Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Gun control means no Glock-in-the-Pants

So New York Giants football star Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg accidentally while fumbling for his Glock in a Manhattan nightclub. Seems he was carrying the .40 pistol in his waistband in what’s known as “Mexican Carry.” No holster.

The gun slid down his pant leg and he grabbed at it with his free hand (the other one had a drink in it).

The Glock has no “safety.” It has a little tongue in the trigger that serves as a kind of fire control device, but it’s a military/police pistol. It’s supposed to be carried in a holster and if it is properly handled it’s perfectly safe. (Still hate Glock’s but that’s another issue).

The gun ain’t idiot-proof, however, and Plaxico proved it.

New York has draconian handgun-possession laws and Plaxico is facing three to five in jail. Mayor Bloomberg wants maximum prosecution. He’d better get it. No special deals for superstar athletes.

Once again, we see the problem of guns in the hands of idiots. It’s not something we can solve, but I hate to see responsible firearms owners penalized with laws and ridiculous safety measures to make up for the Plaxico Burresses of the world.

Maybe we just have to hope for Darwinian action to take effect. Think about it. A little to the left and he wouldn’t reproduce.

Jim Cornelius, Editor


  1. Jim,
    Here is the phrase that sticks out to me:

    "...but it’s a military/police pistol."

    Mr. Buress is neither, so why does he have access to a military/police weapon. If it is simply self defense, a .38 revolver is more than enough. Same thing with assault rifles - no legitimate use for the citizen.


  2. >> but it’s a military/police pistol

    It is not a military/police pistol. It is a gun...it is a tool just like a hammer, shovel or knife.

    jfwells, please don't tell me what kind of tools I can use to defend myself and my family! If I want a Glock (which shoots a bullet, just like a .38 revolver), then what's the diff? Because its black?

    I believe people have unfounded emotional responses to guns that are black.

    And Jim, Glocks are great tools. Free your mind!

  3. Point of clarity Quimby:

    The Glock is indeed a military pistol, designed for the Austrian army. I don't agree with Jason on this one. It doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be used by civilians; it does, however, mean it's designed to be carried in a holster, not a waistband. It's about the worst pistol I can think of for "Mexican carry."

    My dislike of Glocks is strictly a matter of taste. I can't understand why anyone would choose a Glock over a SIG or any of the CZ line or any 1911 model. But if you're a Glock man, I won't gainsay you. Just — please — use a holster.

  4. >> The Glock is indeed a military pistol

    Yes, you're right. It was originally designed for military use and ABSOLUTELY needs a holster. I think the US Military has turned it down because it doesn't have a "safety" in the traditional sense. I agree, safety is not in the use of an additional switch to fumble with when you really really need it ASAP. Safety is a set of building block protocols that need to be followed: starting with finger off the trigger until ready to fire, ALWAYS pointed in a safe direction, proper holster etc.

    Regarding a 1911 or Sig, I have those as well. But give me one gun if the doo-doo hits the fan and it's a Glock. Bullet proof performance and reliability in all kinds of nasty conditions. Few moving parts too.

    As far as enjoyability to shoot, my Kimber or a Sig P228 win hands down.

  5. It was a shame he missed !!