Talk:Glock 19/Archive 1

GLOCK vs. Glock

Discussion on this topic here. As of late there isn't much in the way of variety where the discussion participants are concernd, so I'm posting this as an FYI to those who maybe aren't watching the Glock article. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

in american history

With all this talk about the Assault Weapons Ban, there is no text in this article about whether the Glock 19 was or was not affected by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Can someone add this in, with a reference? Npatwari 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

if you add the VT gunman used this, then consider adding the other 50 years worth of information with it. 151.199.192.113 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, merely slapping that line at the end of the description on this article and the P22 article is most inappropriate. Authors, please correct this asap (I am looking at you, DanMP5 and MiFeinberg). It bears very little relevance to the subject of the article, and it's only possible relevance would be in the context of other incidents. --Jmeden2000 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed per consensus reached for Beretta Cx4 Storm (see its talk page). Yaf 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, thanks --Jmeden2000 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles about the guns used in the Columbine shooting and the guns used to kill JFK and President McKinley mention those people's deaths. Why not mention it here. Are these articles restricted to the technical aspects of the guns and their manufacture? I don't think so. MiFeinberg 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine. Similarly for the Carcano rifle that assassinated Pres. JFK that led directly to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which led to the ban on ordering weapons across state lines by private citizens. Both firearms received considerable media attention and subsequent legislative attention, by name. As the Glock 19 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the Glock 19 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the Glock 19 article should be added in a few months. Meanwhile, it is just trivia to include it here now. Of course, the Glock 19 and Walther P22 should both be mentioned with wiki-links linked to the respective firearms articles in the VT Massacre article. Does this make sense? Yaf 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that in order for this article to mention VT massacre, the Glock 19 will have to receive media attention and be banned? How is it trivial to mention this weapon when it was used to kill perhaps 32 people? The event itself is not trivail -- we can agree on that. As this weapon played an important part in a terrible tragedy -- largest massacre in American history -- doesn't it deserve mentioning here? Astruc 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it's trivial. First of all, there were two guns bought and perhaps he used the .22 Walther rather than the Glock. Secondly, was there any particular reason he would have used this gun beyond any other? It seems almost any handgun could have been used with the same result. Does the article about, for instance, the Cadillac Deville mention the many people that have been killed in the Deville in crashes over the years? No, because they basically could have been in any car and died. However, if there is a special defect in the Deville that causes crashes or has prompted a lawsuit, that would warrant mention. If there is a particular reason that comes to light why he used this gun or any special effect or result it had on the shootings beyond any other gun, it should be included but not until then.-Gloriamarie 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think those people were shot up that badly with a .22 you have no business playing any part in editing a page about firearms.

Without a source, that would be considered original research, and if I conducted it, I would have no place editing on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yaf, it is just trivia right now.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it is triva so far --MoRsE 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beretta Cx4 Storm precedent over the Dawson College shooting isn't applicable. In that relatively shooting at a minority-language high-school near Montreal there was only one death, and will quickly be forgotten. This is more comparable to an earlier Montreal shooting - the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where 14 university students were massacred in a fairly similiar shooting. In that case a Mini-14 was used, and that information has been on the Mini-14 page for a long time. Nfitz 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Ruger Mini-14 was mentioned by name in the AWB, too. Media and legislative attention, in some cases promulgated by Bill Ruger himself in the form of his promoting limited capacity magazines in response to media attention, means that it should be mentioned on the Mini-14 page. There is no media or legislative attention being paid to the Glock 19 and Walther P22, yet. If it comes to pass that the weapons used at VT draw significant attention, then full mention should be included in the articles (Glock 19 and Walther P22, respectively) at that time. It is adequate at this time to just have wiki-links in the VT Massacre article to the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles, respectively. Yaf 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give any serious attention to the AWB, but I tend to doubt that a shooting in Canada had any significant impact on US legislation. It did of course have a major impact on Canadian gun laws, however. Redxiv 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - mentioning the weapon by name in local legislation has no meaning in itself. A simple, neutral, one-line reference shouldn't be an issue. Nfitz 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would favour the deletion of the reference - but if it is to stay in, it should be neutral. I changed 'misuse' to 'notable use'. Misuse implies the gun was used for something it wasn't designed for.SeanCollins 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the reference is unnecessary and trivial. When adding a cross-reference of that type, the question of whether it goes in or not should be this: Does the cross-referenced content have a bearing on the subject of the article it is to be referenced from? In this case, the answer is no. The Virginia Tech murders have not yet had a bearing on the Glock 19, whether you look at its history or current status. By contrast, the Glock 19 did have a bearing on the murders, and this article is appropriately linked from that one. Columbine had a direct effect on the history and status of the Tec-9, and bears mention in that article. Cory Lidle's crash had a direct effect on the history of the Cirrus SR20 (specifically, his crash bears on the aircraft's safety as a specific example of a type of crash that its parachute system cannot help). Lizzie Borden did not have an effect on the history or status of hatchets, however, and therefore, just like with the Glock 19 and the Virginia Tech murders, a bidirectional reference of the magnitude used here is not warranted. Ari 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

50 years, 151.199.192.113? The Glock 19 has only existed for 17 years. Redxiv 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should mention Cho Seung Hui and his notable use of the Glock 19. As as counterpoint to Ari, let me give you the example of the hiroshima bombing. When you look up B29 Superfortress, they mention the Enola Gay and its role in the atomic bombing. Similarly, this is probably the most famous use of a Glock 19 and a bidirectional reference should be made.

Next time try to sign your comments. Also, this is ridiculous. Atomic bombs and G19s are not remotely comparable. Thousands of people have been killed by thousands of handguns; 2 atomic bombs have been used. That's a very overt difference. If the VT killings are referenced here, it sets a precedent that could clutter some articles far beyond what is necessary or acceptable. My thoughts on this are somewhat disorganized, but the point is that this should definitely not happen. -  Ennuified  talk  01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

COMPROMISE: Here's a compromise. Yaf, Gloriamarie, DanMP5, and Ari believe including mention of the use of the Glock in the Virginia Tech Massacre is "trivial" (their exact words). Let's create a Trivia section and put a notice of the events in Virginia there. Many, many Wikipedia articles have trivia sections. MiFeinberg 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would accept such a compromise. Keep it to a minimum and 100% neutral. Also, in response to SeanCollins, this was indeed a misuse. Glock designs pistols for military, police, and personal defense. No company designs pistols for murder. Ari 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is counter to Wikipedia policy; see WP:AVTRIV. The goal is to make an encyclopedia, not a set of cards for a game of trivial pursuit. Yaf 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Baloney. Include it. It is notable. If trivia were counter to Wikipedia policy, you would be busy deleting hundreds of pages about obscure Star Trek characters instead of splitting hairs over whether to include something that is in every major news media outlet in the country right now.

I think the best thing to do is wait a few months, and if the G19 gets alot of attention, add a sentence about the VT shootings somewhere in the article then. Also is there not a tag or something to put on the article that reads "please read talk page before editing", just wondering.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me Dan? Wait a few months? What for? Are we writing some permanent archive etched in stone? This is utterly ridiculous. We should keep it (always better to have more info than less since we are not constrained by word limits) for a few months until history proves us otherwise. Your stubborn refusal is ridiculous. Its better to err on the side of having more info, not less. 65.246.43.221 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To see if the VT shootings have any effect on the G19's status (like the Tec-9 which got banned because of columbine), and it would be almost impossible to ban the G19. If it doesn't change anything about the G19, then mentioning the shootings would just be trivial.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I slightly modified the format of you're comment to make it readable.

Well, a Trivia section is counter to wikipedia style guidelines but the trivial facts themselves are not. What is trivial to one is a key fact to someone else. The goal is to incorporate the facts into a readable article and not as a separate section of disjointed facts. Desidogg 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC);

Funny. This article discusses whether you can fire the gun underwater. Is that trivial or not? Yet many editors don't want the article to say that the gun was one of two used in the most deadly mass killing in American history. Where's your priorities, boys and girls? 71.139.37.225 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ability to be fired underwater is a technical description of the weapon's capabilities. It is unique to this gun. What is not unique to this gun is its ability to be used to kill. All guns share this feature. 129.237.2.66 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ability for this weapon to be fired underwater is unique. Many weapons cannot be safely fired underwater. Also, Half-Life (the game) showed this weapon having underwater capabilities. Our priorities are to useful information about this weapon, not trivia. Rabbit994 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the underwater firing is a myth. Doing so will ruin the gun, period. As such it is a myth that is in the article and disproved. But it is more important to the gun.--LWF 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of that is present. According to other pages, you can use the gun underwater is proper training and equipment modifications however only G17 is suppose to able to accomplish this. I think current mention of this is accurate.

Funny how the the most deadly shooting in US history is trivial. Since its trivial, we can delete the VT shooting page. Alyeska 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're letting emotions play on your additions to Wikipedia. If we were to start adding references to every awful thing that has happened with a weapon we would end up with pages of links. There has been plenty example above on why it would be a bad idea to include reference to the VT shootings, and I agree with them. It was terrible what has happened, but there is no reason to start mucking up articles with trivial information because of emotion. -JE 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So the deadliest shooting in US history is trivial. This is nothing about emotion right now. Its about context. These two pistols were used in the single deadliest shooting in US history and the second deadliest school attack. The event itself is already spawning gun control debate. The information is not trivial by any means. Alyeska 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see people calling the Virginia Tech massacre trivial, so you can stop accusing people of that right now. The weapons will be mentioned on the article regarding the massacre, which is absolutely fine, but this article is about the Glock 19, not every madman that uses a Glock 19 to kill people. Gamer Junkie 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Glock19, which will also include its historical moments. And you are accusing it of being trivial. Your saying "every madman" in an attempt to trivialize the situation. The VT incident isn't "every madman", its the most deadly shooting in US history. FYI, the gun that killed JFK has a mention. Thats just another madman, so go delete the JFK mention why don't you. Alyeska 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you. Stop telling me what I am and am not saying because, frankly, I'm getting pissed off with you assuming that nobody here gives a shit about the deaths of these people. If you're going to assume that, just because most of the people here own or use guns, they laugh at something like this, you're incredibly ignorant. If you're a gun user yourself, then you should know better. Also, this article is not about the history of gun usage or the history of massacres, any weapon could've been used to kill those people. If it wasn't a Glock, it would have been a Beretta, if it wasn't a Beretta, it would've been a Colt. There's nothing unique about the Glock that was used in the killings other than the fact that it killed people like all guns do, thus, it is of no consequence to this particular article. If you wish to inform people of the gun used in the massacre, do so on the Virginia Tech massacre article. That's where the information is appropriate. Gamer Junkie 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So rather then address any of my points you continue to ignore them. JFK could have been killed by a M14 or a M1, but he wasn't. The Glock19 is what was used. Stop making excuses. Alyeska 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he couldn't have used an M1 or an M14. You'd have to be a decent marksmen to have pulled that shot off with an infantry rifle in the 60s. Oswald's sniper rifle was a key factor in the success of the assassination. The fact that Cho used a Glock 19 instead of a Beretta 92 or a SIG Pro makes absolutely no difference at all. That being said, I still don't find sufficient reason for a specific murder to be mentioned above any others in the Carcano's article. The event has nothing to do with the weapon itself and it shouldn't be in there. Gamer Junkie 22:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He could have used any number of guns, but this is the one he used. There are many precedents on wikipedia for mentioning in gun articles when the gun was used in major events. For example, the Carcano article mentions the JFK assassination. Astruc 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned above. Such reference should not be a part of the Carcano article and I believe the only reason it is is due to the fact that the image being used is of Oswald's own rifle. Why do we need mention the Virginia Tech massacre in an article about a weapon? The Port Arthur massacre isn't mentioned in the AR-15's article, which had an even higher casualty rate than the Virginia incident last week. This article is about a gun, not a crime, regardless of how horrific that crime was. The gun should be mentioned in the article about the massacre because it played a major role in the events of that day, but the crime should not be mentioned here, because this is an article about the Glock 19 firearm, not what crimes have been committed with it. Gamer Junkie 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because it was an extremely notable use of the Glock 19, and this specific weapon being used in the massacre has been widely reported in the media. Redxiv 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the incident is notable (which I agree it is), it should be in an article about notable crimes. The Vtech massacre is notable to a specific category, that category is not Wikipedia's firearms project. Here it's notable. Here it's notable. Here it's notable. Here it's notable. It is not suitable for this article because the crime was in no way unique to this weapon. There was nothing specifically unique about this weapon which enabled Cho to achieve his intentions, and that would be the only reason a crime would be notable on an article about a firearm. Gamer Junkie 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Carcano is mentioned not because of the picture, but because IT KILLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You know, IT WAS A NOTABLE EVENT. But maybe thats a little to complex a thought to fathom. That its not mentioned on the AR15 page is irrelevant. We have established precedent. And by that precedent it should be mentioned on the AR15 page. Alyeska 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So my argument, which is just as valid, is irrelevant? Right. Come back when you've cooled your jets, you're obviously not in any state to discuss this properly. Gamer Junkie 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Try making a rational argument instead of a knee jerk one. Your logic absolutely fails. It can be applied to more then just gun articles and you refuse to acknowledge this. Alyeska 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I refuse to acknowledge is the relevance of one specific massacre to an article about a pistol. You also didn't answer the question. Gamer Junkie 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevance? Oh, I don't know, maybe its because the pistol was used in that incident and its a highly notable incident. Alyeska 19:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point? Massacres happen all over the world, with all manner of guns. They are not unique to America and they are not unique to the Glock 19 pistol. Try again. Gamer Junkie

I reverted one of the edits as I believe trivia does not belong in a page dedicated to one particular firearm. If we started listing crimes involving certain firearms, their pages would include nothing other than massive lists of when they were used in lethal force. A precedent has to be set early to prevent this from occurring. If people wish to mention 'crimes involving X weapon', then should create another page and see what the community consensus is on it. My opinion. Illusive Formula 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A precedent has already been set. Both the weapon used to kill JFK and one of the primary weapons used in the Columbine incident have mentions. And this isn't any single incident, its the most deadly shooting in US history. This is more then a single small incident or a list of small incidents. Alyeska 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Large scale, small scale, it's not even a factor here, because the massacre is completely off-topic, nothing to do with this pistol. I'm tempted to go over to the articles for the weapons used by the Columbine boys and clean it up since you're using their page as an excuse to put pointless information here. I would've already removed the mention about JFK from the Carcano's article were they not using a picture of Oswald's rifle as an image reference. There are no mentions of the most deadly massacres in other parts of the world in other firearms articles, why U.S. shootings appear to be exempt from this rule is beyond me. Just read your addition, Alyeska, read the article with your mention of Cho and the Vtech massacre and you'll see that your information does not logically fit anywhere. It completely stands out from the bulk of the article because it's so pointlessly irrelevant to this weapon. People are going to read it and say "Why is this here? Why the Vtech massacre over every other massacre in the world? What was the point of that?" Gamer Junkie 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again with the red herrings. The Oswald and JFK mention isn't because Oswald is holding the rifle. Its because it killed The President Of The United States. Part of the reason other atrocities don't get mentioned is because of frequency. The AK47 is used to kill hundreds of people every day. Mass shootings do not occure in Western nations very frequelty. That said, it could be argued that the AK47 could be listed as the most deadly weapon in world history as more people have died by the AK47 then any other gun in the world. And that would cover a majority of the world shootings. And again with the BS off topic claims. The September 11th mentions in the Boeing 757 page is off topic by your claims. And a little FYI. I have never edited this Wiki page. So its not mine. And people aren't so stupid as you claim them to be. Alyeska 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I accuse anybody of being stupid? What a ridiculous accusation. Anyway, so basically what you're saying is that a massacre that occurs in Mexico doesn't matter as much as a massacre that occurs in America? Certainly that's what I've suspected you were thinking all along, after all, I don't see you campaigning for the inclusion of far greater massacres in other firearms articles. I guess if they're not American, they don't really matter, huh? I suppose I see now why we've got so many pointless mentions of American incidents in off-topic articles and no mention of incidents occurring anywhere else in the world. Obviously, the rest of us don't matter. If I had any respect for your opinion before, I certainly don't now because you've made your point very clear - worst shooting in AMERICAN history - can't let that go without mention, can we? Gamer Junkie 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine a massacare perpetrated by a relative handful of people. Mentioning the Darfur massacares wouldn't qualify as it is done by thousands of people and thousands of unknown guns. More red herrings from the peanut gallery. Alyeska 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm through discussing anything further with you. Gamer Junkie 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So you won't actualy back up your own position. If you find me an incident that fits your criteria, I will add a mention to the appropriate pages. As it stands, I know of no specific incidents and thus cannot add information. So put up or shut up. Alyeska 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove reference to Virginia Tech. All gun control action I've seeing both Federally and State wide in Virginia is related to how Cho with his mental convictions was able to buy the gun. As of now, Glock 19 doesn't seem to be facing any specific action against it. Rabbit994 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

Please calm the discussion down and lay off the hostility, everyone. Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Asams10's latest edit summary asked: "So, then are you saying that Cho really didn't use a Glock 19?" Certainly not! What I am saying is that consensus has established that that detail is not appropriate for the Glock 19 article. No one would dispute that Cho used a hat, or a vest, or the United States Postal Service (to mail his manifesto), but I'm sure we could agree that inserting him into those articles would be inappropriate as well. In his most recent edit summary before the one quoted above, Asams10 asked: "Would everybody PLEASE take this to the discussion and stop playing the revert war?" People took it to discussion, and consensus on the discussion page is contrary to the most recent revert. Does this advice no longer apply just because it didn't result in the desired outcome? PubliusFL 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this subject would even qualify for mention to begin with. It's not the worst massacre in the the U.S. and it's not the worst shooting in the world. It's the worst shooting in the U.S., sure, but every country in the world has had a worst shooting event and some point. Even were we to include a massacre in an article about a weapon, this particular event would appear as a random inclusion of a crime of this type. Not that it qualifies as relevant to begin with. Gamer Junkie 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page for the Walther P22 shows about an even split on inclusion. There is absolutely no concensus on removing it and, reading through the talk here, no concensus here either. Are you ignoring the debate or just ignoring those posts that you disagree with. As with the precedents set in dozens of other firearms articles, notable infamous usage of a firearm is perfectly appropriate and, I think, proper. Take a look at that discussion, I give a handful of examples. I'm not sure what agenda you're pushing, Gamer Junkie, or GameJunkieJim, whatever your name is, but there is no concensus. Removing content when half the people who responded wanted it to stay flies in the face of logic.--Asams10 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GameJunkieJim? I've only ever gone by Gamer Junkie on Wikipedia due to my most prominent inclusions being in the computer and video game project section. And I'm not pushing any agenda of any kind, I'm simply attempting to enforce Wikipedia's rules which include articles containing information of relevance. I'd like to know why you're so interested in making this addition, actually, as you've just said that notable usage should be relevant. I've already stated just above that this event isn't even that when compared to others. Whilst it's certainly a horrible incident with many casualties, it is surpassed by many other massacres (including in the U.S) on scale and mortality. So what's so notable about this particular incident? Gamer Junkie 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, knock it off. There have been 3RR violations all around and I'm tempted to block every editor who's added or removed the information, but really the only way this is going to get resolved is with discussion, and you can't do that when blocked. I'm putting full protection on the article, and it's not coming off until you've got a consensus here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been careful to observe 3RR and encourage participation in discussion. Contrary to what Asams10 concluded from reading through this talk page, I believe there IS consensus here. Over 10 days of discussion, 24 editors have commented on whether the VT shootings should be mentioned in this article or not. I count 15 opposing such a mention (myself, Jmeden2000, Yaf, Gloriamarie, DanMP5, MoRsE, Ari, Ennuified, JE, GamerJunkie, Illusive Formula, Rabbit994, SeanCollins, 192.237.2.66, and 151.199.192.113), and 9 supporting such a mention (MiFeinberg, Astruc, Nfitz, Alyeska, Redxiv, 65.246.43.221, 71.139.37.225, and 4.225.126.253 - the last having made unsigned comments only). That's 13 registered editors against 6 registered editors. Considering that abuses of this article by anon IPs were considered sufficient reason for semi-protection before now, I think it's reasonable to give less weight to the anon IPs. And over 68% of registered users ought to be considered a reasonable consensus. I think it's at least enough to justify removing the controversial language while discussion continues, and I therefore request that an admin make that change. PubliusFL 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Add me to against including a mention (14:6 registered editors). If anyone seriously disputes this count please speak up. Georgewilliamherbert 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are several others who changed the article one way or the other w/o participating in the flame war above. LWF is one more against; some more who were for including it are there, too, but I haven't got the time to make a list at the moment. Someone should review the edit history back to the 17th. Georgewilliamherbert 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected LWF opposed the mention, but tried to only count comments that were fairly clear (which excluded most of the discussion about Glocks firing underwater). I only counted people who expressed their opinion on the talk page because 1) that's what you're supposed to do, and being a good sport should be rewarded, and 2) it's a heck of a lot easier. ;-) PubliusFL 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not chiming in sooner, Georgewilliamherbert is correct, I am opposed to the mention.--LWF 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

12 pound NYPD connectors?

The section 1 Detail has the following passage.

"Two notable units that use a modified Glock 19 as a standard service pistol are the New York Police Department, which has 12 pound NYPD connectors in its pistols;..."

What in the world is a 12 pound NYPD connector? I understand that "12 pounds" relate to the trigger release point measured in pound of pull. I also understand that a "connector" is the internal lockwork device(s) that connect the trigger with the sear transmitting the pulling motion to the sear and/or the hammer or striker cocking device in a double-action pistol. 12 pounds of pull sounds like a high amount of effort. I would expect about 8 pounds in a double-action mode.--TGC55 13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be a reference to the "New York Trigger", which approximately requires 12 pounds of pressure. This link may help understanding it: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/new_york_trigger/ -- Kguirnela 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The link that you indicated explains the "New York Trigger" which appears to be the same as a "12 pound NYPD connector".--TGC55 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached

With 14 editors against inclusion and 5 for inclusion (unregistered editors do not count, per wikipedia policy), there is a clear consensus against inclusion. Thus, the link has been removed. Do not reinsert it again when the protection has lifted, that will qualify as disruptive editing and may lead to community sanctions. Also, the astounding lack of civility on these discussions is shameful. Further incivility will not be tolerated on this article. It's about time this edit warring stops, or some editors here are going to find themselves unable to edit real soon. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is far from reached. Try the P22 thread. These two are linked and if you take into account their votes, there is no consensus. Alyeska 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the P22 article is a completely different article. It doesn't work that way. Just because you disagree, does not give you the ability to override consensus. And, for the record, if the two articles were combined, consensus would still be towards removing the information: the P22 page is split right down the middle, this one is heavily favored towards removing. Basic math. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Different article, identical subject mater. VTech shooting being mentioned in the gun article. Largely the same people, except not all of the keep crowd considered coming over to this article. Alyeska 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this demonstrates that the same argument can be made on multiple pages. For ease of convience I am going to conduct all future discussion in the notice/incidents discussion.Alyeska 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact: The GLOCK 19 did not leap from it's hiding place and kill people, and until it does, the VT shootings have no business in an article about an inanimate object. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact: the Glock 19 was used in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. That bears mention in this article. Griot 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It bears mentioning in the Virginia Tech article, where it already is. Fact: More people are shot every month with a Glock 19 than in the Virginia Tech incident due to its adoption by police and military forces throughout the world. The VT incident has nothing to do with the history of the gun. It earns mention in the VT article, it does not follow that it works the other way around. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The decision here has already been made. Gamer Junkie 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. —AldeBaer 09:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can, but it has not yet done so, and at this point is not likely to do so. For the record, the result of the P22 article was no consensus: defaults to exclude, ending up with the same result (though by different means) as this article.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Add me to the "against" side. I'm against inclusion in the article unless more attention is focused on the Glock 19 in particular, possibly with attempts made to ban it. --Gloriamarie 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find this consensus that you say has been reached. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus does not mean a majority vote. Thus "14 editors against inclusion and 5 for inclusion" (assuming that's an accurate count) does not necessarily mean consensus has bee reached. Redxiv 07:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Magazine Capacity

Under magazine capacity, it lists 15/17/19/33 which all technically true but to get 17 you would have to use Glock 19 magazine with +2 extensions OR Glock 17 mag. To get 19, it would have to be Glock 17 with +2 extensions. Should we list all possible capacities or stick to capacity using factory provided magazines? I'm personally in favor of only listing magazine sizes that are provided by factory that will work with gun unmodified. If we use factory provided magazines, it would 10/15/17/33. 10 round magazines are still in production for people living in Assault weapon states and 33 round magazines are available from Glock. Rabbit994 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it likely should only include factory provided magazines. There easily could be some person out there who makes a 500 round magazine, but that wouldn't realistically be a true reflection of the weapon's magazine capacity. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

When article comes out of unprotect and there doesn't seem to be any objection, I'll be editing to show magazine capacity of GLock 19 limited to factory unmodified magazines. For Glock 19, that's 10/15/17/33 Rabbit994 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be unprotecting either tomorrow or the next day. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)