• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

glock 18

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Baseless conjecture.

Full auto would have the same advantages in self-defense as it would in other situations.
Not baseless Bub, you are correct in saying full auto would have the same advantages as a semi-auto, this is not what I was comparing. The reason I stated you want a semi-auto for self defense in the U.S.A., or a revolver, or single shot, is because that's an everyday carry weapon, that doesn't spit out 33 rounds in under 2 seconds with a single trigger pull. I was implying that carrying a full auto is a good way to end up in court, hence the suggestion to carry a semi automatic version of the same gun. Last time I checked, they didn't make a revolver or singleshot that resembles the function and capacity of a glock 18. As for a shotgun, last time I checked it's against OCDO rules to discuss longgun
carry. Since his question was about openly carrying a glock 18, and not using one to defend his home with, I'll just assume you were referring to carrying a shotgun in the open, in public, in your post, when you refer to 3" magnum Rounds.
 
Last edited:

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
You are aware the GLOCK 7 does not exist right? That GLOCK never made anything like that and the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 specifically forbids the production of any such weapon.
I can't tell if you are joking or not. I have had a number of people try to tell me it really does exist.

*whhhhhhhhhhhhhh-oosh!*

I know sarcasm is hard to detect on the Internet...but really, dude? lol
 

CO-Joe

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
184
Location
, ,
You are aware the GLOCK 7 does not exist right? That GLOCK never made anything like that and the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 specifically forbids the production of any such weapon.
I can't tell if you are joking or not. I have had a number of people try to tell me it really does exist.

Well, it's either gotta be the G7 or the 40 watt phased plasma rifle.
 

tcmech

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
368
Location
, ,
You are aware the GLOCK 7 does not exist right? That GLOCK never made anything like that and the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 specifically forbids the production of any such weapon.
I can't tell if you are joking or not. I have had a number of people try to tell me it really does exist.

Of course it exists, Elvis carries a matched pair of nickle plated ivory handled ones every day as he goes about his daily routine.

Personally I would love to have a glock 18 as a play toy.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Not baseless Bub, you are correct in saying full auto would have the same advantages as a semi-auto, this is not what I was comparing. The reason I stated you want a semi-auto for self defense in the U.S.A., or a revolver, or single shot, is because that's an everyday carry weapon, that doesn't spit out 33 rounds in under 2 seconds with a single trigger pull. I was implying that carrying a full auto is a good way to end up in court, hence the suggestion to carry a semi automatic version of the same gun. Last time I checked, they didn't make a revolver or singleshot that resembles the function and capacity of a glock 18. As for a shotgun, last time I checked it's against OCDO rules to discuss longgun
carry.

I was saying not that the full auto has the same advantages as a semi-auto, but that it has the same advantages whether or not you are in a war.

In self defense, the purpose is to stop the attack as soon as possible, and if a full auto helps you do that, then it is all the more useful for self-defense.

I was implying that carrying a full auto is a good way to end up in court, hence the suggestion to carry a semi automatic version of the same gun.
I don't know the legal ramifications, and those may be worthy of consideration, but that was not the part of your post that I was addressing.

Referring to what you said previously that I was addressing:

The only time you need auto's is when your going on the offense and defense, like in a war-zone!

You state that full auto is only necessary in a war-zone. Although the sentence two prior to that one was about the legal ramifications, your statement in that sentence goes beyond merely whether it has negative legal ramifications, and you are effectively making an argument against full auto weapons by saying "Nobody needs one of them," with the sole exception of war-zones.

Some might argue that full auto was useless, because it spits the rounds out too fast... Well, if full auto is useless, why do they make guns that are full auto? Somewhere, somebody decided that full auto guns were useful in combat. The utility of a full auto firearm is not too much different depending on whether it is fired in war or not, especially not in the format of the Glock 18. Fully automatic fire is especially useful for the purposes of suppressive fire and for close quarters combat. The Glock 18 is designed for the latter as the duration of fire is very short with its small magazine. The Glock 18 is intended for close combat beyond just in wars, and in fact is especially marketed towards law enforcement.

The theory behind it is that you can rapidly fire the weapon at close range, striking a person multiple times in quick succession in order to take them out before they have time to inflict damage upon you. For the same reasons that a police officer would want full auto to take out somebody in close quarters rapidly, it would be useful for close quarters self defense.

And since the Glock 18 is select fire, one could utilize semi-auto mode if fully automatic fire was disadvantageous under the circumstances. With that in consideration, I do not see any disadvantage whatsoever in having a Glock 18 rather than a Glock 17.


As for a shotgun, last time I checked it's against OCDO rules to discuss longgun
carry. Since his question was about openly carrying a glock 18, and not using one to defend his home with, I'll just assume you were referring to carrying a shotgun in the open, in public, in your post, when you refer to 3" magnum Rounds.

Defeating strawmen is always easier than engaging in a debate about the topic at hand. You're also now implying that you think full automatic would be useful in home defense, whereas previously you implied that full auto is only good for a war zone. Perhaps that was not the implication you intended previously, but that was the implication I was addressing. A full size shoulder fired shotgun is also a much larger gun to carry than a handgun and therefore less easily carried than a Glock 18. But some people carry handguns like the Taurus judge, that can still fire 3-5 good sized buckshot pellets with a single touch of the trigger! That's like firing a burst from a full auto handgun.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Carrying an Automatic weapon for self defense is a good way to hurt innocent bystanders. Even in "Short-Controlled-Bursts", the weapon still sprays bullets.

Just because one has a full auto gun does not mean they lose the judgement to use it. The gun can be used in semi-auto mode also, where appropriate. Further, if there are no bystanders around, bystanders cannot be hit. A lot of times self-defense wouldn't be necessary in the first place if there were lots of bystanders around to witness the criminal act that was being perpetrated against one.

The bystander argument has also been used against firearm self-defense in general. Even in semi-auto fire among police, hit rates are typically less than 20% in actual combat situations, meaning 4 out of 5 bullets are not hitting the intended target. Yet, innocent bystanders being struck by rounds fired by police or by citizens acting in self defense is a rare occurrence, despite the fact that rounds are often fired without hitting the target. [Shotgun shells also spray multiple projectiles].

In the past, some have proposed that vision tests ought to exist to have the right to own guns out of fear of bystanders being hit. Again however, this is based upon the notion that a human is incapable of making judgement calls and recognizing limitations. Even a blind man can shoot an opponent and not endanger others under the right circumstances. (For instance, he could shoot a man that was on top of him actively beating him, with relative certainty of hitting the target.)

Similarly, one could restrain full auto fire to merely when it does not increase the risk of harming bystanders.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
In this thread, I'm also feeling the vibe from some that, "Because full autos are not commonly used they are therefore obviously not appropriate." The supreme court used the same faulty argument when discussing full autos in the Heller case. In Heller, they said that because full autos are not commonly used guns, they don't necessarily deserve protection under the 2nd amendment because they are not the type of arm that is "commonly used."

Maybe select-fire and full auto weapons WOULD be commonly used if they weren't nearly impossible to legally possess. A lot of people own semi-auto AR-15 and AK... I find it hard to believe they wouldn't mostly all be select fire if full autos were not regulated any more harshly than regular guns. Most might still mainly use them in semi-auto mode, but I believe most such rifles would be capable of full auto.
 
Last edited:
Top