Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

TestPilot said:

What confusion? You knew exactly what I meant, and so did everyone else who complained about it, obviously. What else device on a gun inhibits fire by manual operation of a lever or a button by motion separate from firing motion by thumb, etc?

Same thing when John Farnam calls DAO pistols "self-decocker."

It only distracted because a few here whined about it. They failed to prove why my term is inaccurate. They keep asseting that is not "proper" solely because that is not the mainstream term.

By that logic, then we should give up the term "standard capacity magazine" which describe standard capacity magazines for what they are because "high cap magazine" is the mainstream term, surrendering to the anti-gun logic that anyting over 10 round is "high cap." By your reasoning, not conforming to common mainstream term is not "proper."

Click to expand...

I was able to understand you given the context and the fact that since I'm reading this I'm able to take a second and think about the terminology you've come up with. But in person, if you said "Hey, can you engage your manual firing inhibitor?" I'd probably be a bit more confused, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.

Aside from your lone voice there is no debate over what to call manual safeties, it is a technical term not a political one... There's no benefit to creating a convoluted new term to describe them simply because you are not a fan.

Aside from your lone voice there is no debate over what to call manual safeties, it is a technical term not a political one... There's no benefit to creating a convoluted new term to describe them simply because you are not a fan.

Click to expand...

There is no debate here.

I am not trying to convince you to accept a new term, and I will not be convinced to call something a "safety" when it gives a false impression that it makes a gun safer when it does not.

I suggest we just each go our own way.

Can't recall ever hearing (nor reading) anyone express "disdain" for safeties. Why would they? Even if a gun has one, there's no law saying that it has to be used. To me it's immaterial.

Hurryin' Hoosier said:

Can't recall ever hearing (nor reading) anyone express "disdain" for safeties. Why would they? Even if a gun has one, there's no law saying that it has to be used. To me it's immaterial.

Click to expand...

I think the people that talk bad about them do so for bravo and to act tough. Probably have very little real experience with firearms.



Keep in mind I am not talking about those that don't want to use them. Plenty of knowledgeable people don't have a need for them. I am a revolver guy at heart so I understand.



I am talking about those that have "disdain" or try to downgrade them. Those people probably are new to guns and are trying to act macho (imho ymmv)



Regardless of what some people claim they do give a level of safety against accidental trigger engagement. If you feel that is a low probablity for you fine, but it does do that, hence making the gun safer. That is why it is called a safety

To me this is like someone emphatically stating your car doesn't need a clutch. Well, if it's a manual it kind of does! You can switch tacks and say there's no reason for a manual transmission circa 2013 because automatics are now better. Well, maybe maybe not. The fact is that new automatics are great but new manual gearboxes are also great. You're probably never going to convince hi po car enthusiasts to ditch their manuals no matter how good automatics get.

This is kind of where we are with the fire inhibition lev...er, I mean safety lever. You can start saying digitally manipulated primer ignition actuator if it makes you feel smarter than saying 'trigger' but it doesn't change the facts one whit. Maybe millions of cops carry Glocks and that's fine, but millions of cops, soldiers and civilians have also carried 1911s cocked-and-locked for the last seven or eight decades, too. There are advantages and disadvantages to most types of sidearms and to dismiss that fact and insist only one type is correct smacks of arrogance, ignorance and/or lack of experience. No disrespect meant.

To me this is like someone emphatically stating your car doesn't need a clutch. Well, if it's a manual it kind of does! You can switch tacks and say there's no reason for a manual transmission circa 2013 because automatics are now better. Well, maybe maybe not. The fact is that new automatics are great but new manual gearboxes are also great. You're probably never going to convince hi po car enthusiasts to ditch their manuals no matter how good automatics get.

Click to expand...

There are number of cops and people in other capacity that had to go through gun battles while driving a car.

None of them that I know of said, "Gee, I sure wish I needed to operate the clutch and gear shift lever because driving, operating the radio and communicating, wathcing the situation and evaluating, and shooting back was just not enough to occupy my mind."

That's what fighting with a gun is like. People focus on shooting skill set, saying "I had no problem doing drills on a range..." But, shooting skill set is only a small portion of the problem in combat.

Anyway, the operation of a clutch has no relevance to manual firing inhibitor device either in function or context of its use.

This is kind of where we are with the fire inhibition lev...er, I mean safety lever. You can start saying digitally manipulated primer ignition actuator if it makes you feel smarter than saying 'trigger' but it doesn't change the facts one whit. Maybe millions of cops carry Glocks and that's fine, but millions of cops, soldiers and civilians have also carried 1911s cocked-and-locked for the last seven or eight decades, too. There are advantages and disadvantages to most types of sidearms and to dismiss that fact and insist only one type is correct smacks of arrogance, ignorance and/or lack of experience. No disrespect meant.

Click to expand...

If I am giving an impression that I am saying using a gun with such device is wrong, let me clearly state that it is not my position. I see nothing wrong with using guns with such device. I am only saying people who choose pistols without it, such as many people, including majority of law enforcement, did so because those people made a risk evaluation and the risk of such device outweighted that of ones without one. Your decision may not be the same, and it does not have to be.

Millions of soldiers did not carry a 1911 cocked-and-locked. For absolute majority of the soldiers, military forced them to carry with an empty chamber and chamber it only before they are told they about to engage in combat, a luxury we don't have. So, let's stop pretending it means something. In WW II and Korean war era, they did not have the "flick flick flick the thumb every thime the gun moves" doctrine, and I don't think they did in Vietnam either.

Yes, many cops and regular citizens did. Not that the fact in itself is a proof of anything.

You misunderstood my post, and I guess I didn't state it clearly. I didn't mean that millions of soldiers carried C1 but that the combination of soldiers, cops and civvies numbers in the millions.

And I'm not sure if you drive stick or not but people who've done so for years don't forget how to use the clutch under stress (well, maybe James Yeager does). As for the clutch, I agree they never said- "Gee, I sure wish I needed to operate the clutch and gear shift lever because driving, operating the radio and communicating, wathcing the situation and evaluating, and shooting back was just not enough to occupy my mind." because the thought never occurred to them; it's a skill so engrained in muscle memory that they do it unconsciously. Just like you don't forget how to walk, breath or chew. That's the point of training.

Don't get me wrong- I don't mind however you set up and run your chemically powered high energy kinetic ballistic projectile projector. Just understand that a lot of folks with [probably] a lot more experience that you have may do it differently.

it's a skill so engrained in muscle memory that they do it unconsciously. Just like you don't forget how to walk, breath or chew. That's the point of training.

Click to expand...

You were walking all your life, but you have tripped have you not?

Training reduces the chance of error, but it can never eliminate the probability of manipulation error. Only way of eliminating it is to eliminate the device that needs manipulation. If that risk is worth whatever benefit the device brings you, then it may be a sound judgment to have it. But, each person would have a different assessment.

Just understand that a lot of folks with [probably] a lot more experience that you have may do it differently.

Click to expand...

Some do it differently, such as Marine Force Recon, etc.

Most, such as Delta(now called CAG), GSG-9, GIGN, SAS, etc., don't.

I certainly like the safety on my Glock 19.

Click to expand...

I'm still stuck on this...from the 4th or 5th post in this thread.

For that matter I guess in the heat of the moment you could forget to pull the digitally manipulated primer ignition actuator, too. Or fumble the chemically powered high energy kinetic ballistic projectile projector and drop it. Or blank and forget you even have it on you. It's a well documented fact that humans make mistakes; no need to belabor that.

All that said, if the manual safety is so apt to get you killed there must be lots of examples of it happening. Can you share a few of them with us so we can get a sense of the scope of the problem?

For that matter I guess in the heat of the moment you could forget to pull the digitally manipulated primer ignition actuator, too. Or fumble the chemically powered high energy kinetic ballistic projectile projector and drop it. Or blank and forget you even have it on you. It's a well documented fact that humans make mistakes; no need to belabor that.
...

Click to expand...

I find it highly unlikely that someone is going to forget to fire the gun when one's intention is to fire the gun, unlike manipulating a manual firing inhibitor which is an additional act required by addition of a device non essential for the firing function of the gun. But, since your asking, Ill answer.

Even if there is a danger of forgetting to pull a trigger, risk of not having a trigger outweighs having one, since you cannot frickin fire the gun without it.

Even if there is a danger of forgetting one even has a gun on him or her, risk of not having one outweighs having one, since you cannot frickin defend yourself without one.

You cannot defend yourself without a gun and the trigger on it. You can defend yourself without a manual firing inhibitor.

Does that help you comprehend the difference?

...
All that said, if the manual safety is so apt to get you killed there must be lots of examples of it happening. Can you share a few of them with us so we can get a sense of the scope of the problem?

Click to expand...

Also, I understand the frustration of not doing so well in an argument, but can you please do without putting words in my mouth?

Where did I ever say manual firing inhibitor is "apt to get" me killed?

I stated that the risk associated with having one for me is higher than not having one. If I happen to have a 1911 when I have to defend myself, I'd rather use that than not have a gun. Actually I own 1911s.

Anyway, I will answer anyway, may be to your dismay.

Instructors like Rob Pincus actually challenges if anyone can finish his course without 1911 malfunctions or user error specifically regarding manual firing inhibitor manipulations. So, he must have seen it.

Gabe Suarez states he saw it, and also states it is not rare. If my opinion, which is not even saying it is wrong to use it, upsets you, then you might not want to ask him about what he thinks of it, since his answer would be even blunt than mine.

I have also seen it while in training.

If you find someone dead on a ditch with a pistol with a manual firing inhibitor engaged, how is anyone going to tell if the person failed to manipulate it or the person did not attempt to disengage it at all? If it happened to a cop and the cop survived, what incentive does he or she have for admitting it? Anyone can get ambushed, but admitting that one failed to react because of failure to manipulate a gun can mean adverse administrative action. So, what is the incentive?

Actually there was in incident where a cop could not fire when he intended to shoot which was posted on Officer.com. Lucky for the cop, it would have been an unjustifiable shoot. But, if it was, it could have lead to his demise.

I am still not saying it is wrong to use a gun with such device. But, since you're asking, there you go.

After pages of going round and round I guess the only thing we agree on is that this is silly. Enjoy carrying your chemically powered high energy kinetic ballistic projectile projector with a totally unfettered digitally manipulated primer ignition actuator, with my blessings- you've certainly earned the right to do so! Enjoy the rest of your life.

Since the thread has drifted from "Manual Safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?" to what the proper term for the device should be called, I offer this from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

Since the thread has drifted from "Manual Safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?" to what the proper term for the device should be called, I offer this from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight.

I post my opinion about the merits and risks of manual firing inhibitor which is indisputably related to the topic.

Then YOU get upset about what terms I choose to use to call it, and YOU started an argument about what YOU think I should call it.

Then when I respond to YOUR post with a side bar while still discussing things related to the topic, YOU accuse me of a thread drift?

I also find it very amusing that all 3 of your posts on this thread is solely about your objection to my terminology, which YOU are saying it has nothing to do with the topic, then you come back and whine about threat drift.

May be you should think about these things before typing. So, who is a troll now?

I own pistols in both configurations. There is not yes or no answer. Learn to use both effectively.

TestPilot said:

Actually there was in incident where a cop could not fire when he intended to shoot which was posted on Officer.com. Lucky for the cop, it would have been an unjustifiable shoot. But, if it was, it could have lead to his demise.

Click to expand...

The fact that your sole real-world example is a case in which a safety saved a life (and, separately, a career) is pretty telling.

For most of us, the risk and likelihood of an AD/ND is far higher than the risk of not being able to get a gun to go "bang." Most of us who are not LEO will go our entire lives without ever needing to point a gun at someone. And the statistics show that the overwhelming preponderance of times that a gun is used defensively, it is not even fired. So you're talking about small fractions of extraordinarily rare events. Meanwhile, holstering, unholstering, etc., happens on a daily basis, and a safety provides a real and obvious risk reduction during those very common events.

You're buying a lot of risk just to avoid a "problem" that is extremely improbable at best. And that literally may never have materialized in a harmful way. But do as you will.

Quote:
I certainly like the safety on my Glock 19.

I'm still stuck on this...from the 4th or 5th post in this thread.

Click to expand...

Here's one. Despite the name, I think the primary use for this is to temporarily disable the firing mechanism while hostering, in case something gets caught in the trigger guard.

http://www.sure-draw.com/

Tam had some comments here:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2013/11/can-safety-layer-be-transparent.html

Quote:
I certainly like the safety on my Glock 19.

Click to expand...

I'm still stuck on this...from the 4th or 5th post in this thread.

Click to expand...

Cominolli.

While I realize it's not for everyone, I personally consider it a huge improvement to a Glock.

Operates the same as the safety on a 1911, and also allows the slide to be racked with the safety engaged.

cominolli.com/product_info.php?products_id=29

The fact that your sole real-world example is a case in which a safety saved a life (and, separately, a career) is pretty telling.

Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that the officer intended to shoot, and he could not because of manipulation failure. It could have just as happened in a good shooting decision as well as a bad one.

...
For most of us, the risk and likelihood of an AD/ND is far higher than the risk of not being able to get a gun to go "bang." Most of us who are not LEO will go our entire lives without ever needing to point a gun at someone. And the statistics show that the overwhelming preponderance of times that a gun is used defensively, it is not even fired. So you're talking about small fractions of extraordinarily rare events. Meanwhile, holstering, unholstering, etc., happens on a daily basis, and a safety provides a real and obvious risk reduction during those very common events.
...

Click to expand...

I am glad you brought up statistics.

You don't know the statistics. You think you know based on your skewed prejudice.

NYPD 2011 had 72 intentional shootings vs. 15 unintentional shootings and 2 cases of unauthorized use of firearms.

Even in conservative estimate, there are at least over a million defensive gun use in U.S. I highly doubt there is million cases of accidental discharge each year.

I know some people will argue that most of those defensive gun use does not involve firing, but those are situation where it can. I find it unsound to ignore issues with manipulation just on the basis that the need is unlikely.

So, no. Statistics do not support your argument that gun that is harder to fire makes the user safe.

TestPilot said:

The fact of the matter is that the officer intended to shoot, and he could not because of manipulation failure. It could have just as happened in a good shooting decision as well as a bad one.

Click to expand...

It could have. It was not equally likely to. Again, the fact that only real world example you can come up with produced GOOD results speaks volumes. If this were a real problem, there would be countless stories of cops or others being unable to discharge their weapons.

TestPilot said:

I am glad you brought up statistics.

You don't know the statistics. You think you know based on your skewed prejudice.

NYPD 2011 had 72 intentional shootings vs. 15 unintentional shootings and 2 cases of unauthorized use of firearms.

Even in conservative estimate, there are at least over a million defensive gun use in U.S. That is at least a million cases where the person may have or did need to shoot. I highly doubt there is million cases of accidental discharge each year.

So, no. Statistics do not support your argument that gun that is harder to fire makes the user safe.

Click to expand...

Wow. You really have your thinking all confused on this issue. There are so many things logically wrong with the above it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just try to take them in order.

First, your source is NYPD statistics. Since we're dealing with LEOs, they have astronomically higher likelihoods of needing to actually discharge a firearm than civilians. Are you LE? Are you talking just to LEOs? I thought your comments were for the general gun-owning/gun-carrying community.

Second, 72 is not the number of times that a NYPD officer would have failed to discharge his weapon if it had a safety. (In fact, unless things have changed in recent years, the NYPD allows officers to select from a few guns, some of which have safeties, although Glocks are the most common by far.) That's the number of instances in which they did discharge it.

15 is the number of times in which the firearm discharged when the officer did not want it to. In one year!

Your contention is that, some number of those 72 times, the discharge of the weapon would have been delayed/impeded in some way by a safety. Your contention is surely not that the rate of such instances is 100%. So 72 versus 15 is not the comparison.

The comparison for the NYPD is (72 * likelihood of failure/delay to discharge * likelihood of failure/delay having adverse consequence) versus 15.

Now, translate that to a civilian population of similar size (or equivalent number of carry hours or weapon manipulations). The 72 number will be much closer to zero (see below re: defensive gun use rates). And then get reduced from there. There is no way the math is even close.

As for your "million defensive gun use" instances, as I said before, the huge majority of those do not involve discharging the weapon. (That's why defensive gun use is so under-reported and under-counted by the anti-gunners... they don't generally count the times when someone shows a gun and the criminal goes away. Which is, far and away, the most common use.) The actual rate of defensive discharges is far, far, far below that.

As I said, do as you will. I'm sure you will. In all likelihood, you'll keep using guns without safeties and never have a problem. I'll keep using ones with them and also never have a problem. This discussion is about small percentages on the margins.

TestPilot,

Your troll status is not earned, by our disagreement about the value of a manual safety on a pistol. You earn it by calling a manual safety a "manual firing inhibitor". You know that's the incorrect term for the part, yet you use it simply to annoy members on the forum that prefer to use proper terminology.

You can argue all you want about who gets to decide what proper terminology is, but check any gun manufacturers documentation, or check any gun parts store and see if you can find a manual safety called a "manual firing inhibitor".

Regarding this semantic argument, there really is no argument. According to my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary*, the use of the term "safety" for a device on a firearm that prevents firing goes back at least to 1881. Modern usage is in accord. If one goes to m-w.com, definition #2 for "safety" reads:

When I put "manual firing inhibitor" into that same reference, I got this:


The way language works is that we all have to agree on the meaning of words, otherwise language is just everyone making unintelligible noises at each other. There is a common understanding as to what constitutes a firearm safety. Whether they are good or bad is a separate discussion, but an argument about the validity of the term is infantile.

*An encyclopedic work that attempts to catalog the first published use of each meaning of a word.

And here I always thought the trigger was the manual firing inhibitor, for the firearm will not fire unless it is manipulated..........

Manual safety on semi-auto: YES.

I keep all of my pistols in the same condition, which is:
Loaded Mag
Empty Chamber
Safety off

I want the safety in the case where I have chambered a round and then decided not to fire. I put it on "safe" until I can go somewhere where I can safely remove the round from the chamber and lower the hammer. Oh, I guess that also implies that I do not have any striker fired pistols, which is true.

I would argue that the disconnector is the device most appropriately called a "firing inhibitor." But since we've already got perfectly good names for literally every commonly-occurring functional part of a gun, we don't really need to go around inventing new terms that nobody will understand.