Read this over the weekend...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-owens-glock-accidents-20150508-story.htmlPremise is that the Glock and similar "short, light trigger" designs are too dangerous for general use in law enforcement, because officers don't always follow their training and put their finger on the trigger. It also attacks Glocks for the design feature of having to pull the trigger during the take-down process. More or less it says that the design would be fine if humans were perfect and did what they were trained to do, but humans aren't perfect, and people are getting hurt and dying because of the Glock design.
Now, I know it's crap, as do all of you. But, reading this piece made me wonder. First, it's setting the stage for a lot of lawsuits against the manufacturers of striker fired handguns. Ambulance chasers will argue that negligent discharges aren't operator error, they are the fault of the design. I imagine that some lawyers will allege that intentional shootings were unintentional results of the bad design as well, just looking for cash.
Second, if there are enough lawsuits, and we'll see agencies drop the Glock, not for tactical reasons but for risk management reasons. City attorneys will convince the administration that Glock style pistols are lawsuits waiting to happen. If you can reduce this risk by just buying a traditional DA/SA design, that will be what they do. Smith & Wesson might see a surge in interest in their manual safety version of the M&P, as that would imply that the city took action to reduce the risk. It's crap, but it's foreseeable.
And I'm sure some do-gooder legislator will try to institute legislation about minimum trigger pull weight, or a manual safety requirement. After all, studies have shown that the Glock type pistols are too dangerous in the hands of highly trained law enforcement officers, so they are obviously too dangerous to be allowed in the hands of untrained civilians.
Thoughts?