I May Have Shot Myself in the Foot, but That Doesn't Mean the Injury Was Self-Inflicted

Lee Paige, the DEA agent notorious for shooting himself in the foot immediately after telling a classroom full of children, "I'm the only one in the room professional enough...to carry a Glock .40," has sued his employer, blaming the drug agency for releasing the videotape of his ill-fated weapon safety lesson. Paige says the tape, which has been widely viewed online, has made him the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments," ruining his career as an undercover agent and motivational speaker.

[via the Drug War Chronicle]

Comments

peachy | April 17, 2006, 3:43am | #

I might as well be the one to say it - anyone who boasts of their professionalism in handling firearms and the very next instant shoots themself in the foot deserves to be the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments."

John C. Randolph | April 17, 2006, 4:18am | #

If anything, the asshole should be paying reparations out of his own pocket to the kids who had to watch him.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | April 17, 2006, 4:21am | #

Incidentally, I don't doubt that his claim to being "one of the best undercover agents in the DEA". That outfit is a pack of Keystone Kops if there ever was one.

-jcr

Rover Random | April 17, 2006, 5:32am | #

I find this symbolistic of the entire drug war.

a superfluous man | April 17, 2006, 6:28am | #

Never unsheath one's firearm to show off what a bad dude you are. This guy's IQ has got to be double digit. I'm sorry that he ridiculously shot himself; however, it's a travesty that the man's idiocy endangered the classroom. So his lawsuit could very well be countered by a lawsuit from the young spectators whom he placed in harm's way trying to be a bad law enforcement dude.

Idiot. Affirmative action idiot.

Stephen Macklin | April 17, 2006, 7:35am | #

Is it just me or on some level aren't "undercover cop" and "motivational speaker" mutually exclusive career paths?

M'Tuklavier | April 17, 2006, 7:50am | #

How 'bout the kids reaction when he subsequenly held up an assault rifle after trying to act like nothing happened? I think all trust had been breached. They didn't seems to want to listen anymore.

What the fuck was he thinking having the gun loaded and cocked for a simple show and tell? Was he planning to shoot himself or someone else?

M'Tuklavier | April 17, 2006, 7:56am | #

Besides, I had only seen the clip through a link on an obscure website and it dissapeared from view for a long time. But now that he's suing, there is national TV coverage on top of it and now he's even more (in)famous than before.

David | April 17, 2006, 8:06am | #

I wonder who this douche would be blaming had he inadvertently shot one of the kids at the assembly?

slick | April 17, 2006, 8:10am | #

How does this guy get into a classroom full of kids with a laoded weapon???

Insane.

He should thank his lucky stars that nobody got seriously hurt.

rdkraus | April 17, 2006, 8:18am | #

Rover's got it.

This incident sums of the entire War on Drugs.

GILMORE | April 17, 2006, 8:26am | #

Superfluous =

"affirmative action" idiot?

SO... you think he's an idiot... partly because he's black?

not to forgive this idiot one whit... but i'd like to hear your argument about how some MESA ivy league white guy would be better suited to be an undercover drug agent in the inner city.

JG

Tim Cavanaugh | April 17, 2006, 8:59am | #

You know, I was kind of impressed by the way he kept right on going with the presentation, and even tried to work the self-inflicted wound into the act. He may not know much about safe handling of firearms, but you have to admit he's a trouper.

Dick Cheyney | April 17, 2006, 9:23am | #

I, for one, think that a firearms accident should in no way diminish one's stature in the public eye.

Pro Libertate | April 17, 2006, 9:37am | #

I don't know that his career as a motivational speaker is ruined--I'd sure pay to see him shoot himself in the foot again.

Jesse Walker | April 17, 2006, 9:53am | #

Is it just me or on some level aren't "undercover cop" and "motivational speaker" mutually exclusive career paths?

It's not just you, Stephen.

pigwiggle | April 17, 2006, 9:55am | #

Half-wit ass-hat.

SR | April 17, 2006, 10:12am | #

Something that I'm surprised isn't getting more attention is that the DEA apparently attempted to cover this up originally by erasing the videographer's tape and that it apparently only came to light because somebody inside the DEA found it funny enough to save a copy. And yes, I had wondered about the whole "I'm a top undercover agent who gives lectures to school groups" thing myself when I first saw the complaint.

SmokingPenguin | April 17, 2006, 10:21am | #

The sad thing is, the DEA will probably use this as an excuse to ask for an increase in their budget. "If we hadn't had to cut back on firearms training..."

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 10:28am | #

We could end the drug war tomorrow if we put this guy in charge of firearms training for all personnel involved in drug enforcement (DEA, your local PD's narcotics squad, military units involved in Plan Colombia, etc.).

John | April 17, 2006, 10:28am | #

Glocks do not have a safety. The idea is that your finger is supposed to be the safety. I always thought that that was a good point and the objections to glocks no having safeties was stupid. No one is really dumb enough to shoot themselves with it, safety or no. I guess this guy proves me wrong again. What a moron.

Jason Ligon | April 17, 2006, 10:41am | #

The part when he wanted to show them his rifle was the best. Hole in foot, the man says, "THIS one is unloaded ..."

crimethink | April 17, 2006, 10:58am | #

Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: My Anti-Drug

Mr. Nice Guy | April 17, 2006, 11:00am | #

I have to say that at least this guy wasn't an ATF agent.

"Now, kidz, only I is professional enough to defuse dis.."

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 11:08am | #

IIRC, the problem wasn't the trigger on the Glock. The problem was that he pulled back the slide and asked somebody to verify for him that there was no round in the chamber. Then he closed the slide. Either the person who did his verification screwed up (and he also failed to check it himself, a big no-no) or else he left the magazine in so a new round was chambered.

The problem was that he handled a gun as though it was unloaded, when in fact there was a round in the chamber. Dumber still, he failed to take the appropriate measures to make sure that there wasn't a round in the chamber.

Rule #1: The gun is always loaded.

Rule #2: See rule #1.

SmokingPenguin | April 17, 2006, 11:10am | #

Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: My Anti-Drug

My vote to crimethink for best post on the thread.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 11:24am | #

"What the fuck was he thinking having the gun loaded and cocked for a simple show and tell? Was he planning to shoot himself or someone else?"

Here's how he "cleared" the gun in the video:

He draws the slide back, ejecting the round that is in the chamber, and then lets the slide move back into battery.

Since he failed to first remove the magazine, the slide just simply chambered another round.

The man is an unsafe, egotistical jackass who shouldn't be entrusted with anything more dangerous than a pair of those rounded plastic scissors they give to kindergartners.

John | April 17, 2006, 11:31am | #

Mediageek,

Page 1 paragraph 1 of the "handling an automatic pistol safety manual for morons" is "drop the magazine BEFORE you clear the chamber" and "always assume the weapon is loaded even if you have cleared the chamber". Even if he didn't clear the weapon properly, which is a simple yet surprisingly common mistake, you still don't pull the trigger in a room full of grade school students. Again, your finger is the best safety. Weapons never just "go off". What an idiot.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 11:32am | #

Incidentally, this isn't the first time this has happened. Over the last decade or so, there have been a ton of lawsuits filed by incompetent cops who have mishandled Glock pistols resulting in negligent discharges.

Of course, every time, they always claim that the gun "accidentally" fired, or was broken.

Bullshit.

If you don't want a gun to fire, keep your finger off the trigger.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 11:33am | #

John, completely agree.

As I once heard it put in Redneckese:

"Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 11:33am | #

you still don't pull the trigger in a room full of grade school students

Correction: you don't bring a loaded gun into a room full of grade school students, and Lee Paige would know this if he weren't a mentally underdeveloped fuckmuffin.

SR | April 17, 2006, 11:35am | #

"So his lawsuit could very well be countered by a lawsuit from the young spectators whom he placed in harm's way trying to be a bad law enforcement dude."

Unfortunately, this incident happened in Florida, which has fairly high requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress:

The elements required for this cause of action are: (1) the plaintiff must suffer a discernable physical injury; (2) the physical injury must be caused by the psychological trauma; (3) the plaintiff must be involved in the event causing the negligent injury to another; and (4) the plaintiff must have a close personal relationship to the directly injured person.

I doubt anyone in the audience had a "close personal relationship" to the DEA agent.

SmokingPenguin | April 17, 2006, 11:38am | #

Great to know this guy lives in the Orlando area. Now that his motivational speaking career is over, he'll probably catch on with local law enforcement. (After he becomes born-again).

Happy Jack | April 17, 2006, 12:05pm | #

motivational speaker

Well, if the idea is to motivate kids to fear the DEA, I'd say mission accomplished.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 12:16pm | #

He can always get a job coordinating hunting trips for Dick Cheney.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 12:20pm | #

Superfluous ="affirmative action" idiot? SO... you think he's an idiot... partly because he's black? not to forgive this idiot one whit...

It's time like this I want to recall the Denis Leary as the painfully white inner-city drug dealing hood in "Judgement Night" or Ice T as the painfully white good guy crack kingpin in "Ricochet."

Nonetheless, I don't think Superfluous was suggesting he was an idiot because he was black. He was suggesting the he was a DEA agent because he was black. Affirmative Action merely allowed him to become one despite being an idiot. That he shot himself in the foot...infront of a classrom of kids...while a camera was rolling further confirms his incompetence.

...but i'd like to hear your argument about how some MESA ivy league white guy would be better suited to be an undercover drug agent in the inner city.

So are my only choices for an undercover DEA agent an ivy league white guy and an arguably (and in my book visibly) stupid black guy?

Why not find a smart black guy?

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 12:28pm | #

"Correction: you don't bring a loaded gun into a room full of grade school students, and Lee Paige would know this if he weren't a mentally underdeveloped fuckmuffin."

From a safety perspective, all guns are always loaded. The only ones that ever seem to "accidently" go off are the ones that people assume are unloaded.

I will also note that he broke another cardinal rule of gun safety: Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.

John | April 17, 2006, 12:29pm | #

One other thing to consider, imagine if Joe sixpack had taken his pistol to show and tell at his child's school and this had happened? Joe would be doing God knows how many years in federal prison for violating God knows how many "safe school laws". Further imagine if the round had hit a child. Joe would more than likely never again see the light of day. Had that round not hit this moron but hit a child, I would be dollars to doughnuts, there never would have been one thought of filing charges against this clown. We don't have federal law enforcement anymore, we have a pretorian guard.

M'Tuklavier | April 17, 2006, 12:30pm | #

mediageek says:
Here's how he "cleared" the gun in the video

Yeah, "cleared" for the next round.

It's been long time since I've seen the vid but I don't think I'd even have the ammo clip in place or at least I'd look at it myself before the presentation and not assume a damn thing.

Some of those kids are probaly already more competent at handling a weapon.

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 12:33pm | #

From a safety perspective, all guns are always loaded. The only ones that ever seem to "accidently" go off are the ones that people assume are unloaded.

True enough, but if I were taking a gun to show and tell I'd damn sure take any bullets out of the thing before bringing it into one of our super-safe gun-free zones.

If I recall the video correctly, didn't he wave the gun in the direction of the kids before he shot his foot with it? Why the hell isn't this moron facing criminal charges along the lines of child endangerment? Oh, right, I keep forgetting the laws don't apply to those idiots who are supposed to enforce them.

bob | April 17, 2006, 1:30pm | #

It's been a while since I've seen this vid, anyone have a link? I could use a laugh today.

Ambulance Chaser | April 17, 2006, 1:41pm | #

The problem was that he handled a gun as though it was unloaded, when in fact there was a round in the chamber. Dumber still, he failed to take the appropriate measures to make sure that there wasn't a round in the chamber.

what about John's point of the gun not having a safety and his implication that a safety would have prevented this accident?

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 1:44pm | #

"what about John's point of the gun not having a safety and his implication that a safety would have prevented this accident?"

The gun does have a safety, jackass.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 1:47pm | #

I once heard a ruefully ironic adage..."50 of all accidental shootings involve unloaded guns."

For bob, here's a link courtesy of poetv.com:

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=345

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 1:47pm | #

The fact that the weapon discharged when he pulled the trigger is absolutely indicative of negligent handling. The firearm operated exactly as designed.

Or should we start designing guns that don't expell a bullet when the trigger is pulled?

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 1:48pm | #

If you don't want the trigger to squeeze so easily you can put some corn syrup inside to gum it up. That results in a heavier trigger pull.

Ambulance Chaser | April 17, 2006, 1:53pm | #

That is only funny cuz none of the kids got shot.

Pro Libertate | April 17, 2006, 1:54pm | #

Here's the video.

You think maybe he was on PCP? I mean, he kept going after getting shot. Whoa.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 1:55pm | #

What we need is for the tort lawyers to design some sort of device that would prevent triggers from being pulled when the person holding it isn't prepared to fire, and to prevent the owner from pointing the gun in an unsafe direction.

Maybe we could call this device a "brain."

Then again, if people used those we wouldn't need nearly as many personal injury lawyers.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 1:57pm | #

No, Dave.

It's funny because, once again, you've obviously failed to take your meds, and have, again, elected to pontificate on a topic you obviously know nothing about.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 2:06pm | #

Astroturf Davey | April 17, 2006, 2:06pm | #

What we need is for the tort lawyers to design some sort of device that would prevent triggers from being pulled when the person holding it isn't prepared to fire, and to prevent the owner from pointing the gun in an unsafe direction.

It seems like a safety catch would accomplish at least enough of these objectives to prevent some accidental shootings. It seems like it could have prevented the accidental shooting on the vid.

I don't, in fact, have much idea how a safety catch works. That is why I am so inclined to follow astroturf johnnie's view of the sitch, at least til I hear something more convincing.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 2:09pm | #

The word "safety", in gun parlance, can mean a number of different things. To many people, a "safety" is a mechanical device that disables the trigger. Such a device, if properly used, can be a very good feature to have on a gun. However, the key is "if properly used."

What this guy did gives me very little confidence that he would have made proper use of a firearm with a mechanical safety.

However, "safety" means a number of other things as well. The most important safety is your brain. If you use it properly and think about what you are doing at all times then you will almost certainly never have a negligent discharge. (We say "negligent" rather than "accidental" because the burden of responsibility is on the person handling the deadly weapon.)

Many manufacturers also use the word "safety features" to describe internal mechanical mechanisms that prevent the gun from firing if the trigger is not pulled. This is to prevent discharges when the gun is dropped, or when the decocking lever is used (e.g. on my Sig), or when the hammer is cocked, or in any other situation where the gun is handled but the trigger is not pulled. I have heard of safety demonstrations where sales reps drop a gun from a roof (the gun is loaded with blanks and dropped into a sealed off area), repeat several times, and then take it to a range to fire it. During the drops the gun does not fire, indicating that the safety features are working properly.

There's a lot more to gun safety than just a little button to disable the trigger. And that button is only useful if the user has his wits about him.

Bottom line: A well-designed gun is safe in the hands of a safe user. No gun of any design is safe in the hands of an unsafe user. The Glock is a well-designed gun.

The Parent In Me Speaks | April 17, 2006, 2:29pm | #

What this guy did gives me very little confidence that he would have made proper use of a firearm with a mechanical safety.

I think the guy would probably not have shot himself if the gun had one of those mechanical safeties. I think the guy would not have taken the safety off in the classroom. I think the trigger would not have pulled because of the mechanical safety and the shot would not have been fired.

There is a contributory negligence problem here in that the guy shot himself. If he had shot my kid instead, I would have no problem suing Glock so that they fully appreciate the real world consequences of their design decision in the language they goodest understand. I'd be pretty pissed if my kid's suit were blocked by a federal law. It is certainly fair of Glock to demand a sharing of the responsibility with the shooter. I don't care where those millions come from so long as my paralyzed kid gets her solid gold wheelchair.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 2:44pm | #

Dave-

Not too long ago you said that you didn't have kids, so I take it that Mrs. Dave recently gave you some good news?

A most sincere congratulations to both of you!

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 2:44pm | #

Ok, Dave, let me ask you this:

Let's pretend that Glock included a manual safety on the pistol.

Now, let's further posit a hypothetical situation in which a police officer is attacked by a criminal, and in the rush to respond, draws his pistol, and pulls the trigger without first disengaging the safety.

As a result, the firearm does not discharge, and the officer is killed by the criminal.

Should Glock now be liable for that officer's death because the manual safety kept him from firing the weapon when he needed it?

Why or why not?

madpad | April 17, 2006, 2:45pm | #

As a fellow parent, I'd have to say I have a hard time disagreeing with you.

John | April 17, 2006, 2:54pm | #

ABsolutely not. Glock makes some of the best most reliable firearms in the world. There are good reasons not the have a mechanical safety. Namely, that police and military sometimes need to fire quickly and a manual safety gets in the way of that and can cost people their lives. In buying a glock you weigh the risk of not having a safety versus a risk of getting shot while you are fiddling with a safety. It is a perfectly reasonable choice for law enforcement to choose the glock and the train their people so they don't accidentily shoot themselves. The bottomline is that the standard of care with any weapon requires that you treat it as if it were loaded at all times. This guy didn't do that and is thus responsible for his own injury, not Glock. The parent in all of you people will just have to live with the sad fact that sometimes individuals are responsible for accidents not evil corporations.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 2:56pm | #

Should Glock now be liable for that officer's death because the manual safety kept him from firing the weapon when he needed it?

That's a little specious, don't ya' think?

I mean, it's not like the safety is a brand new idea. It's been on semi-automatic pistols for decades and used (or not) in a variety of situations - many involving law enforcement personnel.

In most cases, the safety is left off or the officer is trained to know the disposition of the safety and act accordingly.

As for the Glock safety design, that is a relatively new idea. And still makes the fundamental weak point the pull of a trigger - whether intentional or not. Simple logic dictates a properly employed safety catch would have prevented such a shooting.

Reacting to your argument, I think you're on shaky ground comparing the actions of and ramifications to a well-trained police officer with a shooting of an innocent bystander at the hands of a (possibly) poorly trained one.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 2:58pm | #

The bottom line is that the person who waves a loaded firearm around with his finger on the trigger is the person who's responsible if something goes wrong.

Guy | April 17, 2006, 2:59pm | #

I think the guy would probably not have shot himself if the gun had one of those mechanical safeties

You're probably wrong. On most pistols with "active" safties (meaning you have to flip a switch to go into fire mode), the weapon must be in "fire" mode in order to clear the round from the chamber. Since the fuckwit accidentally chambered a second round instead of clearing the weapon, and because he intentionally pulled the trigger, no weapon with an active safety would have prevented the accident.

It is certainly fair of Glock to demand a sharing of the responsibility with the shooter.

The guy broke the cardinal rule of gun safety, Glock should have no responsibility. Hundreds of thousands of LEOs and private owners carry Glocks everyday, and somehow they manage to not shoot themselves or others accidentally.

To Madpad | April 17, 2006, 3:05pm | #

Clarification: I am not a parent yet, but my wife is beginning to say it is time. I am glad we moved across the street from an elementary school because it turns out that we both like watching the children play. I have wanted a child for so long it is hard to even know if I really want one anymore. But I think I do. It felt nice to write that sig line even tho it was misleading.

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 3:08pm | #

The only way I could see holding Glock responsible is if their owner's manuals said something along the lines of "This is a great gun to take to school for show and tell." But it surely isn't their fault that their products are bought by the government and distributed to dumbass agents who think it's a good idea to wave a loaded gun around a classroom.

rob | April 17, 2006, 3:18pm | #

I own a Glock chambered for .40 bullets. I have never had a negligent discharge, and I'm not even a cop. The fault for discharging the weapon is solely the guy with his hand on the pistol and his finger on the trigger.

Glock is no more liable for the guy shooting himself or anyone else (school kids for example) than they are than a cutlery company should be liable if he trips and accidentally gouges his eye out or stabs someone else while carrying a butcher knife in the kitchen.

Plus the whole specious argument from Jennifer that "you don't bring a loaded gun into a room full of grade school students, and Lee Paige would know this if he weren't a mentally underdeveloped fuckmuffin."

While Lee Paige undoubtedly deserves the mentally underdeveloped title, how else does one expect a cop to keep a school safe from a Columbine-style scenarios than to bring a loaded firearm into a school?

Sometimes even professionals/experts screw up, but that doesn't mean that one individual's act of stupidity means that no one should ever again try to demonstrate firearm safety to school kids... Sheesh!

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 3:22pm | #

"The guy broke the cardinal rule of gun safety, Glock should have no responsibility. Hundreds of thousands of LEOs and private owners carry Glocks everyday, and somehow they manage to not shoot themselves or others accidentally."

Yeah, but he doesn't have deep pockets and millions of dollars worth of liquid assets. So obviously he's not responsible.

Only those capable of paying huge tort settlements are guilty.

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 3:36pm | #

While Lee Paige undoubtedly deserves the mentally underdeveloped title, how else does one expect a cop to keep a school safe from a Columbine-style scenarios than to bring a loaded firearm into a school?

He wasn't there to prevent a Columbine, Ron; he was there to disseminate anti-drug propaganda and tell kids that only muscleheaded DEA agents like Paige can be trusted to safely handle guns. There's no need to bring a loaded gun into a classroom of unarmed kids to do that.

Warren | April 17, 2006, 3:40pm | #

Glock pistol: $500
Amunition: $10
Pair of Reeboks: $85

Video of a government narc lecturing a classroom full of school kids on gun safety shooting himself in the foot: Hilarious

Some things money can't buy, For misspending it in the most wasteful, counterproductive, and outright dangerous manner possible, there's the government.

Warren | April 17, 2006, 3:40pm | #

Glock pistol: $500
Amunition: $10
Pair of Reeboks: $85

Video of a government narc lecturing a classroom full of school kids on gun safety shooting himself in the foot: Hilarious

Some things money can't buy, For misspending it in the most wasteful, counterproductive, and outright dangerous manner possible, there's the government.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 3:45pm | #

Hypothetically, I'm behind the "it's not the gun maker's fault...it's the idiot with his finger on the trigger" argument.

But I was making my statements about suing the gunmakers as a parent. Everything changes when it's your kid. As a parent, trying to secure care - possibly for a lifelime - for my child would probably lead me (and others, I'm quite sure) in directions we normally wouldn't consider. And yes, getting the gun maker with the deep pockets to share some of the burden would probably one of those directions.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. Indeed, probably. But I can live with that.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 3:46pm | #

madpad, I see what you're saying. You're not asking anybody to approve of anything, you're just saying what you would do if you were desperate.

Dave W. | April 17, 2006, 3:53pm | #

The only way I could see holding Glock responsible is if their owner's manuals said something along the lines of "This is a great gun to take to school for show and tell." But it surely isn't their fault that their products are bought by the government and distributed to dumbass agents who think it's a good idea to wave a loaded gun around a classroom.

I see: hold Glock responsible for especially responsible distribution for safety catchless weapons, instead of unduly interfering with the design. That theory would help Glock in this case. On the other hand, it could come back to haunt in other cases where the shooter wasn't an LEO.

While I wouldn't expect a safety catchless weapon manual to say something like "make sure not to shoot yourself in the foot while lecturing a classrom full of black children," the manual should point out that the weapon is suitable only for LEO and/or military field work, if its safetycatchless status so renders it. I don't think there is a concensus among LEOs on whether a Glock is appropriate for a children's classroom lecture at all, so that would be an excellent point for Glock to clarify for all of us.

If the manual doesn't encourage limiting the use of safetycatchless weapons to combat / police shootouts, then: (1) it should; and (2) Glock may be back on the hook, even under your responsible distribution theory.

Guy | April 17, 2006, 3:56pm | #

I think the guy would probably not have shot himself if the gun had one of those mechanical safeties

You're probably wrong. On most pistols with "active" safties (meaning you have to flip a switch to go into fire mode), the weapon must be in "fire" mode in order to clear the round from the chamber. Since the fuckwit accidentally chambered a second round instead of clearing the weapon, and because he intentionally pulled the trigger, no weapon with an active safety would have prevented the accident.

It is certainly fair of Glock to demand a sharing of the responsibility with the shooter.

The guy broke the cardinal rule of gun safety, Glock should have no responsibility. Hundreds of thousands of LEOs and private owners carry Glocks everyday, and somehow they manage to not shoot themselves or others accidentally.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 3:59pm | #

What about my Sig? Should I be barred from owning one? It doesn't have a button that will disable the trigger. It does have a decocker that will decock the hammer. But even if the hammer is decocked you can still fire it, you just need to pull somewhat harder on the trigger.

The Guy Who Always Wants The Tape | April 17, 2006, 4:05pm | #

Yeah, but he doesn't have deep pockets and millions of dollars worth of liquid assets. So obviously he's not responsible.

In this scenario, one party makes a lot of money off of Glocks and the other uses Glocks incidentally, but: (1) doesn't make a lot off of Glocks per se; and (2) doesn't make that much period.

I would expect the party making all the money to think a lot more carefully about safety catches and appropriate warnings for safetycatchless guns than the motivational speaker who merely uses one as a prop. No Glock couldn't have seen the specifics of this accident. Yes, Glock could have foreseen that people will use safetycatchless guns casually (eg, for hunting) unless instructed not to in no uncertain terms. If Glock really wanted to avoid liability, then they could have LEO departments sign off on the warnings when they purchase a lot of guns. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this also could have prevented the shooting we saw on the tape.

I am just glad there was a video this time, because usually I can't even get you guys to agree to a reasonable hypothetical when it comes to gun issues.

Repeal Gun Laws In My Brain | April 17, 2006, 4:12pm | #

What about my Sig? Should I be barred from owning one? It doesn't have a button that will disable the trigger. It does have a decocker that will decock the hammer. But even if the hammer is decocked you can still fire it, you just need to pull somewhat harder on the trigger.

I see no problem with this if Sigmaker Inc. is willing to compensate everybody injured in your "negligent" shootings to the extent they would have been prevented by a mechanical safetycatch. Sigmaker should have built this liability into the purchase price of Sigs. That way you the consumer could decide whether not having a safetycatch was worth the premium price.

Of course this "insurance" scheme of tort liability ceases to work if the manufacturers play too much hardball when paying out "claims." This is why we have: (1) an additional margin of (generally nonsensical) gov't gun regulation; and (2) huge punitives in the slim proportion of cases that do make it to payout day.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:17pm | #

Dave, I'll note that you didn't respond to the scenario I posted above.

Also I'll ask the following. In all caps:


WHAT PART OF KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED FINGER OFF OF THE FUCKING TRIGGER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

Glock pistols are designed with three internal safeties. Given a minimum level of training and proficiency, handling a Glock pistol is just as safe as handling a pistol with a manual safety.

I've shot Glock pistols, ranging from stock, out-of-the-box ones to models that have been highly modified for competitive shooting and have not had any problem.

For fuck's sake, I have seen grade school children capable of following these obviously basic safety rules while shooting Glock pistols.

Glock pistols dominate many forms of competitive shooting, and I have never once witnessed a negligent discharge with one.

Only an ignoramus would think that learning a couple of basic safety rules that include "Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire" somehow constitutes negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:23pm | #

And what about Smith and Wesson, Dave?

Revolvers have no manual safeties. They have never had manual safeties. So should they be held responsible for not installing them if someone has a negligent discharge with a revolver?

Or the SIG that thoreau was talking about?

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:25pm | #

"I see no problem with this if Sigmaker Inc. is willing to compensate everybody injured in your "negligent" shootings to the extent they would have been prevented by a mechanical safetycatch."

The name of the company is SIG/SAUER, you shmuck.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:30pm | #

Dave, without looking it up, can you, from memory, recite the four basic rules of gun safety?

Texas Is the Reason | April 17, 2006, 4:32pm | #

Only an ignoramus would think that learning a couple of basic safety rules that include "Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire" somehow constitutes negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

Because I am not arguing for negligence, I am arguing for strict liability.

If Glock wants to sell safetycatchless guns to babies and scoundrels, I don't care so long as Glock absorbs the economic consequences of marketing in that way.

If Glock wanted to sell to a more restricted market, under more restrictive terms, then they would likely decrease their liability and could charge less for the gun.

Ultimately, I am not arguing that safety practices (eg, mechanisms, manual warnings, sales channels, resale ractices) should be determined be this way or that way. I am merely argiung that these decisions should be closely coupled with the consequences. You want to make an unsafe gun, fine: be prepared for lots of sales and lots of liability. You want to make and sell guns in a more cautious manner: tort law will reward you in the fullness of time, make sure to pass those savings on to youtr responsible customers (they have EARNED it).

What I am arguing against is two things. One is the unstated assumption that manufactuer practices shouldn't be coupled to consequences because there is always some (judgementproof) idiot in the mix. Another is the cavalier attitude that leads people to say that lack of a safetycatch is probabilistically irrelevant to the tape we all watched.

I am also arguing that lapses in liability for injuries will lead to more gov't regulation in the long run. I doubt that will play with this crowd, but Bailey picked up that meme a couple a weeks ago so maybe there is hope.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:41pm | #

1) Dave W. refuses to acknowledge the points I've made, or answer the questions I've posed. I can, at this point, only assume that he is deliberately ignoring anything that makes him uncomfortable.

2) Dave W. has not stated how or why he is even qualified to comment on firearms.


Dave, don't you get it?

There is nothing inherently unsafe in the Glock design. If one follows the same set of four rules that one follows for handling any other firearm the Glock is not unsafe!

How is it that you can possibly continue to miss this point?

At this point I have to assume that you're simply being deliberately obstinate.

For Lee to have injured himself in the way that he did, he had to break at least two basic rules of safe gunhandling.

How is this possibly the fault of Glock?

It isn't. Nor should they bear the brunt of it.
And again, for the third time, I'll note that you have failed to address the scenario I posted at 2:44pm.

robert | April 17, 2006, 4:45pm | #

mediageek
"Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"


best laugh i had in weeks

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:46pm | #

Oh, and Dave, I don't live in Texas, you twerp.

rob | April 17, 2006, 4:46pm | #

"He wasn't there to prevent a Columbine, Ron; he was there to disseminate anti-drug propaganda and tell kids that only muscleheaded DEA agents like Paige can be trusted to safely handle guns. There's no need to bring a loaded gun into a classroom of unarmed kids to do that." - Jennifer

Jennifer, the cop who patrols the hallways of that school undoubtedly carries a firearm. Your argument, on the face of it, is that the cop who does so should never enter a classroom with a loaded firearm. That's a ridiculous argument because people get killed by nut-jobs in "gun-free" zones like schools, churches, etc.

Making a location a "gun-free" zone just means that people who wouldn't have committed a crime with a gun in that area are far less able to stop a crime being committed with a gun in that zone. In other words, putting an extra set of laws on specific locations doesn't shift it into a parallel universe were guns and knives don't exist.

The only thing that can protect people from harm and help them when they have been harmed (and harm can come from anywhere - guns, knives, wet floors, gas leaks, fires, blunt objects) are other people.

My family is much safer around me armed than unarmed. Incredible as it may sound, tho I'm carrying a loaded firearm I am no danger to my family because I am meticulously safe - tho I carry a Glock with its "controversial" safety mechanism! Why are they safer? Because not only am I not going to harm them, I can ensure that they are protected from someone who does desire to harm them.

If you don't belief in self-defense as a right, using a firearm or any other tool, it seems to me that you probably don't believe in any individual right at all. Without the right to self-defense, the rest are just make-believe. I can't enjoy my 1st Amendment freedom if I'm deader than JMJ's family on an ill-fated vacation to New Orleans!

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:48pm | #

Rob, Jennifer has come out on the pro-gun/pro-self-defense side of things on far more than one occassion.

Just an FYI.

madpad | April 17, 2006, 4:49pm | #

Yes, thoreau, that's where my head is at.

As for mediageek's post's - although I do wish MG would lighten up - it's clear that Paige deserves everythig he's getting...and more.

He managed to

1. take a gun he thought was unloaded
2. into a school room full of kids
3. and despite the gun's 3-level safety system
4. and (assumedly) years of training
5. and (assumedly) years of experience
6. and AFTER checking to make sure the weapong was unloaded
7. managed to discharge it into his foot
8. while a video camera filmed the entire episode
9. all the while rambling like an idiot

Everything else aside, there is nothing that absolves this guy of being a complete and total moron. Whatever you think of the DEA, it is a more competent organization with this guy's career in the toilet.

John | April 17, 2006, 4:52pm | #

I want to point out that there is nothing unsafe about a glock. There is no reason why you should be more likely to shoot yourself with a glock then with any other weapon. The fact that it doesn't have the same kind of manuel safes that other weapons have, such as the three safes on a 1911 ACP, does not make it less safe. Ultimately, nothing will make a gun completely safe from idiots who point the damn things at themselves and pull the trigger.

rob | April 17, 2006, 4:56pm | #

Sorry, in my last post it should read "anyone using - guns, knives, wet floors, gas leaks, fires, blunt objects"...

And Jennifer, it looks like I'm arguing with the wrong person, because I think we are actually in agreement. Mostly because I don't think Lee Paige should have had a badge, or a firearm he was too stupid to handle safely. Hell, I even think that sending an undercover DEA agent, even one smart enough to handle a weapon safely (they DO exist, right?) to "disseminate anti-drug propaganda and tell kids that only muscleheaded DEA agents like Paige can be trusted to safely handle guns" is at best a "just plain dumb"/gross misuse of gov't resources."

"There's no need to bring a loaded gun into a classroom of unarmed kids to do that."

But there is if most of those kids can be expected to know more about firearms than the DEA guy!

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 4:56pm | #

mediageek
"Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"


best laugh i had in weeks

Glad you liked it. I can't take credit for it, and it's something that's been floating around the web for about a year, but is still something I find really amusing.

Dave W. | April 17, 2006, 4:57pm | #

For Lee to have injured himself in the way that he did, he had to break at least two basic rules of safe gunhandling.

How is this possibly the fault of Glock?

Fault is a negligence concept. I am arguing for strict liability. the manufacturer is never at "fault." There is never moral approbation (right word?) or punitive damages for the manufactuere. The manufactuer, under the strict liability regime, is simply running an insurance scheme where it decides who can buy the insurance (along with the gun). The insurer also gets to decide what other measures they can take to try to limit payouts. Some measures will be limited in effect because they can be ignored (like safety manuals with rules for the consumer). Other measures will have more teeth, but will be more restrictive (eg, limiting sales to LEOs). There is no right or wrong way. there are just ways that lea to more payouts and ways that lead to less payouts. The manufactuer should have the appropriate incentives to tailor its selling policies to its expected payouts.

To put it a completely different way:

I think SIG/Sawyer should be seen as something akin to your automobile insurer. Yeah, your automobile insurer has sold to plenty of idiots whose accidents who have caused plenty of valid claims for personal injury. That doesn't make your automobile insurer evil, but it also doesn't excuse them from paying out claims. How much they pay in claims will have to do with the quality of their idiotscreening (with an understanding that this screening is never going to be perfect). SIGMUND/Sauer should be incentivized to act in a similar way.

thoreau | April 17, 2006, 4:58pm | #

The Glock is indeed a safe design. It might not be everybody's favorite design, but it is a perfectly safe design if handled in the same manner as any other handgun. Same for the Sig.

The thing is, even if I had a gun with a manual safety I'd still have to handle it according to same rules as any other gun. Why? Because safeties are mechanical devices and mechanical devices can fail, or be improperly used. It's said that the most common thing said after an accident with a firearm is "I thought it was unloaded!" The next most common response is probably "I could have sworn that the safety was on!"

Bottom line, with or without a safety you have to handle the gun in the same manner. So having a manual safety is really a matter of preference.

And, as Guy has pointed out, in the incident in this video the safety probably would have been off anyway.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 5:02pm | #

"As for mediageek's post's - although I do wish MG would lighten up - it's clear that Paige deserves everythig he's getting...and more."

Yeah, sorry about that. I guess I got carried away with rubbing Dave W's nose in that giant pile of wrong he left on the carpet.

Mommy, Can I Go Out . . . | April 17, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Oh, and Dave, I don't live in Texas, you twerp.

I know. I was quoting the Misfits song bullet, which seemed appropriate because the lyrics ponder who was really responsible for shooting a US president who got assasinated.

One band named themselves after this snippet, but I am not familiar with their work.

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 5:08pm | #

Rob, as has been pointed out already, I'm pro-gun rights and anti-gun-free zones. My point was that there is no need for a DEA agent to be waving a loaded gun around a class full of kids while he's giving a safety lecture.

rob | April 17, 2006, 5:15pm | #

Jennifer - My bad. Totally and 100 percent my bad. Sorry!

Dave W. | April 17, 2006, 5:25pm | #

The thing is, even if I had a gun with a manual safety I'd still have to handle it according to same rules as any other gun. Why? Because safeties are mechanical devices and mechanical devices can fail, or be improperly used. It's said that the most common thing said after an accident with a firearm is "I thought it was unloaded!" The next most common response is probably "I could have sworn that the safety was on!"

This allows me to make another good point, which is that we really don't know whether guns are safer, probabilistically, with or without safety catches. Sometimes (as in the video) it clearly would have been better if there had been asafetycatch and it had been used. Other times, a safetycatch may give a false sense of security and lead to a "negligent" shooting in the manner T. suggests.

Under a strict liability scheme safetycatch designs and catchless designs can compete in the marketplace without a lot of external rules and regs that may not be reflective of actual risks. Under my strict liability scheme, on the other hand, the competing designs are answerable only to the liability that they respectively help cause. If the catchless design is cheaper liabilitywise, then manufactuers will see this when they study their liability judgments and jigger their pricing to encourage catchless gums (a good result under this hypothetical factset). on the other hand, if the catches do prevent "negligent" shootings, then that would also show up in a strict liability world bottom line, and the manufacturers could jigger the pricing in the other direction.

The point is: we only get these answers under a strict liability regime. If liability is decoupled from the designers then they will not study these actuarial issues and will just spin out whatever fantasy scenario they feel like (eg, the cop in the tape is the only cop that stupid). Adjustments never get made, or at least they don't get made in response to the frequency of real injuries in the real world. Causation, instead of being an important touchstone in gunmaker pricing, becomes a-find-the-idiot-and-blame-him game that y'alls are so enjoying the playing of here on this thd.

I say different. I say the idiots will always be with us and that only properly incentivized gunmakers can set policies that optimally balance gun access and also move the technology of gun design forward.

And, as Guy has pointed out, in the incident in this video the safety probably would have been off anyway.

The Glock never should have been in the classroom in the first place. It was not a situation where a gun without a safetycatch was required (assuming such a situation even ever truly exists).

Ghost Just Can't Preview | April 17, 2006, 5:30pm | #

"Under my strict liability regime, on the other hand" should be: --Under this strict liability regime--.

That "on the other hand" was a typo and was misleading.

Larry A | April 17, 2006, 5:31pm | #

As a certified firearm instructor I have taught thousands of students over the last 20 years.

Particularly in Hunter Education and Concealed Carry classes I use a wide variety of firearms. When I pack those firearms to travel to class I check each firearm to make sure it is unloaded. Before I begin class I recheck each firearm to make sure it is unloaded. Any firearm used in class is placed on a table with the action open. Each time I pick up a firearm to demonstrate a point I recheck that firearm to make sure it is unloaded. The only ammunition used in any class is marked dummy rounds.

As a concealed handgun licensee I teach most classes not on school grounds while carrying my loaded concealed handgun, but it is never part of the class and never comes out of concealment.

I also teach active shooting classes to young people, where the kids themselves learn to fire firearms and practice with live ammo. It is quite possible for a trained instructor to accomplish that safely. NRA, 4-H, Boy Scout, summer camp, and other civilian instructors teach tens of thousands of such students annually accident-free.

Last summer I ran three two-week camps with four sessions of 12 to 18 students per session. The students were 11 to 16 year old boys. The range staff consisted of myself, one teenage trained assistant instructor, and the teenage group leader. We used standard NRA safety procedures and had no problems.

Surprised? Actually, the shooting sports, including hunting and target shooting, are among the safest sports you can participate in.

Finally, the "mechanical safety" issue is moot. This person "unloaded" his Glock, then pulled the trigger. Since he intended to pull the trigger, if there had been a safety, and if it had been on, he would have switched it off to get the gun to go "click."

COI statement: I carry a Glock in .45ACP.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 5:32pm | #

"I say different. I say the idiots will always be with us and that only properly incentivized gunmakers can set policies that optimally balance gun access and also move the technology of gun design forward."

So gun designers should be forced to design weapons for the lowest common denominator? For only the most incompetent?

That's what that says to me.

And, once again, I'll note that you addressed none of my questions from earlier. Shall I just continue beating you over the head?

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 5:39pm | #

"Under a strict liability scheme safetycatch designs and catchless designs can compete in the marketplace without a lot of external rules and regs that may not be reflective of actual risks."

Gee...perhaps because so long as one follows the basic rules of gun safety such "risks" are moot?

So, Dave, are you actually going to answer my questions?

Larry A | April 17, 2006, 5:44pm | #

This allows me to make another good point, which is that we really don't know whether guns are safer, probabilistically, with or without safety catches.

Not true. There are several dozen firearm designs which are sufficiently popular to have a large experience base to draw from. Some of them, for instance the Colt 1911 (three external safetys) and the Smith & Wesson revolver (no external safety), have been in continuous manufacture for circa 100 years. (Yeah. A century.)

Many of these designs have no external safetys, many have one, many have more than one. These safetys make the firearm easier to carry in certain conditions, and lessen the liklihood that a firearm will go off if you don't intend to pull the trigger. None of them are designed to keep a shooter who wants to fire the firearm from doing so.

Firearm experts worldwide agree that the only safety that makes a difference is the one between the shooter's ears.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 5:46pm | #

Yeah, Larry, but Dave's a lawyer, which means he knows all about gun safety.

Jennifer | April 17, 2006, 5:51pm | #

If more people ate corn syrup then gun violence would go down because people's fingers would be too fat to pull the triggers.

Expret oN Crelessnes | April 17, 2006, 5:53pm | #

Finally, the "mechanical safety" issue is moot. This person "unloaded" his Glock, then pulled the trigger. Since he intended to pull the trigger, if there had been a safety, and if it had been on, he would have switched it off to get the gun to go "click."

Since you run your gun lectures so much differently than this guy did, you seem like the person LEAST qualified to speculate about what kinds of carelessness Glock should reasonably expect from their customers.

How do you know it would have went down this way? It seems quite possible to me that careless cop chose to do this demonstation precidely because he did not have to fool with a safetycatch. Even if he did have to so fool, that fooling would have given him an extra five seconds to recall the 4 basic rules of gunsafety, and that could have made a helpful difference here.

More helpfully the safety catch should have been designed so that it had to be on when the gun was being unloaded, but off for shooting. that way the pause to think about the 4 basic rules of gunsafety occurs at the best possible moment. Most helpfully, the safetycatch could be made to be as difficult as a childproof cap.

Now one might object that to many homeowners and LEOs and hostages will be shot to death while the good guys are working on their childproof caps. The first response is that people who object along these lines watch too much 24. The better response is that under strict liability, manufacturers are responsible for both problems caused by difficult catches and for problems caused by lack of difficult catches. The market then determines how gun price should be correlated with catch difficulty as an ultimate safety matter.

I Say: Its ALL good! | April 17, 2006, 6:03pm | #

If more people ate corn syrup then gun violence would go down because people's fingers would be too fat to pull the triggers.

Violent crime is dropping in parallel with the obesity epidemic. That doesn't neccessarily imply causation, but it is a good observation and basis for further social science research.

Leavitt says its abortion, but Jennifer says its the diabetes.

Harry Whittington | April 17, 2006, 6:18pm | #

Gee...perhaps because so long as one follows the basic rules of gun safety such "risks" are moot?

You tell'em, MG.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:22pm | #

"Since you run your gun lectures so much differently than this guy did, you seem like the person LEAST qualified to speculate about what kinds of carelessness Glock should reasonably expect from their customers."

Dave, you don't seem to grasp a very, very basic fact of handling any sort of firearm.

There is no more room for carelessness with a gun than there is with a car.

If anything, Glock should not expect a member of Federal Law Enforcement, a man who is supposedly highly trained, to make such an idiotic mistake.

But then again, I forgot, your batshit insane, and utterly incapable of understanding how things work in the real world without forcing your vision of everything through some distorted lense of idiotic legal liabilities.

Bottom line is this: All gun safety rules apply to all firearms at all times. If one does not follow those rules, and as a result has a negligent discharge, then the only person who can be blamed is the one holding the gun.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:26pm | #

Dave, perhaps you'd care to explain how Cheney was following The Four Rules yet still managed to shoot Whittington?

Admit it, you're wrong.

I've completely kicked your ass in this debate, and at this point you have nothing left to do but continue to try to split semantic hairs in a misguided and idiotic attempt to blame someone other than the person who is 100% responsible.

Try to cast blame on others all you like, but even if you are right from a legal standpoint (and you aren't, lawsuits just like the one you've been proposing in this thread have been laughed out of courtrooms for decades) it doesn't change the fact that you cannot idiot proof a firearm to avoid tragedy.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:30pm | #

Dave, you are, quite frankly, a moron.

I don't care if you do have a degree in law, and are a practicing lawyer.

You are dumber than hammered dirt.

Big Moron | April 17, 2006, 7:41pm | #

There is no more room for carelessness with a gun than there is with a car.

And how do we sort out legal liability where cars are concerned?

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:45pm | #

I've never seen anyone try to idiot proof a car to the extent you want to idiot proof a gun, dummy.

Certainly not after a car accident in which it's patently obvious that had the driver been following basic rules of traffic safety that they accident would not have happened.

Hammered dirt, Dave.

Think about it.

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:46pm | #

they = the

mediageek | April 17, 2006, 7:48pm | #

Geeze. I guess I ought to sue the Dell Corporation for not making a keyboard that prevents spelling errors.

How about it, Dave?

Obviously they should be at least partly liable, right? I mean, I couldn't have made that misspelling if their keyboard had been designed with an external safety switch to keep spelling mistakes from happening.

pigwiggle | April 17, 2006, 8:40pm | #

"I think the guy would probably not have shot himself if the gun had one of those mechanical safeties"

I agree; here is my interpretation of the video. The slide is pulled placing the hammer at half pull. A Glock is designed for a full first pull and lighter subsequent pulls; kind of a double action, sort of. The agent pulled the trigger to release the half pull like one might with a single action auto pistol. Had the safety been one of those where it drops the hammer the accident may never have happened. Probably not a good design for a man with such a cavalier attitude about firearms.

So let's engage the comparison then | April 17, 2006, 8:41pm | #

I've never seen anyone try to idiot proof a car to the extent you want to idiot proof a gun, dummy.

Yes, and I am asking you to describe the liability regime within which these sensible car rules were developed. When someone is hurt in a typical car accident (both drivers legal to drive, not trying ram anyvbody, etc.), where does the money come from so that the car accident victim can afford her medical supplies? How does that work usually?

wayne | April 17, 2006, 10:09pm | #

Last November, I attended a four day defensive handgun training class at Frontsight, Nevada. There were about three hundred students in attendance, all armed with a loaded handgun. It was great fun and very educational as well. The only time I felt safer was when I was in the army in the company of 150 guys carrying machine guns.

One student shot himself in the leg and was flown by helicopter to the trauma center in Las Vegas. He was treated and released, with two neat holes in his right thigh (entry and exit), and a bruised ego. If only Ray Nagin and JMJ had been there to disarm us, I am sure this guy would not have been shot.

The guy who "accidentally" shot himself was shooting a Sig .40 caliber. I was shooting a Glock 22 (.40 caliber, same as the idiot DEA agent). I did not shoot myself, ipso facto the Glock is safe and the Sig is not.

wayne | April 17, 2006, 10:15pm | #

Pigwiggle,

"The slide is pulled placing the hammer at half pull. A Glock is designed for a full first pull and lighter subsequent pulls; kind of a double action, sort of."

Uhhh... Sorry, but you are wrong. Glocks have no external hammer. Every round has the same pull on the trigger. In my opinion, the Glock is the most reliable, best designed semi-auto pistol in the world. They are dirt simple, pretty accurate right out of the box, and extremely reliable. The only problem I have ever seen with a Glock is shooting it "limp wristed" will cause it to fail to eject a spent round and jam.

wayne | April 17, 2006, 10:17pm | #

I guess I ought to add that I own two Glocks: a G17 and G22. I have had the G17 for 15 years, and the G22 for about a year. Both are superb weapons, and extremely safe.

pigwiggle | April 17, 2006, 10:52pm | #

“Uhhh... Sorry, but you are wrong. Glocks have no external hammer. Every round has the same pull on the trigger.”

I didn’t say it had an external hammer. Try this; see how reliable your putative double action only glock is. Place a dead round second or latter in your magazine. After the misfire just bump the slide a bit (not a full pull) and refire. Youll get the point.

wayne | April 17, 2006, 11:02pm | #

Pig,

We have a failure to communicate. I don't know what you are suggesting I do. When you say "bump the slide a bit", do you mean to grab it and slide it back, but not all the way back so as to eject the dead round?

The Glock is either cocked, or not, there is no half cocked mode. If it is cocked and there is a round in the chamber, it will fire if you depress the bang switch with your booger hook.

wayne | April 17, 2006, 11:24pm | #

Pig,

If you are saying that you don't need to rack the slide all the way back to cock it, I agree. I just experimented with my g22. A full motion slide to the rear is about 1 inch, but racking the slide back as little as about 1/8 will cock the hammer.

I fail to see how any of this relatest to the idiot DEA agent's misplaced booger hook though.

wayne | April 17, 2006, 11:41pm | #

"A Glock is designed for a full first pull and lighter subsequent pulls; kind of a double action, sort of. The agent pulled the trigger to release the half pull like one might with a single action auto pistol."

Maybe I am beating a dead horse here, but the Glock is not designed to have a different first pull and lighter subsequent pulls. If the agent pulled the trigger (he did, I saw the video) that will release the hammer and make the Glock go bang, which is exactly what happened. The Glock's design had nothing to do with that agent shooting himself.

pigwiggle | April 18, 2006, 12:48am | #

My original description was poor. The striker is set at half cock by the first pull of the slide; the pull that chambers the first round. All subsequent resetting of the striker at half cock is accomplished through the recoil of the slide. Glock advertises their gun as a double action only; it really isn’t.

So, if you clear the chamber with an empty magazine the striker is set at half cock and can be restored to the resting position by pulling the trigger. This is what I imagined the guy was trying to accomplish when he shot his foot. Other truly double action auto pistols have a decock lever, something that wouldn’t really work with the Glock design. If you had such a lever, and used it after loading the first round, you would need to ‘bump’ the slide to reset the striker at half cock.

I like how Glocks shoot, but the design isn’t the best. A common reason primers become insensitive is contact with cleaning solvents. Clean your gun, load it, let it sit for a year. Then, when you need it most, you may find yourself ‘bumping’ the slide for a second go at a bad primer while trying to shoot an intruder. But lots of folks like Glock; my father has one for his duty gun. A revolver is more reliable though.

Robert | April 18, 2006, 1:01am | #

Dave is off base if he thinks strict liability avoids causation issues. Negligence and causation are separate issues. Strict liability avoids negligence issues, not cause issues. Did Glock cause the injury? Obviously not.

mediageek | April 18, 2006, 1:51am | #

"Glock advertises their gun as a double action only; it really isn’t."

Where? So far as I know, Glock has always advertised their guns as using the "Safe Action" system. When you get right down to it, it is neither DA or SA at any point in time. But that's entirely beside the point of this discussion.

"A common reason primers become insensitive is contact with cleaning solvents. Clean your gun, load it, let it sit for a year. Then, when you need it most, you may find yourself ‘bumping’ the slide for a second go at a bad primer while trying to shoot an intruder."

This makes no sense.
1) Back when I was poor and couldn't afford to regularly shoot up my defensive ammo, I had rounds of ammunition in a handgun for more than a year. When I finally got around to buying more of it, it all fired just fine.

2) Yes, primers can be penetrated by lube, but only if you're applying a horrendously excessive amount.

3) What do you mean "bumping the slide a second time?" I have never seen this taught anywhere. Nearly every failure drill I've seen for an autoloading handgun follows the principle of tap-rack-bang. Tap the magazine to make sure it's seated properly, rack the slide to eject the bad round and chamber the next one, pull the trigger to fire the newly chambered round.

mediageek | April 18, 2006, 1:56am | #

"Yes, and I am asking you to describe the liability regime within which these sensible car rules were developed. When someone is hurt in a typical car accident (both drivers legal to drive, not trying ram anyvbody, etc.), where does the money come from so that the car accident victim can afford her medical supplies? How does that work usually?"

The insurance providers of the respective drivers.

mediageek | April 18, 2006, 2:07am | #

"The first response is that people who object along these lines watch too much 24."

Spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime.

"The better response is that under strict liability, manufacturers are responsible for both problems caused by difficult catches and for problems caused by lack of difficult catches. The market then determines how gun price should be correlated with catch difficulty as an ultimate safety matter."

That's patently idiotic. The market has already spoken, and with absolutely no need for input from you or your tile-crawling brethren.

For those who wish to have an external, manual safety there are many, many models of handgun that have them. For those who do not wish to have a manual safety, their are many, many models of handgun that do not.

There is absolutely no need for a bunch of clueless, snivelling, holier-than-thou, suit-wearing shmucks like you, Dave, to dictate to me what sort of firearms I should or should not be allowed to own.

Incidentally, and as a point of interest, I do not own any Glock pistols.

thoreau | April 18, 2006, 2:12am | #

Consult the Book of Armaments!

(Sorry, just had to get a Monty Python reference in.)

Larry A | April 18, 2006, 4:44am | #

Since you run your gun lectures so much differently than this guy did, you seem like the person LEAST qualified to speculate about what kinds of carelessness Glock should reasonably expect from their customers.

What kind of carelessness should Glock, and us voters, expect from Federal law enforcement officers? I certainly expect better gun handling than this from civilian gun owners. And get it.

How do you know it would have went down this way? It seems quite possible to me that careless cop chose to do this demonstation precisely because he did not have to fool with a safety catch.

He chose to do this demonstration because:He was not a trained instructor.As a LEO he thought he was an expert.

Even if he did have to so fool, that fooling would have given him an extra five seconds to recall the 4 basic rules of gunsafety, and that could have made a helpful difference here.

In the Texas CHL test students using firearms with safeties start with the safety on and fire one shot in 2 seconds, two shots in 3 seconds, three shots in 4 or 6 seconds, etc. Flicking off a safety takes approximately the same amount of tim as moving your trigger finger from the frame to the trigger.

By the time this person pulled the trigger he had already violated all three basic rules. His mind was fully occupied by what he was saying and the impression he was trying to leave.

More helpfully the safety catch should have been designed so that it had to be on when the gun was being unloaded, but off for shooting.

When the gun is being unloaded properly the slide is open, enabling the internal safety. The Glock already had the feature you describe. Had he unloaded the firearm properly during step three he would have looked in the chamber and down the magazine well, and avoided the situation.

that way the pause to think about the 4 basic rules of gunsafety occurs at the best possible moment.

The best possible moment to start thinking about safety is before he picked up the gun.

Most helpfully, the safety catch could be made to be as difficult as a childproof cap.

I disagree. If I'm shooting the gun, carrying it for self-defense, or teaching with it such a safety would be to cumbersome. If I'm not, then the gun should be properly stored with a lock, not a catch.

Note that anti-gun legislation proposing such measures always have an exception for law enforcement and military. Don't we want our cops and soldiers to have safe guns? Of course. But LEO and military firearms experts agree with civilian experts that such devices do not make firearms safer. The only experts who believe they do are the anti-gun experts who seldom go to the range and have to fool with them.

Dave W. | April 18, 2006, 6:09am | #

Dave is off base if he thinks strict liability avoids causation issues.

Fair enuf. I should have said that strict liability avoids intent issues. It is the fact that the strictly liable party is jointly and severally liable with the shooter (aka the idiot aka the Dick Cheney) that reduces, but does not completely eliminate, causation issues. More specifically, causation issues are simplified in that causation does not need to be apprortioned between the idiot and the gunmaker. They are both on the hook. If the gunmaker wants to seek indemnity from the idiot then they should have that right.

side note to MG: see how much this scheme makes gun ownership similar to auto insurance. Similar in the sense that a third party accident victim always has a good place to go to get money for her wheelchair and other medical supplies. Similar in the sense that we (by and large) let the automakers and insueres sort out what safety features are good to include on cars and which are superfluous or even downright harmful. Perhaps more importantly, the insurance company acts as an idiot screener, deciding if one is insurable in the first place and then making sure that insurance is lost if you do too many no-no's in the car. While strict liability has many of the features of insurance (eg, shifting social costs away from innocent, injured third parties), it also avoids some of the hassles such as the insurance company middleman and ongoing premium payments.

Response To Larry A. | April 18, 2006, 6:26am | #

Most helpfully, the safety catch could be made to be as difficult as a childproof cap.

I disagree. If I'm shooting the gun, carrying it for self-defense, or teaching with it such a safety would be to cumbersome.

Of course my childproof cap safety would be cumbersome. That is the point of it. Of course many people would lose their lives while they were playing with the childproof when the home invader came upon them. That is not hard to understand.

But the real question from a safety perspective is:

what will cause fewer injuries in total: my childproof cap design or the Glock safetyless design? We do not have an answer to this question right now. The way to answer this question is to stack up all the dead bodies of people killed due to the childproof cap in one pile and to stack the dead bodies of those accidentally shot (in situations where a safety would probailistically have helped) in another pile. The higher pile represents the more dangerous design.

Of course, the point of this analysis isn't to take anything off the market. Rather, we need to incentivize SIG/SAUER to do this kind of actuarial analysis so that they know how much to charge for each model such that future liabilities are reasonably covered. You can still buy either model. It is just that you will pay somewhat more for the one that leads to more deaths of more innocents. Nobody can say today which will be cheaper. the point is that the safer one will be cheaper, but you will retain your choice so long as you are willing to pay for it.

No, I don't think this violates anybody's second amendment rights, however interpreted, either, so the plan is bulletproof!

pigwiggle | April 18, 2006, 12:07pm | #

" So far as I know, Glock has always advertised their guns as using the "Safe Action" system."

Well, this is how I have seen them described at the distributer; DAO. Parusing Glock's site it's clear they avoid the point. I know they are pitched as DAO to police departments as a way to limit their liability.

"Back when I was poor and couldn't afford to regularly shoot up my defensive ammo, I had rounds of ammunition in a handgun for more than a year. When I finally got around to buying more of it, it all fired just fine."

Good, keep buying that ammo, but it's a well demonstrated problem. Your single experience is really just that; anecdote.

"What do you mean "bumping the slide a second time?" I have never seen this taught anywhere."

As I explained, it returns the striker to the half cocked position. And not bumping the slide for a second time, bumping the slide for a second go at an insensitive primer. This is a problem of the in-line ammo feed. Manufacturers are looking to solve the problem. Taurus, for example, has designed an action that reverts to a true double action after a misfire. You have the ability for a second go at a putatively insensitive primer or you can take the time to clear it and chamber a new round.

"When you get right down to it, it is neither DA or SA at any point in time. But that's entirely beside the point of this discussion."

Actually, that was my point. I described a scenario where the agent, confused between the Glocks 'semi-DAO' action and that of a DA/SA, tried to return the striker from the half cocked to the rest postion by pulling the trigger. Which would have worked for an empty gun.

mediageek | April 18, 2006, 12:12pm | #

Dave.

You are a moron.

That you can, with a presumably straight face, advocate making a defensive arm so difficult to operate that it in effect becomes utterly useless for its intended purpose is so utterly idiotic that there's nothing I can possibly say to disabuse you of the notion.

You have, quite frankly, gone spinning off into a parallel dimension of Stupid so rock-headedly kooky that I am completely at a loss as to how to respond to you.

Nothing I can say could possibly describe how much of a witless godamned fucknut you are.

Even with the vast, far-reaching, and worldwide resource that is the internet, I have been unable to find enough synonyms of the word "idiot" to come anywhere close to describing the stupifyingly thick-headed inanity of the affected, pseudo-legalistic yet utterly daffy brain droolings that you have smeared from one side of this blog debate to the other.

I am thoroughly flabbergasted that despite your utterly mind-blowing level of nutty stupidity you are able to breath without assistance, let alone operate a computer.

An entire Army of linguists and etymologies tasked with coming up with enough descriptive words to describe your utterly incomprehensible mental density would, even after years of research into the history of human language and the development of new words just to describe your own puerile brand of deranged cretinism, come up completely short of their goal.

Dave, you are so fucking stupid that it makes my goddamned teeth hurt.

mediageek | April 18, 2006, 12:15pm | #

"Actually, that was my point. I described a scenario where the agent, confused between the Glocks 'semi-DAO' action and that of a DA/SA, tried to return the striker from the half cocked to the rest postion by pulling the trigger. Which would have worked for an empty gun."

Which would have happened, regardless of the operating system of the firearm, had he removed the magazine from the gun first and then racked the slide to eject the round that was in the chamber.

Jesus Christ, what is so fucking difficult about this?

BG | April 22, 2006, 7:18pm | #

Is this for real, someone did that? When did this happen and why was I not informed?

Is anyone else reminded of a scene in Malibu's Most Wanted where Jamie Kennedy shoots himself in the foot? It seems like there is almost some kind of dual literal/figurative meaning here.