Then the throw in some weaseling : turning up increasingly, police think it was used this one time, this anti-gun commission says. Spraying bullets.
Glock has a reputation for quality, they’re cheap and reliable, not having a safety adds nuance of danger for those idolizing them.
I’m sure there are some people using full auto Glocks, but they’re extremely rare. It’s not this new impending threat. They could have easily done the article detailing the full auto device or given real numbers of use. They’re in it for the clicks.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.
I did. It’s a bit clickbaity.
Yes Glock is a super popular gun.
Yes it’s possible to make them full auto.
Then the throw in some weaseling : turning up increasingly, police think it was used this one time, this anti-gun commission says. Spraying bullets.
Glock has a reputation for quality, they’re cheap and reliable, not having a safety adds nuance of danger for those idolizing them.
I’m sure there are some people using full auto Glocks, but they’re extremely rare. It’s not this new impending threat. They could have easily done the article detailing the full auto device or given real numbers of use. They’re in it for the clicks.
no safety? i assumed all guns legally had to include a safety lock.
I’ll just add most (all?) revolvers have no manual safety other than a heavier and long double action pull on the trigger.
They have a trigger safety. It looks almost like a tiny trigger within the trigger. Essentially means that it will only fire if you pull the trigger. It makes sense for trained personnel since they won’t be pulling the trigger unless they intend to fire and mistakenly leaving a safety on when you need to shoot can get you killed. Still seems very sketchy to me even though I understand that logically, it’s just as safe.
Glocks do have a safety, but legally speaking, guns don’t actually need a safety. They usually have one since it makes things a lot safer for the guy buying it. In fact, I can’t think of a gun that doesn’t have some form of a safety, outside of some reproduction muskets and other black powder guns. But it’s not legally required.
The recent Sig P 320 chosen by the US Army has variants with no manual safety and doesn’t have the trigger safety.
It still has internal safeties but there have been issues with accidental discharges with the earlier productions.
IIRC, those discharge were because the default trigger was heavy, as in its mass not trigger pull, and, if you dropped it at a certain angle, the inertia of the trigger would pull the trigger. The fix was Sig doing a free upgrade to a lighter trigger that wouldn’t have a much mass.
The safety is integrated into the trigger, so if you keep your finger off the trigger then the gun is supposedly in safety mode.
thanks for the good responses. i wonder if every gun had fingerprint sensor locks, would that help fix things? or just take away our rights?
Adding a bunch of electrical complexity to a mechanical process would make things worse for everyone.
People who need it to work reliably (police, military, etc.) would be hindered by the possibility of malfunctioning fingerprint readers and they couldn’t wear gloves. They would probably disable the electronic part.
A malicious person would just disable the electronic part. It is not hard to remove electronic safeties.
So the only people the fingerprint locks would apply to are people who don’t really need the extra complexity and they are the ones who will suffer from malfunctions. The glock double trigger thing and regular safeties are reliable and safe already,.
I believe they are integrated into the handle and trigger. It’s not a switch that you turn on and off, just if you hold the gun in the proper way your are pressing in the safeties.