| This is a hard question to answer, but I'll try to boil it down to this specific firearm. Many handguns, like all Glocks and many Sigs, these days are "striker fired," meaning there's an internal hammer that strikes the hammer versus an external hammer. Internal hammers are more complicated than external hammers, and that includes, in the case of Glocks, two built-in safeties internally that would prevent misfires. The only way they would fire is if the trigger is pulled. Period. There are no external safeties for the operator to engage with these handguns. They will only go off the trigger is pulled - so drops should not set it off, nor the actions in the video. You have to intentionally pull the trigger for the gun to go off, which is the ultimate last word in safeties. There are still semiautos with external safeties hammers, the most famous being the 1911. These are what's called single actions. The trigger weight (amount of pull on the trigger) is relatively light, so they have an external safety for the operator to engage/disengage. I personally prefer single actions, hammer cocked, safety engaged, but this is always a very, very personal preference by people that carry. I own Glocks, but I would not carry one because of the lack of external safety, however, I would never criticize anyone that does. This is 100% strictly boils down to what the person is comfortable doing. |
| |
| ▲ | solatic 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary is malicious, carrying a round in the chamber, and decides to pull on you, he has the element of surprise. There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first, with the possible exception of Special Forces / Navy SEAL types who drill it ad-nauseum and had 99th-percentile reaction speed to begin with. But thinking that ordinary people can do it is sheer hubris. Thinking you can do it from concealed carry is utterly laughable. In a real world firefight you're either close enough where martial arts is relevant or you're not. If martial arts are relevant, then the guns are irrelevant. If you're further away, what matters is whether you can get behind cover, which will give you time to unholster your weapon, disengage the safety, and chamber a round. You don't decide to carry a gun in public because you think it will save you if someone walks up to you from behind and decides to shoot you in the back. You do it for the times when gunfights are not resolved with the first shot. Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety. | | |
| ▲ | bugsMarathon88 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why is every opinion qualified as "ex-military" always tend to be hyperbolic, technically incorrect and full of appeals to authority rather than actual factual information? > There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your shots on target from concealment in under a second - while getting off the "x" - this is a standard I have trained many people to meet first-hand. And it doesn't take a specialist to get this level of training, either; it takes a few years, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance, just like any craft. > In a real world firefight you're either close enough where martial arts is relevant or you're not. If martial arts are relevant, then the guns are irrelevant. Disparity of force - another well known concept you ought to familiarize yourself, especially as it is one of the most critical elements of legal defense in a shooting. > Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety. Smart people legally carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family only from unexpected deadly threats. They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. The "sheepdog" mentality you've put on display is honestly offensive and gives a bad name to firearms owners. | | |
| ▲ | solatic a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > it is called training Even if I take you at your word for the sake of argument, what percentage, do you think, roughly, of gun owners are going to take "a few years, several thousand rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance" to get to that level? Because guns without manual safeties are sold to people regardless of such skill level, and no such demonstration of skill is required for licensing in order to purchase such a manual-safety-less weapon. Especially in legal environments where the Second Amendment is used to justify weapons purchases without or with minimal licensing or other restrictions, it is all the more incumbent for people to understand what their real limitations are, for their own safety. > Disparity of force Perhaps, instead of "a few years" at the range, you might want to take a couple of self-defense classes? In the range where martial arts matter, skill is a far greater determinant than sheer physical size. I'll grant you that martial arts is not a universal strategy (e.g. people in wheelchairs), but I would also argue that, of the people for whom martial arts is not a strategy, in a significant plurality if not a majority of cases where such incompatibility is due to frailty, such frailty will also usually preclude the kind of "few years, several thousand rounds of ammo, and periodic maintenance", not to mention reaction speed, that it would take to actually succeed in a drawing contest. > They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. Many, many Good Samaritans out there would disagree with this offensive take that shows more how society has disintegrated than anything else in this thread. The audience should note that I, someone who does carry, am apparently a "sheepdog" because I decide to employ a manual safety, am aware of my limitations, and encourage others to be honest with themselves instead of thinking that they're big people just because they went out and bought a firearm. | |
| ▲ | remarkEon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For what it's worth I'm also "ex-military" and the person you are replying to is in fact wrong. For many, a "manual safety" is a preference but for others confident in their training it's not necessary or desirable. I also own a P320 (but will be purchasing a Glock soon) and stopped shooting in shortly after these stories came out. Unfortunate, because all things considered I really did like that pistol. Anyway, depending on branch of service, deployment experience, time in service etc a lot of veterans' experience with handguns is minimal, amounting to firing enough rounds on the qual range once a year. No idea about OP's experience, but these things do tend to correlate if you get my meaning. | |
| ▲ | deelowe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well said. |
| |
| ▲ | upfrog 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are in fact civilian situations - many of them captured on camera - where the difference between carrying in condition 1/2 vs condition 3 is critical to the outcome. Active Self Protection on YouTube has thousands of examples of defensive incidents involving firearms, and the cost of the extra time and mechanical complexity to rack a round is a common theme. | |
| ▲ | kortilla 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This isn’t true in robberies where someone pulls a gun as an intimidation tactic. There are plenty of videos where the store owner shoots a robber who pulled out a gun before the robber could fire. | | |
| ▲ | solatic 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's rather debatable whether it should be legal for store owners to shoot robbers and call it self-defense; not all states protect shop owners in such circumstances, and state law may differentiate between when robbers pull lethal weaponry and when robbers pull toy guns that were not actual lethal threats. In the US you take further risk if there end up being racial differences between the shop owner and robber. Consider https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-legal-for-a-shop-owner-to-s... as a quickly Googled example. A shop owner's actual best strategy, in states without firm stand-your-ground or castle doctrine laws that also apply to businesses, is probably an under-the-counter button that calls for police as a silent alarm while responding slowly to stall for time (and consider closing up shop and moving if local police are not quick and reliable to respond). Even in states with more friendly legal environments, risking your life by drawing to defend your inventory or cash register is practically the definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. You are risking your life over, what, several hundred or a few thousand dollars? And even if you do walk away from the gunfight, how much would it cost to repair all the damage from the gunfight; if you get injured, how much are the hospital bills and subsequent increase in your medical insurance premiums? No, while the Second Amendment may still be alive on paper, I think its protections don't do much for shop owners these days. A more effective defense would be if that police-alarm button also released a quick-acting sleeping gas, but those aren't really available in real-world contexts and carry lots of unintentional risks. | | |
| ▲ | ummonk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you have any examples of a store owner being convicted for shooting an armed robber? Because I can show examples of store clerks being executed despite fully complying with the armed robbers. | |
| ▲ | jdietrich 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >A more effective defense would be if that police-alarm button also released a quick-acting sleeping gas, but those aren't really available in real-world contexts and carry lots of unintentional risks. Rapid fog generators seem ridiculous at first glance, but they're remarkably effective in many circumstances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-130jedbo | |
| ▲ | deelowe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does any of that have to do with your stance that carrying with a safety on is just as effective? When root causing problems, it's important to compartmentalize. Whether or not someone should carry a firearm is completely orthogonal. Especially in this instance where clearly it makes sense for military security forces protecting nuclear facilities to carry. Data has shown that if you have a need to carry a firearm on your person, it is prudent to carry with one in the chamber and the safety off. For this reason, firearm manufacturers have been using this as a design criteria. It's not impossible to design safe firearms which meet this criteria. See Gaston Glock. Back on topic, the Sig P320 was designed to not have a safety. The military version has one, but that's only because military requirements hardly ever change. The P320 and it's military counterpart, the M17, are designed to be carried loaded with no safety. The fact that they randomly go off when doing this is not a failure of the operator or some systemic societal problem. It's a failure of Sig to meet design requirements. Stop victim blaming. |
| |
| ▲ | soco 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suppose the robberies where the shop owner gets shot instead aren't getting the same amount of clicks like the "justice being served" ones, so maybe that's the explanation. |
| |
| ▲ | MagicMoonlight 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ex-military in what? A tank wouldn’t ride around empty. You wouldn’t search a house with an empty rifle. You wouldn’t go on patrol with an empty rifle. | | | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | THIS. Unfortunately, public perceptions are mostly driven by: (1) Mass media portrayals - which are carefully scripted to maximize market share, clicks, and sales (2) Rule of Cool - or whatever "feels right", to emotionally-driven humans living in a society where guns are a major point of contention in a bitter culture war | |
| ▲ | ahoka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | matt-attack 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Great so us petite women are back to having a natural disadvantage to would be attackers. My gun is an equalizer. Doesn’t guarantee me safety but when I’m on that empty subway car late at night and a large aggressor enters the car, I’m at least on equal footing. Those who wish to disarm us women are doing so from a position of luxury. Where you’re never felt what it’s like to be completely at the mercy of those drastically bigger and stronger than you. Or perhaps you come from the luxurious position where rapes don’t occur by large unarmed men. Either way you’re not a friend of women’s rights. | | |
| ▲ | ryoshoe 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The emphasis of identity politics talking points here gives off the same vibes as a lot of "as a black man" style posts | | |
| ▲ | matt-attack a day ago | parent [-] | | I don’t “identify” as a petite comparatively weak individual, it’s just a physical fact. I’m not ashamed that I’m weaker than most men. I fail to see where “identify politics” entered into my post. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bugsMarathon88 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Entitled, ignorant and offensive take. Not everyone is able, capable, or can afford to move from a location in which they need to defend themselves. It is not your decision how they choose to do so. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Instead everyone brings guns into everyday situations like road rage. | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That isn't going to stop crime in the US or make dangerous areas in the US really any safer though. Nobody is concerned about someone legally carrying deciding to randomly shoot them. | | |
| ▲ | ummonk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay now you’re being hyperbolic in the other direction. There are plenty of incidents of minor arguments / road rage turning deadly because someone legally carrying decided to draw and use their firearm when there wasn’t any imminent danger. It’s certainly not the norm for gun violence in public but it’s certainly not a nonexistent risk either. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay yeah sure, it can and does happen on occasion, but how often matters a lot. We can't just ban everything over every rare and unlikely scenario, and it will still do basically nothing to stop 99.9% of gun crime. Plus from when the CDC was allowed to research such things, they found between 500,000-3,000,000 cases of defensive firearm use per year in the US, 2-10x as high as violent crimes. Maybe you live somewhere privileged enough that you can rely on the police to protect you, but most of the US doesn't. For many people in the US police response is 30+ minutes, and the police themselves pose as much of a threat to them as the criminals they are calling about if a potential danger. |
| |
| ▲ | jmogly 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And more people with guns is what is going to stop crime and make dangerous areas safer? | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I never said it would make things safer, but it isn't the cause of our crime problems. |
| |
| ▲ | jajko 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Plenty of mass school (or other) shootings were done by legal firearms, using legally bought ammo. I get what you say, but if folks are smart they should be concerned by any firearm, legal or not. Its trivial in US to obtain one if your record is still clean, you can be a proper psycho weirdo and still get it. The people afraid of doing psychotests to get a gun which can kill tens of people easily in skilled hands... I'd say they are afraid for a good reason. Its like being afraid of driving test to get the license to drive. | |
| ▲ | Yeul 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I live in the Netherlands a country with a huge drug cartel problem and still civilians don't carry guns. Criminals shoot eachother and occasionally they shoot law enforcement if they are really dumb.
Normal people when there is a shoot out just hide until the incident is over. You'd have to be stupid to get involved.
More guns do not equal more safety- especially not because your average wannabe Rambo can't shoot for shit. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And how is that different than the US? Do you think people when they hear gun shots all grab their guns and run outside in the US? The US has a crime problem, but that crime problem is neither caused by guns nor will be solved by gun prohibitions. Even despite the prevalence of legal firearms the US busts illegal gun factories every week, there is no feasible way to disarm the US population except through them wanting to be disarmed and willingly destroying their guns. And until US police stop shooting people with impunity, courts stop imprisoning people for being poor, the government stops deploying armed US troops on US soil and running a gestapo squad, and until crime rates drop to something not resembling countries without functioning governments, I don't see why the US population should want to disarm themselves. | |
| ▲ | bugsMarathon88 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some people choose to cower when there is danger, others choose to act in defense. You may choose to call one group of people "normal", just as I could about the other, but it is plain to see how silly that is. |
|
|
|
|
|