Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
To an expert on any topic, there’s nothing more adorable, or frustrating – depending on circumstance – than when said expert hears or reads people discussing that topic from a position of absolute ignorance. That’s exactly how I felt reading Paul Barrett’s piece in Bloomberg about the Taxachusetts attorney general launching a probe into gunmakers Remington and Glock. So, to recap, a Bloomberg employee is reporting on a witch-hunt launched by Taxachusetts democrat AG Maura Healey. I only barely survived reading the piece.
By way of full disclosure, I am a former NRA-certified basic handgun and concealed carry instructor who worked a few years in firearm retail and contributed an article to American Handgunner magazine once upon a time. I’ve forgotten more about firearms than Maura Healey will ever bother to learn.
For his part, Barret began his piece with a sentence that sounded more like a third-grade school girl tattling on a classmate than a professional journalist.
“Trouble is brewing in New England for gun manufacturers. The Massachusetts attorney general has launched an innovative investigation of major firearm makers based on her state’s expansive consumer-protection law.”
Innovative? It’s a witch-hunt. In New England, the ancestral home of North American witch-hunts.
“The probe targets at least two companies—Glock Inc. and Remington Outdoor Co.—and possibly others. The investigation came to light because of lawsuits the gun companies recently filed seeking to block or narrow the Massachusetts safety investigation, calling it overly intrusive. The defensive litigation stated that Attorney General Maura Healey is demanding that Glock and Remington surrender a wide range of internal documents, including safety-related complaints from customers.”
In the case of Remington, there appears to have been something of a legitimate complaint; the company did issue recalls for two rifles manufactured between 2006 and 2014 due to an issue in the manufacturing process of the trigger group that may have led to accidental discharges. The article doesn’t say whether there were any injuries reported in association with this defect, and being a Bloomberg piece, had there been, it would have been in the lead.
What’s adorable is Healey going after Glock for alleged safety concerns all of which are due to user error.
“Since the Glock was introduced in America 30 years ago, critics have said its design makes it more likely than other handguns to fire accidentally. For example, the Austrian gun fires with relatively little pressure from the shooter’s index finger, and it has an unconventional safety mechanism built into its trigger, which some detractors say is ineffective. The company has responded that with proper training and careful technique, users will avoid accidental discharges.” Barret wrote, feeding his side’s ignorance.
Yes, Glock automatic pistols do not have a separate, external mechanical safety. A hinge in the trigger requires the user to put their finger over the entire face of the trigger to pull it, thus preventing discharges by merely brushing the trigger. Other handguns that don’t have a separate, external safety include every revolver you’ve ever seen, and pistols made by Smith & Wesson and others that where aping Glock’s design – so much so, Glock sued S&W back in the 90s. Of course, perspective doesn’t matter to the agenda-driven ignorant.
“The Boston Globe, which broke this story on Sept. 1, reported that, in her court filing responding to Glock’s suit, Healey argued that the manufacturer’s pistols are ‘prone to accidental discharge’ and that the company may have been warned about the problem by customers but still failed to act. ‘Responding to Glock’s lawsuit,’ the Globe added, Healey referred to ‘news stories about a sheriff’s deputy accidentally firing a Glock pistol in San Francisco’s Hall of Justice, a Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed from the waist down after his 3-year-old son accidentally fired his Glock pistol, and a Massachusetts man who was dancing at a July 4th party when his Glock handgun fired while it was in his pocket.’” Barret wrote.
Glocks are prone to “accidental discharge” the same way Dodge Vipers are prone to “inadvertent off-roading.” Both are always cases of user error. The Dodge Viper is not a car for someone whose driving experience has been hitherto contained to cars with fewer than eight cylinders (never mind ten) and an automatic transmission. The Glock, likewise, is not a handgun for someone unfamiliar with handling guns. Complaining about the Glock’s lack of an external safety is like buying a supercar and complaining it doesn’t have a cup holder.
Gaston Glock designed his handguns in the early 1980s to do one thing, be fighting handguns. He made them light with a mostly plastic frame. He gave them bottomless magazines. He rounded their corners and beveled their edges and left nothing hanging off of them to snag the user’s clothing during the draw. He made them single-action for a smoother trigger stroke and he built a unique trigger that had to be fully indexed before it can be pulled. They’ve been torture tested over the years to absurd degrees and always come up shooting. In fact, the only thing that can mess up the operation of a Glock handgun is the person holding it.
Want to know why that sheriff’s deputy fired his Glock in San Francisco’s Hall of Justice? He pulled the trigger on a live round. A firearm that fires when the trigger is pulled on a live round is functioning perfectly. The police officer, however, is clearly defective; though not as defective as the one who left his gun lying around for a three-year-old to find. The guy “dancing” at a July 4th party when his Glock “went off?” Yeah, I’ll bet the last seven hairs on my head that a fair amount of booze and about five-and-a-half pounds of pressure directly applied to the trigger by a finger were involved.
“Guns, it’s worth noting, are one of the only products not regulated by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission,” Barret finished with an editorializing flourish.
Good, because, again, nothing is wrong with the way Glock pistols, or any modern firearm, works. The government wastes enough of our money as it is, having a bunch of government employees attempt to determine the safety of firearms sounds like an Obamacare-scale boondoggle.
Leave a Reply