#for the record; the prevailing attitude of better to be judged by twelve than carried by six is backwards and a detriment to public safety

[oscaronthegloryroad]

I have here airsoft replicas of common service side arms (one was more common a couple decades ago) that represent a shift in how the world issues pistols.

There are three primary differences between the two;

The Glock is striker fired as opposed to the CZ's exposed hammer.

The Glock is a lighter pistol, the frame being constructed from lightweight polymer. Despite being a chunkier/blockier pistol design representative of a more austere design ethos.

The Glock has no safety. Don't give me that "trigger safety is more efficient/effective" horse shit. It will not prevent negligent discharge. While the CZ has a convenient and visible external safety.

The first two don't have as much bearing on my thoughts about how these changes really put the recent attitudes toward use of force front and center. There is effectively no safety on the Glock, it removes a barrier to use of force. There is no longer the required step of disengaging the safety.

When you look at training doctrine that places officer survival above all, that directs officers to walk into every situation already on one level of escalation with the assumption that everyone wants to harm them, the choice of the Glock really clicks into place.

I don't know, maybe I am reading too much into it. But the Glock really does represent these attitudes of violence towards any difficulty very well.