TexasCHLforum.com

Just imagine!! A gun that fires when you pull the trigger!!!

Definitely defective!

Mike1951 wrote:Just imagine!! A gun that fires when you pull the trigger!!!

Definitely defective!

Also it was a gun that fired when all 3 safeties were disengaged! Really though, why would you not have your weapon on you? When is there ever a case where a loose weapon in the back seat is alright, let alone when you have your child back there?

LedJedi wrote:exactly why i don't carry one or would even have one loaded in my house.

Exactly why I DO carry one and even have one loaded in my house. A "point and shoot" firearm that works every time. I grew up around revolvers and they didn't have safeties either.

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_2089579.php
Thursday, July 10, 2008
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
..

I was a bit amazed that this would of been filed, even in California... I clicked on the original link to verify and got a "page not found".

Aha! Maybe it was a hoax (not by annoyed man specifically, but wouldn't be the first time a news organization got fooled and posted a bogus story)!

NO such luck.... I did a search on "Enrique Chavez" and found the story -- http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun- ... havez-shot

The Annoyed Man wrote: Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.
..

...sounds to me like he was "paralyzed from the neck up" before this incident ever occured.

Thanks for finding the link again. The link I posted at the time worked, but maybe they moved the story. I'll correct my OP.

The AnnoyedMan wrote,
"his pistol was laying loose on the back seat"

This allegation has been stated as a fact now by at least one other poster, but I'm doggoned if I can find it in the article. Did this come from another source which can be shared with the rest of us?

If not, I would suggest that we have enough trouble with this article without making it worse than it is already.

Jim

Here's a different version: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9834513

Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 ... from the back seat of his pickup truck.

This statement is ambiguous. It can be read (at least) two ways:

• The pistol was lying in the back seat of the vehicle (presumably in a holster).
• The man was wearing the pistol in a holster, and the boy reached forward and grabbed it.

- Jim

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

If the weapon in question had the 5.5 lb tactical trigger setup, discharge when that pressure is applied is a design criterion, not proof of a defective safety device.

Jeff Cooper said something many years ago (and I apologize for having to paraphrase his words, but I don't have the exact quote handy) that goes straight to the heart of the issue in this case:

It's not possible to make a gun foolproof. Fools should keep their hands off machinery.

57Coastie wrote:The AnnoyedMan wrote,
"his pistol was laying loose on the back seat"

This allegation has been stated as a fact now by at least one other poster, but I'm doggoned if I can find it in the article. Did this come from another source which can be shared with the rest of us?

If not, I would suggest that we have enough trouble with this article without making it worse than it is already.

Jim

Jim, that is a reasonable criticism. Here is my response: Strictly speaking, you're right. The article says only "His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat..." However, it is difficult for me to imagine that the gun wasn't just lying loose around the back seat. But even if it wasn't just laying there unattended, it certainly was not secured in a manner which would prevent a 3 year old child from accessing it and accidentally shooting his dad with it. We know this to be true, because the man was shot by his boy. So, for all practical effect, the gun was "laying around" in the back seat. Heck, even if the gun was laying on the front and the kid managed to grab it without his father noticing, it's just as negligent. So, I apologize for having taken license, but I think you can admit that the gun was not properly secured, and neither was the child, and the result is that the child accessed the gun and shot his dad.

Jim says,
"This statement is ambiguous."

Agreed, Jim. Can't quibble with that. Outstanding journalism.

Jim

The shame of it is that the lawsuit has been filed. The brief should state the facts, whether the weapon was in the back seat or the man was wearing it.

- Jim

BigBlueDodge wrote:In any unfortunate accident, It is human nature to want to blame someone else. It is a way to bring closure to the accident. Since it was allegedly his own son that shot him, he can't blame his son. He can't blame himself for keeping a loaded gun in reach of his 3yr old, he can't blame himself for not restricting his 3 year old to a safety seat. He's angry that he's paralyzed, and he want somehow to blame somebody to make it right. So he must find someone else to blame, and why not the gun makers, holster makers and whoever else. Why not blame Ford for not putting in bullet proof seats. I respect that he is an officer of the law and put's his life on the line everday (trying to protect the streets of Los Angelas), but this is udderly rediculous.

IMO, the guy is not looking for someone to blame, he's looking for someone to support his family for the rest of his life. Seems like it is an increasingly successful defense that being stupid is a valid excuse for having someone else be responsible for providing a living for you and your family after you screw up.

While I feel sorry for the guy, I hope he doesn't see a dime from Glock. Actually, I hope it never gets to court.

It sounds like an unsuccessful attempt to qualify for the Darwin Award.

Does California have a law that makes it a crime to leave a firearm where it would be accessible to a child? If so, it seems that the "shootee" ought to be facing charges.

HankB wrote:Does California have a law that makes it a crime to leave a firearm where it would be accessible to a child? If so, it seems that the "shootee" ought to be facing charges.

Yes, it does have such a law. It also specifically forbids carrying a pistol in a vehicle that isn't locked in a lockbox, unloaded, and with the ammunition stored in a separate locked container - both containers to be stored out of reach of the driver. The only way he could have legally carried that pistol in his car in another manner than that, would have been if his status as an LEO allowed him to carry concealed off duty. In that case, the pistol would have been on his person.