What is with all the safety?


PDA






pablo45
November 22, 2006, 04:22 PM
I have noticed everyone has been asking alot of question's about safety's. Why? IMHO i think safety's are over rated and they are just something to add on to your gun that is already regulated by enough liberal law's and batf spec's. Seem's like more people are becoming more and more like these anti-gun people who want to sue all the gun companies that do not have safety's on there gun's. Oh yeah and who here even keep's the lock that there pistol's come with. Leave me your address i would be happy to send you all of mine.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: Thank's for letting me vent:cuss: :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "What is with all the safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
torpid
November 22, 2006, 04:26 PM
I understand your wanting to vent, but safeties have been around for many a year before lawyers "helped" shape the design of guns.

SoCalShooter
November 22, 2006, 04:28 PM
I dont have a problem with safeties, my autmatics have two safeties the factory installed safety and me. The industry is trying to bend a little and make sure they are able to sell. AT some point each weapon will have 5 -10 safeties and it will take you longer to take the safeties off than it would to smash something over the head with it.

Beatnik
November 22, 2006, 05:05 PM
Well, I will never own any weapon which I can not render inoperable in one motion. When I look at something like the Kel-Tec P32, all I see is a loaded gun which is designed to float around in your pocket with no safety on it. Seems pretty stupid to me.

On the other hand, I see your point, if you're talking about things like key locks. I don't see the point in a way to lock your firearm.

Perhaps the point is to make it safe for kids to play cowboys & indians with? I can't think of any other reason to render your weapon useless without unlocking it with a special key. Seems to me like people who want to do that should get a safe.

Stuff like that is similar to airbags in cars. I don't want airbags, but I have to spend extra money to get them, because GM sure as heck isn't eating that cost. Neither is Taurus eating the cost of installing those locks.

hkusp
November 22, 2006, 05:27 PM
I like safties because glocks don't have them.
:neener:

larry_minn
November 22, 2006, 05:29 PM
"render inoperable" Not sure why but just unload the thing. A safety is nice to have in some situations but a person should NOT rely on them. Your gun should NOT "float around in your pocket" I don't care if it has a safety or two. How many people do you know who have had NGs with guns that they (thought) was on safe? (or maybe it was and discharged when taken off safe) I see folks resting finger on trigger "its on safe" :(

On second point. You mentioned air bags. Have you ever had the airbags deploy? Have you ever worked a Ambulance where you come upon a head on between similar size cars but one had air bags? (hint that driver got out of car unassisted the other did not)
I WISH my car had air bags when a car came across the center line into me head on.

Boats
November 22, 2006, 05:36 PM
Have safeties or don't have them, who cares? It's all personal preference.

That said, people who rant against safeties in public or on the internet never fail to strike me as people who'd be fearful of walking and chewing gum at the same time lest they trip.:rolleyes:

Dudes with safeties: "This safety might save my bacon."
Dudes against safeties: "That safety might cost you your bacon."

Dudes in the first group always come off as more rational than dudes in the second because dudes in the first group live with their safeties and dudes in the second usually theorize about how "dangerous" and "useless" they are.

Sean Dempsey
November 22, 2006, 05:51 PM
I grew up with a BB gun that had an in/out safety right behind the trigger.

Since then, I've always preferred a safety. Neither of my XD's or my S&W revolver have them, of course.

Me, I wish the XD had a thumb safety. It's just my preference, but prefer to have the gun made easily operable/inoperable with a switch. Not to prevent fingers on the trigger, but any number of other things that could get in there... a stick, a dogs tooth, whatever.

I know, alot won't agree, but to me, I just like to have the gun "off" sometimes, but still have it "on" with the flick of a switch.

Then again, I prefer pinless grenades. Just hold em, they won't blow.

Manedwolf
November 22, 2006, 06:40 PM
All I can point to is that nearly every article where someone's had a public ND, it's usually always a Glock. I see no problem with a thumb-swipeable switch that turns it from a gun into a paperweight and back no matter what the trigger gets caught on.

Yeah, maybe a decade ago, they thought the trigger safety only was a fine idea...that you didn't even need something like the grip safety to ensure that you actually were holding the gun in a firing grip.

They also used to think that a lap belt was sufficient for safety in cars.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that NDs caused by people mishandling guns without safeties have created the much-harmful-to-2A myth that guns can just "go off" at the slightest provocation?

pablo45
November 22, 2006, 08:06 PM
I do understand the child side of this, but it just seem's to me that people are the safeties not the gun. IF you have a safe and your weapon's are maintained and properly used then there should be no use for a swtch on your gun. I don't have kid's but i do have a girlfriend who does not like gun's and she hate's my glock's because there is no safety on it. But that is why i like it. I have never had any problem's with it. If it was a smaller gun like the keltec then i would trust that if one is chambered i would not pull that heavy 10 pound trigger in my pocket.
As for the Sig's which i also love. The double action trigger is more then enough to call it safe.

CDH
November 22, 2006, 09:57 PM
Me, I wish the XD had a thumb safety. It's just my preference, but prefer to have the gun made easily operable/inoperable with a switch. Not to prevent fingers on the trigger, but any number of other things that could get in there... a stick, a dogs tooth, whatever.

I assume that you're talking about concealed carry?...

However, it's absolutely crazy to carry ANY pistol in anything else other than a well designe holster, and a well designed holster is going to totally encase the trigger and trigger guard within it. There is NO WAY that a "stick, dog's tooth or whatever" can activate a trigger while the pistol is properly installed in a good holster.

I prefer my XD over the Glocks because of the grip safety because it's an "automatic" safety that you don't even have to think about, yet, it adds a layer of "safe" to the pistol that Glock doesn't.
I also carry a Commander quite a bit, but it's design mandates a thumb safety and I'm good with that. But I very much like the XD without any thumb safety at all.

wally
November 22, 2006, 10:04 PM
The only safety that can prevent a Negligent Discharge is the one between your ears! When it fails don't much matter what gun is in your hand.

--wally.

DoubleTapDrew
November 23, 2006, 12:03 AM
There's some saying about how they can make things idiot proof but the problem is they keep making better idiots.
As long as lawyers are able to sue gun manufacturers, they'll keep putting on doo-dads that make the gun a liability for the person who actually uses the only real safety (software, as SM puts it). One phrase that sticks with me is "KEEP YOUR BOOGER HOOK OFF THE BANG SWITCH!"

10-Ring
November 23, 2006, 01:10 AM
I was taught to always treat a firearm as if it were loaded, couple that w/ the best safety is always the one the good Lord put between your ears and you should be good regardless of firearm

doubleg
November 23, 2006, 01:24 AM
"Then again, I prefer pinless grenades. Just hold em, they won't blow."

never heard it phrased in a better way. I like safteys because i know the if the trigger is bumped it wont go off. But they are only NEEDED in my opinion on SA guns or guns that do not have hammers.:D

Zundfolge
November 23, 2006, 02:21 AM
I agree that on a DAO pistol a manual safety is somewhat superfluous ... but I'd be damned if I would carry a 1911 without one :what:

Liberals or no liberals. Lawyers or no lawyers.

joneb
November 23, 2006, 04:08 AM
Could someone please set me straight , I will not own a revolver with a internal lock, but I would buy a Springfield XD 45 with a thumb safty :confused:

Rotorflyr
November 23, 2006, 05:09 AM
The only safety that can prevent a Negligent Discharge is the one between your ears! When it fails don't much matter what gun is in your hand.


While I agree that the best safety is the one between your ears, I disagree that doesn't matter what the gun is. If the gun has a mechanical safety, it just might save your bacon when the safety between your ears fails.

I'll go on to say I have guns with and guns without a mechanical safety

DRMMR02
November 23, 2006, 05:32 AM
I don't think anyone who is a proponent of safeties thinks that safeties will let them get away with 4 Rules violations.

I too like to know that I can make my weapon inoperable with the flick of my thumb, as do many others. And for anyone to assume that I want this so I can goof around with my gun is disrespectful.


A safety but no common sense is dangerous. But common sense with no safety is also dangerous. And Yes, that is true. However high esteem you hold yourself and you weapon handling skills, you are still a human being with a human brain living on an imperfect Earth. #### happens.

Having a safety WITH common sense is the best option. Mechanical safeties can fail. But your brain can also fail. Redundancy and fail-safes are man's best friend when dealing with deadly technology and machines. Always.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is with all the safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!