Talk:Glock/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent edit 2

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "convert list to prose; WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the many improvements! Just a couple things; the Model comparison chart was the only location of some technical information for several models, if the chart remains absent I think that information ought to be integrated back into the article in other sections. Also, was there any particular reason to remove the Regional variants and Training variants sections? It seems to me those could have been kept. - Mr.1032 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The model comparison chart was unsourced and struck me too much as WP:CATALOG. If readers want to do model comparisons, that's what manufacturer's website is for. The content in the other two sections was sourced to blogs / personal websites, again: too much intricate detail cited to non-RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In an article about a company that manufacturers and markets a line of pistols that is used by so many police and military organizations around the world, and sold to so many millions of civilians, that it's beyond notable, but you feel that listing the different models and calibers is somehow prohibited by WP policy? You really believe an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain this kind of info? Can the GM or Toyota articles here list the different models of cars and trucks they have? Can they list the different engines available? Or does this strike you as too much as WP:CATALOG? If reader's want to do model comparisons, that's what the automaker's websites are for...? Do you also feel that such large sections of articles should be removed based on a single editor's opinion? And your comment about "What the readers want"... isn't what we're here for? I could swear I saw that "it's what the readers want" was an argument for adding the "criminal use" sections to firearms articles, but if they want any info about the article subject itself, or it's legitimate use, they must go elsewhere? Anyway, please don't take anything personal from this, I'm just curious about some of the edits you've been making and the reasoning for them. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There clearly should have been a conversation about such a substantial content removal. Or at least or tag first. These actions seem to be following a pattern. -72bikers (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with editing an article. However I also saw substantial (sourced) content removal without conversation or an attempt to otherwise restore it. I suggest K.e.coffman starts restoring the removed content. I miss the model table that presents such information more clearly than a firearms infobox with dimensional information of 10⁺ variants and the structure of the removed second generation caption.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Content in question

Here's some of the content that was indeed cited to 3rd party sources (rather than being cited to the company itself or uncited):

• The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, Pakistani, and perhaps several South American security forces. They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety. An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.
• The Glock 17Pro version is produced exclusively for the Finnish market. It has these alterations from the standard Glock 17: factory tritium night sights, an extended, threaded barrel, marine spring cups, modified magazine release, extended slide stop lever (factory standard in newer models), extended +2 magazine baseplates, 15.5 N (3.5 lb_f) connector, and factory Glock pouch.
• The Glock 19 Canadian Edition was introduced at SHOT show 2018 and released to market in March 2018 as a Gen4 Glock 19 with a 106mm barrel to meet Canadian legal requirements for pistol barrel length. The Canadian Edition pistol features a laser-inscribed maple leaf on the right side of the slide, near the muzzle. All other features of the pistol are identical to the standard Glock 19 Gen4.

References

The sources include:

• http://www.cominolli.com - a commercial website
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080111003651/http://www.glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s - a personal website
• http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ - a blog
• http://www.guns.com/ - a blog / commercial website

Here's the diff in question, if there's anything I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are entirely appropriate for basic specification. It is neither subjective or controversial content such as the performance or the lack thereof. -15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)72bikers (talk)

It's excessive intricate detail cited to non-independent and / or self-published sources; encyclopedia articles are not product catalogues or indiscriminate collections of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That is just your interpretation. You do realize not all share your views, and by denying compromise you are denying consensus.-72bikers (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Overpressure

At Glock § Development, it says the overpressure test is 5000 bar, but the source and NATO EPVAT testing § Proofing both say 25% overpressure, which is 3150 bar. Where did 5000 come from? (It was added 9 years ago by blocked user Koalorka) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Local police departments

Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - Mr.1032 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree... it should be limited to state and federal entities in the US. (my opinion) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can make it as simple as that. The NYPD has 40,000 officers, the Glock 17 & 19 are among their issued sidearms, and they are a 'local' police department. Yet they are larger than pretty much any state or federal LE agency, so how do you not include them? If the department is notable enough to have their own article, they use the Glock and there is RS supporting that, there is no reason to not include them. The article is not overly long and WP is not made of paper. - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, that's a great point and example. I suppose I'd suggest maybe not including so many departments without RS? All the federal agencies, most of the state agencies, and the major departments (like NYPD, CPD, and so on) ought to be easy to source, and undoubtedly belong in the list. Could we go ahead and start removing a couple of the more obscure items, or are there any other thoughts? - Mr.1032 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some criteria for inclusion based on WP:WEIGHT. Why do we include four small cities in Virginia out of the "60% of police departments" that use Glocks? RS coverage is a basic requirement in any case and a Wikipedia article about the police department would be a good simple litmus test. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.1032: I've seen similar lists this take a hard line; "no ref, no go" - any entry without a source gets removed. Some guys will notice, try to re-add, but when they see thats how it is now, they usually find a source quick enough. I wouldn't oppose going in that direction with this list. Remove all the unsourced entries, then add suppressed advisories that any entry without a ref will be immediately removed. The list should start to improve after that. I did this with the List of United States Navy SEALs (any entry without a parent article, as in red-link or no link, must have an attached ref, and it worked pretty well. Not the same as here, but similar, I'm sure you get the idea. I wouldn't impose that on this list on my own though. If some other editors agree and there's no objections however, then we should probably give it a go. - ^theWOLFchild 03:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a basic rule around here, content must be verifiable and unsourced statements can be removed without controversy if no source is to be found. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the local police departments per this discussion. Please discuss any concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

3 new 9MM entries needed

For the Glock 19X, Glock 43X, and Glock 48. 173.171.238.16 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Expert? Say who. - Clarify in case of confusion

It occurred to me as I hit submit that my edit summary may be misconstrued as meaning "says who". I added a tag so that someone could say who these experts were. I am not challenging that experts said it. Refer WP:WEASEL for why phrases such as "scholars say" are generally inappropriate, and particularly inappropriate in controversial circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE tag, crime section

I've tagged the section just added to the article as undue. I don't believe those advocating inclusion have shown sufficient weight for inclusion based on the discussions above. Springee (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Springee The Criminal use section added in this edit seems to meet your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, "WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company", keeping in mind that this article is about Glock pistols and not just Glock the company. Could you elaborate on your objections? –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I was concerned about the quality of the articles and their basically content free nature. As is I would oppose inclusion but I'll use the tag so others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "content free", and what are your specific concerns about the quality? All three go into detail about why the guns may be chosen by mass shooters and the controversy regarding their legality. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Two of the sources are the ones discussed above. The new source is about calls for new gun laws after a mass shooting. It only mentions the word "Glock" once to identify the gun used in a particular crime. Even if we keep the section that particular source would fail by test above because it isn't at all about "Glock". Springee (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the first two sources were discussed above, but your arguments such as "The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral." and "...offers no significant insight or understanding" do not seem to be based on existing policy or thorough evaluation of the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Starting a new discussion on the same issue, is just another attempt at forum shopping. The above discussion is 2 for and 4 against inclusion of a criminal use section.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@RAF910: It's not a vote, and you have yet to contribute substantially to any discussion on this page. Do you have a specific objection to the content? Comments such as "the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.", when no reason has been previously stated and none was given upon request, do not contribute to consensus. Regarding your forum shopping accusation, the new content is an attempt to address concerns raised in previous discussions such as "If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense." There seems to have been a shift in the location of the goalposts. dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Springee, but that little three-sentence section is so short in comparison to the rest of the article, and its content relatively well-sourced with reliable sources, that this tag is too much for my taste. I thought some long list had been reinstated, but this content, meh. Now, a discussion of the sources etc. would be welcome, of course, but I don't see (on this talk page) many valid objections against this short, short, short note. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My issue is two fold. First, I don't think we have shown DUE with the 3 references. One fails the "about Glock" criteria that I suggested above. VICE is just generally a low quality, long on hype, low on substance source. Their gun coverage is little more than click bait. The WP is the only one that I would put in the RS about Glocks area. So at that point we have just a single source. I supported including the crime material in the AR-15 article because there is just so many articles discussing AR-15's and their use in mass shootings. Right or wrong, the volume from RSs is there. In this case we have just one RS and one low quality article. That isn't much to go on. The second issue is what did we add that was encyclopedic? Glocks are common, reliable, relatively affordable pistols. Nothing in that article suggested Glock was doing anything that made their guns particularly appealing to mass shooters nor that they were particularly deadly compared to the many other modern semi-auto pistols on the market. When discussing why police departments converted from revolvers to Glocks its easy to cite the attributes of the Glock pistols vs revolvers that made them popular with police departments (Reliable, easy to operate for officers who aren't gun enthusiasts, first mover advantage in the market - reputation was established when they were the only game in town, now momentum carries the sales, etc). So where is the material that says why Glocks are popular with mass shooters other than the same reasons that make them popular in general? If we found that murders drove Ford F-150s at the same rate as the population at large would we make a fuss that so many murders drove Fords vs say BMWs? In short the article has no insight and in this article exists only as a coatrack to link the pistols to a few crimes.

Disagree with removal of UNDUE tag. Given the concerns above I would like to put the undue tag back into the article. If nothing else it will give editors a chance to find better, more informative sources. Springee (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• The current sources are sufficient to establish due weight. The concern in the earlier discussion was about "an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general." Such sources have been presented. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

On what grounds? We have 3 sources in the article. One only mentions the use of a Glock so that wouldn't be sufficient. The VICE article is of low quality. So we have only one, the WP. Even if we give credit to the VICE article as a RS, we still just have two. That isn't much given that neither offers any insight and just says "this gun was used here" but can't say why. I would suggest addressing the concerns by finding more/better sources rather than trying to claim these two are sufficient. Springee (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the WP and Vice articles both go into detail about why Glocks are popular with mass shooters. They're not just routine "this gun was used here" coverage. Yes, these are the same reasons that they're also popular with law enforcement and the general public, so I'm not sure why criminal use would be treated differently. If reliable sources wrote about a trend of mass murderers using F-150s, then of course we would cover that in the F-150 article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please quote any of the statements that show what depth is shown. The WP article says the guns are common and reliable. So is an F-150 pickup. If there is nothing unique and they are only used because they are common then why is that information encyclopedic. That is the catch 22 here. What you are mistaken about is comparing why they are popular with law enforcement vs the general population. In the case of law enforcement the Glock is significant because it resulted in a large scale change in what the departments purchased, moving from revolvers to pistols. As is the link shown is tenuous. To be honest if you want to show something that probably is significant about Glocks consider the rate of accidental discharges? The in trigger safety mechanism seams like a laughable idea to many. To release the safety you pull the trigger... I've seen it reported that Glocks have a higher rate of accidental discharge specifically because the action of pulling the trigger also defeats the safety. Clumsy handling can result in a discharge. A revolver's longer, heavier two stage trigger prevents such issues as do the more common, outside the trigger safety of most pistols. Either way, perhaps we need additional voices here. Currently we are about evenly split on inclusion of this new material (no clear consensus) but I would rather we fix the problem (more/better sourcing) vs just edit war the material. Springee (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to write add a section about accidental discharges. It would be a constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted recent edits that appear to be an ip sock of HughD. The book ref didn't contain page numbers so it was impossible to verify content. The other source is actually the best one so far and provides some content we could work with though not as a coatrack for a list. Instead it suggests that Glock ushered in a wave of pistols with the ability to fire more rapidly due to the inclusion of reliable, higher capacity magazines etc. That, more so than a list of any particular crime committed with a Glock handgun would be encyclopedic because it would show how the gun changed the nature of some types of crime. Springee (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Glock 47

Looks like the 9mm Glock 47 is out, but I don't know how to describe it for an entry to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.247.227 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Users

A number of recent edits [1] added entries to the Users table which had previously been removed due to Indiscriminate List concerns. Many of these entries are supported by sources that are mainly about police agencies, not about Glock guns. The "Reciprocity of weight" argument has been used to trim other sections of this article which were supported by sources that were not about Glocks, so I would ask that editors apply the same standard to all sections. I'm concerned that these indiscriminate additions to the Users section is affecting the balance of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I share your concern that the list was getting out of control and that this list of users isn't encyclopedic. I support this removal and it's justification that we should be drawing information from sources about the topic vs sources that just mention the topic. Springee (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree that sources need to be "about the topic" in the narrow sense that is being used here. However, this seems to be the standard that is being applied to this article, so I am applying it equally to all sections for balance. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you used that as justification for removing a number of edits here I would hope you would apply the same standard to other related articles as well. I don't think it's correct to say you are choosing to apply one set of rules to this article but then not agree to apply them to a similar article. Again, I don't object to your removals but I don't think "well this is how we are doing it at this article" is sound. Springee (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"KB!" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect KB!. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of crime list

The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [[2]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association. Springee (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For accuracy sake, please note the discussion was not unanimous. Please see the link for the views of each editor. Springee (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. This isn't like AR-15 style weapon or whatever, and there is no indication that there is some intrinsic link between the weapon, or choice of weapon, and these crimes. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The brief discussion at WP:FIREARMS is not compelling; it consists mainly of non-policy-based arguments such as the deprecated requirement that criminal use lead to changes in law and unfounded accusations of "anti-gun editors pushing a political agenda". I'm curious why a list of crimes is described as "out of control" and needs to be "limited", when the same concerns do not seem to other sections of the article. Do external sources about Glock list all of the government agencies that use Glock pistols? Springee, this seems to be part of your "reciprocity of weight" idea (interpreting WP:WEIGHT to require coverage in sources that are about the topic), but you are only applying it to the Criminal Use section. How should we handle the rest of the article? As an experiment, can we try removing all sources that aren't about Glocks? –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What policy based argument favors inclusion? WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company. The list is out of control because it is long, has no content other than "Crime X included a Glock" and is indiscriminate because no justification for inclusion was offered or suggested.

Dlthewave, your comment about reciprocity of weight is a legitimate one. My reply is two fold. First, it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users. Second, and this is more significant in this case, the Glock's police market share and the way Glock pistols basically replaced older revolvers is a very significant part of the Glock story. That doesn't specifically support a list of every department that has a news blurb that they acquired Glock guns but it does mean we are following the lead of external sources about the company in terms of content. Springee (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the Users section is treated differently; most of the entries consist of "Department X uses Glocks", sourced to police department websites that mention the weapon in passing. I assume you would not object to removing these as well?

I don't follow the logic of "it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users". You are insisting that we discuss Criminal Use on an article-by-article basis, but on the other hand you use the existence of User sections at other articles to justify inclusion here. It looks like special pleading to me. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that your mass removal of sourced users might want to get a few voices of support first. However, I will leave it to someone else if they want to restore it. Anyway, I think the distinction you are missing is if sources about X often discuss Y then it's easier to justify adding Y_i even if the i^th article isn't "about X". The wide spread association and discussion is there. But I will grant it's not as hard and fast a rule. If you want to open a project level discussion I think it could be a productive topic. Springee (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're treating the two sections differently. You removed the Criminal Use section before gaining support, but you are asking me to gain support before removing content from Users. There is in fact a well-established precedent for including criminal use content in other articles; would that justify inclusion here or is it an exception to your rule?

I'm not sure how a project-level discussion would help. Wikiprojects do not establish or interpret policies. As we discussed on my talk page, if you would like to gain community consensus for your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, I would suggest opening an RfC at Village Pump. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There was support for the removal per the discussion linked above. You were part of that discussion. I didn't initially remove the content. Springee (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Glock is one of the most common pistols in the world. It is useless intricate WP:TRIVIA detail to include a list of crimes it was used in. --Pudeo (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.--RAF910 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@RAF910: This is your first comment in this discussion. Could you give a specific reason? –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

There are sources that discuss Glock and mass shooting. For example:

• Glock semiautomatic pistol links recent mass shootings, WaPo (2012): Virginia Tech. Gabby Giffords. Now Aurora, Colo. The names and places are linked by tragedy, death and the Glock semiautomatic handgun.
• Glock pistols are the overlooked weapon in American mass shootings, Vice News (2016): ...Glock, a brand of firearm that has been used nearly as often as assault rifles to commit mass murder. (...) Another compendium of mass shootings since 2009 by the New York Times showed that handguns were used in 13 incidents, compared to five in which a rifle was the primary weapon. Glocks were recovered from six of the perpetrators.

Perhaps this section is better rendered in paragraph form, with high-profile incidents integrated into the prose. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a start. What encyclopedic content can we get out of these articles. Neither seemed to be of substantial quality. Both simply said some crimes were committed with the guns. The best was the WP which noted that Glocks are common and reliable. So it could be inferred that the guns were picked because they were common and reliable. Give the vague association and the tie in to the suggestion for more gun control I'm would say that this isn't sufficient to establish WEIGHT. The WP is a generally a quality source. Vice isn't. That said, what would you propose adding based on those articles?

This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns. The list should be deleted as trivial. Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms" This is neutral, factual content. Please WP:AGF.

"Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia." What policy or guideline is this based on? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral. WEIGHT would still apply. We have a generally RS but the content is hardly encyclopedic and offers no significant insight or understanding. If the articles suggested there was something unique about how Glock marketed their guns or that their guns were used disproportionately then I think we would have more to go on. Springee (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the article reports on a controversy does not make it non-neutral, and in any case there's no requirement that sources be neutral. It would be entirely appropriate to mention the that the use of Glocks in mass shootings has led to calls for gun control. –dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• The sources linked by K.e.coffman go a long way toward fulfilling what I consider to be important here: that an explicit link be drawn between the gun and the crime, that is, between the choice for this particular gun/brand and crime. I do not believe such a link is a given for all kinds/brands of weapons; as I mentioned above, it's clearly there for the AR-15 type, and coffman may well be right that it is here for Glock. If that is the case, then a well-chosen selection would be appropriate. (I am not always convinced that Vice is worth citing, but that's another discussion.) If Omar Mateen used a Glock of some sort, and his use fits a pattern outlined by secondary sources, then yeah, it becomes noteworthy--and that is actually exactly the same way in which we list military and law enforcement customers of some weapon, lists that frequently I also find silly, by the way.

  User:Trekphiler, your comment, "is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms" is so far out of bounds that it falls foul of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, Principles #2 and #6. Whether this particular article falls under the gun control scope is not clear, but the principles outlined there extend to all articles, of course. I urge you to be less defensive and more neutral--and to avoid silly arguments like "I don't see that for the Chevy Impala". I mean, that's really silly. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Silly? It's hypocritical garbage to treat only guns as if they're somehow responsible for crime. WP is no different in this than mainstream media, & it's no less true here. WP falls back on "verifiability, not truth" as an excuse, so sourcing means the mainstream bias is defensible in WP terms. Defensible garbage is still garbage. And I'm not the slightest bit "defensive" on this subject, since I've no dog in this hunt. I may be one of a handful of non-gun owners who happens to believe the NRA is right, & restricting law-abiding citizenry as a way of attacking crime is nonsensical. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reverted sock editor. I've twice reverted an IP editor that fits the pattern of a HughD sock. That said, the IP has suggested two sources. [3], [4]. The sock was using them to simply expand the list of mass shootings that were committed with Glock pistols vs some other brand. What I think is more interesting and would add encyclopedic value is what I discussed in the talk section below (after reverting the earlier sock edit). Both The Star and the NYT support the idea that Glock ushered in a change in what was typical of handguns. The primary change being increasing ammo capacity per magazine. Experts have disagreed on what impact this really had but the articles here both note the same thing. If correct, and we at least have RSs that say it is, then the way Glock changed the market and "made pistols more deadly" should be added to the article. The NYT article does mention the shootings but the majority of the article isn't about that. Sock or no, I think it provides good information but I would like others to offer suggestions before we make article changes. Springee (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, these are quality sources that provide a good analysis of Glock's effects on the pistol market as well as touching on related cultural shifts and impacts. Both sources discuss a number of changes and do not focus primarily on magazine capacity: "...easy to conceal, powerful and hold more ammunition"; "With its large ammunition capacity, quick reloading, light trigger pull, and utter reliability, the Glock was hugely innovative"; "light, durable, and capable of holding more than the eight rounds the Walther accommodated". I would support a paragraph in the History section that touches on all of these points, or a new "Cultural impact" section or something similar. –dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This entire section reeks of violating NPOV. As stated above by others, I object to the section on criminal uses. First, as others have noted, the Glock is one of the more popular handguns in the world, hence even in a case of random gun owners being involved in crimes, the Glock will be overrepresented. No one has suggested, and indeed no one could credibly claim, that any unique characteristics of a Glock somehow contributes to crime. Indeed, the Glock is NOT the most common handgun in the United States and hence is not the one most commonly used in crimes. The most prevalent caliber used in US crimes is guns in 22 LR which Glock does not make. This Glock-phobia is motivated by it being one of the first polymer framed weapons, and opportunistic politicians seeking gun control demonized the Glock (falsely) as being able to evade metal detectors. Today, the Glock is one of dozens of popular polymer framed pistols, and none of those entries have a "use in crime" section. While it may be appropriate to include in an entry about a famous crime a list of guns used (including Glock), that does not imply that it is appropriate to have a section in the Glock entry discussing or pointing to that crime. Another infirmity is that these entries could become inundated with anecdotes about individual crimes rather than informative about this gun. Limiting the number of crimes to an arbitrary number does not address this concern. Whether it is one incident or 10,000, this is all irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry about the gun. Readers come here for info about the gun, not how it was misused. By analogue, no one goes to the Dodge Charger page expecting (or needing) to see that a white supremacist ran over some protestors in Charlottesville using a Dodge Charger. An entry on the Charlottesville murder could arguably (although trivially) mention the brand and model of car. But this does not imply that the murder is important to the discussion of the car. Simply put, this section is being added to SELECT guns in Wikipedia entries to support gun banning propaganda. This is inherently not NPOV. Both a person supporting gun rights and a person opposing gun rights might visit this page, for example, to determine what the magazine capacity of a Glock is. However, someone who supports gun rights or someone who is seeking generic information about the gun is at all interested in how particular criminals have misused this gun. Rmmiller44 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44

Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and not every reader will be interested in every section of the article. We include information that will appeal to everyone, from those who are looking for technical data such as magazine capacity to folks who want to learn about crime and mass shootings. There's no reason to exclude content just because it does not appeal to a certain part of our audience or those with certain political opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: In a previous discussion, it was also pointed out that Glocks are used by the majority of police departments in the United States. I'm curious why the Users section does not seem to raise the same objections as Criminal Use, since it could be argued that a police department choosing a Glock is unremarkable. If there is an NPOV concern, it should be applied to the entire article, not just "negative" content. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I support including (properly sourced) statements to the effect that many police departments use Glocks - that's relevant and important information. The use of Glocks in mass shootings (again, properly sourced) is even more so. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's likely much less important. Glock was successful as a company in large part because so many police departments adopted their guns. While a number of mass shootings involved Glock pistols that has a lot more to do with their ubiquity. A lot of mass shooters drive Fords. But Fords are common. Anyway, the current section should be rewritten because we actually do have some sources that talk about how Glock changed the market moving towards lower cost, reliable, guns that perhaps displaced revolvers and resulted in higher capacity magazines being more common. Springee (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are probably sources which discuss whether school shooters preferred Coke or Pepsi, or whether bank robbers favour Fords or Chevrolet for getaway cars. The question is, does that discussion give any weight to the idea that the use of Glocks was especially relevant? Also, given the usual newspaper hysteria over firearms and Glocks in particular, is that sourcing reliable? As it is, I can't see the current section as appropriate. The sources don't support the claims which the section makes. Nor are they particularly good, detailed or specific sources. Glocks are a mass-produced item and there are many of them around. That's an adequate reason to explain their prevalence, a claim beyond such, that this is because Glocks are especially conducive to mass shootings, needs something substantial and specific.

The WaPo piece comes from a credible source, but it just doesn't go far enough. "they are reliable and relatively easy to use." is true and probably the reason behind the choice, but that's hardly something we can blame Glock for. After all, for just the same reasons, this is a handgun which many police forces choose because it's harder to shoot your foot off. "the .40-caliber Glock is one of the largest-caliber handguns available." is far from unchallengeable: it's bigger than 9mm, but .45 ACP is common enough in the US and that's bigger and makes big holes too.

Vice focus on double stack magazines and their larger capacity (and claim that 9mm is now the shooter's favourite calibre). When the Glock hit US police forces in the '80s, those were rare and this was a difference. Now? No longer.

Post and Courier barely mentions them in passing.

None of this (and US firearms law) applies to the Norwegian shooting, or do the sources mention it, yet that's included too. This section should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Pop culture

This is trivia and what would be the start of a section of cruft. Youtube is not a reliable source and that generic entry to the article is lame to begin with.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Glock 48

Going to the Glock web site this model appears under "Compact" not "Subcompact". Comparing dimensions this appears to be so. More properly this is a "slimline" version of the Glock 19.

https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g48-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19-gen5-fs-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmonti (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge

From my time playing FPS games, I would have thought the '"fifth generation" Glock 17' was in fact a Five-SeveN. If I'm wrong CS is completely inaccurate Ooh Saad (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never played Counter-Strike, but the real G17 Gen 5 is caliber 9x19mm just like all the earlier G17s. https://us.glock.com/en/gen5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.36.65 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Lipsey’s Glock Pistole 80 (P80)

This Glock article one of the better articles I’ve read recently and don’t want to do the organization and content flow a disservice by attempting to insert a section for the new Retro Glock P80. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/9/1/new-for-2020-lipseys-glock-pistole-p80/ TurboManiacal (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Polymer Glock Sights Breaking

It's pretty common for the polymer sights that come on Glocks to break - however, I couldn't find good non forum sources for this, so didn't want to include it even though it definitely is worthy of mentioning. Can anyone find a good source to cite for this section?

Link to a forum post discussing: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/anyone-ever-break-the-plastic-sights.1273126/

WindowstheOS (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few posts in decade-old forum? Got anything more to go on? Meters (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.snipercountry.com/glock-19-gen-4-problems/ This is an article that mentions it in reference to the gen 4 glocks, though the polymer sights have remained the same at least across gen 3-5 as far as I can tell. I'm going to do some more digging to see what other sources would be good and citable for it. WindowstheOS (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Glock Safety Lock

We have a little on this safety lock but it seems to be relatively obscure nowadays. I added some basic citations on the paragraph that already exists on it but it would be grand if someone who understands these things could say more.SP00KYtalk 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Follower

Despite its mention here, I find no definition of follower in the COD, Wikipedia, or Wiktionary. I gather from the context that it's the part of the magazine on which the spring that pushes the bullets upwards rests. Is this correct?

Perhaps this can be fixed?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your presumption about the follower is correct. WindowstheOS (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that definition should be added as it’s certainly not a well known term.RJS001 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just added an external link to a UK encyclopedia that had a decent definition. Let me know if this suffices! TrevorS13 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Criminal use section edits

Putting this up in the talk section first because I know it'll be controversial to make edits to that section. I would like to edit it to make sure that the content put there adheres to WP:Firearms guidelines on criminal use since simply being used in a crime is not sufficient. I understand that the requirement that a firearm's use lead to changes in legislation has been deprecated but if the use in a crime(s) significantly increased its notoriety, then that would qualify its inclusion.

When applying those guidelines to the Glock article, I see the increase in notoriety primarily would be in the form of increased recognition and discussion about the article's subject (Glock firearms). So, if a criminal used an M&P-15 rifle in a mass shooting which caused notoriety and/or discussion in the public about the firearm used and an editor wanted to include that discussion on the M&P-15 page, said discussion would have to be related to the M&P-15 specifically. If people decry the use of "black rifles" or AR-style rifles and it's in reliable sources, that's a valid point to make....on the AR-15 style rifle page, not on the M&P-15 page.

Of the 4 sources mentioned, 3 directly address the mainspace article's subject, Glock. The Post and Courier article mentions it briefly in passing. The incidents listed as involving glocks should be paired down to those which resulted in discussion/notoriety about Glock itself. A crime may have occurred in which a Glock may have been used but if the subsequent discussion isn't about Glock itself, the incident shouldn't be included. If the discussion isn't about Glock itself but more generally about gun control, then it can be discussed and cited on the gun control article or even "firearm" page.

With that in mind, the section on criminality should include Virginia Tech 2007, 2012 Tucson, 2012 Aurora, 2012 Sandy Hook, 2013 Hialeah shooting (added), 2015 Charleston, 2016 Orlando night club, and 2022 NYC subway since they are the incidents discussed by the Washington Post, Vice, and Reuters articles. The 2011 Norway and 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue attacks would be removed. The Post and Courier source would also be removed since it only mentions Glock in passing.

I personally think the reasons given for the notoriety and discussion about it are pretty stupid because they're like saying "I like using Black and Deckers when I kneecap people because they're reliable and don't break down on you" but I'm not the "expert" being interviewed. That being said, if reliable sources are saying it, then it can be discussed on Glock's page.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is a section that needs work. There was a discussion in 2019 related to cleaning up this content [5]. My read is there was a consensus to fix this section and some ideas for how to do it but no one made the effort. Take a look at the discussion and give it a shot. If you are concerned about people rejecting it then propose the text on the talk page and see if anyone objects. If they don't go ahead and make the change. If nothing else, making section here where you are asking others to help edit the text will ensure good buy in and that we don't have edit wars. Springee (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Haha yep, I definitely read it over and that's where I got my understanding of the WP undue and WP Firearms guidelines. I'll put up a draft below and see what people think.

Glock pistols have been used in mass shootings including the the 1991 Luby's shooting, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, the 2011 Tucson shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the the 2015 Charleston church shooting, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and the 2022 NYC subway shooting. Experts on gun control, mass shootings, and defense training have cited factors such as reliability, ease of use, and commonness. The criminal use of these weapons has led to calls for increased gun control in the United States. This common usage, however, has been pointed out by Paul M. Barrett to be a result of Glock's overall popularity and market presence in the US and that "this level of violence isn’t necessarily tied to a particular[,] to a brand". In the late 80s, gun control advocates had similarly focused on Glock pistols because of their magazine capacity (compared to six shot revolvers), but also their "futuristic, distinct appearance". They were singled out for restriction by some jurisdictions and were branded the "hijacker's special" based on the false assumption that they could bypass airport metal detectors because of their polymer frame. This was soundly refuted in Congressional hearings by the ATF, FAA, and other organizations responsible for airline security, which proved highly embarrassing for the bans' advocates and provided significant publicity for Glock. In April 2022, Ilene Steur, a survivor of the 2022 NYC subway attack, sued Glock and its Austrian parent company for compensation for her physical injuries and emotional pain.

The final bit that somebody added about the lawsuit was interesting because Barrett's article mentions state and federal legislation which prevent such lawsuits, namely, the PLCAA. But apparently lawsuits which target the company's advertising as "immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous" were recently greenlit in a lawsuit involving the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Interesting as that is, I'm not sure discussion on the legality of the lawsuits belongs on the Glock page (though I will definitely add it to PLCAA's page) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Concentrating attention on mass shootings is disingenuous. Somebody needs to collate the statistics on illegal firearms seized by law enforcement. Since this article starts down the slippery slope by mentioning legitimately manufactured clones, it should complete the trip by mentioning Ghost Gun frames that are part compatible with Glock frames. And while you're at it, ask the ATF why they persist in issuing letters to Ghost Gun frame manufacturers that are interpreted to authorize the sale of these frames to any and all persons who are able to receive mail at a U.S. address. The typical Glock compatible Ghost Gun frame can be converted into a functioning firearm in 15 minutes using common hand tools - Drill some holes, carve off a few plastic tabs, and you're good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Why 'Glock' and not 'Glock pistol'?

It seems somewhat strange to me that the article title for the handgun was simply 'Glock'. As I understand 'Glock' is common term for the handgun, but it just seems insufficient. I even searched 'Glock' myself, thinking I'd get the article to the company. I've even seen people in firearms communities naturally speak with this discern in any conversation without thought. AirNinja (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• This gets complicated as you have multiple issues affecting and causing this issue. You'll need to learn a little history about firearms and of the Glock Company. The biggest is misuse by people that have clue what words mean. You also need to understand some history about the company of Glock, their products, how their brand and trademarks are slipping away from them. I would also suggest learning who Gaston Glock was... Respect the man, had a partner who was embezzling & tried to put a hit on him but the assassin got beat down. Yeah the man went all Andrew Jackson on him, yeah that dude on the $20 bill, went old school, when some "wanna and never will be" tried to smoke him.

First is "Glock" is registered trademark , a "Brand Name" that is starting to become "Generic Word" (common place word) used to describe similar firearms. That is not "The Glock" but Glock, and anyway people tend to drop the "THE" off of names as pretentious and often not necessary. So You're the sole Owner of Glock and becoming a household names sounds good right? You're so popular your product becomes the word to describe____, except that is actually bad for the company. A company can lose its trademarked name if they don't defend any infringement of use of it rigorously , if not the trademark name loses its legal standing and protection. This loss of Trademark can also happen if the term falls into common vocabulary despite the owners' best efforts to protect it. Just like Xerox once only meant certain copy machine company(any other use was trademark infringement by anyone else), but now means to copy something. The IBM P.C.(Personal Computer) became known as PCs and PC Compatible Computers became known as just PCs and IBM lost their trademark. The Crescent Wrench an Adjustable Wrench/Spanner made by one company which became known as a generic term for that style of wrench. Even Coke is used to refer to any soda beverage in some parts of the world. This Trademark becoming so successful it falls into common usage and the company behind it can loose control of their the name and branding. So that the name/word takes on a meaning of its own. When this occurs how the word use may not follow typical rules of grammar. Polymer made firearms can be incorrectly referred to as "Tupperware" Guns or Glocks see Glock#Clones. Some Musicians use words and names out of context, people not knowing the context then misuse it more, leading to worse confusion.

Up until circa the fall-winter of 2022 Glock had only made pistols/ handguns /Machine pistols for firearms. Although the Glock 17 was their 17th product, is was Glock's 1st firearm and a handgun, hence the product name "Glock 17". Glock 18 was Glock 17 with the option to go semi to full auto with rotation of the switch and had the 31/33 mag when the 17 only had 17 rounds, The Glock 19 also in 9x19mm but in more compact frame flush fit was 15 in the mag, but could use the Glock 17's larger magazine or Glock 18's Magazine. Then names goloco stupid for logic. Glock have stuck with that naming convention of next number despite the stupidity and headaches it causes as various models do not use calibers similar to their name. As is common in most other firearm names with numbers having relation to their caliber and/or the year it entered production. Example: The "Glock 45" does not and will not shoot .45_ACP pistol ammo. Nor does it even use Glock's own specific to solely their company designed caliber .45_GAP (45 Glock Auto Pistol) caliber, which the latter is only used in 3 guns, the Glock Model 37s, Glock Model 38s and Model 39s only. Model 38 does not and can not use any caliber associate with 38, not the super common been around forever .38_Special caliber , nor almost as old the .380_ACP which is in different un related Model numbers of the 25, 28, and Model 42 . Same issue on other Glock Model numbers, making which caliber to which model number a less logical system. See Glock#Variants for many examples. Confused? Welcome to the world of Glock's Nomenclature. This gets as confusing as the old comedy sketch Who's on First, this would be comical, except it endangers misinformed people from them trying to use the wrong caliber in the wrong firearm. Which in the best of bad case scenario, the cartridges does not fit, and the gun can not function or fire. In worst case the cartridge chambers and fires but the bullet could be to big for the barrel and the gun explodes in what referred to as a "KABOOM!" Wanna smack Glock's staff across the head yet?

Why did I cite this time period for a "circa. date", that is because the news and sources about a "Glock" (as the manufacture) Rifle may be coming to production . Right now is more in the rumor mill stages and alleged leaks at this point. Little to limited , subject to change, information is factually known and officially confirmed. It is claimed to be only for Military and Law Enforcement markets but this occurred with other products also, that were made available and sold to civilian markets. As the months move forward from September 2022, to October 2022 and onward through November 2022 more information is coming from official channels that would be by Wikipedia terms to be "cite worthy", even if they are just rehashing Glock's own press release on this new Rifle/Carbine/PCC/PDW model most likely chambered in a pistol caliber.

To complicate this why "Glock", there are multiple firearms by many different companies, that those companies chose to use the "Glock Magazine" designs for their firearm, instead of inventing a new different proprietary magazine. Which customers tend to become weary of having to purchase multiple magazines of yet different design, especially if unproven and no other firearms share it's design. That buy in to yet another magazine system and equipment, is an investment and commitment that on a new design you may get lucky and it becomes common in many models, or it can be limited to just that one with only that one gun, and that company for extra magazines and parts for a certain time, then they stop production for their next best thing. So as time goes on magazines become more expensive, as you can only buy replacement and spares from someone that will let one go of one of their's, and that is a reseller's market for pricing. Especially when the company quits manufacturing that model and releases their next new model, that isn't compatible.

The advantages to use a market standard magazine are a very reliable and proven magazine design, that already has good reputation. Add to that many firearm owners own at least one Glock (with multiple magazines for it, 2-3 is normal for basic retail option new in the box) in their collection. Then add the interchangeability of magazines between firearms , most calibers of Glock gun magazines will work in another Glock Model of the same caliber and Magazine_(firearms) type, must be the same for the single stack or double stack magazine design. These companies are not having to yet again ""re-invent the wheel""(magazine) with a reliable feeding, durability, and functionality with multitude of various ammo types and various bullets and powder loads are just few reasons to go with an already off the shelf magazine in the market place. As the Glock Magazines are reliable, popular(due to market share for handguns) that helps other companies making a new Rifle, Carbine ,PCC or handgun in various other platforms. That doesn't even include the whole AR-##(9mmm, 45cal, ect) have chosen to used Glock magazines, as the feed device method, due to both number of magazines owned by the public, and the number of after market vendors making them. IE: Magpul, ETS, Promag, etc. The original AR-9(mm, note not the ArmaLite Model 9) used the Uzi magazine design with different magazine catch hole made by COLT. So you'll get people saying they have "Glock AR" when in fact they have an AR pattern Modern Sporting Rifle chambered in a pistol caliber that uses a Glock Model Magazines as the ammunition Feed Device, which may or may not be made by Glock. A "Glock" Magazine is starting to refer to design and not the trademark "Glock" manufactured "factory" Magazine. You probably didn't realize how much the after market accessories and parts plays into this, if no one makes anything that isn't good for your company's firearms, yet if everyone makes stuff because you're that popular, that also becomes bad.

I'll leave someone else to explain certain culture groups use of the term "Glock" and/or " Glock 40" to refer to all handguns without regard to their correct caliber and/or model number. By the way guess what caliber a "Glock 40" shoots , hint it's not the .40cal .... As you can find many stories and gripes on gun forums from gun store staff about this demographic coming in saying that they have a Glock and not knowing the Model number, nor the caliber.... Some believing they have caliber that is not the one clearly engraved on the frame and slide... Leading to many issues with them buying the wrong size/style/specification of magazine for their handgun. To make these even more frustrating for the gun stores, it may be even entirely different firearm manufacture that does not even use Glock Brand(Design)magazines, as they are just one standard or magazine design in the industry. You'll see Magazine reuse in other firearms, some of the more common are like how the M-4/M-16/AR-15 magazine is used in other firearms, the AK-47 family of weapons use shared magazines, and/or how the Spanish C.E.T.M.E.'s Model B's & C's Magazine design is used later in the H&K G3 H&K 41 H&K 91 models and again in various PTR_riflePTR models of firearms.

With that said, "why "Glock and not "The Glock" is because "Glock" is the companies formal Trade Marked name. Referring to other handguns,Machine pistols, revolvers and pistols calling them all Glock is like calling everything with an edge a knife. This is just like there is difference between a Clip and magazine and if you need more help Glossary of firearms terms would help guide you. You may use a clip to load magazine but if you ask for a clip you may not get s magazine, because Stripper clips have been in use to load firearms, shortly after they started being able to hold more than one cartridge. Just to make confusing, you can put you Gun's magazine in the Magazine. It is not being Pedantic to use the right terms so you get the right item and parts. If you ask for Bullets (you could get any of these options also other Bullets ) you may just get box of projectiles without the cartridge case, that won't have the primer, nor any gun powder in it, nor will all that be assembled. Maybe you actually wanted just the Bullets to load your own ammunition, maybe you wanted to buy complete ammunition that was ready to fire out of the box. If your shopping for Glock and aren't sure, if you're looking at the real thing look for "factory" or "OEM" as key word clues. Hope that helps you, although with model numbers to their correct calibers memorization and familiarization is about the only thing you can do, or stick to the models and calibers you're interested in. That way you'll have less to keep straight. 2600:1702:1590:9A30:0:0:0:48 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Putting the Glock 18c in the machine gun brackets

Describe why you think it is a "Waste of space." It seemed more of a personal preference revert than a logical one. Gun Nut perk (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, because it is a redundancy, as the 18C is just a sub-variant of an already existing variant. And as stated by MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article [...] The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Loafiewa (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Never bring a glock to school

So basicly for the ones who don't know there is this one 7th grader who went to his school with a glock,and at recess time he brought it and showed it to his friends then they played tag with GUNS.when the 7th grader with the gun was hiding and other were catching him but then,He Accidently Shot His Friend In The Head.And the the police arrested the kid,but the kid is INNOCENT,first of all,he dosent know anything about using a gun and he managed to forget removing the magazine from it.secondly,he stole the glock from his father's desktop cabinet and the father was arrested too for 'gun violation.Sooo I don't know if this topic is acctualy interistjng or it makes your day worser ;-;~ 2001:8F8:1E37:5F0F:60C7:D94:1D7F:5BC1 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

it made my day much batter LilyIsDead (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)