Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I raised my children around handguns as well as rifles..In the entire time they were in my care, there was not one incident. This idiot deserved to be shot. It's just a shame the 3 year old wasn't more accurate.
Sure. The incident had nothing to do with your being SO stupid you left your gun, loaded with a round in the chamber, where the 3yo could get it and play with it. Nope, nope, no connection there at all.
Course, it would be nice if Glocks had any mechanism at all, for preventing them from firing when someone (like a 3yo kid) puts his finger on the trigger and pulls it. Such mechanisms are called "safeties" on responsibly-designed firearms. Glocks don't have them.
But that doesn't make it Glock's fault that you were as stupid as you have demonstrated.
Firearms that are designed for self defense don't have external user controlled safeties because you need to be able to draw and fire quickly without having to disengage a safety. Literally millions of modern firearms are designed without external user controlled safeties. Millions of older designs also don't have safeties. Revolvers have never had safeties. The safety is between the owner's ears which in this case was obviously lacking.
BTW: ROFL at the ridiculous comment of responsibly designed firearms. Why do people who are clueless on the subject of firearms always insist on commenting?
I say it's the father's fault for having a 3-year-old son.
Just think, in 15 years he can sue his son!
Except if the statute of limitations runs out...
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know Glocks don't have conventional safeties. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I bought a Berreta 96A1 instead of one of the Glocks and even the gun shop owner told me he didn't like Glock's "safe action trigger". Personally, to me that's just like not having any safety at all plus I was already used to Bereta's external manual safety from that Army so it was a good fit for me.
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know Glocks don't have conventional safeties. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I bought a Berreta 96A1 instead of one of the Glocks and even the gun shop owner told me he didn't like Glock's "safe action trigger". Personally, to me that's just like not having any safety at all plus I was already used to Bereta's external manual safety from that Army so it was a good fit for me.
Do not buy a gun if you do not know how to safely operate and store it.
This story is another example of income distribution. Why work for it if you can take it from those who did.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court has reinstated a now-retired paralyzed Los Angeles police officer's product liability lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock.
Enrique Chavez was paralyzed from the waist down when his 3-year-old son accidentally shot him with his service pistol.[/quote]
Quote:
The lawsuit claims the .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol lacks adequate safeguards against accidental discharge.
There isn't a possible safety in the world that would prevent a trained police officer from being so incredibly stupid as to leave his SERVICE weapon within the reach of a franking 3 year old!
Too bad the kid aimed too low. If he had hit his dad in the head there wouldn't have been much damage.
Disclaimer: The author of this post has owned a Glock for 20 years without a single accidental discharge or every having that weapon accessible to my now grown kid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.