Can a 2-year old fire a glock?
- Thread starter nogods
- Start date
6shootercarry
New member
I guess that answers that question... Anything is possible...
Kids can hold guns and fire them in ways we might not expect.
Backwards, using thumbs to put enough pressure on the trigger, (explains some of the self-inflicted shots)
Upside down using multiple fingers to put enough pressure,
Vertical, resting on the ground to use body-weight, etc...
I would not want to make the assumption that the gun was fired in a way that you or I might normally hold and aim the gun. However, I am very suspicious of this particular scenario as described in the news story. I hope they are able to determine the events in question with enough certainty to ensure justice is not misapplied here.
Backwards, using thumbs to put enough pressure on the trigger, (explains some of the self-inflicted shots)
Upside down using multiple fingers to put enough pressure,
Vertical, resting on the ground to use body-weight, etc...
I would not want to make the assumption that the gun was fired in a way that you or I might normally hold and aim the gun. However, I am very suspicious of this particular scenario as described in the news story. I hope they are able to determine the events in question with enough certainty to ensure justice is not misapplied here.
6shootercarry
New member
To address the point made in the previous post regarding the manual safety, the same logic applied here applies there. My son at the age of 7 1/2 looked at my Colt 1911 when we were cleaning it and handling it unloaded, pointed to the safety and said "This is the on and off switch" in a very matter of fact way... A safety is no safety in the hands of a determined child... Parents are the safety.. Allowing a firearm (loaded or unloaded) to be accessed in an unsupervised manner by a child of any age... Results will vary...
Hamilton Felix
New member
As far as "no safety," one can say the same thing about double action revolvers. In fact, I think a lot of low budget retraining of cops transitioning from wheelguns was on the order of "put the magazine in here, and just pull the trigger to shoot, same as you always have."
Personally, I like Glocks for personal defense weapons (except I hate carrying one) or house guns, but NOT for police guns. A significant percentage of cops are shot with their own weapons, retention holsters notwithstanding. If someone grabs a Glock, he CAN fire it. But there have been documented cases of bad guys grabbing police guns that had safeties, and not being able to fire before the officer got to his backup gun.
When the Glock 17 first came out, I looked it over and said "ugly, reliable, but it does not suffer fools gladly." That pretty well sums it up.
Why this idiot would lay down a gun where any child could reach it is beyond me. But I have no doubt a two year old could fire a Glock.
Personally, I like Glocks for personal defense weapons (except I hate carrying one) or house guns, but NOT for police guns. A significant percentage of cops are shot with their own weapons, retention holsters notwithstanding. If someone grabs a Glock, he CAN fire it. But there have been documented cases of bad guys grabbing police guns that had safeties, and not being able to fire before the officer got to his backup gun.
When the Glock 17 first came out, I looked it over and said "ugly, reliable, but it does not suffer fools gladly." That pretty well sums it up.
Why this idiot would lay down a gun where any child could reach it is beyond me. But I have no doubt a two year old could fire a Glock.
Ok. I tried to resist. I really did. I just can't resist any longer. I know I shouldn't, but I just can't help myself....
If police officers can, why would you think a 2-year would not be able to?
Glockdude
New member
very good point lol
Will not put gloves on this issue. Anyone who would leave a safetiless firearm lying around is an idiot. I do not have nor will I ever have a Glock. Good as they are there is just an issue with me to have a cocked hammer over a round constantly--with no safety. Call that trigger thingy a safety if you want to but explain that to the 2 yr old who has to grow up without his mother--or the countless others who have shot themselves with the aborations. A highway patrol buddy said he tossed his 1911 onto his cruiser seat and it went off--I called him a liar. He did not like it but that was just tough. That hammer has to be back, grip squeezed, safety off, and then the trigger pulled for that round to go down the pipe. Plastic shooters say that is too much to remember but then there is the "cocked and locked" position. I have used that occasionally but cannot figure some who do it constantly. Safety comes before anything else to this old codger. I like living and want others to do the same--without holes in them like me.
I really don't know why anyone would ask the question "Can a 2 year-old fire a GlocK"? The answer is yes without a doubt. This is not to say that any 2 year-old can but there are many out there that can and I know when I was 2 I could. I did a lot of things more difficult than that with no problem. So the answer is yes but must be qualified with which 2 year old.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
No Safety? That's why I carry one.
Does a Glock have a safety? The mfg says yes, three. I say no, not in the sense of the strict definition of a safety. The trigger safety is meant to keep the gun from firing if caught crossways by a twig or some such. Put your finger in the hole and it will go off.
There are no traditional safeties because Glocks are tactical weapons. Tactical weapons are meant to be pulled and fired immediately without any fumbling around because that's what 'tactical' basically implies, and that's specifically why I carry one.
It didn't have to be a Glock - could have been any unattended gun - very sad
Also the article doesn't say specifically that it was the kid who did it.
Does a Glock have a safety? The mfg says yes, three. I say no, not in the sense of the strict definition of a safety. The trigger safety is meant to keep the gun from firing if caught crossways by a twig or some such. Put your finger in the hole and it will go off.
There are no traditional safeties because Glocks are tactical weapons. Tactical weapons are meant to be pulled and fired immediately without any fumbling around because that's what 'tactical' basically implies, and that's specifically why I carry one.
It didn't have to be a Glock - could have been any unattended gun - very sad
Also the article doesn't say specifically that it was the kid who did it.
Double Action Revolvers are "safe" because the Double action Pull is 10 or 12 Pounds (or more). It doesn't go off unless you really try to discharge a round.
5 pounds without a safety is irresponsible. Period. The 6000 accidental discharges the first year the NYPD switched to the Glock Pistol is my proof. Admittedly they're New Yorkers. And the rest of us are not that dumb. 30,000 Pennsylvanians (for example) would probably have only a couple hundred accidental discharges. But that's still too much.
That's a big difference. 5 pounds vice 10 pounds.
Don't ask me where to draw the line (exactly) because I'm not sure where that line should be.
Another fella in this forum said that the Glock was a "Tactical" Pistol. That's correct. Soldiers carry their weapons without a round in the chamber until action is imminently expected. That's why the Glock is suitable for them. The MP carries the Pistol and doesn't chamber a round until he stops the jeep to investigate. ("Jeep:" I'm showing my age)! He's now expecting trouble and is prepared for it.
If you carry the Glock without a round in the chamber. Then it's ok. That's what it was designed for. If you carry one with a round in the chamber: I'd appreciate it if you stayed away from me!
The Glock Pistol is gonna be the Final Nail in the Coffin of Legal Carry because of the accidental discharges!!!! You heard it here first.
I've always thought the Glock would be a great Nightstand Pistol. You hear the breaking glass. Open the Drawer. Reach for the Pistol and don't have to worry about fumbling for the safety in the dark. Even if it discharges as you grab it all you did was damage your nightstand. I'm not saying the Pistol IS That Bad. I'm just talking a worst case.
I've also thought Law Enforcement would be better served by carrying 2 Pistols. A Double Action Revolver to draw and fire as needed. Then if they get pinned down by fire they can rush to cover and can switch to their Glock. Chamber a round. And hopefully be able to hold their position with the additional firepower until backup arrives. Just an idea. I'm not taking criticism on it. I do recognize some of the obvious drawbacks to the idea.
5 pounds without a safety is irresponsible. Period. The 6000 accidental discharges the first year the NYPD switched to the Glock Pistol is my proof. Admittedly they're New Yorkers. And the rest of us are not that dumb. 30,000 Pennsylvanians (for example) would probably have only a couple hundred accidental discharges. But that's still too much.
That's a big difference. 5 pounds vice 10 pounds.
Don't ask me where to draw the line (exactly) because I'm not sure where that line should be.
Another fella in this forum said that the Glock was a "Tactical" Pistol. That's correct. Soldiers carry their weapons without a round in the chamber until action is imminently expected. That's why the Glock is suitable for them. The MP carries the Pistol and doesn't chamber a round until he stops the jeep to investigate. ("Jeep:" I'm showing my age)! He's now expecting trouble and is prepared for it.
If you carry the Glock without a round in the chamber. Then it's ok. That's what it was designed for. If you carry one with a round in the chamber: I'd appreciate it if you stayed away from me!
The Glock Pistol is gonna be the Final Nail in the Coffin of Legal Carry because of the accidental discharges!!!! You heard it here first.
I've always thought the Glock would be a great Nightstand Pistol. You hear the breaking glass. Open the Drawer. Reach for the Pistol and don't have to worry about fumbling for the safety in the dark. Even if it discharges as you grab it all you did was damage your nightstand. I'm not saying the Pistol IS That Bad. I'm just talking a worst case.
I've also thought Law Enforcement would be better served by carrying 2 Pistols. A Double Action Revolver to draw and fire as needed. Then if they get pinned down by fire they can rush to cover and can switch to their Glock. Chamber a round. And hopefully be able to hold their position with the additional firepower until backup arrives. Just an idea. I'm not taking criticism on it. I do recognize some of the obvious drawbacks to the idea.
I prefer the term "Ammo Thingy" over clips or magazines so there won't be anyone thinking they have to correct someone for using the wrong term.
Wwwildthing
New member
Link Removed
Wwwildthing
New member
So how does this apply to a child that gets ahold of their parents gun? ...which safety failed? ...surely not the one between the child's ears... they're expected to know better, according to the 'experts'.
Three safeties, which are all disengaged with a single action... the pull of the trigger, is no safety at all... and you won't ever convince me differently.
BC1/FN1910, I don't beleive there is a high number of negligent gun owners but rather the news media feeds off these stories. We just don't get fair reporting now anymore! Just think about it, how many time your read about someone using a gun to save there family, themself, someone else, a store etc.. without firing a shoot!! About the only time you might read about one is when they fired shots or shot someone. More lives are saved by safe gun owners everyday the media just tries to put a blackeye on gun owners with lopsided reporting. JMHO
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.