I'm not a cop nor am I employed by a public agency or anyone with deep pockets that could conceivably be drawn into a civil suit. I've sometimes expressed my belief that, though I respected the views, I felt "immune" to much of what Ayoob was writing about - as I'm not a public servant and have insufficient funds to attract a contingency lawyer.
I'm afraid I don't see how not being an LEO makes the risk of a negligent discharge any different. And the consequences aren't limited to civil action. Quoting Ayoob, "For a Manslaughter conviction, all he [the prosecutor] has to do is convince them [the jurors] that, just like any other human being, you the defendant were reckless and negligent in just one instance."
Even if you were not at legal risk, how about living with the fact of an unintended shot?
The following is from a link in
The Snubnose Files on the Centennial variants: "there are almost no situations in which single action fire is appropriate in self defense. Most self defense situations unfold rapidly. There isn't time to thumb cock a revolver and take careful aim in the way one would do while target shooting". I could not identify the author.
That doesn't rule out having the
option, but what follows (same link) is to me more telling: "A cocked revolver is dangerous in the adrenaline dump of a lethal force encounter. The trigger is just too light. Its too easy to fire when you don't mean to".
Both points were hammered upon in my recent concealed carry class.
It seems to me that for concealed carry for self defense, the hammer is a liability and little more--if you aren't going have time to use it and know that you should not use it, why have it? For hunting and fishing, however, the story is different.
So for me, the answer to the original question ("who likes a hammer") is "it depends"--kind of like the answer to the question, "which is better, a putter or a nine iron."