I really don't want to create any "passion" on this response, but Glocks, in my view, are expert's guns. And it's the last gun I would be comfortable carrying.
If one carefully obeys the cardinal rules of gun handling, one most likely will never have a problem. BUT, and this is the issue, people make mistakes. We sometimes get fatigued, even careless.
And this is not the gun to be forgiving.
The problem with the Glock is that you load the magazine, jack a round into the chamber and now the only remaining step in handling the gun is to fire it or to unload. Even carrying it is problematic. The thing about the Glock is that it's ready to fire and there's very little take up in the trigger. If I took my Sig Saur P220, jacked a round into the chamber and the holstered it, carrying it with the hammer back and ready to fire (without a safety) -- I think most people would consider that reckless. The primary difference is that there's at least more take-up in the action of the Sig.
In short, I don't know anyone who would put a round into the chamber and holster it with the hammer back and not have a safety. (I certainly wouldn't.) So I also would not carry a Glock with a round in the chamber, ready to fire. I think if you're an Army Ranger or a Navy Seal, or if you belong to a SWAT team, fine. You are trained adequately, but I believe many of these unintentional police shootings we hear about in the news are done with Glocks.
If you can be trained to keep your finger off the trigger, you can be trained to disengage a safety. With Glocks you or someone else can be shot each time the trigger is touched. For a first time handgun, I'd get a good .357 revolver or a small 9mm pistol with a safety. If you decide to go with a Glock, get some training, then spend a lot of time with it unloaded just to get a feel for it.