrying a Glock is very unsafe, and I'm incredibly lucky. In this case your claim of survivor bias would be warranted (assuming there weren't many others like me, which there are). 2. Carrying a Glock is very safe, and the chances of an ND are substantially less than 0.01% per day, in which case the charge of survivor bias is unwarranted. It strikes me that #2 is the clear winner here.
      - areyousure 10y ago
        I think the main thing you've demonstrated with your calculations is that a 0.01% chance of negligent discharge per day is in fact rather unsafe. In particular, a 0.01% chance of discharging per day means that with daily carry for two years, you are more likely to have experienced a negligent discharge than not.
        easychewie 10y ago
        Agreed! Which is why I stated that I think scenario #2 is the correct one, and we don't in fact have a legitimate case of survivor bias. Remember, this discussion began when I said I do it safely. The charge was made that this is survivor bias. By putting numbers to it, I think it becomes clear that the determining factor is not my bias but real, quantifiable safety.
kabdib 10y ago
I keep hearing this about Glocks. While kind-of true (if you're not prepared to shoot something, why is your finger in the trigger guard?) I also believe in safety-in-depth, so my first pistol was a revolver (very heavy trigger pull, hard to make a mistake), and my second was an HK USP with a positive safety. Don't get me wrong. I love the Glock 19 and 26, they're great. But I wouldn't recommend them as first pistols. There's a hell of a lot going on in an autoloader, and another level of "this thing won't go off" is pretty reassuring in the beginning.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  Considering the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot it can't be seriously considered as a service weapon.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    Yeah, but the way a typical city PD discharges firearms makes the Mujahadeen look like professionals. The armed forces are much better at things like not having negligent discharges and, shooting what they're aiming for and finding a reason to shoot before opening fire. The police might not be able to handle a gun without five redundant safeties but a 18yo in a combat situation with a few months of training and an incentive to do their job seems to manage just fine.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot Here's a youtube video of exactly that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY As one of the comments said: "Just another example of a police officer shooting a black man for no reason."
  - gingerbread-man 10y ago
    The almost-ubiquitous Blackhawk SERPA retention holsters are a big contributor to this. The button you have to press to release the weapon from its holster makes it all too easy to hit the trigger before you intend to.
gingerbread-man 10y ago
For a sidearm that you're going to leave in its holster until you intend to use it, the holster's retention mechanism sort of takes the place of a rifle's manual safety.

They have the only "real" safety: keep your finger out of the trigger guard. :-)

bnolsen 10y ago

or for conceal carry...don't catch your shirt on the trigger...

general_ai 10y ago
Glocks have triggers that are pretty heavy, and you don't have to carry with a round in the chamber unless you're in _really_ bad places. Safety has its own issues: what if you don't completely disengage it or forget to do it at all? What if you forget to engage it and do something stupid because you thought your gun was on safety?
RyJones 10y ago
Who carries without a holster?
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  Both Jules and Vincent. Don't movies reflect real life?
  - RyJones 10y ago
    Plaxico Burress as well. I did notice the little things in Europe, though; that part of the movie reflected reality.
easychewie 10y ago
Dude. I've been daily carrying a Glock since 2006, never had a negligent discharge.
- Uhhrrr 10y ago
  Survivor bias - someone who has is less likely to post.
  - easychewie 10y ago
    You can't just say "survivor bias" and think you have a solid argument. Let's examine your objection more critically. I mentioned I'd carried every day since 2006. Suppose this isn't quite true, and I've only carried 330 days per year (this is too low, but still). Further, we just started 2017, and I started carrying in August 2006. This means I've carried roughly 3,437 days. If my carrying a Glock on any given day is as high as 99.9% safe (i.e., I have a 0.01% chance of a negligent discharge), then I should have a "survival" probability of only 3.2%. If my daily safety probability drops to only 99.7%, my probability of getting to now with no ND is 0.0%. Decreasing my daily safety probability to only 99% means my probability of no ND is 9.95e-14. Now think about what this means. Either: 1. Carrying a Glock is very unsafe, and I'm incredibly lucky. In this case your claim of survivor bias would be warranted (assuming there weren't many others like me, which there are). 2. Carrying a Glock is very safe, and the chances of an ND are substantially less than 0.01% per day, in which case the charge of survivor bias is unwarranted. It strikes me that #2 is the clear winner here.
    - areyousure 10y ago
      I think the main thing you've demonstrated with your calculations is that a 0.01% chance of negligent discharge per day is in fact rather unsafe. In particular, a 0.01% chance of discharging per day means that with daily carry for two years, you are more likely to have experienced a negligent discharge than not.
      - easychewie 10y ago
        Agreed! Which is why I stated that I think scenario #2 is the correct one, and we don't in fact have a legitimate case of survivor bias. Remember, this discussion began when I said I do it safely. The charge was made that this is survivor bias. By putting numbers to it, I think it becomes clear that the determining factor is not my bias but real, quantifiable safety.

kabdib 10y ago

I keep hearing this about Glocks. While kind-of true (if you're not prepared to shoot something, why is your finger in the trigger guard?) I also believe in safety-in-depth, so my first pistol was a revolver (very heavy trigger pull, hard to make a mistake), and my second was an HK USP with a positive safety. Don't get me wrong. I love the Glock 19 and 26, they're great. But I wouldn't recommend them as first pistols. There's a hell of a lot going on in an autoloader, and another level of "this thing won't go off" is pretty reassuring in the beginning.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
Considering the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot it can't be seriously considered as a service weapon.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Yeah, but the way a typical city PD discharges firearms makes the Mujahadeen look like professionals. The armed forces are much better at things like not having negligent discharges and, shooting what they're aiming for and finding a reason to shoot before opening fire. The police might not be able to handle a gun without five redundant safeties but a 18yo in a combat situation with a few months of training and an incentive to do their job seems to manage just fine.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  the number of trained LEOs who have given themselves Glock foot Here's a youtube video of exactly that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY As one of the comments said: "Just another example of a police officer shooting a black man for no reason."
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  The almost-ubiquitous Blackhawk SERPA retention holsters are a big contributor to this. The button you have to press to release the weapon from its holster makes it all too easy to hit the trigger before you intend to.

gingerbread-man 10y ago

For a sidearm that you're going to leave in its holster until you intend to use it, the holster's retention mechanism sort of takes the place of a rifle's manual safety.