Hurryin' Hoosier
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 635
Say what?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?
Say what?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?
That is not what I stated. I stated that there is a risk that there can be a mistake or other accidents related to it, and that even if most can and do operate it with success, what benefit it brings can be less than the risk it poses depending on how each individual rates risk....
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.
....
Someone using it for a long time does not mean it does not have any problems associated with it. I am not saying 1911 is a bad pistol, but if you are saying there is nothing that can possibliy go wrong with its "manual of arms" I'd have to disagree....
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
Why don't you just admit that you really don't care one way or the other?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?
Testpilot said:I stated that there is a risk that there can be a mistake or other accidents related to it, and that even if most can and do operate it with success, what benefit it brings can be less than the risk it poses depending on how each individual rates risk.
Testpilot said:If you are claimng to have some sort of superiority of command of English by pointing out whether if English is not my native language or not, you are not succeeding at it, since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.
Testpilot said:Rifle is proactively used in the military for soldiers. Not purposely used defensively and unexpecedly.
Testpilot said:Speed shooters like 1911 because of the trigger.
Your clear lack of knowledge of what I know or do not know is mildly amusing.I was not going to reply to your comments in Post 35 but it is clear that you have no knowledge about law enforcement and their tactics and will only address my comments in this area.
I never said there is no merit to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.You are totally ignoring the value of manual and thumb safeties for LEO’s. There are well documented saves, (research Massad Ayoob for starters), of LEO’s when their guns were snatched by a criminal and the criminal was unable to make the gun fire as he did not know about the location and how to use the thumb safety.
Law enforcement agencies have enhanced the protection of officers having their guns snatched from their holsters by issuing holsters that have different levels of retention built in them. Each of these levels require the officers to follow a certain procedure in order to draw their weapon. Yet officers have little if any trouble learning to use these holsters.
That was a comment regarding pistols like 1911 or M&P models with manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.You make the statement that “Most training institutions will teach trainees to constantly engage or disengage every time the gun comes off an intended target and that may cause a person to encounter situation where they would be manipulating he lever while the decision to shoot or not changes” but do not support this statement by listing any “training institutions” that teach this method.
"Search" is not the situation I am discussing here. What is the point of arguing with you if you, who claims to know enough anout law enforcement tactics to judge that of others, do not even know what context I am speaking of?LEO’s are trained use of the gun in low or high ready position when doing searches and investigating unknown/dangerous situations and do not constantly bring their gun on and off targets. If they use a flashlight attached to the gun (I don't know of any officers that do this but I'm sure there are some somewhere) then they have to us a very high degree of safe gun handling as the first rule of gun safety is don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy. I can not imagine a situation where I am pointing my gun (engaging) at a person then taking my gun off target (disengaging) multiple times. Either the threat is there or it isn’t. If the threat is there I’m sure as heck not taking my gun (disengaging as you put it) or attention off of it.
Testpilot said:I never said there is no merit to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers.
Watching people playing doctor on TV does not make you a psychologist, especially when you attempt an analogy with things of totally different context.Very Same thing applies to flying (airplane crashes), driving (car wrecks), eating in restaurants (food poisoning), carrying any gun (accidental discharges), etc, etc. Carried to extremes, the behavior that you are describing is called "agoraphobia".
Just a mention of millions of users do not prove there is no risk.Unless you can apply some newly discovered actual data to the risk, your illogical fear of your capability to use a simple mechanical device is proven unfounded by the experience of millions of previous users.
Interesting viewpoint. I would guess that you have never been in combat, and probably never in the military, or you would know that it is VERY common to have to react defensively and unexpectedly. After all, the other side is trying as hard as they can to kill you in any way possible, and you'll find that they are VERY sneaky about it. Just from my own personal experiences when I was in the military (US Army), there were several situations in which I found myself purposely using my rifle both unexpectedly and defensively. In your case, it does help explain your viewpoint. I can understand where someone who believes that the military cannot be surprised or forced to react to a defensive situation would also have strange ideas about weapon manipulations.
You brought up the issue of competition shooters, not me.You believe that only "speed shooters" use 1911's? You believe that they only like them because of the manual firing inhibitor finger lever?
If you have to draw your gun you don't want the safety on and if it's in the holster you don't need it. So what's the point in having one?
It can reduce the responsibility of other parts of the gun to incorporate features to reduce the probability of accidents.What do you believe the merits of manual firing inhibitor finger levers are as opposed to manual firing inhibitor thumb levers?
So you are admitting that it is a problem on some guns?
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.
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?
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?
There has been incidents of failure displayed in training over and over by people who has trained with pistols like 1911.
Since I do not benefit much from trigger being less resistant than that of M&P, people like myself do not need a manual firing inhibitor thumb switch in order to have a trigger as low resistance as that of 1911. But, there are those people who do benefit from such trigger.
I'm assuming that you were actually referring to the interdigital web manual firing inhibitor lever here?Also you are forgetting that you can only fire a 1911 by pressing the grip safety.
[Since you have not responded to my counter points then the logical conclusion is you have conceded your position to me.[/QUOTE ]
What the hell do you think this is? Timed chess?
I am not home yet.
I will let you cook in the meanwhile.
Well heck, you can. And you can keep your Glock too.I love my Glock but the idea of carrying it AIWB with no safety is...a little concerning. I can draw and holster without touching the trigger but what if I fall or if I'm grabbed/impacted in a way that gets at the trigger?
I concede that this is unlikely but it is not impossible that wardrobe failure can occur and the trigger could get touched/pulled by a shirt tail or belt tail or...whatever. Again, I concede it is unlikely but it is not impossible.
I want a switch that makes the gun inert until I physically switch it and make the gun hot as I present and cover what I want to shoot. I cannot mentally rectify the odds of self injury (or shooting a by standing person with a AD) with a hot pistol that has no trigger inactivation. I prefer drop hammer safeties and first shot DA after the lever is flicked up....I have done this for years and it does not slow me down.
I'm safer - everyone around me is safer. Folks can go on and on about it being un necessary but you'll only screw up once. I'm sure the guy with the Glock that discharged into the floor of his car as he sat down and the holster pulled the trigger has rethought his carry/holster options.
I want a safety if I can get it.