Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns "Why Police shouldn't use Glocks"

Not to stir discontent, but I'm impressed that th Chief of San Diego PD actually knows where his firearm is (I joke, kinda)

George

No body else could have said it any better.IMHO.

A quick Google shows 362 agencies that allow 1911 carry.

Yes. There are plenty of agencies out there that allow an officer to pick and choose.

But I'm talking about departments like the NYPD. Those [bleep] employ about 34K people. Give them all 1911's and sit back and watch.





Travis

Thats fookin funny right there

And a big +1

not really, he just realizes that the .40s&w carried by how many popo is nothing but a new reincarnation of the .38wcf.
with less class.

a few years ago a bunch of german P6 sig's were dumped on the market here.
most came with a funky swivel holster, that the swivel could be disconnected and the remainder used as a more typical belt holster.
the interesting part was the holster had a flap covering the firearm, with two separate snaps. You have to work at it to get the gun out of the holster.
asked a friend in bavaria about it, and he said most popo only fire about 50rounds a year, so if you knew the date of the gun(on the slide) to importation you knew generally how many rounds fired.
the popo were not really suppose to USE the firearms, but call in swat teams, the real shooters, when needed. Some glocks at least on a test basis were made with an external slide safety. I saw one, should have bought it as a rarity.
The problem to some extent is the glock is safe as long as you have a brain and proper training, which both are sadly lacking police are not.
I personally know of a blackhawk pilot in iraq that shot himself with a m9 beretta while cleaning it. If you work at it you can do it. All guns are like that.

65% of police departments issue or use glocks.

That number doesn't surprise me. I will say that's not accurate around here, though.

Their LE marketing guys are relentless, borderline ruthless, to get an Agency on board.

$325ish a gun doesn't hurt either.

Dink

all glocks here, but we have a open gun policy.

Not around here either. State boys carry SIG 226's, county H&K USP .45's. Don't know what the local force carries, seems to be a mix of S&W MP's and H&K's. I can't remember the last Glock I saw LEO's carrying around here.

I don't think it'd be possible to even come up with an accurate number. There's just no way that every podunk small town, every school district PD and every weird agency (Lower Colorado River Authority Rangers, Texas and SW Cattle Raisers Association Rangers, etc.) could be polled to get accurate data.

In our County Glocks are dominant with the G22 being the top lot

Probation carries G23s. Our dept was the stand out issuing g21s then switching to g31s, then allowing personally purchased Sig p226s

Our state Troopers carry Sig P227s and the fish and boat commission and Game commission carry Glocks

Looking for an unbiased piece of writing about guns in the LA Times OpEd section is like looking for a vegan in a ribs joint. I'm certainly not going to assume that the place is filled with vegans when I walk in. Agenda? Obviously. Blaming the gun, claiming that training doesn't help, using questionable statistics...all point to the agenda.

I'm not a fan of Glocks. I do know that they work as advertised, which the article doesn't refute. I'm also not a fan of cops. They don't often work as the societal propaganda advertises anymore, if they ever did. Certainly most cops are good people in general, but they let bad things happen far too often for my taste. I have seen through my own eyes that police in general are far more willing to draw and point their sidearms than in the past. This has to be the training, which, in my opinion, is where the issue of NDs is born, and can perish. Basic human psychology is the key to understanding the problem, and the solution.

Humans are, first and foremost, and certainly when under stress, driven by a basic model of behaviorism, meaning that what is rewarded gets done more frequently, and what is punished gets done less frequently. Just like Pavlov's dog, behaviors that are connected to reward or punishment are ingrained at a level below conscious thought. As far as fingers on triggers goes, all of us know that this is a big no-no. We taught ourselves to behave that way, usually with help from an authority like a father, or a commanding officer. If an officer was ridiculed, or fined, or smacked around, or even removed from his/her job when there was an ND, the behavior would lessen in frequency. If, every time an officer was caught on video with finger on trigger before target is addressed they were charged $200, there would quickly be less of that. If officers where held financially responsible for any ND, say for the medical bills and/or civil lawsuit if someone or something was injured or damaged...hopefully you all see where I am going with this.

We are all trained for every single behavior we exhibit, all of the time. If a behavior has a payoff, we continue it. If there is a penalty, we stop it. Training officers that there is a life-threatening felon behind every door and in every car and around every corner isn't helping. Training officers that they need to access deadly force as a first and last resort in nearly every situation isn't helping. Training officers that their safety is top priority over those who are around them isn't helping. Shielding cops from outside investigation during incidents of potential negligence or criminality isn't helping.

I have had a few jobs that are statistically far more dangerous than being a cop. I see a lot of weird and false ideas probagated around those whose job involves a uniform. I would prefer that police were placed on even ground with everyone else, as the Constitution lays out, but unfortunately, police think they have extra rights and authority, that there are dangerous perps everywhere, that deadly force may be required at any moment, and that their safety is top priority. None of these things are true, just as it is never the case that a properly functioning tool causes negligence. This is true regardless of the design.

Cops have the authority to open carry where many people don't. So they actually do extra rights / authority.

(Most people confuse rights and authority with each other. I won't be dogmatic about the semantics of it.)



If "dangerous perps" aren't everywhere, please let me know where they're not at. I wanna move there.



If deadly force may not be required at any moment, why do so many people here CC?



Sure they are. Some of them, at least.

The only place I can think of, off the top of my head is a cemetery. I wouldn't be in any hurry to move there.

You guys are really proving my point. Where did these "extra" powers or authority come from? How did we go from a civilized society to one where there is a dangerous felon looking to kill you everywhere? Yes, the flaws lie in the training.

You should draft some improved training policies.




Travis