Ruger LC9s Pro

by your own words, the casual shooter far outnumbers the skilled shooter you like to point to. The vast majority of us couldnt compete with a miculek or vickers. So what a professional shooter chooses to shoot is irrelevant.

For the rest of us, not choosing a gun because it has a safety "that might get you killed" just shows that the shooter is either buying that BS that Pincus and the others are paid to say, or just not willing to practice disengaging the safety so as it is instinct.
 
Homerboy said:
by your own words, the casual shooter far outnumbers the skilled shooter you like to point to. The vast majority of us couldnt compete with a miculek or vickers. So what a professional shooter chooses to shoot is irrelevant.

For the rest of us, not choosing a gun because it has a safety "that might get you killed" just shows that the shooter is either buying that BS that Pincus and the others are paid to say, or just not willing to practice disengaging the safety so as it is instinct.
Click to expand...
Your comment was that only a shooter unwilling to practice and train would choose not to use a safety. That the majority of professional shooters, who by definition are practiced and trained, don't use firearms with safeties flies right in the face of that.

I get that you were mad someone called the people who choose a weapon with a safety amateurs as you yourself use a gun with a safety. But your own claims that only a poorly dedicated shooter wouldn't use a gun with a safety is equally wrong and insulting. I don't think I will convince you of that however as you mind seems set. Try to keep an open mind.
 
Last edited:
It's been nice having a spirited debate with you. No offense taken or meant to be given.

But I never said "ONLY a shooter unwilling to practice" buys s gun without a safety. I said safety-less guns are MARKETED to those who aren't going to. it's one of the selling points of a glock. "No safety to fumble with". A glock is a good gun. I've owned a couple. My tastes have moved on and so have my priorities.

Look at the comments to this thread. Overwhelmingly praising Ruger releasing the lc9 without a safety. Why? So it's only a gun worthy of consideration because they removed the safety?

You stated many shooters buy a gun to put in a drawer and take out once a year. For them, a safety-less gun is a horrible idea, but those same shooters are buying glocks and other no safety guns in droves. Do a search of accidental shootings. See how many people were killed or injured because of no safety. Yeah, proper training would have prevented them, but too many people don't get it, especially the ones who shoot once a year.

Look, all I'm saying is the benefits of a safety FAR outweigh any PERCEIVED drawback. A few minutes a day and the manipulation of one becomes automatic. And since 99.9% of use won't need to fire a shot in defense, the whole "a safety will get you killed" is mall ninja nonsense.
 
For the rest of us, not choosing a gun because it has a safety "that might get you killed"
Click to expand...

You are attacking a straw-man. Nobody here seems to be saying that.

This looks like a really cool new offering from Ruger and I would love to get my hands on one to try. I always liked the size and look of the LC9 but HATED the trigger and was not comfortable with the tiny safety. This removes those concerns for me. In the right pants I can about pocket carry an LC9 sized gun too.

I'll have to go rent one and see.
 
Manual safety

OK, the more choices the better, I get it. Some apparently don't but I favor a manual safety and practice to always go to it first every time I pick one of my semi-autos up. Before the advent of Glock nobody argued against having a manual safety on a semi auto. Did anyone criticize a 1911 for having a manual safety? Or a Hi-Power?

The odds the safety will be on when you need it off and get you killed is miniscule compared to the odds of getting a misfeed or failure to extract. I say if you are that much in fear of a safety-related incident from a semi-auto buy a revolver.

Pico
 
As I have said, let the shooter decide what is best for him or her. S&W for instance offers their M&Ps both with and without safeties. What I prefer about their safeties is that for my stubby thumbs they are easier for me to manipulate as the S&W safeties are longer and protrude much farther from the frame. I have owned an SR9-c and it wasn't easy for me to disengage the safety from a draw, at least not as easy as it was with an M&P with a safety. I see a lot of people advocate just not using the safety at all. To me that is a recipe for a potential disaster. If I am going to have a safety I want to incorporate it into my handling of that weapon and I want it easy to manipulate in terms of access.
 
Last edited:
I saw, and handled the LC9s soon after it was introduced. I really liked the feel, and trigger, but I wasn't all that interested because I am happy with my Kahr CM9 for a small, easily concealed 9MM. But with the removal of the unnecessary extra safety, the new LC9s Pro is even more appealing. It's still a bit bigger than my Kahr, but for a slim, IWB carried 9MM, it is calling me! :eek::D
 
Look, all I'm saying is the benefits of a safety FAR outweigh any PERCEIVED drawback. A few minutes a day and the manipulation of one becomes automatic. And since 99.9% of use won't need to fire a shot in defense, the whole "a safety will get you killed" is mall ninja nonsense.
Click to expand...

The problem is the vast majority of those who carry guns with manual safeties don't practice this, and don't train. Something else I have noticed is the majority of people who do routinely train, train with guns that lack a manual safety. Proper gun handling practices far outweighs a mechanical switch when it comes to gun safety.
 
Last edited:
Look, all I'm saying is the benefits of a safety FAR outweigh any PERCEIVED drawback. A few minutes a day and the manipulation of one becomes automatic. And since 99.9% of use won't need to fire a shot in defense, the whole "a safety will get you killed" is mall ninja nonsense.
Click to expand...

You capitalized the word "perceived" for emphasis, while seemingly missing that your own main point is merely your own perception as well.

A great deal of outstanding shooters and trainers that are far from being mall ninjas prefer guns without safeties. It's a matter of personal taste and training. Neither a safety nor a lack thereof is inherently superior in every situation.
 
not quite. The drawback of a safety is perceived, because the odds of us getting into a shooting are so remote, that the absence of one makes a person feel better that they will have a better chance of surviving a highly unlikely encounter.

And of course everybody should out in more trigger time, but they don't. And when some idiot who barely knows what he is doing handles a safety-less weapon, there's a higher chance of an ND and somebody getting shot who wouldn't have.

And my point isn't percepfion. It's fact. I can find a dozen cases in the last year alone where an ND resulted in an injury or fatality, that would have been prevented with a manual safety. Plaxico Burress ring a bell. Yeah, had he followed proper gun handling, but as has been pointed out, tons of gun owners by a gun and stick it in a drawer, maybe taking it out once a year. Find me one case where a safety caused an injury or death. I'll show you a hundred where it was prevented by one
 
The drawbacks are not perceived. The reasons are very real and plausible.

You can't say with certainty that the NDs would have been prevented had the gun had a safety. How do you know that the safety would have been engaged at the time of the ND? Negligence is dangerous, safety or not.

As for your stance on the likelihood of needing a firearm to defend yourself....then why carry one at all?
 
How many times you hear "a safety can get you killed" or "my safety is between me ears". Or "my finger is my safety" or "keep your booker hook off the trigger until you want to shoot" or "safety guns are for amateurs". Mall Ninja nonsense.

Before the Glock, most semi autos had safeties. Beretta, 1911, Browning, S&w. People carried them and there were no issues with them being a danger to the user. I saw an ad for the glock .380(42 I think?). Guy and girl praising the "no levers to fumble with, just draw and shoot". Great. I don't know how I'm still alive after carrying a gun with a safety all these years.

And while I have never fired my weapon in self defense, I have sure drawn it a few times. Safety snicked off in the draw and on on the reholster every time. That's how I shoot at the range. Funny how a little practice goes a long way.

As for how I could be sure, are you kidding? safety prevents trigger from being pulled. Accidental shooting is a trigger being pulled when it shouldn't have. We have people acknowledging on this forum that lots of guys buy a gun to out in a drawer and take out once a year, and they don't have the inclination to train with a weapon so a safety is a bad thing!

A firearm is the LAST thing a person should be lazy with.
 
I do not understand what the huge fuss is over having a pistol with a safety vs. one without. It is there to use or not use at the owners choice. It is perfectly safe to carry the LC9 with the safety "off" but for anyone that is not comfortable that way...then carry with it "on" and just practice.
When our dept. went from revolvers to Berettas years ago, we carried them round in the chamber and safety/decock in "off" position with no trouble at all. Then with a change to Glock and now MP 45 9(both without external safety) carry the same way... with round in the chamber and no problems. All perfectly safe weapons.. The weapon is going to be as safe as the owner. Keep your fingers off the trigger is the simple answer and if carrying in a pocket, use a holster made for it and don't put other items in the same pocket. You don't want to be fumbling around in that pocket for small items that might catch the trigger or cause you to get on the trigger.
If someone doesn't like a safety, that's fine. If someone prefers a safety then that is fine too but both options are just as safe as the gun owner is. A lot of the complainers about having a safety as something extra they must manipulate, but not necessarily those here, are folks who are too lazy to practice and understand correctly and safely using the weapon. All they want is for it to go bang and over the years I have seen a lot of those folks.
 
However you word it, trigger discipline is critical to safe gun handling. By calling this "mall ninja nonsense" is pure ignorance. Show me where the standard firearm safety rules say all guns must hauve manual safeties....
 
The odds of actually getting into a SD shooting are so high. A safety isn't gonna get you killed.
Click to expand...
And while I have never fired my weapon in self defense, I have sure drawn it a few times.
Click to expand...
You either live in a very bad area, are are basing your argument on imagination!
Then you say this:
The drawback of a safety is perceived, because the odds of us getting into a shooting are so remote, that the absence of one makes a person feel better that they will have a better chance of surviving a highly unlikely encounter.
Click to expand...
Sounds like much more of a credibility issue than a choice of having a safety or not.
But if you are drawing your gun every time you have a perceived thread I am glad you have a safety on it! Maybe carrying it with an empty chamber would add another needed level of safety as well.
 
You either live in a very bad area, are are basing your argument on imagination!
Then you say this:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant odds are low. As for drawing it a few times, I live in a great area, but have to frequent some bad ones sometimes. Three times in the last 12 years I have pulled my gun. Only one time did the three idiots who were following me (I was watching them in the plate glass window I was walking past) see the gun. Other two times the gun was not seen (in my car). Safety off, safety on to holster. No problems.

And I ready my weapon at a perceived threat. One of the reasons I like the LC9. fits right in my pocket and I can have my hand on it as I walk through certain areas at certain times.

But if you are drawing your gun every time you have a perceived thread I am glad you have a safety on it! Maybe carrying it with an empty chamber would add another needed level of safety as well.
Click to expand...

I'll do that when Rob Pincuss tells me to! "Oh Great Mall Ninja, show me the Light!"
 
Three times in the last 12 years I have pulled my gun. Only one time did the three idiots who were following me (I was watching them in the plate glass window I was walking past) see the gun. Other two times the gun was not seen (in my car). Safety off, safety on to holster. No problems.
Click to expand...
So you draw a gun just because you think someone is following you.........and you call others Mall Ninjas!:eek:
Keep digging, your getting your credibility hole very deep!
 
I'll do that when Rob Pincuss tells me to! "Oh Great Mall Ninja, show me the Light!"
Click to expand...

Wow you really fixated on Rob Pincus eh? I just brought him up as an example of a notable shooter that uses non-safety weapons and you've turned him into a whole other thing when he was only 1 of the 6 people I mentioned. Maybe you should start a separate thread about it.
 
No. I draw a gun when three people are preparing to rob me. I'm a retired cop and I know the drill. Walk past one and then he motions to 2 others to follow as he walks behind me. Kept looking around too. When I drew I turned and held it down and told them to move along. Called the cops after I got to my car and gave description and direction. Mutts were never stopped.

As for Pincus, it's not a personal thing. He's got a cool job. But to use a 3 year cop in a small town as an authority when there are obviously better ones like vickers is just stupid. Don't see how anybody can take that clown seriously. Vickers might be a shill for Daniel Defense and others, but I gotta give his opinion a lot more merit than Pincus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top