Bottom line is, if the light (single action mode) trigger is pulled...
If you have to sneak a lot of premises into your statements to make them sound reasonable, then that is a clue to you, and others, that your statements have trouble standing on their own.
The Glock trigger is not "single action mode". It may appear to act like a single action trigger externally, but approximately half of the striker spring compression by distance and approximately 75% of the striker spring compression by energy is performed by the trigger. You can verify this with your own measurements if you're skeptical.
The Glock trigger is not especially light. Measured conventionally, an unmodified Glock trigger runs about 6.5lbs, advertising claims and internet hyperbole aside.
When cocked and locked, (condition #1), in a holster, the 1911 is in a FAR safer condition than a striker fired weapon like the Glock or M&P in a holster.
This is a difficult premise to support given that neither of the guns can possibly discharge in this condition without parts breakages.
This provides an increased layer of safety when reholstering as the shooter can manually use the thumb to hold back the hammer. Not so with a Glock. God forbid a piece of clothing gets caught in the striker fired pistols trigger guard as one reholsters, pulling that trigger!
It is true, IMO, that holstering a conventional striker-fired gun without a manual safety requires more care than holstering a gun with a manual safety and a hammer. I've commented before that holstering is probably one of the most hazardous things we do as firearm owners.
The 1911 has several safeties (thumb, grip and disconnecter), and requires intentional action to discharge, unlike most striker fired pistols.
All guns that are drop-safe require some sort of intentional action to discharge unless something breaks.
As far as the additional safeties making a gun safer, that is only true if the safeties are all used properly. This is one of the contradictions of this argument.
Argument. A gun with a more complicated manual of arms involving manual safeties is safer than a gun with a simple manual of arms involving no manual safeties.
Problem: If a person can't figure out how to do something as simple as keep their finger off the trigger, why does it make sense to assume that they can learn something more complicated such as engaging/disengaging a manual safety properly AND still learn to keep their finger off the trigger?
My point is, that without extensive training (and sometimes even with, given the high number of accidental discharges LEO's have had), striker fired weapons are more dangerous than 1911's, double action pistols and revolvers.
If you have the evidence, that when corrected for the number of pistols in use, striker fired weapons are accidentally discharged at a higher rate, please post it. I'm not talking about anecdotes, or listing a number of incidents you found on the web;
Real evidence would be much more useful than handwaving around the issue and making the same unsupported assertions repeatedly as if the repetition will give them validity even in the absence of real evidence.
I have seen them negligently discharged.
Anecdotes are not evidence of anything other than possibility. An anecdote proves that something CAN happen, it doesn't prove that it's a likely outcome or that it's more likely than another possible outcome.
For example, I've only seen two NDs in person. One was with a double action revolver, the other was with a hammer-fired DA/SA pistol with a manual safety. That doesn't prove that double action pistols and hammer-fired DA/SA pistols with manual safeties are more dangerous than other kinds of guns, it's far too small of a sample size. Even if it were a MUCH larger sample size, it would still need to be corrected for the number of types of guns I've seen in situations that could possibly lead to unintentional discharges. All it proves is that it's possible to unintentionally fire those two kinds of guns under certain circumstances.
In other words, if I collect data from a population of 100 guns where 90 are striker-fired and only 10 fall into other categories, then if I end up with 5unintentional discharges with striker fired guns and one from the other category, the temptation is to believe that the striker-fired guns are 5X more dangerous.
In reality, that outcome would actually make the striker fired guns almost 2 times SAFER. That's because the rate of unintentional discharges for the striker fired guns is 5/90 (5.6%) while the rate of unintentional discharges for the other types is 1/10 (10%). You have to correct for the number of guns in use to have any chance of being able to accurately interpret the data.
This is a problem when trying to collect "informal" data using anecdotes and looking for incidents without doing a very thorough data collection effort. Inevitably, the most popular types of guns are going to be over-represented in the data, regardless of what kind of data is being collected.
What it comes down to is if you handle striker-fired guns properly, they are safe. If you handle hammer-fired guns with manual safeties properly, they are safe. Handle either kind improperly and YOU are unsafe.
Anyway, while we like to go on and on about how design aspects are really a big factor in unintentional discharges, the bottom line is that the majority of unintentional discharges are the result, not of the peculiar design characteristics of the firearm in question, but of the user intentionally pulling the trigger (e.g. dry-firing). There are no safeties (manual or passive) that can protect against that.
I was clear it was my opinion.