Everyone has said pretty much what I am thinking, wow did I read that right, his 3 year old son was riding in the backseat with a .45 cal handgun in arms reach. It doesn't matter if it was a Glock, Springfield, or S&W, and it doesnt matter if has an external safety or like any other striker fire pistol, a 3 year old boy was able to pick up a firearm that was loaded and un-supervised.
Where is child protective services at on this one? Glock should counter sue says he put his son and everyone else in danger that the was around. What if the child shot the gun and it went out the side window into the car next to it. An external safety would have done nothing in this situation because the guy probably wouldnt have had it engaged anyway. If he is willing to let his 3 year old son sit next to a loaded handgun, then he probably would walk around with a live weapon. He has no care for safety
Wow, this is why licenses\background checks need to be required to have children. Not everyone is parent material. To buy a firearm you must go through so many checks and balances and to have a child all you need is a bottle of wine and Marvin Gay.
What is more dangerous, a firearm, or a person not raised right by his parents? (What makes the firearm go bang?)