GaryWWhite
Inactive
Mechanical safeties are fine but the best safety is to always keep your finger off the trigger IMHO!
Not sure why you'd be trying to reholster while rolling around in a dark alley, but Id say either way, its probably pretty close to the same.Can you be sure about all of that while rolling around in the proverbial dark alley?
The hostility is directed at people who think safeties are something that's gonna get you killed.
Why the hostility at all? It was only pointed out that it could. No need to take offense, it was just an observation.
Cause the reality is that in the 50 years you own a gun, the odds of you using it in a real defensive situation are extremely unlikely.
amd6547 said:"...Yes, NDs can happen to the best of us. A safety lock that renders the firearm inoperable unless one has switched it off can protect against negligence in touching the trigger without an intent to fire. That isn't merely an extta safety, but a different kind of safety that protects a user against a different kind of negligence..."
This is the thinking that results in Negligent Discharges...the part about "negligence in touching the trigger without intent to fire"...
If one is depending on a "safety" to protect them from firing a round when touching the trigger, then they will soon hear the loudest shot they will ever hear.
HOMERBOY said:And if these highly trained competitors in shooting games, people who shoot a lot, can't train themselves to sweep off on the draw and on when they holster, than I question their level of ability.
That is simply an assumption, and at the very least, a very bad habit to get into.That isn't true; engagement of a safety lock means that one can touch the trigger and the gun won't fire.
But isnt that in fact what youre doing?The bolded portion is a strawman because no one argued that one should depend on a safety.
Im guessing youre referring to a Glock here.If a firearm has three different safeties that are all disabled when one touches the light trigger, it is operationally similar to a firearm with no safety and a light trigger that fires a shot when the trigger is pressed.
ak103k said:Why the hostility at all?
str8shot said:What bothers me, is the dogmatic position, that seems to be guided by emotion more than real risk evaluation, that handguns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism.
ak103k said:That is simply an assumption, and at the very least, a very bad habit to get into.That isn't true; engagement of a safety lock means that one can touch the trigger and the gun won't fire.
ak103k said:But isnt that in fact what youre doing?The bolded portion is a strawman because no one argued that one should depend on a safety.
ak103k said:Im guessing youre referring to a Glock here.If a firearm has three different safeties that are all disabled when one touches the light trigger, it is operationally similar to a firearm with no safety and a light trigger that fires a shot when the trigger is pressed.
ak103k said:The difference here between the Glocks, and say a 1911 is, you have to actually "cock", for lack of a better term, the Glocks trigger, by drawing it back (taking up the slack) about a half inch, before it ever starts to give you a 5# "let off". Simply touching it, wont cause it to do so. You have to disable a safety, and deliberately pull the trigger to cause the gun to fire, just like a 1911.
ak103k said:The difference between the two is, the 1911's tend to be much more sensitive and likely to fire at the slightest pressure on the trigger, once the safety is disabled.
Now, if youre in the (very bad) habit, of putting your finger on the trigger, which is more likely to have a ND?
Another issue here, with the trigger touching thing, is what happens when you sweep the thumb safety off with your finger on the trigger?
One thing Ive never understood too is, once the gun is in hand, any safeties that require removing would already be off, ...
Your brain and its control on the trigger finger, are still the ultimate, and last true safety, no matter what the gun is. Beyond that, everything else is administrative and is dealt with accordingly.
What bothers me, is the dogmatic position, that seems to be guided by emotion more than real risk evaluation, that handguns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism.
zukiphile said:If one unintentionally presses the trigger of a pistol with a mechanical safety engaged, a possibility with anyone, the arm is less likely to discharge at all, so the risk of ND would be reduced.
Zukiphile said:No. Describing the function of a safety lock or how it may reduce risk of negligence turning into injury is not dependence on a safety.
They are different. Whether that difference makes them better will be a separate determination.
44 AMP said:What is it that really bothers you? The fact that it is dogmatic? That it appears based on emotion?
Or is it the fact that guns with manual external safeties are in some way better than those with a safe system built into the firing mechanism???
What I'm getting from the discussion is that most of the pro-safety folks are saying the gun with a safety can be safer, and the no-safety folks are saying their guns are better...
Str8tshot said:If one unintentionally presses the trigger of a pistol with a mechanical safety engaged, a possibility with anyone, the arm is less likely to discharge at all, so the risk of ND would be reduced.
You are saying, in somewhat circular terms, that one should not depend on a safety, while at the same time somehow depend on a safety to reduce NDs.No. Describing the function of a safety lock or how it may reduce risk of negligence turning into injury is not dependence on a safety.
I agree the systems are different. Both systems rely on a person to properly use them.
Some risk of ND is mitigated by having an external safety, if the safety is engaged and the trigger is pressed to the rear with enough force to otherwise activate the firing mechanism. The counter argument to that is one should not press the trigger without intending to fire, and to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until firing (the bugger hook off bang switch expression).
The tangential points of gun handling while not shooting are red herrings. If gun handling at home or elsewhere is causing NDs, there is no evidence that an external safety would protect against them. A person is equally likely to mishandle a firearm with safety disengaged as they are with a safety engaged. Mishandling firearms is not mitigated by a feature that requires manual application.
A side argument arose around the idea of missing or failing to disengage external safeties, which could pose risks that are not present in some types of safety systems (think GLOCK or M&P). The result of missing or failing to disengage a safety will be added time for first shot; whether that first shot is a match or violent confrontation.
zukiphile said:Some arms will require a very long trigger pull; a Kahr comes to mind. Others like the S&W and Steyr share a shorter pull.
If you have a self-defense gun with a manual safety, part of your practice with it needs to be ALWAYS disengaging the manual safety as part of your draw/presentation. Even if you don't use it.One has no manual safety, the other does, but it goes unused.
The question posed in the OP was if manual safeties are unnecessary. In a gun that is designed to have one, they are absolutely necessary. Just curious as to what you carry with a manual safety that you think is OK to carry without using it?One has no manual safety, the other does, but it goes unused.