But that doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to the severity of the damage or injury that results.
It can, depending on whats being done.
Unless you consider the severity of the potential consequences to be insignificant, "the least bit reasonable" won't cut it. You have to be perfect, all the time.
Unless youre something special, there is no such thing as perfect all the time. By reasonable, I mean follow to the best of your ability, prudent gun handling.
Sorry, but in the scheme of things that is not a very rigorous test at all. One would have to test several guns for a much longer period, under varying conditions.
Well, for my needs, its been working out OK, and Im pretty confidant, that most of the rumors floating around the web, are just that, regurgitated nonsense, spouted by those who have no other experience, other than reading something scary, but arent willing to look into it any further.
Ive actually tried to get those things to happen, in daily use, and so far, they havent. Constantly handling the gun, stuffing it in an out of my pants/pockets, etc, with no holster, even picking the gun up by the trigger itself. Pretty much anything you can think of, and probably some you'd care not to.
I was told I was crazy to carry my 26 in a Smart Carry loaded. So I carried it for a couple of months with the trigger set, empty chamber, and went about my daily life. I dont work behind a desk, my job is quite physical, and I often do things at work, that many would not do on a bet, and guess what, the trigger never dropped in my little test, and that was with trying my best to get it to do so. Ive carried it for over a year now, fully loaded, and without issue.
While my test may not be perfect, it covers everything "I" normally do in my daily life, and then some, so for me, it works. If youre more active, and need something more vigorous, then by all means, ramp it up and prove it otherwise. Thats the whole point. You have to vet it yourself. Just dont take someone elses word on it, either way.
Do you have a basis for asserting that the several officers who have been injured were "retards"?
From personal experience with shooting with a number of police and military personnel over the years, Ive seen enough scary stuff to be wary. Just because they wear/wore a uniform, or claim to be trained, means nothing.
Some man-machine systems are less susceptible to human error than others.
I think they are all susceptible, and sometimes think, the "safer" ones are worse, as too much faith is often placed in whats supposed to make them safer. Responsibility for safety, will always come back around to the user, no mater how many safeties the gun may, or may not have.