Because they are experts on Gun Safety, right?
Let’s start with the 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act.
“Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, ‘With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.'”
I won’t even go into the fact that this is another old defeated talking point that is being recycled by the New Republic. Instead, I want to ask whomever happens to be working for less than $15 an hour as Social Media intern for Everytown, What were you thinking?
Your boss is one Michael Bloomberg who was the Mayor of New York City for a bunch of years. The NYPD, which he identified as “his” army used and still uses those “Can’t Be Right” Glock pistols as official sidearms. And if that was not enough, the official off-duty firearm for the NYPD was until very recently the Kahr CM9, also a “Can’t Be Right” pistol without external safety.
So, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, their own boss while being the Mayor of New York City engaged in an irresponsible and dangerous behavior when allowed the more than 30,000 men and women of the NYPD to move around the city while carrying unsafe sidearms?
Dudes, don’t crap on your boss. It looks bad.
So all those nasty revolvers would have to go as well. Sometimes after reading these posts from our favorite groups my head hurts. Is there a correlation I wonder? Can I sue maybe?
It also appears that if someone types stupid things and presses “send” they get published. You don’t have a safety?
And the provided picture with the post appears to be a Sig, which usually do have safeties and/or decocking mechanisms.
Actually that appears to be a 22X series Sig, a pistol that “If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires” since they typically have no safety.
Just like double action revolvers from Smith, Colt, Ruger, Charter, Taurus, and many others.
As an engineering expert working in the field of product safety and liability, I can tell you why the writer of that quote is wrong.
Design. Simply, it is not a design defect to make a gun easy to shoot. When the lack of safeties (say, safety guards on heavy equipment) leads to an injury and a successful lawsuit, the improper use of that product leading to injury should have been reasonably foreseen by the designer.
Not having multiple safeties in the way of being able to pull the trigger is not a design defect but a design feature. If Glocks went off when dropped, that is a defect. Just because an unauthorized person can pull the trigger doesn’t mean that there is something inherently wrong with the gun itself.
The safety switch is irrelevant. Only a fool relies on it. Sure, place your weapon in condition 1, safety on. So what? You STILL should treat the weapon as loaded with safety off, even if you know it is not. Especially if you know it was not.
Old story out of Iraq, not sure if true but… 1ST LT giving gun safety class on Baretta 9mm. To prove how much faith he had in the double safety features, he employed both and then put the weapon to his head, pulled trigger…. Murphy smiled upon him and both safeties simultaneously failed, blowing his head off.
Lesson: treat every weapon as if it’s loaded with safety off, even when you are “sure” it’s not
Relying exclusively on a safety switch will get an innocent bystander killed.