My trigger finger is my safety

I have no issues with a Glock or any other striker fired guns, either. They are here and here to stay. In the hands of a skilled gun owner they are fine weapons. The issue I have with them is that the light trigger pull, lack of a hammer to rest your thumb on as you holster (where a LOT of ND's happen, ESPECIALLY in a stressful situation that cops face often) and the lack of a manual safety make a ND more likely. It is simply ignorant not to acknowledge that. Are Glocks unsafe? No. But they are far less forgiving of human error, and we are ALL human and DO make errors.

I'm glad Mas responded. The "I'm not Rambo" response is exactly the problem. MOST gun owners are minimally (at best) proficient in the use of their weapons. I see them at the range and in gunshops all the time. For those people, a striker fired safety-less pistol is a TERRIBLE choice. Yet the media (advertising by the companies calling their product perfection), the proliferation of them in movies (how many bought a model 29 after Dirty harry or a Beretta 92 after Die Hard?), rap songs, and their adoption by police agencies (Give me a Glock. The FBI uses them so they must be the best) has insured that they are big sellers. I mean, these guns are actually marketed to the inexperienced shooter! "No safety lever to fumble with!" like it's such a hardship!

Finally, the strongest advocates for them are generally younger shooters who grew up with them. The Glock has been around nearly 30 years now. These shooters know nothing else. They actually believe "a safety can get you killed" despite ZERO evidence to support that, while ignoring the MOUNTAINS of evidence that actually SUPPORTS a safety has saved countless lives. They remind me of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH NAH NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Was getting a pill out of a drug bottle or cleaner out of a Clorox botte ever a life and death matter to you?

Click to expand...

Test Pilot, I have never needed a pill that bad, but I am sure a person experiencing a heart attack and needed his medication did.

Posted by Old Dog:
I don't see many here arguing against pistols without safeties -- rather, rather most seem to be asking those who seem to believe that pistols sans safeties are superior to substantiate the "why" ... We're not getting much in the way of documentation or logic ...

I absolutely adore the 1911; it's the pistol with which I came of age.
...
I have ZERO problem with those who advocate a Glock or M&P -- what I do have a problem with is folks who say one-size-fits-all or one platform is the safest, or THE BEST.

Click to expand...

I did not see a single person who stated in this thread that Glock of M&P is superior to 1911, M92FS, etc.

My position is that neither cannot be generalized as better because the addition of more buttons or levers that need manual manipulation intended for safety comes with their own set of risk.

You keep distorting other's position that only suggests a risk to absolutes.

You accuse others of claiming Glock, M&P, etc., are superior, which no one did. However, it is actually you who are indirectly, but clearly, claiming that 1911, Beretta M92, etc., are superior.

How so? You claim those added buttons and levers only have benefits, but absolutely deny that there is any risk associated with it. If you claim there are only benefits and zero risks and not having them has risks, then there is no logical conclusion other than that you are claiming it is superior.

It's not that one person's reasoning which is different that mine is such a big matter to me. However, if that line of reasoning is popularized, then it would lead to mandates. That is just how we got mandated magazine disconnects, mandated loaded chamber indicators, etc. The line of reasoning is, "Hey, they call it 'safety,' so having more of it must be a good thing" which is far from the truth. And, that kind of public perception leads to policies that makes people suffer.

Posted by Homerboy:

Test Pilot, I have never needed a pill that bad, but I am sure a person experiencing a heart attack and needed his medication did.

Click to expand...

Then the "safety cap" surely does come at a risk, does it not?

Posted by Homerboy:

I'm glad Mas responded. The "I'm not Rambo" response is exactly the problem. MOST gun owners are minimally (at best) proficient in the use of their weapons. I see them at the range and in gunshops all the time. For those people, a striker fired safety-less pistol is a TERRIBLE choice. Yet the media (advertising by the companies calling their product perfection), the proliferation of them in movies (how many bought a model 29 after Dirty harry or a Beretta 92 after Die Hard?), rap songs, and their adoption by police agencies (Give me a Glock. The FBI uses them so they must be the best) has insured that they are big sellers. I mean, these guns are actually marketed to the inexperienced shooter! "No safety lever to fumble with!" like it's such a hardship!

Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight.

When people fail the manipulation of the lever, you blame lack of training.

AT THE SAME TIME, you claim as if the manipulation is not "such a hardship" for them.

AT THE SAME TIME, you claim pistols lacking the lever is a bad thing for people lacking training.

Is it so hard to accept that both type of pistols have their own set of risks and benefits rather than using paradox logic to feel better about your choice?

No. I am saying that lack of training either way is a bad thing. But since 99.999% of people who own a gun will never actually use them in a real situation the lack of training in forgetting to disengage a safety will almost certainly never cause an injury or death. This is what Massad Ayoob does for a living. In decades of research he found ONE where a safety caused a person to not be able to return fire. The inexperience of that shooter might have made the safety a non-issue either way. Who is to say he would have even hit hit target anyway? But the stats do show that a lack of a safety has caused injuries. I can find dozens.

And the whole "my finger is my safety" mantra is a direct endorsement of safety less weapons and a clear statement of their uselessness on a weapon
And you know it.

Yeah. The safety cap comes at a risk. But since the odds are much higher that a kid will eat daddy's Percocet or drink the pine sol over somebody needing that pill quickly we accept the cap as a necessary device

But mall ninjas everywhere are convinced that safety is going to get them killed

But since 99.999% of people who own a gun will never actually use them in a real situation the lack of training in forgetting to disengage a safety will almost certainly never cause an injury or death. This is what Massad Ayoob does for a living. In decades of research he found ONE where a safety caused a person to not be able to return fire.

Click to expand...

Yeah. But what does he know anyway.

On the other hand, we've got some real experts here with opinions formulated from.... well, speculation?

meef said:

On the other hand, we've got some real experts here with opinions formulated from.... well, speculation?

Click to expand...

Video games... internet searches.

Once in a while they find pictures of dead cops as evidence...
Oh wait... he wasn't really dead.

Like I said earlier, it's refreshing and enlightening when genuine professionals make their voices heard, a number of good voices even prior to Mas. But to use Mas as an example, it's all between his ears because he's lived it, seen it, done it, knows it. The video/internet junkies say "I'll get back to you" and go do their Google thing only to find what Mas already has in his head, except his analysis is truthful, objective, logical and based on life.

I salute the pros, and stand ready to learn from you.

Posted by Homerboy:
But since 99.999% of people who own a gun will never actually use them in a real situation the lack of training in forgetting to disengage a safety will almost certainly never cause an injury or death.

Click to expand...

Priority in a gear's performace should go to how it performs when needed than how it does not perform when not needed.

Also, if you approach statistics in the way of your reasoning, then since 99.999% will never actually use them, according to you, and those who do meet criminals did not need to fire in vast majority of cases, you might as well just have a fake pistol to be even more safe. That way there is really no accidental discharge danger.

I have been preaching for 40 years that the finger is the primary safety on EVERY gun ever made. I have no doubt that there have been accidents in which the trigger wasn't pulled but those are few and far between.

I took a lady shooting this weekend that had never handled a lot of pistols though she had been deer and dove hunting for quite a few years and was comfortable with rifles and shotguns. I handed her a Walther, unloaded and not even a mag inserted, and the first thing she did was curl that finger on the trigger. It just seems to be an automatic movement for a new shooter and has to be worked out with practice.

I did not see a single person who stated in this thread that Glock of M&P is superior to 1911, M92FS, etc

Click to expand...

If that is not what you're implying in your numerous, over-wordy posts, then there would be no disagreement, eh? Review your own post #26, among others.

You keep distorting other's position that only suggests a risk to absolutes.

You accuse others of claiming Glock, M&P, etc., are superior, which no one did. However, it is actually you who are indirectly, but clearly, claiming that 1911, Beretta M92, etc., are superior.

Click to expand...

Since you seemed to be responding to one of my posts, I think you may have confused some others' posts with mine.

However, if that line of reasoning is popularized, then it would lead to mandates. That is just how we got mandated magazine disconnects, mandated loaded chamber indicators, etc. The line of reasoning is, "Hey, they call it 'safety,' so having more of it must be a good thing" which is far from the truth. And, that kind of public perception leads to policies that makes people suffer.

Click to expand...

Now would be the time for you to go back a do some research on how three states mandated some of these features. That "line of reasoning" was never "popularized" -- unless you consider the actions of a few rogue politicians to be the will of the people, few of whom actually even understand these mechanical functions. The features you describe were pretty much invented by firearms manufacturers prior to any political interference.

I believe that training is the solution, not the tool. But I'm not seeing too many others who understand that in this thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks Old Dog I think that was the whole point of the initial post.

I know it was the point of my contribution about the three rules.

Nuff Said.

We are all creatures of habit. Training can create good habits and break bad ones. Or vice-versa—it depends on how you train. Either way, in a crisis, we will do what we have trained ourselves to do, good or bad. Everything else is just rhetoric.

(Master Blaster, I don't discount the 3 rules. They are important but not intuitively applicable to all situations. Situational training makes their application intuitive and reinforces their importance.)

As the provocateur in this thread, I will attempt to clarify my earlier statements more concisely:

1. Human beings are fallible, so we create machines that aren't just easy to use, but attempt to cover our butts when we do, eventually, err.

2. The military, aviation and other well developed, high risk, fast paced pursuits utilize devices that increase the amount of deliberate action required to engage a dangerous mechanism. That includes guarded trigger systems on fighter planes that have to be worked with in the middle of the fight.

3. Devices that require deliberate action can be sequential: Cocking a hammer, moving a safety lever. Or they can involve an amount of mechanical movement or force that makes the requires deliberate action by the user, like a DA trigger.

4. Until the '80s, all guns that were carried loaded required some sort of deliberate action as a fail safe against human error. Glocks and other light triggered guns can be fired with very little force and a single order of operation, removing much of that previous deliberateness.


There is no functional difference between carrying an XD or Glock loaded or carrying a Series 80 1911 with the safety off. All are realistically Condition Zero carry and rely entirely (instead of predominantly) on user infallibility to prevent NDs.


This is a largely civilian/consumer philosophy, not accepted by the military. Keep in mind that one of the primary features our military looked for in a 1911 replacement (XM9) was a gun they considered safe to carry with a round in the chamber for standard troops - something the 1911 was not considered to offer.


Good gun handling practice is ALWAYS going to be the primary thing preventing NDs. The purpose of long accepted DA triggers and manual safeties is to guard against that last few percent of gun safety that humans are incapable of. Safety-less guns with pre-sprung or pre-cocked trigger systems remove this extra insurance against accidental death without offering a replacement. The NRA safety procedures existed before Glocks, and their relevance didn't change in 1982.

Condition Zero and good trigger discipline is wishful thinking, not a plan.

Test pilot, you twist everything to fit your logic but offer nothing but theory. 99.99% of us will never use a in. Gun for defense. You base your distrust of safeties on that minuscule chance that you will be that .001% and if you are that you will fail to disengage the safety. There are documented cases where a safety saved a life. There is ONE when somebody who admitted he spent zero time practicing.

People who are so vehemently against safeties are obviously people who do not want to devote the time to train.

25 years of driving and never needed an airbag. Doesn't mean I'm not glad to have one. You remind me of people who say a seatbelt will keep them trapped in a burning car so they won't use them despite the fact that MOST people are saved by them

See, when we have these debates, this kind of statement muddies the waters rather than clearing them:

People who are so vehemently against safeties are obviously people who do not want to devote the time to train.

Click to expand...

This is not something you can say with any credibility or validity. All your other points can be expressed as either fact or opinion, but this one cannot. It is simply false.

I know many people who train extensively (or are even trainers themselves!) and are something like what you'd probably call "vehemently" against external, manual, safeties. I know many who practice and train lots and who prefer them (though that seems to be a declining percentage). I know MANY, MANY (like myself) who shoot, train, and practice very regularly and who really don't have a preference.

(In my case, any, just so long as it isn't DA/SA. )

So debate (if there's anything left here to present on either side) but don't make absolutist comments that are demonstrably incorrect as part of your case.

I don't personally care for safety levers, and not because I don't want to train. I just conceive of situations where the safety might become difficult to remove, and I don't see the downside of DA triggers for self defense.

So the upside of using a safety - a lighter trigger pull - isn't a good balance for the downside - a potential barrier to being able to use the gun. I just don't need a target trigger for defense.

Just curious....

Is the purpose of this thread (and the previous monstrosity that it somewhat closely resembles) to:

a.) demonstrate that one type of pistol configuration (with/without manually engaged/released safety) is superior to the other

b.) convince the opposing point of view of the superiority of your preference of pistol safety configuration, thereby actually changing their opinion/world view (har har)

c.) instruct newcomers how to choose the superior (aka your personal preference) safety configuration based upon the most wordy and redundant argument(s) imaginable stating/justifying said superiority

d.) burn up a lot of spare time and energy engaging in internet debate (my personal favorite)

e.) or something else entirely

The (hidden) purpose of this thread appeared to be emphasizing the Glock point of view on safety devices, albeit couched in the guise of good training leads to good discipline.

The thread has become an argument about the opposite point of view: If something more than pure discipline is necessary - what device and why?

Nom de Forum said:

I am not so sure we can fully accept the statement the officer was unfamiliar as the only explanation. People can train to incredible levels of proficiency with one and only one piece of equipment, and still when in under extreme pressure fail to demonstrate that proficiency. I believe the officers unfamiliarity is the primary reason failing to disengage the safety. We cannot be sure. The book was published during the period of transition from revolvers to semiautomatics by law enforcement agencies. The officers demonstrated proficiency in training may have been insufficient to overcome years of proficiency with DA Revolver in a crisis situation.

I may be misunderstanding what your daily routine is but I read it as moving an unholster pistol multiple times a day. It would be much safer to keep it in a holster.

Click to expand...

You're joking, right? What I mean is... our LEOs should be VERY well trained with the firearm(s) they carry and, if they're not, it's the fault of the LEO, their Training Officer and their Commander. EXTREME negligence on all accounts.

meef said:

Just curious....

Is the purpose of this thread (and the previous monstrosity that it somewhat closely resembles) to:

a.) demonstrate that one type of pistol configuration (with/without manually engaged/released safety) is superior to the other

b.) convince the opposing point of view of the superiority of your preference of pistol safety configuration, thereby actually changing their opinion/world view (har har)

c.) instruct newcomers how to choose the superior (aka your personal preference) safety configuration based upon the most wordy and redundant argument(s) imaginable stating/justifying said superiority

d.) burn up a lot of spare time and energy engaging in internet debate (my personal favorite)

e.) or something else entirely

Click to expand...

This is what the OP said:

Nom de Forum said:

The whole "heated discussion" would be less heated if proponents of manual safeties would realize I am not primarily arguing they are bad and should be abandoned. I am arguing the counterintuitive idea that they don't necessarily make pistols safer.

Click to expand...

So lets take a look down memory lane in this thread ... back to page 2... and see what else the OP says:

Nom de Forum said:

I have been searching for statistics on gun safety since the 1980s. Nothing concrete yet, but so far my impression is that the sudden wide use of pistols without safety levers has not made much of difference..

Click to expand...

That's right... even though he admits that he doesn't have anything concrete, after 3 decades of research he's " .....arguing the counterintuitive idea that they don't necessarily make pistols safer.

^^^^OK, that supports option d.) burn up a lot of spare time and energy engaging in internet debate