I absolutely get what you're saying and think it's a good point to make and a great way to sidestep a pointless argument and go straight to the talking points if reactionaries try to bog you down in an argument about motives but in this case the murderer in question
A) was head of her police union, which isn't a job you get by being incompetent but can be one you get by being really quick at coming up with cover stories for why killing that guy isn't murder
B) had been a cop for 25 years
and C) To fire her dark black glock would have had to have pressed a safety her bright yellow differently shaped, third of the weight taser didn't have.
It's pretty clearly a blatant lie and in my experience at least pretty much everyone (even chuds when you bring up the safety thing) who isn't dead set on being willfully ignorant accepts that.
A) was head of her police union, which isn’t a job you get by being incompetent
How are we still buying this "cream rises to the top" meritocratic nonsense in 2021? Every level of management in every company in every country is rife with people incompetent at their job.
Honestly if the people at the top of police unions are legitimately incapable of telling a glock from a taser (nevermind the whole issue with the safety), I'd think that alone would be a huge red flag.
C) To fire her dark black glock would have had to have pressed a safety her bright yellow differently shaped, third of the weight taser didn’t have.
This assertion is actually an example of the NYT being stereotypically bad on gun knowledge. You barely notice that the trigger safety is there (by design), it's just one fluid trigger pull action by the user.
Any time you see a picture of a gun with little descriptions about how it works like this and it's from the NYT or WaPo or similar, just fucking smash Ctrl+F4.
This is not to defend the cop, this is me pooping on the Times.
A Glock trigger safety switches off as you pull the trigger. It's one motion. All it does is keep the trigger from being pulled if you don't put your finger on it.
?? It's not a conscious thing. It's not a lever on the side like on most handguns. Literally the trigger is shaped like a pair of scissors, and when you pull the trigger the scissors align and allow it to keep being pulled.
Literally the trigger safety does not and can not prevent somebody from pulling the trigger. It's deliberately designed not to. It's designed to prevent the gun from being fired if the trigger gets stuck on the holster or something.
Glocks are double-action, and cops carry them with a round in the chamber. If you pull the trigger it goes bang. This has always been a boring debate in the gun community about whether this counts as condition 2 or condition 0 or whatever.
But really no cop should be carrying both a gun and a tazer. They sold us tazers as something cops would use instead of guns. But they still have guns, and now they have a torture device too.
I see what you're seeing in the video now, but there isn't a safety there. The feature on the gun is a slide catch. It holds the slide back (you have to pull the slide back first manually).
I'm not bullshitting you when I say that a Glock does not possess a lever safety on the side. There is no safety. There's just the split trigger, which goes unsafe as you pull the trigger and "safe" again as you let go of the trigger. It's equivalent to the grip safety on a 1911, but on the trigger.
Not really, because she's not actually doing anything when she moves her thumb there. Nothing on the gun is moving (and there's nothing to move). Unless she normally trains with a different gun she wouldn't have any kind of muscle memory to turn off a lever safety that might be located there.
Plus, I don't think I've ever seen a pistol with a manual safety that operates from that side; most are designed to be pushed to the left from the right with your right-hand trigger finger before putting that on the trigger. If they have one of those at all.
Most of them, I thought? Left side behind the slide catch.
I think I remember something about them having to move the safety to the right side to satisfy some military contract or another, though. (Looked it up, they made it ambidextrous instead of left-side only.)
so you're telling me anytime i had a gun to my head from a cop, if their fucking finger woulda slipped that woulda been it? theres no actual safety mechanism on a fucking cops gun?
Yes, if they're using a glock or similar style pistol. Welcome to the absolute joke that is a "trigger safety". There's a reason so many gun enthusiasts don't like glocks and similar style pistols.
I absolutely get what you're saying and think it's a good point to make and a great way to sidestep a pointless argument and go straight to the talking points if reactionaries try to bog you down in an argument about motives but in this case the murderer in question
A) was head of her police union, which isn't a job you get by being incompetent but can be one you get by being really quick at coming up with cover stories for why killing that guy isn't murder
B) had been a cop for 25 years
and C) To fire her dark black glock would have had to have pressed a safety her bright yellow differently shaped, third of the weight taser didn't have.
It's pretty clearly a blatant lie and in my experience at least pretty much everyone (even chuds when you bring up the safety thing) who isn't dead set on being willfully ignorant accepts that.
How are we still buying this "cream rises to the top" meritocratic nonsense in 2021? Every level of management in every company in every country is rife with people incompetent at their job.
Honestly if the people at the top of police unions are legitimately incapable of telling a glock from a taser (nevermind the whole issue with the safety), I'd think that alone would be a huge red flag.
Believe you me.
This assertion is actually an example of the NYT being stereotypically bad on gun knowledge. You barely notice that the trigger safety is there (by design), it's just one fluid trigger pull action by the user.
Any time you see a picture of a gun with little descriptions about how it works like this and it's from the NYT or WaPo or similar, just fucking smash Ctrl+F4.
This is not to defend the cop, this is me pooping on the Times.
deleted by creator
You're embarrassing yourself here.
yeah you're right, i was being a drunk ass, my apologies.
Been there, comrade. No worries. 👍
deleted by creator
Wrong, but you're clearly beyond reach now. Bye.
deleted by creator
In that case then yeah, great post and great point ❤️
Sorry I didn't read it properly.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
A Glock trigger safety switches off as you pull the trigger. It's one motion. All it does is keep the trigger from being pulled if you don't put your finger on it.
deleted by creator
?? It's not a conscious thing. It's not a lever on the side like on most handguns. Literally the trigger is shaped like a pair of scissors, and when you pull the trigger the scissors align and allow it to keep being pulled.
Literally the trigger safety does not and can not prevent somebody from pulling the trigger. It's deliberately designed not to. It's designed to prevent the gun from being fired if the trigger gets stuck on the holster or something.
deleted by creator
Glocks are double-action, and cops carry them with a round in the chamber. If you pull the trigger it goes bang. This has always been a boring debate in the gun community about whether this counts as condition 2 or condition 0 or whatever.
But really no cop should be carrying both a gun and a tazer. They sold us tazers as something cops would use instead of guns. But they still have guns, and now they have a torture device too.
deleted by creator
I see what you're seeing in the video now, but there isn't a safety there. The feature on the gun is a slide catch. It holds the slide back (you have to pull the slide back first manually).
I'm not bullshitting you when I say that a Glock does not possess a lever safety on the side. There is no safety. There's just the split trigger, which goes unsafe as you pull the trigger and "safe" again as you let go of the trigger. It's equivalent to the grip safety on a 1911, but on the trigger.
deleted by creator
Not really, because she's not actually doing anything when she moves her thumb there. Nothing on the gun is moving (and there's nothing to move). Unless she normally trains with a different gun she wouldn't have any kind of muscle memory to turn off a lever safety that might be located there.
Plus, I don't think I've ever seen a pistol with a manual safety that operates from that side; most are designed to be pushed to the left from the right with your right-hand trigger finger before putting that on the trigger. If they have one of those at all.
Beretta
92 or something else?
Most of them, I thought? Left side behind the slide catch.
I think I remember something about them having to move the safety to the right side to satisfy some military contract or another, though. (Looked it up, they made it ambidextrous instead of left-side only.)
deleted by creator
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eaglegunrangetx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fglocksplode-1.gif&f=1&nofb=1
#27 slide stop lever
Your link doesn't go to a specific frame in the video, but I don't know what she's doing or if it has any intent behind it.
so you're telling me anytime i had a gun to my head from a cop, if their fucking finger woulda slipped that woulda been it? theres no actual safety mechanism on a fucking cops gun?
Yes.
what the fuck
Yes, if they're using a glock or similar style pistol. Welcome to the absolute joke that is a "trigger safety". There's a reason so many gun enthusiasts don't like glocks and similar style pistols.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
if you don't have something anti-police state to say, then keep it to your self
this was like the only redeemable thing you said
deleted by creator
it's giving a cop the benefit of the doubt, which is an overfilled position taken by people that aren't leftists.