Manual safetys on semi pistols - yes or no?

[TestPilot]

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.

You are ignoring prominent trainers having observed manipulation failures with their students. If those students fail in training, you think they'll somehow fare better in real life?

Also, process failure is not a problem if an incident just happened to produce good result?
That is some weird logic.

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.
...

You are conveniently ignoring that LEO also have “astronomically higher likelihood of needing to draw, holster, and do other handling of gun during operations without firing and also administrative handling in non-firing situation.

If anything, if equally trained, LEO's chance of accidental discharge is actually higher than average citizen. Because they handle guns more.

The NYPD numbers is to show that even for people who handle guns for a living, it is more prudent to give more weight to fighting efficiency than preventing accident.

Since you are concerned with AD/ND during gun handling, LEO and regular citizen should not only be compared in terms of number of shootings, but in terms of incidents of loaded gun handling and shooting. LEO may get involved in shootings much, but they also handle loaded guns in non-range situations overwhelmingly more also. Regular citizens have less probability of getting in shootings, but they also have very less probability of loaded gun handling out side of range situations.

....
Second, 72 is not the number of times that a NYPD officer would have failed to discharge his weapon if it had a safety.
...

I never said it was.

...
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.
....

No. My contention is that it is flawed to cite some vague statistics to support an over-generalization that gun design choice should be based more on accident than fighting with it.

...
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.
...

In other words, you have a problem with my population sample being an active gun users.

It was intentional. Why should I look for data about gun use and draw a conclusion about effectiveness based on people who rarely use it? Your sample population would include, although there would be some enthusiasts, a whole bunch of people who just sticks a gun in the drawer and forget about it. What meaningful conclusion about a manual of arms can be drawn from that sample?

Basing decisions on the basis of the majority who does not ever have to fire, we might as well be carrying starter pistols.

...
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.
...

That is what is interesting about the whole basis of your argument.

You seem to be making an argument in support of the thumb lever device, but at the same time, you keep mentioning “majority of those do not involve discharging the weapon” as a support.

If the device is not a problem or a hindrance when it does involve discharging a weapon, then why would the percentage of discharging a weapon per number of incidents even matter?

 

[TestPilot]

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".

This is your 4th post, all of it regarding issue not related to the topic according to your whining. Then of course you will blame me for thread drift.

I stated I do not wish to debate the issue. I am done replying to you Mr. I-am-a-designator-of-troll-who-is-also-a-troll-by-my-own-definition.

 

[ATLDave]

If the device is not a problem or a hindrance when it does involve discharging a weapon, then why would the percentage of discharging a weapon per number of incidents even matter?

Because that's the size of the universe in which your "gun won't go bang when it should" scenario may occur. And the problem is some small fraction of that. You seem to think it's a big fraction. I would guess a much lower fraction. But my argument is that, unless it's something far larger than it could possibly be, then it doesn't matter whether it's .1% or 1%.

Also, process failure is not a problem if an incident just happened to produce good result? That is some weird logic.

The logic is that it is revealing of what the actual probabilities are. Consider an argument where someone contends that seat belts are dangerous because they might trap someone in a car. The other person says, "show me an example." The example offered is of a person who tried to get his seat belt off, failed, and then was involved in a car accident wherein the seat belt saved his life. Whatever support that tale lends to a claim that seat belts might trap you is drowned out by the implication that, notwithstanding whatever small risk that might pose, they are worth it on balance.

 

[TestPilot]

Because that's the size of the universe in which your "gun won't go bang when it should" scenario may occur....

That part of the universe is the reason why we buy guns for security in the first place.

So, that is the part of the universe these guns we carry should have first priority in design.

But, even that should still be irrelevant if you believe that it is not a hinderance in that situation.

The logic is that it is revealing of what the actual probabilities are.

The "it" you are referring to is an incident where a cop made a bad shooting decision.

I certainly cannot agree that cops are more probable to make bad shooting decision than good ones.

...
Consider an argument where someone contends that seat belts are dangerous because they might trap someone in a car. The other person says, "show me an example." The example offered is of a person who tried to get his seat belt off, failed, and then was involved in a car accident wherein the seat belt saved his life. Whatever support that tale lends to a claim that seat belts might trap you is drowned out by the implication that, notwithstanding whatever small risk that might pose, they are worth it on balance.
...

Applying your seat-belt exampe, why do you think cops are exempt from seatbelt in states like CA? They are actually taught to take it off when they're about to arrive in a danger zone, because tactical situation requires them to jump out of a car in a special situation and they found out from experience that the seatbelt is more likely to be a risk in their specific situation.

What reduces risk as a safety device in peace situation can actually increase risk in a special situation.

Same applies to guns. They are not general safety device. It's a special tool for special circumstances.

 

[ATLDave]

I'll make this simple:

likelihood of safety-equipped being unable to fire gun in a situation due to safety manipulation failure where said inability to fire causes death or serious injury to shooter < likelihood of AD/ND or too-quick wrongful shooting in absence of safety

 

[TestPilot]

I'll make this simple:

likelihood of safety-equipped being unable to fire gun in a situation due to safety manipulation failure where said inability to fire causes death or serious injury to shooter < likelihood of AD/ND or too-quick wrongful shooting in absence of safety

I will make it simple too.


Probability of user dying because of failure to manipulate manual firing inhibitor device that requires separate motion from firing action:

Guns with such device > Guns without such device.



Probability of AD/ND or too-quick wrongful shooting:

Guns with such device vs. Guns without such device : Unknown.

(People have been shooting themselves for a long time with 1911, M92 also. It's not just Glocks.)



Factors unaccouned for by ATL Dave:

-Fatalness of manipulation faillure in gun fight vs. Fatalness of AD/ND.

-Stress and difficulty in gun fight vs. all the time in the world for safe handling in non-gun fight situation.

 

[Old Dog]

This thread is certainly entertaining ... approaching the level of hilarity, actually.

"Test Pilot," whether he realizes it or not, is actually making a pretty good case for handguns with safeties (really, reread the last twenty or so posts, trying to forget whose position is whose).

To use an actual real-world sampling (not videogames) from the past six or seven years, my department has seen an definite uptick in negligent discharges since we transitioned to pistols without manual safeties. Sadly, our marksmanship levels don't seem to have increased appreciably, either, although I must admit that it is somewhat easier to train folks without prior firearms experiencing coming into the academies.

Ah, first the use of "proletarian" in a technical thread, comes now the term "fatalness." Little early in the day to cook up some popcorn, but maybe this thread has legs and I can get back to it tonight at 0130 EST.

 

[meef]

You know, I thought that I had too much time on my hands.

I couldn't begin to compete.

 

[TarDevil]

an argument about the validity of the term is infantile.

Indeed.

Some people enjoy looking silly. Let 'em. "Safety" still works fine for me.

 

[benzy2]

I honestly don't care. Firearms with light, short pulls benefit most to me with the addition of a safety. Firearms with a heavy, long pull are less benefitted by a manual safety. I don't want to carry a 1911 that doesn't have one and I don't want to carry today's striker fired pistols with one. At the range, I enjoy a manual safety on any firearm used though it isn't a requirement. I fear an AD/ND. With that, the firearms that are most likely to have one benefit most from a manual safety.

If you don't like them, don't buy a pistol with one. If you require them, don't buy a pistol without. I would rather spend my carry training on a single system (either all firearms with a similar manual safety or all without a manual safety) of either type and learn it well than argue over the term, split training between both systems, and question what I'm doing in a time of need.

 

[ares338]

This is easy...if the pistol has a safety I deal with it...if not then problem solved. Seems to be a lot of personal animosity that I haven't seen in here before.

 

[AABEN]

Manual all the way

 

[C0untZer0]

I've spent decades with the HK P7M8 so I'm not going to even try to memorize working a manual safety.

My MOA is squeeze the grip and squeeze the trigger.

 

[Mike1234567]

I've owned both and I will never own another pistol without a thumb safety. It's just too easy and quick to brush the safety with my thumb. The added safety is well worth it. I just make sure the safety is very unlikely to engage accidentally. As a side note: I didn't like the mag safety on my LC9 so I disabled it while I still had it. The LC9 thumb safety is very well designed though, IMO.

 

[Hokkmike]

The discussion has exceeded my expectations. Thanks all.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Exactly how are you going to keep accidental movement of the thumb lever by using your press-down technich on a gun like M&P Shield or Beretta 92F?

I don't need to worry about those since I don't carry those guns. I'm not a fan of slide mounted safeties or safeties I can't rest my thumb on.

They use it because 1911 has some good things, such as SAO trigger, to offer, not because they get a high out of flick flicking their thumbs. The discussion here is risks and benefits of that thumb lever, not how highly you think of 1911s.

So the Marines feeling comfortable carrying guns with a external thumb safety into combat doesn't add to the conversation?

So, according to you, M&P Shield, Beretta, and S&W 3rd Gen are dangerous guns?

Well actually I wouldn't view them as dangerous but I'm not comfortable with carrying those guns. Safety is too small for me or it's a slide mounted safety.

Actually, that is interesting. Why does my term make it sound worse?

Guns are designed to fire bullets when trigger is pulled. That is the very purpose of that machine. The very purpose of what you call "manual safties" is to provide a means to inhibit that function until user manually enables firing function.

So, why does describing it that way make it sound bad? I think you are on to something here.

Please explain.

Something that prevents something unintentional from happening is a safety. Not a "inhibitor of something unintentional happening". It may serve that function but it's called a safety. I could call this whole thread "a collection of viewpoints and discussion" but that's just wasting time typing that all out isn't it?

Safeties are more of an "unintentional discharge inhibitor" than a manual firing inhibitor. Would you call a car's safety belt an "inhibitor of departing the car" or would you call it a "crash operator restraining device"?

I'm assuming that you also only want to drive a car with an automatic transmission because you think that manuals are dangerous?

 

[45_auto]

Has Testpilot ever posted a picture of himself at the mall in his ninja suit? Only thing I can think of that would make this thread worthwhile.

 

[meef]

Have to admire TestPilot's creativity with terminology.

I wonder what combination of words he uses to say "toilet paper"?

 

[JTQ]

45_auto wrote,
Has Testpilot ever posted a picture of himself at the mall in his ninja suit? Only thing I can think of that would make this thread worthwhile.

He probably can't be photographed as it may give away his secret on-line gamer identity.

TestPilot wrote,
I am not a pilot. The ID was originated from a game.

Priceless.

 

[TarDevil]

At this rate we soon can expect a "Moderator Input Inhibitor" (and who could blame them?).

 

[TestPilot]

I don't need to worry about those since I don't carry those guns. I'm not a fan of slide mounted safeties or safeties I can't rest my thumb on.
...

...
Well actually I wouldn't view them as dangerous but I'm not comfortable with carrying those guns. Safety is too small for me or it's a slide mounted safety.
...

So you are admitting that it is a problem on some guns?

Something that prevents something unintentional from happening is a safety. Not a "inhibitor of something unintentional happening".
...

So the device "prevents something unintentional from happening" and "not 'a inhibitor of something unintentional from happening'" AT THE SAME TIME?

So, it is NOT an inhibitor of something unintentional(accidental discharge)?

That is comical.

I am glad that I have invented the term. It just exposes the thought process behind the people that length to whine about it trying to make the device look good.

...
Safeties are more of an "unintentional discharge inhibitor" than a manual firing inhibitor.

Are you saying if the user pulls the trigger when it is engaged, the thing somehow reads user's mind and still fires the gun when it is still engaged?

When it is engaged, it inhibits fire regardless of whether the user intends to fire or not. So, no. It is not an "unintentional discharge inhibitor." It is a firing inhibitor.

You WANT to think it only inhibits accidental discharge while knowing that it inhibits any discharge from trigger pull when user do intends to fire if it is engaged. That is why you're upset about the term, isn't it?

 

[TestPilot]

Has Testpilot ever posted a picture of himself at the mall in his ninja suit? Only thing I can think of that would make this thread worthwhile.

Instead of the classic tactic of branding negative names, why don't you point out the logical or factual problems of my argument, if you are capable of it?

 

[TarDevil]

I'm gonna go have a "Thought Process Inhibitor" while I watch NCIS.

 

[ACP]

NO safeties on any of my carry guns. Too easy to miss or forget under stress --and gun games and regular range practice DO NOT count as "stress."

My last two 45s were DAO -- a Kahr CW45 (current) and a S&W 4586 (since sold). This from a guy who carried 1911s for many, many years.

I mostly carry two S&W 642s. Draw, point and shoot. That's about as much as I care to try and remember if I am ever confronted with deadly force -- and I pray I never am.

 

[45_auto]

Instead of the classic tactic of branding negative names, why don't you point out the logical of factual problems of my argument if you are capable of it?

I find it very difficult to determine what the "logical" of the "factual problems" of your argument consists of. It appears that english is not your native language, and your statements are made even more ambiguous by your apparent limited knowledge of firearm terminology.

From what I can understand, your argument appears to be that people are incapable of successfully operating a semi-automatic trigger on a firearm that incorporates a thumb-operated safety. I would think it would be obvious to pretty much anyone that the real-world 100 year service record of the 1911, the 50 year service record of the M16 (safety operates identically to a 1911, it's the longest serving US military rifle), and the domination of speed-and-accuracy oriented pistol competitions by the 1911 demonstrates the "factual problems" with your claims rather handily.