This is a discussion on Negligent Firearms Discharge.... within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ChrisMia As I understand it, "accidental discharge" is when a legitimate flaw/defect in the firearm causes it to fire (as a crazy ...
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Sounds like a couple of deputies need to be retrained in safe gun handling.
What a pair of maroons...
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
- Roy Batty
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
Does anyone have a reputable source that documents a Glock firing without the trigger being pulled after 1992? The only post 1992 example I ever heard of was a "cook-off" in a Glock 18 that occurred when some fellow was trying to see how many rounds he could fire back-to-back on full auto without a stoppage or malfunction.
I've never heard of a post 1992 slam-fire with a Glock.
And yes, I think negligent is the right word here.
If as claimed this was caused by defective equipment we should not fall into the trap of insisting all the responsibility for safety rests solely on the persons handling the firearm. To do that leaves still leaves us with a defective and dangerous firearm and possibly more if it is a design defect.
I believe the firearm maker should look into this. If it is a defect in the weapons design do we really want possibly thousands more of them waiting to fail under the wrong conditions?
If on the other hand the people involved are lying the manufacture of the weapon should go after them to recoup all costs involved with their investigation.