What personal accusations were those, KB?
My opinions, my experiences, and the friends and relatives missing parts of their bodies have NOTHING to do with you.
My own judgment about firearms safety and the fact that relying on any one thing to keep me safe is not what I choose has nothing to do with you.
My initial post had nothing to do with you.
My opinion that the Glock was truly revolutionary, but not the last word in firearms design, has nothing to do with you.
That's what I was talking about in my response.
If someone has a rational reason why he/she believes that any additional safety features in a gun design are a BAD idea, I'm interested.
An obvious example of such a device would be the grip safety that makes it safe to twirl an XD and very easy to do a foolproof press check, but doesn't hinder someone from shooting the gun immediately whenever the need arises.
I'm sure there are others.
Like I said, if someone wants to explain why they're a BAD idea, or something to be AVOIDED, I'd be interested.
If someone just wants to repeat, "Glocks are good enough!" I'm not really interested, since I have tried them, I have thought this through, and I have a fair amount of life experience upon which I base my judgments.
They're my judgments about a mechanical device, and they're not about you.
I do believe, however, that if more people took Murphy's Law seriously, we wouldn't keep hearing "Just keep your finger off the trigger!" in response to a question about the design of a mechanical device.
My opinions, my experiences, and the friends and relatives missing parts of their bodies have NOTHING to do with you.
My own judgment about firearms safety and the fact that relying on any one thing to keep me safe is not what I choose has nothing to do with you.
My initial post had nothing to do with you.
My opinion that the Glock was truly revolutionary, but not the last word in firearms design, has nothing to do with you.
That's what I was talking about in my response.
If someone has a rational reason why he/she believes that any additional safety features in a gun design are a BAD idea, I'm interested.
An obvious example of such a device would be the grip safety that makes it safe to twirl an XD and very easy to do a foolproof press check, but doesn't hinder someone from shooting the gun immediately whenever the need arises.
I'm sure there are others.
Like I said, if someone wants to explain why they're a BAD idea, or something to be AVOIDED, I'd be interested.
If someone just wants to repeat, "Glocks are good enough!" I'm not really interested, since I have tried them, I have thought this through, and I have a fair amount of life experience upon which I base my judgments.
They're my judgments about a mechanical device, and they're not about you.
I do believe, however, that if more people took Murphy's Law seriously, we wouldn't keep hearing "Just keep your finger off the trigger!" in response to a question about the design of a mechanical device.