Man taking trash to dumpster with gun slips, shoots and kills self accidentally, police say

I have a couple without external safeties. The idea is to carry them in a fitted holster that covers the trigger. Kydex holsters are like $25 or $30 for any given model, it's a no-brainer.

Also, they have internal safeties to prevent firing when dropped. Also, they have long and hard trigger pulls.

Don’t buy those guns idiots

You need to pass this wisdom on to thousands and thousands of police and military forces across the planet. Because Glock.

Also, if you're an idiot, don't buy any gun! You may think "I'll do what I want, I'll be fine!" This guy probably did, too...

Well first of all there is more than one kind of "safety." There are guns that don't have a switch on the side that says "go bang" and "don't go bang." Glocks, for example.

A Glock pistol doesn't have a manual safety. It has a drop safety, which is a little tab that prevents the firing pin from going forward that is moved out of the way by the pull of the trigger. That way there's no way you can drop, hit or shake the gun to make it go off without actually pulling the trigger. If you look at the trigger of a Glock, it looks like there's two; like there's a second trigger that sticks out of the first one. You see this on power tools too, it's a little lever that prevents the trigger from being pulled unless you first push that out of the way. That makes it a lot less likely to fire if you brush the trigger against something; you have to put your finger in the trigger guard, push the trigger safety down out of the way, and then pull the trigger.

Also, the way a Glock works, you can't load a round into the chamber without cocking the action, and you can't decock the action without pulling the trigger and firing the gun. (assuming no ammunition malfunctions here) When the gun is cocked, the trigger snaps forward, when the gun isn't cocked, the trigger stays back. It is common practice when carrying a Glock to carry it with a full magazine, an empty chamber and the action uncocked. With no cartridge in the chamber and the action uncocked, trying to pull the trigger won't do anything because it's already "back". You'd need to pull the slide back to cock the gun and chamber a round, then it'll go bang. If you've fired a couple rounds, and the chamber is loaded and the gun is cocked, the way you return it to the carry state is to remove the magazine, pull back the slide to eject the round in the chamber, point the gun in a safe direction and pull the trigger to dry fire the gun.

On the more primitive side, you have single-action revolvers. A single-action only revolver means the trigger ONLY does the job of releasing the hammer so it can fire the cartridge. If the hammer is forward, it has to be pulled back with the user's thumb or other hand to cock the action and rotate the cylinder to the next chamber. There's no need for a lever on the side of the gun because you already need to fiddle with a lever on the back of the gun. If the gun has been recently fired, the hammer will be resting on a spent cartridge. I have heard some say it is good practice to carry such a gun with the hammer resting on an empty chamber, which is basically the same idea as the Glock above; you're loaded with one fewer round than the absolute maximum but carrying in a way where there's no bullet aligned with the barrel and ready to go.

Have you ever heard of a revolver? Most of those do not, and are one of the oldest designs still in use.

Yeah, no shit. And having a safety makes it near impossible to pull the trigger. I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the concept of a safety mechanism.

Safty-less pistol owner here. Glock-19 Gen3. Even though the gun is resistant to firing unless the trigger is pulled (ie dropping it) it won't go off. That being said, I never carry with a round chambered because of this. It takes a half a second extra to chamber the round, I'd rather take that than carry a loaded round pointed at my spine or crotch all day.

How to fire a gun without touching the trigger

Okay then, here's a better one: try living in Gaza, Israel, or Ukraine and you'd delete your comment.

Isn't there a thing that's like "don't point a gun at something you won't shoot"

Moccasins ain't nothing to mess around with. I assume she's alright and living elsewhere now? Over here we have most of the stuff from southern Louisiana that will kill you plus scorpions and a bunch of other crap.

Appreciate the info. I figured you'd know SA better than I do.

LiberalGunNut™ here!. I'm very much like you. For one, never shot an animal that wasn't dying horribly. LOL, I can't even bring myself to hunt squirrels. And yes, while we have some serious wildlife around here, I'm far more concerned with the 2-legged sort.

Love what a conservative gun nut, and longtime cop, had to say:

“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”

Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”

As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!”

― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense

Arms of Jesus:

This logic I'll agree with you on. It is strange that a grown man felt the need to wear his weapon to take the trash out, whereas I never felt like I had to even in my neighborhood. I keep mine in the house purely for defense.

The fact that the person had criminally trespassed, made no due announcement of their presence and was attempting to enter her property absolutely falls within acceptable brandishment in all states of the Union. There is no question that brandishing a firearm in that situation is with lawful excuse.

Now, if she had pulled the trigger, had an unlicensed or illegal firearm in her state, or sought after the fleeing person, then there's an argument that she commited a crime.

He was attempting to break down my door. According to the castle doctrine, I could have defended myself in that instance if he would have made it across the threshold. I had my weapon at the ready when he opened my front door without permission. Then he retreated. I called the cops and reported it. Filed a report. The cop said I did everything right.

Indeed. I don't imagine that's how most deaths by gun violence occur.

I imagine most of them could be defended against by being better trained than someone looking to steal your stuff.

I may be wrong. It's just how I feel on the balance of my current knowledge.

I will observe: no one in this thread has brought any new facts to the table, just downvotes and hypotheticals.

No

You should obviously keep it in your hand, finger on the trigger, at all times. Like the garbage guy in the article.

Yes I believe that to be true. I wear a seat belt for a reason, so I'd carry a firearm for the same reason.

I am not saying it's logical, or that it's my preferred way to live. I am not advocating for gun rights. I am not an American.

My view is that all guns should be illegal to own. As they are where I live.

The kind of country that has the NRA, The Republican Party, Florida, multiple mass shootings a month, a militarised police force, Donald Trump, the KKK....need I go on?

Honestly mate I'm well aware of the fact that most folks can lead entirely ordinary gun-free lives in the US. As a European I train in martial arts to ensure I can defend myself, in the US I'd also train in firearms - because that's the worst case. Not the likely case. The worst case.

A firing pin shouldn't be free-floating in a way that will allow it to strike a primer without the trigger being pulled in any modern pistol.

There are guns with flaws that cause them to discharge when dropped, like the SIG P320, so it wasn't necessarily poor maintenance.

Actually yes it had that effect. Without that immunity, the market would have felt the pressure and invested more into research into better gun locks etc. The immunity laws took away that incentive. Economists have discussed this issue at length about how the gun market is different than other markets due to this.

Maybe go back and actually read what I wrote? It's literally the first part of the sentence.