Of course the key word is trained. Problem is that WAY too many people aren't.
I agree, that is a problem, but how does a safety automatically make a gun the gun safer? If you arent trained/familiar in the use of the safety, and what it can and can not do, or what it even is in the first place, whos to say you will use it properly, or even use it at all?
Just because it's there doesn't necessarily make the gun safer. It always comes back to the user being the final answer.
I'm a member of another forum where some graduate of TWO "advanced pistol classes" was deriding everybody who likes a safety. This buffoon admitted to carrying his Beretta PX4 Storm with a chambered round, the hammer BACK, and the safety off. Said his "teacher" told him it was no different than carrying a Glock since the trigger is covered. What an idiot. Who here would trust that fool?
Again, its understanding what you have and are using, and whats appropriate. Theres a gun, with a manual safety, and its not being used properly. So is the gun safer, or not?
In theory, it is no different than the Glock while in the holster, but the Glocks safeties make the possibility of discharge nil. Not sure the Berretta's offer the same in the capacity described.
Is proper training necessary? of course. Problem is, in MY experience, 95% of the people I see handling a weapon are barely competent.
Scary thought, but again, how is it the guns fault?
Will a safety prevent ALL accidents? Course not. But it's one extra layer of security with very little drawbacks. Who here has had to fire their weapon in self defense? So stop with the "a safety can get you killed". I ask for a documented case and somebody shows me one where the operator had NO IDEA how to use the safety. Not such a good example, but I'm sure the poster felt vindicated, even though he clearly knew that doesn't support my assertion that a safety is a benefit. Cops have been saved by them when their weapons have been taken away. Children have been saved when they couldn't fire the weapon their careless parent left access to.
Ive seen "trained" individuals in practice, do all sorts of silly things. Discharge their guns unintentionally, reholster cocked 1911's and SIG's, without setting the safety or decocking the guns, handing people loaded guns they thought were unloaded, etc. Nothing is 100%, 100% of the time. Add some stress and distractions, and things in that respect tend to go down hill quickly.
As far as the cops being saved, thats a double-edged sword. The cop may have been saved because the other guy didnt know how to work the safety, but in the same vein, the other guy didnt get to prevail, because the safety screwed him up and may well have cost him his life. Point of view can be everything.
Know what else I like? MAGAZINE DISCONNECTS!
What ever floats your boat. Generally, I dont, but if I can see their uses, for someone who is under constant threat of losing their gun to someone else.
If it were the only gun I had though, I wouldnt want one.
Now somebody is gonna tell me I need more training. Guess 25 years, shooting frequently, reloading my own ammo, I still need some training, huh?
Ive got 25+ years on you, and I still learn something new pretty much every day.
I carried a 1911 every day for 25+ years, and Im well aware of what dealing with a gun with a safety entails, and what occurs with them, good and bad. Its not just 1911 type safeties either. Frame mounted, slide mounted, decockers, squeeze cockers, no manual levers, etc, Ive got to play with most, and have a pretty good idea how they all work, and what their weakness are.
The only thing every one of them has in common is, they generally only go bang if you put your finger on the trigger.
