| ▲ | darkteflon 2 days ago |
| Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety? |
|
| ▲ | aerostable_slug 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The manual safety primarily stops the weapon from firing if the trigger is inadvertently pressed. In these cases, the trigger was allegedly not being pressed when the pistol discharged. Aside from the manual safety (which is optional on this specific model of pistol), there are a number of passive safeties that normally must be overcome for the weapon to fire. Something appears to be failing in such a manner that the pistols are firing without being commanded to -- the trigger is not being inadvertently pressed, so the manual safety does not seem to be involved. |
|
| ▲ | giantg2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most newer handguns don't have manual safeties. The ones that do should be carried with it on. If you carry with it off, you won't have the muscle memory to switch it off in the event it is accidentally engaged. Basically, if it has the safety, you should be doing the motion for disengaging it regardless of it's starting position. Some people still choose to carry with it off. You get into all sorts of odd stuff the more you look into it, such as MARSOC rubber-banding their 1911 grip safeties. Some additional context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44675889 |
| |
| ▲ | sgjohnson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | FWIW I love the 1911-style grip safety. It’s a shame that more guns don’t have that. | | |
| ▲ | topspin 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Springfield XD line has this. At least one S&W Shield model as well. Both are excellent pistols. Not that you're wrong: grip safeties aren't common. It's amazing to me this P320 problem exists. Making semi-autos safe, even without a grip safety, has been a solved problem for over 40 years. How anyone thought a fully cocked striker is a reasonable design, or that the US military would adopt such a thing, is a disturbing mystery. After Sig gets financially destroyed, and the US military has to correct this monumental mistake, we can at least look forward to no further designs like this. Who knows, maybe the US will do something intelligent and just issue Glock 17's, like they should have done at least 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gosub100 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The modern philosophy for a defense gun is that the holster is the safety. The holsters make it impossible to pull the trigger, and hold the gun securely all day. They are all supposed to be "drop safe" although there are some exceptions. So if somehow your gun fell out of its holster, it shouldn't discharge if you just let it fall (vs try to grab it). |
|
| ▲ | gottorf 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Technically, a "safety" describes designs and mechanisms by which a firearm discharges if and only if the trigger is pulled. Colloquially, the word is often used to describe an external safety that must be manually disengaged (otherwise there is no bang even if the trigger is pulled). However, in modern firearms, even those with external safeties also have internal safeties that mean that even with the external safety disengaged, if you dropped the firearm or hit it with a hammer or something, it would not fire. As others commenters have said, in the case of the P320, the claim is that it would fire without the trigger being pulled; and in the specific case of the airman, it is further claimed that there wasn't even a precipitating physical shock like it being dropped or hit. |
|
| ▲ | TheFreim 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? Some handguns have manual safety switches, others don't. For example, the Sig P365 (an excellent, highly regarded sub-compact pistol often used for concealed carry), has models with or without a manual safety (you can also install a safety yourself if yours doesn't have one). Some handguns also have a "grip safety" which requires you to firmly hold the grip to disable the safety. > If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety? Because modern firearms have a variety of built-in safety mechanisms, separate from manual safety switches, which prevent unwanted discharges, the only thing that will cause a good firearm to go off will be the trigger being pulled. Combining this fact with modern form-fitting holsters which fully cover the trigger guard, it becomes impossible to fire the gun while it remains in the holster. This means that even without a manual safety switch you can carry safely without worrying about the gun going off until you draw and pull the trigger. Echoing another reply to your comment, if you do have a safety on your gun you would typically toggle the safety while training to build muscle memory. This means you would practice enabling the safety, holstering the firearm, drawing the firearm, disabling the safety, and firing in a swift motion so that you always disable the safety when drawing. |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | ipv6ipv4 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. This information should be kept in mind whenever anyone, especially a gun advocate, expresses dismay at the frequency of police shootings in America. America is so awash in guns, and people willing to use them, that for the average cop it is better to shoot first and ask questions later than to risk returning home in a body bag. We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety. |
| |
| ▲ | TheFreim 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety. I think you have misunderstood the order of operations in a violent encounter. The issue of chambering a round is in light of the fact that you have already identified an immediate violent threat and you need to end that threat. The entire question of carrying chambered/empty is completely separate from threat identification and whether or not a shooting is justified. You also simply don't appear understand the time scale in which violent altercations and legitimate responses take place. They happen quickly, and so once a threat has been identified you need to remove as many barriers to action as possible. Adding 1/2 to 2 seconds can easily be the difference between life and death after you've already made the judgement about the situation. Again, the issue here isn't whether or not someone has identified a threat but rather how quickly and effectively they can respond after they've identified the threat. If we want to speak intelligently about use of force and police reform we should avoid conflating unrelated issues (i.e. whether or not an office acted appropriately versus the ability to act properly after a threat has been identified). | | |
| ▲ | ipv6ipv4 2 days ago | parent [-] | | These arbitrary distinctions are in your mind. The real world is messy, and there is an algorithmic fallacy at the core of your argument. You've carefully laid out why carrying a chambered weapon is critical for minimizing the reaction time to a perceived threat. So you've explained why a suspect has his gun chambered. It's anyone's guess when that suspect decides he has "identified an immediate violent threat" in the cop near him. Now the cop, by definition, must identify and respond faster than the suspect pulling out his chambered weapon. That doesn't work well for the cop, and you've optimized away any time for his to reason and react about the situation he's in. You haven't reasoned about anything you are saying. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the cop, by definition, must identify and respond faster than the suspect pulling out his chambered weapon You are correct about what the cop must do here, assuming the suspect pulled a weapon. If that didn't happen, then the cop doesn't necessarily need to do that. > That doesn't work well for the cop That is entirely possible (though rare) for a cop. Part of the trade-off of them getting virtually unlimited power to protect others is that potentially saving other people's lives outweighs potentially saving their own lives. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gottorf 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > America is so awash in guns, and people willing to use them, that for the average cop it is better to shoot first and ask questions later than to risk returning home in a body bag. This is only true in certain circumstances, though it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to discuss. | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, cops (should) face higher standards for their behavior and the safety of those around them. That's by design. Supposedly that's why we respect them more than, say, a cashier, but both sides of that deal have broken down. | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To me that just sounds like a huge excuse for cops who are rarely ever shot at in real life. The majority of cops never even have a reason to draw or fire their gun their entire career. Being a cop isn't even a very dangerous job, and all but a handful of cop injuries on the job are due to car crashes that they themselves initiated. A random residential framer has a far higher chance of injury and death than cops in even known dangerous and highly criminal areas. | | |
| ▲ | ipv6ipv4 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m not saying cops are always free of fault, and yes, some are trigger happy goons. But in an environment that affords close to zero reaction time, it is no surprise that cops are trained the way they are, and behave the way they do. Indeed, they are not in danger most of the time. But when they are, they have close to no time to think about it. As a result, it is in the interest of their own well being to assume that all situations are dangerous and to act accordingly. |
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety Everybody else is supposed to do this. Cops can avoid this and suffer no liability or criminal charges. | |
| ▲ | gosub100 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | they dont "go home" in a body bag. and the rest of your post is just as hyperbolic and ignorant. | | |
|
