I "flip that switch guard" as little as possible, because loading and holstering a standard lighter triggered auto are some of the times when you have an increased risk of ND. And that's one of the great things about revolvers, is that you can load and unload, holster and unholster with less risk.
Until you put your finger in the trigger-guard your risk of an ND is real darn close to zero. So don't put your finger in the trigger guard. And if you can't load or unload your handgun without putting your finger in the trigger-guard, don't carry a loaded gun until you can. Properly indexing your finger along the frame when handling a firearm is a fundamental skill, and one that once learned sticks with you.
And I don't have to use statistics to bolster this claim.
Let's remember you said that...
You and everyone else knows that the reason covered trigger guards and greatly increased awareness of where the trigger finger goes is a byproduct of the adoption of Glocks and similar pistols. It isn't a deficiency on the part of a revolver that it doesn't fire when handled incorrectly, since you already admitted that anyone can mishandle a firearm.
No, I don't know that proper trigger discipline is the byproduct of Glock handguns. In fact, as someone who's been shooting all his life - long before Glocks made the scene - I know for a fact this is far from true. Keeping your meat-hooks off the trigger until you're ready to fire has always been a staple of firearm safety.
This isn't just blunt, it is an outright insult, and you should be ashamed.
I agree I was kind of insulting and I apologize for that.
So if your position is so much more sensible than mine, you could at least have the courtesy of backing it up with some sort of applicable stats, or at least not using insults to bolster your equally weak claim to "knowing" what's going to happen.
So now you want me to back my statement with stats? Do I need to use them to bolster my claim?
Seriously, though, this is the source of my frustration. This isn't a subject that requires research. I'm sorry you get offended when I say this, but it REALLY IS COMMON SENSE.
There's no other way I can phrase it. There's no way to make it any nicer. If you think your chances of getting in a gunfight - a legally justifiable gunfight - at 100 yards are on par with those at under 20 yards... you're in desperate need of training/education. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's just the way it is. Any defensive handgun instructor would laugh at the thought. You don't need stats. Just turn on the morning news. How many stories do you hear about people being sniped from 100 yards out? Compare that to the number of assaults at short range. Unless you live in Beirut I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your results will be very similar to mine.
Even if you were attacked from a long range, your best move - from both a legal and tactical standpoint - is NOT going to be engaging your enemy with a snub-nose revolver. I can't even imagine a scenario where that would be a reasonable option.
Snubby revolvers are light, ambidextrous, harder to ND, more resistant to being jammed from the outside, reasonably controllable in DA, extremely accurate in SA and increase the likelihood of the most important aspect - having a gun with you. I don't think any of that is radical or foolish.
Snubby revolvers
can be light, are somewhat ambidextrous (not counting reloading), are no more immune to NDs than any other gun, suffer from their own unique set of failures (most of which cannot be addressed in the field), and are
more accurate in SA than DA (not extremely accurate in either). I never said any of that was foolish, just far from optimum at anything past very close range and/or dealing with multiple assailants.