Officer has ND while on school campus

imported post

Let's all get on the Glock hate bandwagon! "It was the gun's fault!" Gee, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? I've never seen so much ignorance as in this thread. How many of you haters have actually touched a Glock let alone owned or carried one? Not many, is my guess. This guy had an ND because he was using an inadequate holster that did not fully enclose the trigger guard of his weapon. No holster should ever allow anything to enter the trigger guard of a holstered weapon under any circumstances. He also was not paying attention to where he was putting his keys (if that story is in fact true) if one of the keys was able to enter the trigger guard. A crappy holster and a cop who was not paying attention to his weapon. Two stupid things that lead to this ND. The gun was not to blame. It fired because its trigger was pulled, just like it was designed to do. Remember when that airline pilot discharged his weapon in the cockpit because of the FAA-required holster and padlock? The idiot-designed holster had a padlock going through the trigger guard and surprise, surprise, someone's gun discharged because of it. The Glock works just fine.

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

Couple questions..first I love my Glock and plan on getting a RIA 1911 soon...nice handgun...so don't abuse me  as I am neutral ground here.

1.  What is condition 0, 1 etc...I have never heard of those terms?

Click to expand...

This wiki article on Jeff Cooper will answer your question.

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

3.  Do you believe a manual safety is key in purchasing your firearm?

4.  Do you believe you should always have a bullet in the chamber?  I have always thought it would take me milliseconds to slide my rail and load my Glock thus no reason to have one chambered and improving safety.

Click to expand...

For a 1911: Condition 1 > Condition 3 > Condition 0

For a Glock: Condition 0 > Condition 3

It's a matter of choice, of course. I myself carry a 1911.

imported post

• Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.
• Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
• Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.

OK, I included this information in the post for others.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

lostone1413 wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I can't find anything that historically relates to Mr. Applegate ever having been in actual combat... knife or gunfight.... or killed anybody in either. Anybody who'd carry a 1911 in Condition 0 or suggest the same is nuts. I don't care how many books he wrote.

Click to expand...

Applegate was trained by fairbairn. Fairbairn and Sykes got their education as far as gunfighting while in Shanghai. Applegate went on to train men with the OSS in WW2.

you see a difference in having a 1911 in condition O and a Glock? I sure don't. Have you ever done any force on force training or has training been limited to some form of target shooting? How a person looks at things depends on ghow he has trained

Click to expand...

No... I've been in 2 wars 'n numerous firefights... two police gunfights, three county fairs 'n a buzzard hump. Do you OWN/CARRY a 1911A1? 'Don't sound like it.

Click to expand...

OK I can't be the only one who doesn't know what the hell a "buzzard hump" is but it sounds rude. :what:

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

lostone1413 wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I can't find anything that historically relates to Mr. Applegate ever having been in actual combat... knife or gunfight.... or killed anybody in either.  Anybody who'd carry a 1911 in Condition 0 or suggest the same is nuts. I don't care how many books he wrote.

Click to expand...

Applegate was trained by fairbairn. Fairbairn and Sykes got their education as far as gunfighting while in Shanghai. Applegate went on to train men with the OSS in WW2.

you see a difference in having a 1911 in condition O and a Glock? I sure don't. Have you ever done any force on force training or has training been limited to some form of target shooting? How a person looks at things depends on ghow he has trained

Click to expand...

No... I've been in 2 wars 'n numerous firefights... two police gunfights, three county fairs 'n a buzzard hump. Do you OWN/CARRY a 1911A1?  'Don't sound like it.

Click to expand...

OK I can't be the only one who doesn't know what the hell a "buzzard hump" is but it sounds rude. :what:

Click to expand...

Whatever it is, I can imagine why it calls for gunfire. :uhoh:


:lol:

imported post

Yeah, now I am curious what a buzzard hump is and should I be in condition zero if buzzard hump happens?

imported post

If a buzzard tries to hump you, you better be in condition 1!:celebrate

imported post

For the most part, I use the following conditions when carrying my Glock in these circumstances:

Carrying openly: Condition 0

The reason is that if the gun is visible then others will expect me to use it in the event that a situation requires it. Therefore, I want the gunas ready as possible for use. The fact that I use an actual retention holster minimizes the chance of a gun grab and the gun is only one of the tools I carry anyway.

Carrying concealed on my person: Condition 3

Most people will assume I am unarmed as will any opponents in potential combat. People who know me may guess I am armed but they aren't going to know for sure or where exactly the gun is. When carrying concealed, I carry in a non-retention holster and if I'm fighting with a bad guy who doesn't know I'm armed then the gun is likely not in use. In the off-chance the gun becomes visible and dropped or removed in a fight, the extra time it would take for the bad guy to make it ready is enough time for me to use another weapon at my disposal without a large risk of being shot with my own weapon. In the event that I need to use the gun, it doesn't take long to pull it and make it ready.

Carrying concealed in a bag or other luggage: Condition 4

I carry in condition 4 here because this is the greatest risk of losing the gun in my opinion. In the off-chance that someone tries to mug me to steal my backpack, day pack, or whatever, they would see that there is a gun in there as soon as they open it. At the same time I am struggling with them to get it back, they will likely think they have a surprise advantage and try to use my gun against me only to find that not only does the gun not fire but now they have to dig to find the magazine. Should they not decide to drop the bag and flee, this is more than enough time for me to disable them with one of my other goodies that is on my person.

Maybe this all sounds a bit tactical for some here but I value my life and the lives of those close to me and I always like a Plan B when it comes to something this serious.

imported post

While I don't care for Glock's way of doing things... I find the operator to still be more at fault than the inanimate object...

How many glock owners actually know how their gun works, as opposed to how many 1911 owners actually know how their guns work? Informally, I find Glock owners to be "I heard Glocks were cool so I bought one and I'm a badass now." I have yet to locate a 1911 owner with that attitude.

I'm sure the converse of both exists, but numbers-wise... I think Glock attracts people of a less responsible nature.

And before you say "But look at all the cops with them!" I say to you "EXACTLY!"

imported post

ixtow wrote:

While I don't care for Glock's way of doing things... I find the operator to still be more at fault than the inanimate object...

How many glock owners actually know how their gun works, as opposed to how many 1911 owners actually know how their guns work? Informally, I find Glock owners to be "I heard Glocks were cool so I bought one and I'm a badass now." I have yet to locate a 1911 owner with that attitude.

I'm sure the converse of both exists, but numbers-wise... I think Glock attracts people of a less responsible nature.

And before you say "But look at all the cops with them!" I say to you "EXACTLY!"

Click to expand...

Not sure how to respond as most law enforcement utilize Glock, yet you seem to have a blanket judgement on LEO's already. I have a glock and I dont have the "badass now" feeling. Where do you get your statistics on this? Is it just because more Glocks are out in the market that any other handgun, thus assuming it attracts more "less responsible" people? If so, I guess thats possible, and so is space travel.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

While I don't care for Glock's way of doing things... I find the operator to still be more at fault than the inanimate object...

Click to expand...

I agree. But, of course, how could it be otherwise? Our responsibility as gun users is to not be careless and shoot stuff/persons unless we really want to do so. Blame the man, not the gun.


ixtow wrote:

I'm sure the converse of both exists, but numbers-wise... I think Glock attracts people of a less responsible nature.

And before you say "But look at all the cops with them!" I say to you "EXACTLY!"

Click to expand...

Well, that seems like a weak point to support your premise. Unless you have data that support your apparent notion that cops as a group are significantly less responsible than other groups who own GLOCKs.

I really like GLOCKs. They're boring, and kind of ugly, but they're really good machines. I'd love to see some ND data on GLOCKs compared to some other platforms. Anyone know of any study results?

imported post

ixtow wrote:

While I don't care for Glock's way of doing things... I find the operator to still be more at fault than the inanimate object...

How many glock owners actually know how their gun works, as opposed to how many 1911 owners actually know how their guns work? Informally, I find Glock owners to be "I heard Glocks were cool so I bought one and I'm a badass now." I have yet to locate a 1911 owner with that attitude.

I'm sure the converse of both exists, but numbers-wise... I think Glock attracts people of a less responsible nature.

And before you say "But look at all the cops with them!" I say to you "EXACTLY!"

Click to expand...

It's not a 1911. It's not my fault that certain sub-cultures point to a glock so often that even the satirical know it...

I'm not suggesting that all Glock owners are 'Gangstas.' Just that when one happens upon such a mentality, it is accompanied by a Glock almost every time. INFORMALLY, this has been my experience.

As for 'statistics,' please have a look at the emphasis added sections my my message above.

imported post

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

While I don't care for Glock's way of doing things... I find the operator to still be more at fault than the inanimate object...

Click to expand...

I agree. But, of course, how could it be otherwise? Our responsibility as gun users is to not be careless and shoot stuff/persons unless we really want to do so. Blame the man, not the gun.


ixtow wrote:

I'm sure the converse of both exists, but numbers-wise... I think Glock attracts people of a less responsible nature.

And before you say "But look at all the cops with them!" I say to you "EXACTLY!"

Click to expand...

Well, that seems like a weak point to support your premise. Unless you have data that support your apparent notion that cops as a group are significantly less responsible than other groups who own GLOCKs.

I really like GLOCKs. They're boring, and kind of ugly, but they're really good machines. I'd love to see some ND data on GLOCKs compared to some other platforms. Anyone know of any study results?

Click to expand...

It probably is a weak point. But the link posted in the OP is not.

I did qualify my statement with the word "Informally," yes?

And for certain, they are ugly... But what can one truly expect from ballistic tupperware?

imported post

Thats a pretty funny ad you put up . There will always be Glock haters.

imported post

ROFL , but if you think about it, those sites will keep the glock
from falling out of the pants, thus saving hundreds of athletes,
and bar hoppers from injury. We need to make them mandatory
more so than trigger locks which haven't worked.

imported post

The plain fact is, this was a NEGLIGENT discharge. The officer is 100% to blame, not the firearm.

A Glock is every bit as safe any any other modern pistol out there. It WILL NOT FIRE unless the trigger is pulled. If a key truly did get inside the holster and pull the trigger, then the holster chosen was inadequate, and a result of poor choice of equipment, thus still a NEGLIGENT discharge.

Make no mistake, this was not a failure of the firearm, but a failure of the human. There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a Glock in condition 0. I do it every day. Despite whether anyone thinks it is a cliche or not, the only safety you should depend on IS the one between your ears. Depending on a mechanical safety WILL eventually have an effect on your level of awareness regarding safety.

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

• Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.
• Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
• Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.

OK, I included this information in the post for others.

Click to expand...

Where the hell did you find these?? The only weapons conditions I know are the Marine Corps ones-

M9 Service Pistol:

Condition 1- Magazine inserted, slide forward, round in chamber, hammer down, safety on.

Condition 2- N/A

Condition 3- Magazine inserted, slide forward, chamber empty, safety on.

Condition 4- Magazine removed, slide forward, chamber empty, safety on.

Give or take these are the same for all Firearms.

imported post

Mahan0331 wrote:

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

• Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.
• Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
• Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
• Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.

OK, I included this information in the post for others.

Click to expand...

Where the hell did you find these?? The only weapons conditions I know are the Marine Corps ones-

M9 Service Pistol:

Condition 1- Magazine inserted, slide forward, round in chamber, hammer down, safety on.

Condition 2- N/A

Condition 3- Magazine inserted, slide forward, chamber empty, safety on.

Condition 4- Magazine removed, slide forward, chamber empty, safety on.

Give or take these are the same for all Firearms.

Click to expand...

The Corps adapted Jeff Cooper's "conditions" to apply to their service firearm.

The original "conditions" were Jeff Cooper's creation and they applied to the 1911. The ones posted by Crossfire Jedi are accurate for a 1911-pattern handgun.

My advice is to research before you correct. Had you done so, your post would have come across as an addition, rather than a contradiction, and you would have come across as right, rather than wrong.

imported post

Ok you obviously looking for a fight so check this out, I didn't "correct" anyone. I asked where those were from (in a casual fashion) and stated what I was familiar with and how they apply.

And if that came out wrong,Crossfire Jediim talking to you, I apologize.

You know anyone can be condescending and act tuff on the Internet marshaul, you should drop me a line and we can meet up. Im going out to see my boys in Camp Pendleton/29 Palmsand theL.A. area soon anyway.

Do you talk big in person? Sounds to me your a coward behind a keyboard.

imported post

Well? You gunna man-up marshaul?

And Isee from you post history you have a pattern of smart asscomments and shit talk.

Im waiting your response.....