[Doxin]

> you're not going to accidentally forget to disengage a safety at the worst possible time

That's much better than the opposite problem: forgetting to engage the safety and accidentally discharging.

> it does increase the risk when improperly handling the firearm

I just feel like having to toggle a switch before killing a man is the least you can do to avoid accidents.

[iotku]

>That's much better than the opposite problem: forgetting to engage the safety and accidentally discharging.

If you're following the firearm safety rules you're not pointed at anything/anybody you don't wish to destroy so it's a moot point. (yourself included, though at least in that case nobody else was harmed needlessly)

A safety lockout (or lacktherof) shouldn't be a factor in your pointing of a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

>I just feel like having to toggle a switch before killing a man is the least you can do to avoid accidents.

It's extremely rare for someone who isn't being extremely negligent to be in a position where they could "accidently" kill someone.

Could a safety prevent such an occurrence? It's very well possible and that might be a reason to prefer a firearm with sufficient safeties that increases your comfort.

On the other hand some people decided that they're cautious enough and by in large most people avoid accidents and practice good safety practices to avoid harm should one happen.

There's trade offs either way, but ultimately it's preference.

[bryanrasmussen]

>On the other hand some people decided that they're cautious enough and by in large most people avoid accidents and practice good safety practices to avoid harm should one happen.

ok, so the group "most people using firearms" and the group "most people using websites" do not significantly overlap is what I'm hearing?

[Doxin]

I'm aware of firearm safety rules and all that. That's not my problem with this. My problem is that the safety on a firearm is part of a defense-in-depth type situation. Removing the safety switch removes a layer of that defense. I hope I don't need to explain why that's a bad thing on this forum.

[bombcar]

There’s also the “if you ever pull the trigger in a situation where the safety keeps it from firing, you are doing something horribly wrong”. People often treat the safety as a “gun off” switch when it should never be considered that. I understand the Glock philosophy - no gun is “safe” until you’ve personally verified that there is no ammunition in it at all, and even then it should be treated as if it is loaded.

Relying on a safety to keep it “safe” is usually the first step in ventilation of the floor or ceiling.

[Doxin]

I invite you to re-read my previous comment and meditate some on what "defense in depth" means. Of course you're not supposed to rely on the safety, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. The entire point of defense in depth is to construct things in such a manner where a single mistake is not enough to cause trouble.

[bombcar]

It depends on what the purpose of the firearm is for.

Play-guns for the shooting range? Sure, add fifty safeties if you want.

But guns are used for other purposes, and there is a failure mode where the person holding the weapon intended to fire and end someone's life and the gun fails to do so because the safety was still engaged.

Many things are purposely designed "fail-safe" but some things are designed to "fail deadly" for very good reasons.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the negligent discharges that can be categorized as "I thought the safety was on and was pulling the trigger like a moron" is much higher than "I knew the gun only had a grip/trigger safety and was pulling the trigger like a moron".