I plan on making this a series of posts, in which I will be including slightly more objective data than in this first post. This first post is more of a thesis statement than anything else.
Gun control is a significant issue in American politics. It will continue to be a significant issue in American politics so long as American politics is still a thing. Mirroring that debate, however, is the issue of excessive force on the part of police officers.
Although the numbers indicate that fatal shootings have actually been on the decline in the last decade, the issue itself has become more and more prominent in media and debate. To this debate, I would like to contribute a somewhat unconventional theory. I believe that the design of modern firearms is conductive to poor weapon discipline, and may have a direct relation with fatal shootings both on the part of civilians as well as police officers.
Furthermore, I believe that one series of weapons in particular is at least partially responsible for poor weapon discipline. Let it never be said that Glock manufactures a bad handgun. However, there are a number of things that seriously bother me about Glocks. In my own personal experience, I have found that Glock handguns, while reliable, high quality, accurate, and easy to use, often feel more like handling a toy than a lethal weapon. Combine the ease of use, low recoil, and a high capacity magazine, and you have a weapon that you can empty downrange quickly and with little care for aim and forethought, and be ensured at least one solid hit.
It would be great if the quirks of modern society served up people that need shooting in ways that weren't against a backdrop of innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, the days where desperados could be confronted and dropped out in the countryside, away from possible collateral damage, are gone.
Cutting to the chase, I believe that there may be a direct link between the relative ease-of-use of firearms, and a decline in overall discipline in even highly qualified shooters.