Interesting comment heard in gunshop today...

[Red Leader]

(mods if this is in the wrong forum my apologies, please move at will)

So I've been trying to expand my horizons and test out different weapon platforms to see if there is one in particular that I gravitate to for reasons of standardizing.

They didn't have any of the latest/greatest from HK, but they had a USPc, and it felt very nice.

They also had a Glock 19 (3rd Gen) and when I asked to see it, the owner of the store made an interesting comment. He said that he was surprised they had one (they actually has a used one as well - I rarely see those) because ever since the AZ shooting, Glock 19s have been flying off shelves and they have not been able to keep them in stock.

I thought that was super strange. Personally I just wouldn't find myself specifically going out and buying a pistol because some guy used it in a mass shooting. However, logic or un-logic aside, it got me thinking about something.

Perhaps this is the wrong forum, or maybe even the wrong question, but if I go out and buy G19 and have to use it to defend myself, does that put me (or any one of the I'm sure thousands who have bought one since the shooting incident) at an immediate disadvantage since now the situation involves a high profile pistol that has been at the center of attention (in a bad way). Kinda like the jury saying "Hey, so this guy used the same pistol that that Jared L guy used to kill a bunch of people and bought it a few months after that shooting happened?"

I don't know if that is a dumb question and is certainly no reflection on the performance or quality of the firearm, but knowing that human nature can be ignorant, dangerous, or unpredictable, would it be prudent to throw ourselves in such close proximity to the same choices of a madman when we have other options? Would such a decision raise unneeded questions? It raises the issue of indirect 'guilt by association' and that saying doesn't exist without reason. I suppose that if we train for these encounters we hope never happen, the training doesn't stop as soon as the bad guy has been stopped.

Anyway, I'm not looking for lawyer advice. I'm just interested to hear what you guys think about this from your own personal perspective. When I heard that comment it kind of caught me off guard.

[dookie1481]

I would wager that, besides the J-frame, the G19 is the most ubiquitous CCW pistol in the United States.

[YVK]

I don't think who used what when makes a lick of difference in a context of otherwise justifiable self-defense shooting.
Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 - and I've not heard of any particular increase in criminal or civil convictions of CCW holders on a basis of them using G19.

I want to add that I've observed the same phenomenon - a local gun shop sold two FNH 5.7 within days after Ft. Hood shooting; this was two more than they sold in a previous year.

[mongooseman]

In a twisted way, I guess it's advertising. I mean you now know it actually works under real world conditions. Of course, someone always starts rumors that the Government is about to ban _______, and people rush out to buy one.

[fuse]

I don't think who used what when makes a lick of difference in a context of otherwise justifiable self-defense shooting.
Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 - and I've not heard of any particular increase in criminal or civil convictions of CCW holders on a basis of them using G19.

I want to add that I've observed the same phenomenon - a local gun shop sold two FNH 5.7 within days after Ft. Hood shooting; this was two more than they sold in a previous year.

I believe a G17 was used at Virginia tech.

Ninja edit: nope, it was a 19. For some reason I always thought it was a 17.

[turbolag23]

I want to add that I've observed the same phenomenon - a local gun shop sold two FNH 5.7 within days after Ft. Hood shooting; this was two more than they sold in a previous year.

I was just about to post the same thing. I wasnt aware it even existed until then and all of a sudden people were asking about them buying/selling them in stores and forums I frequent. I guess its true that there is no such thing as bad advertising.

[jslaker]

Of course, someone always starts rumors that the Government is about to ban _______, and people rush out to buy one.

It's my suspicion that this is the case. It's like how I went from shooting weekly or more to being lucky to shoot once a month for nearly a year after Obama was elected because I just plain couldn't find ammo in my area.

As already mentioned, I wouldn't worry about it too much from a legal standpoint. The G19 is so ubiquitous that I can't see this being a permanent mark against it (and as noted, Cho used a G19 in the VT shootings; I haven't heard of the gun picking up a negative reputation as a result).

Then again, this is yet another reason I'm glad to live in a state with strong castle doctrine laws. So long as you meet the legal criteria for employing deadly force in self-defense, it doesn't really matter how you go about it. It's always struck me as somewhat bemusing that people are forced to worry about being too deadly with their deadly force in states with weaker protections.

[TCinVA]

If the question is: "Can using a particular firearm, particular type of ammunition, or particular piece of equipment become an issue of inappropriate focus in the aftermath of a shooting?", then the answer is yes, there's always the potential for that to happen. In the chain of responding officer/investigator/prosecuting attorney/juror there is the potential for a particularly dim bulb (or multiple dim bulbs) to produce a ridiculous outcome.

As an example, I know of a situation where a drug dealer caught red handed with a grow operation, almost $50K worth of buds, and a computer full of intricate documentation showing every step of the grow from seed to bud as well as bank records (meaning that just about everything the dude owned was subject to forfeiture) get prosecuted only for destroying evidence because he cut down some of his plants when he saw the drug taskforce chopper had spotted his grow. The misdemeanor charge carried a court fine so low that the locality where this happened actually ended up paying more to replace the cracked screen on the dealer's iMac than they took in with the fine.

Why did this situation happen? Because the prosecuting attorney was a *****CENSORED******.

I know of another situation where a man broke into someone's house after an argument earlier in the day, picked up a christmas tree type object and began beating the woman who lived in the residence in the head and face with it....while she was nursing an infant. The woman and the infant both suffered multiple lacerations to their faces and scalp. The male resident of the house saw this and tried to intervene. The intruder, who outweighed the man by 100 pounds, grabbed him and carried him into the kitchen by his neck. The male resident grabbed a kitchen knife and used it...resulting in a dead intruder. The male resident was charged with manslaughter.

Why did this situation happen? Because the prosecuting attorney (different one than above) was a ******CENSORED******.

Could a particularly dim bulb notice that you used a Glock 19, the same weapon as the Tuscon murderer and try to somehow twist that into making you look like the same homicidal maniac even though you used force in complete accordance with the jurisprudence on self defense in your area? Certainly. They could try. It would be relatively easy, however, for you to point out other users of the Glock 19, like the NYPD (they issue it as a sidearm), US Army Special Forces units, and even (don't ask me how I know this) porn star Bree Olsen. You could point to various forum discussions where the Glock 19 is called essentially the default recommendation for a concealed carry firearm. If you're really clever and know the right people you might even be able to point out that the commonwealth attorney for your area has a Glock 19, too.

In the end, it is highly unlikely that deciding to purchase or use a Glock 19 will turn a good shoot into a bad one, or that it will cause you to face a significantly more unpleasant investigation than use of a gun that nobody has ever misused in an incident with some publicity attached to it. If those things are happening then the odds are they are happening because you are dealing with a miserable walking pile of ******CENSORED******* in one of those previously mentioned positions, and that you would be equally screwed no matter what you used. When you look at case law, the central issues tend to be the justifications for the use of force rather than the details of exactly what tool was used in the act. I've yet to see a single instance of a good shoot turned into a bad one because of the weapon used, the ammo used, or the fact that the weapon was customized in some way.

Your equipment choices could potentially require a defense, so it is a good idea to have a few handy just in case. As an example, if your town paper does an article on the police department getting shiny new AR-15 rifles for patrol and lists all the reasons why those weapons are desirable, and if you intend to use your AR-15 for home defense, it would be good to clip that article and keep it handy somewhere. If you are forced to shoot an intruder to protect yourself and some dimwit from the department or in the prosecuting attorney's office gets all high and mighty about the fact that you shot the poor unfortunate would-be-rapist with an "assault rifle" you can trot out the article you read where the professionals listed all the benefits of the AR.

...and, well golly, if the cops use them they must be good, right? After all, they aren't some blend of Rambo and Tackleberry just looking for an excuse to gun someone down with this weapon of mass destruction...they were using them because of the reasons that officer X from the department outlined in the article. So you thought that if the "professionals" use them, then they must be just the ticket for you.

[joshs]

The fact that a gun used in self-defense happened to be of the same type as a gun used in a mass shooting would not be a relevant fact in a trial for the result of the defensive action. A good defense attorney should object to any line of questioning that attempts to bring the "mass shooting facts" into evidence.

[YVK]

TC, great post as usual, and I've never seen Bree Olsen, but I can't help but ask: how do you know?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

?It would be relatively easy, however, for you to point out other users of the Glock 19, like the NYPD (they issue it as a sidearm), US Army Special Forces units, and even (don't ask me how I know this) porn star Bree Olsen.


Sorry, but this needs to be explored.

How do you know?:D

[MTechnik]

Sorry, but this needs to be explored.

How do you know?:D

TIGER BLOOD DRIPS FROM HIS FANGS. HE IS A WINNER. A WARRIOR.

(charlie sheen joke)

[orionz06]

Sorry, but this needs to be explored.

How do you know?:D

Bree is a firearms enthusiast for certain. She does interviews often for a local radio station when she feature dances.

[TCinVA]

Sorry, but this needs to be explored.

How do you know?:D

I'll give you multiple choice and you can decide.

Did TC know this because:

A. He saw her buy the pistol at a gun shop
B. He assisted with the forensic examination of a laptop that included lots of Ms. Olsen's "work", including a digital rip of an interview she did on the Howard Stern show where she mentioned purchasing the Glock to defend herself against a stalker
C. TC is actually Charlie Sheen

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Ah.

Well.

I guess I'll have to buy something she was featured in. Gotta support 2nd amendment friendly entertainers...

[Kyle Reese]

Very interesting discussion, to be sure. :cool:

To the OP: If one is legally able to own and carry a handgun for self defence, a Glock 19 is a fine choice. It is one of the most widely distributed and used handguns in the United States, as well as Europe.

If I was so inclined, I'd purchase (another) Glock 19 without a second thought into the matter.

The amount of bovine excrement produced by gunshops is at the point where one almost wants to wear ear pro in them. 99% of what you hear in said establishments is either fabrication, embellishment, rumour mongering or just plain BS.

As others may have mentioned, if one is involved in a "bad" shoot, the use of a Glock 19 will be the least of one's worries at that point.

TC- I'm going to go with choice A....... Am I right? :)

[David Marlow]

So many G19s are sold every year already, your purchase doesn't mean anything, even if it is part of a spike in sales. For the record, I don't know if there was a spike in G19 sales after the shooting or not.

Now, if you went out and bought a G19 with a couple 33 round mags, then maybe someone would notice.