Glock Ad Faux Pas

[nogods]

I'm not an expert in threat response, but I've tried to think through and practice some basics. I've had one occasion to arm myself in response to a threat in my home which turned out to be no threat at all.

I think this Glock commercial is a poor representation of how one should respond to a home invasion threat.

In addition to the staging mistakes, it seems to me that:

1. The safe is not very accessible under the bed. It certainly isn't hidden from a burglar, and unless it is bolted to the floor it doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. At best it keeps an unwanted friend or foe from getting at the gun. But that can be equally accomplished by keeping the safe in a more accessible location.

2. Fearing for her life enough to arm herself with deadly force, yet she doesn't call 911. Instead she goes back to watching TV with her weapon at her side.

3. Assuming a firearm is loaded is a great safety practice, but if I'm thinking I might have to use it I'm going to check to make sure it is loaded.

4. Instead of positioning herself in the safest location as far from the door as possible with a view of the door, she stands directly across from the door, which seems like the last location she would want to be in.

Other than those items, what say you about the trigger finger outside the guard? At what point does a person change from "at the range safety" to "I may have to kill another human to protect myself?"

Should she be on the trigger at the point where she is prepared to defend herself with the weapon, or should she wait until she has positively identified the threat (i.e., the perp is inside the home and advancing toward her.)

 

[RonM0710]

I like the add.

 

[S&W645]

1. Safe needs a better location, I agree.
I have no problem with number 2. You don't call the cops for every bump in the night.
3. If it is her gun, then she is going to know it is loaded.
4. Yes, she should not stand that close to a door if she thinks someone might break in.

Overall, the ad is a good ad.

 

[cgiven1]

I'm not an expert in threat response, but I've tried to think through and practice some basics. I've had one occasion to arm myself in response to a threat in my home which turned out to be no threat at all.

I think this Glock commercial is a poor representation of how one should respond to a home invasion threat.

In addition to the staging mistakes, it seems to me that:

1. The safe is not very accessible under the bed. It certainly isn't hidden from a burglar, and unless it is bolted to the floor it doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. At best it keeps an unwanted friend or foe from getting at the gun. But that can be equally accomplished by keeping the safe in a more accessible location.

2. Fearing for her life enough to arm herself with deadly force, yet she doesn't call 911. Instead she goes back to watching TV with her weapon at her side.

3. Assuming a firearm is loaded is a great safety practice, but if I'm thinking I might have to use it I'm going to check to make sure it is loaded.

4. Instead of positioning herself in the safest location as far from the door as possible with a view of the door, she stands directly across from the door, which seems like the last location she would want to be in.

Other than those items, what say you about the trigger finger outside the guard? At what point does a person change from "at the range safety" to "I may have to kill another human to protect myself?"

Should she be on the trigger at the point where she is prepared to defend herself with the weapon, or should she wait until she has positively identified the threat (i.e., the perp is inside the home and advancing toward her.)

It's an ad. It's not a training video. Lighten up.

 

[BC1]

Have to agree. Bad advertisement.
.
First, there is no deadbolt on the door. Just a crummy little knob-lock.
Second, she gets her gun and returns to the living room despite being quite concerned.
Third, upon the door being tried and shook she fails to call 911.
Fourth, why doesn't she have a screamer on the door?
.
In addition, replace the one inch hing screws, strike plate and deadbolt screws with four-inch screws (into the framing) and secure the door bar below under the knob.
.
This little piece of hardware would prevent or impede the entry for $25. Available at Home Depot, lowes and Kmart - Link Removed

 

[nogods]

It's an ad. It's not a training video. Lighten up.

At a time when firearm ownership is a hot topic in the public squares all across the United States, and more and more people are on the edge of becoming firearms owners for personal protection, it seems odd to me that a major firearms manufacturer would choose to market its product with cheesecake instead of a responsible informative marketing.

This is not an ad about recreational use of a firearm. It is an ad about a potentially life and death situation.

It might sell guns, but it's presentation also gives fodder to anti-gun advocates as well. I wish those who have a lot to gain financially from the expanded exercise of 2A rights would at least do no harm to the cause in the process of selling their wares.

 

[sdprof]

But she had good trigger finger control!

And it's a great example how the presence of the defender's gun can end the situation without a shot being fired.

 

[nogods]

1. Safe needs a better location, I agree.
I have no problem with number 2. You don't call the cops for every bump in the night.
3. If it is her gun, then she is going to know it is loaded.
4. Yes, she should not stand that close to a door if she thinks someone might break in.

Overall, the ad is a good ad.

I agree, no need to call the police for every noise one hears. But when one becomes concerned enough about the noises to be willing to use deadly force against another human it is time to call the police.

A firearm should not be the first resort for protection from harm. It should be the last.

If the police don't respond in time she may have to use that firearm. But eliminating the other possible resolutions of the threat short of having to use a firearm seems irresponsible to me.

And as BC1 pointed out, there was so much more she could have done to avoid the situation in the first place.

I also wonder why Glock chose to have the perp faint. Is Glock in corporate denial of the natural consequences of its product? Instead of showing Ms. Pretty talking to the cops in her underwear, the ad could have ended with her wearing a hazmat suit cleaning the perp's brains and guts from her entry way.

 

[JohnLM]

Best darn AD I've seen in a while!!!:big_boss:

 

[Andrew49417]

It made me laugh. Long live the Gunny!!! He is hilarious.

 

[the dark]

It's an ad. It's not a training video. Lighten up.

At a time when firearm ownership is a hot topic in the public squares all across the United States, and more and more people are on the edge of becoming firearms owners for personal protection, it seems odd to me that a major firearms manufacturer would choose to market its product with cheesecake instead of a responsible informative marketing.

This is not an ad about recreational use of a firearm. It is an ad about a potentially life and death situation.

It might sell guns, but it's presentation also gives fodder to anti-gun advocates as well. I wish those who have a lot to gain financially from the expanded exercise of 2A rights would at least do no harm to the cause in the process of selling their wares.

You say this here and below say they should have had her spatter his brains on the wall. If you're thinking about fodder for anti-gunners, then her finger outside the guard and a less-than-lethal ending might not have been a bad choice. Personally I think being home alone but having to go retrieve the G19 from the safe was silly - no kids, no one else there - she should have been carrying it when she came in and had it close by. If dude kicks the door in on first attempt, she's done.

 

[LDaniel]

I liked the ad. I have heard noises and did go get my pistol and placed it nearby, just in case. I would of stood a bit further away from the door. And of course if you are in fear for your life, the firearm is the first line of personal defense. Police are generally reactive, they get there in time to draw the chalk outline of the body... preferably the bad guy.

 

[nogods]

You say this here and below say they should have had her spatter his brains on the wall. If you're thinking about fodder for anti-gunners, then her finger outside the guard and a less-than-lethal ending might not have been a bad choice. Personally I think being home alone but having to go retrieve the G19 from the safe was silly - no kids, no one else there - she should have been carrying it when she came in and had it close by. If dude kicks the door in on first attempt, she's done.

And that's the point - the ad seems aimed at people who don't know better - get yerself a gun and rapists will faint at your door!

No, I don't think Glock should have shown the horrific results of an actual shooting. It would have been good enough to show the perp get wide eyed and run away. The fainting is as inane as the rest of the ad. As long as they are going for the sale they should have included a scene of her getting out of those tight jeans was wearing when she came home.

Yes, I agree if she is going to depend on a handgun for home protection then she should have it on her person. A handgun in a safe is no different from a shotgun in a shotlock. One might as well go with the shotgun in those circumstances. It won't take any longer to retrieve the SG than the handgun, and the SC offers better protection in those circumstances.

The value of the handgun is that it can be easily carried.

 

[Lowjiber]

It is an advertisement that makes the point and identifies the product very well. Good Job!

Since the discussion started above, I'll kick my $0.02 in the fray.

If someone was attempting to break in my door, I would have been in a place of cover when I killed them... with a Glock, of course. No hesitation, no warning, just "bang, bang, bang". Breaking into my home is a pretty good indication that they're not there to sell Girl Scout cookies.

Sorry Mr. President.

 

[nogods]

It is an advertisement that makes the point and identifies the product very well. Good Job!

Since the discussion started above, I'll kick my $0.02 in the fray.

If someone was attempting to break in my door, I would have been in a place of cover when I killed them... with a Glock, of course. No hesitation, no warning, just "bang, bang, bang". Breaking into my home is a pretty good indication that they're not there to sell Girl Scout cookies.

Sorry Mr. President.

I agree. If someone is breaking into my house then I'm prepared to defend myself, and the law should resolve all benefit of doubt in favor of the homeowner.

But your bravado is of concern.

A few years ago a homeowner in a suburb of Buffalo, NY shot and killed a home intruder. The intruder was an out of town teacher visiting friends who were neighbors. He had gotten drunk at the party, left his friends house to get some air, then returned to the wrong house.

The shooting was totally justified under the circumstances.

I doubt the homeowner would describe the events in such a perfunctory manner as you have.

Even when totally justified, the decision to kill another human will forever be a part of your life.

And when it turns out the person you killed was not really a threat to your well being, even through justified under the circumstances, it won't go away with "Bang, Bang, Bang."

 

[joatesiii]

When I saw the ad, I enjoyed it...certainly it can be analyzed for pros and cons; reality/unrealistic...etc, ad nauseum...regarding calling 911, some varying state laws may play a roll in that action...and the situation will certainly dictate what is prudent at the time...through my conversations with attorneys, LEO's, and firearms trainers in this state, if someone is kicking down my door, I will not be calling 911 until either the suspect has failed to enter and has left the area, or the suspect has succeeded in kicking in my door and I have survived. I intend on not having a telephone in my hand when I need to be focused on what is happening. Oklahoma law is clear that if anyone enters a residence uninvited, it is presumed that they have the means to apply deadly force and they intend to do so. Please do not take what I have written as being applicable in your state...please be clear regarding your laws. Her actions, in Oklahoma, would be completely legal, in my non-lawyer opinion.

 

[BluesStringer]

I agree, no need to call the police for every noise one hears. But when one becomes concerned enough about the noises to be willing to use deadly force against another human it is time to call the police.

Actually, I think this is the worst tactical advice I've ever seen on this forum. Most people who will ever have to defend themselves/their homes when they're home alone are not gun-freaks, probably have only basic training, if that, and the majority of the time have not trained to counteract the physiological distractions they're going to encounter in a high stress situation. Advising them to voluntarily add more distractions, plus remove one of their hands from any encounter that might ensue, is asinine.

A firearm should not be the first resort for protection from harm. It should be the last.

It was three knocks at the door with the idiot hiding out of sight of the peep-hole before she grabbed the gun. And while I agree that using the gun should be the last resort, grabbing it should have been the first thing she did. The first knock on the door could've been just to get her standing right in front of it when he kicked it in, knocking her on her butt. She'd have been defenseless had the guy thought the thing through to that extent. It was a tactical mistake to have waited as long as she did to get possession of her weapon.

If the police don't respond in time she may have to use that firearm.

Ya think?

But eliminating the other possible resolutions of the threat short of having to use a firearm seems irresponsible to me.

Yeah, first she could've said, "Would you please go to the townhouse next door and rape that girl? She's not nice." If that didn't work, she could try holding her TV remote control like a gun and see if he fakes out well. When that doesn't work, she can throw the remote at him, and then, and only then, she can run to her bedroom and retrieve her gun out of her locked safe, all before the guy lays a hand on her!

Do the world a favor, and don't ever go into tactical training.

And as BC1 pointed out, there was so much more she could have done to avoid the situation in the first place.

And as BC1's stock response to nearly everything is, shoulda, woulda, coulda. Maybe the girl just moved into the place. Maybe she spent all her money on the Glock and the safe. Maybe it's a rental and the landlord wouldn't let her install a cleat on the floor. Who the heck knows? The situation is what it is. The only unrealistic part of the setup and outcome is that the bad guy fainted. Otherwise, it was a fairly typical role-playing scenario.

I also wonder why Glock chose to have the perp faint. Is Glock in corporate denial of the natural consequences of its product? Instead of showing Ms. Pretty talking to the cops in her underwear, the ad could have ended with her wearing a hazmat suit cleaning the perp's brains and guts from her entry way.

You should stay out of the commercial production business too.

This ad wasn't made to play on network TV. If it runs on TV at all, it will be on the Sportsman Channel, or "The Best Defense" or someplace where gun enthusiasts are known to be watching. It sure won't be where general-public types will decide to or not to buy a Glock based on that ad. The fainting was a bit of levity for gun owners, just like having Lee Ervy being the EMT was comic relief.

Only someone looking for something to criticize Glock for could find it in that ad. Get a life.

Blues

 

[JLeòdhas]

That wrong girl is a babe.

 

[Michael Ramsey]

I didn't see anything but a smokin hot ginger.... Gun? Bad guy? Trigger? Nope..... Smoking hot redhead.... YEP!!!!!

 

[nogods]

Actually, I think this is the worst tactical advice I've ever seen on this forum. Most people who will ever have to defend themselves/their homes when they're home alone are not gun-freaks, probably have only basic training, if that, and the majority of the time have not trained to counteract the physiological distractions they're going to encounter in a high stress situation. Advising them to voluntarily add more distractions, plus remove one of their hands from any encounter that might ensue, is asinine.

Someone who can't dial 911 and retrieve a firearm at the same time probably shouldn't own a firearm in the first place.

She should also practice calling 911 and retrieving a fire extinguisher, or calling 911 and retrieving a first aid kit.

So stressed she puts the gun on the couch and goes back to watching her soap opera on the tivo.

Link Removed

Yep, it was made for gun "enthusiasts" - but there is a big difference between people who drool over firearms and people who own and use them responsibly. The inane ads using T & A for the pitch are usually made for the droolers.