Evidence or studies on trigger control

[marine6680]

Amp...

That is a much better way of putting things.


In the end... It still all comes down to the user.

And margins for safety are good to have, but are far from foolproof. Safeties are not needed... Until they are... And when that time comes, its quite often that they were ignored/forgotten/neglected as well.


As I said, different gun designs have different design priorities. Different intended methods of use, and types of use they are designed for.

Some like many Ruger pistols, are made with the new gun user/owner in mind. With safeties (many passive) that help prevent problems from common rooky mistakes. (When that rookily has decided to not seek outside assistance in training/learning)

Others, like glocks, are designed for those more familiar with firearms or who will take the time to learn and be diligent.

Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, we can not dictate who is or is not able to own which type... And that sometimes means an untrained person with no respect for the potential for harm a firearm brings, obtains a firearm not suitable to such a lack of understanding.

 

[Limnophile]

marine,

Thank you for your service.

Your argument for safeties is centered on carry related issues... (Your mounted calvery example) Carry is only part of the ND problem.

Of course my arguments are based on handguns that are carried and otherwise handled. I've never heard of one NDing while setting undisturbed in a gunsafe.

A safety does nothing to prevent a ND when the pistol is drawn and made ready for use.

A manual affirmative safety used properly does wonders for reducing the likelihood of a drawn handgun NDing when it is activated whenever sights are not on target or one is ready to fire. The last thing I do before conciously pulling the trigger of all my firearms is deactivate the thumb safety; the first thing I do upon cessation of firing, assuming my magazine is not depleted, is activate my thumb safety.

I would agree with you if one were to deactivate a thumb safety before the draw or mindlessly early in the draw, but to do so would seem to defeat much of the purpose of the safety. Similarly, if the safety is applied only after the weapon is holstered is does little good, but I doubt anyone would argue with the 1910 Army's view that a safed pistol is more safely holstered.

So a safety can make reholstering a pistol less prone to screw ups... Ignoring the fact that you are assuming the user remembers to put the safety on.

Good -- we agree on my last point immediately above.

Yes, one can forget to apply a thumb safety, or one may even choose not to use it. But, as 2damnold's links show us, training gun users to keep their trigger fingers off the trigger until ready to fire isn't always reliable, either. The point is that training to use two barriers to an ND should be more effective than training to use just a single barrier. From a product liability perspective, installing an affordable and effective thumb safety goes a long way toward reducing corporate liability exposure.

If a trained user can forget to keep their finger off the trigger, they can be reasonably believed to forget the safety.

True, but a person trained to do both will be unlikely to forget to do both.

If a user can forget the safety, they can forget to leave it on when the pistol is drawn. (Ignoring that leaving the safety on is against all training on combat use of a firearm)

I assume you mean one can forget to deactivate the safety. True, but how hard is it to deactivate it once the trigger is pulled with no result, and how long does it take to deactivate it in such a situation? I've never timed it, but I'm giessing a small fraction of a second.

Plus, I think it was tunnelrat, in the recently closed thread, that pointed out that anyone claiming that one can be reliably trained to keep the finger off the trigger until the appropriate time must accept that one can be reliably trained to deactivate a thumb safety at the appropriate time. It would be absurd to state otherwise.

However, 2damnold's scientific input tells us that training one to keep one's trigger finger off the trigger is not 100% reliable, so it would be absurd to argue that training one to disengage and engage a thumb safety is 100% reliable.

Its a simple matter of realizing that all safety measures can be defeated, ignored, or forgotten... Resulting in a ND.

Agreed. Now let's think in terms of risk management. From the user's perspective, how much more of an effort is it to train to control one's finger and one's thumb, relative to training just to control the finger alone? I was trained from the outset to do both, so I can't attest to the difference, but I can say that training to do both is not by any means a burden.

No safety devices are foolproof, and no safety devices can be put on a firearm to prevent all accidents.

Agreed. But science tells us, despite the chorus to the contrary from the safety-compromised co-dependents, that trigger discipline training alone does not and cannot prevent all NDs, either.

You might can remove the firing pin... But there is nothing you can do to make a firearm both 100% safe and ready to fire.

While complete safety is the goal, reasonable folks know it's unobtainable, but we can take steps to mitigate the risk that are affordable and not an undue burden. Two such steps, that are effective, are to train to discipline the trigger finger and to use a proven safety device -- in particular a thumb safety lock or a long and hard double action trigger.

The only safety devices that have any chance at being effective are the passive safeties that require no user intervention. So safeties that prevent leaving a loaded mag and or pulling the trigger to field strip are useful in stopping most but not all NDs related to those activities.

You omit the tried and true thumb safety lock and the long and heavy DA trigger.

The studies linked in this thread show that the long heavy trigger pull argument is invalid.

I read nothing in any of the three articles that invalidates the effectiveness of a long and heavy trigger pull. Studies showed that a heavy pull could be defeated by a common brain fart, but I saw no mention of testing the combination found in DA revolvers and DA/SA pistols. One experiment looked at whether or not the trigger was touched, despite long training and directions for the experiment not to do so. I don't recall degree of pressure applied being a dependent variable in that experiment. In the other, a SIG was fitted with a pressure sensor on the trigger, the finger deliberately rested on the trigger, and the amount of pressure applied while performing various tasks was measured.

The first experiment shows that trigger finger discipline training alone is not 100% effective. The second shows that when trigger finger discipline fails (which it will too often do), a dynamic (ie, moving) police, combat, or self-defense shooter has a good chance of lighting off an ND.

We all know kids will find a way to cause mischief in a short timeframe, so the long heavy pull is invalid there as well.

Again, I believe the toddler scenario was raised to make a point about relative risk. If so, I got it.

Manual safeties are just as vulnerable to user error as not having one.

Huh!? I need you to elaborate. Are you saying a Colt M1905 is just as safe as an M1911? (The former has no grip or thumb safety.)

Even by evoking technical means, there is simply no reconciling the fact that the 2nd amendment allows us to own objects which are potentially dangerous, and that those objects can be had by the untrained... to counteract such lack of training.

Agreed. I would never (seriously) call for legislation to require all handguns to be equipped with either a thumb safety or a long and heavy DA trigger. Let the market, courts, and interest groups (like this forum) decide the matter. Right now it is the buyers of less-safe guns that are funding the product liability costs for such guns, similar to how Ford handled the matter of exploding Pintos -- cheaper to pay out a few wrongful death and injury claims than to fix the gas tank design flaw.

A firearm in the hand of an unskilled/untrained duffus is a hazard, and no amount of doodads will make it less so.

But, the co-dependent chorus is "Just keep yer booger picker offn' the bang switch! And science shows it doesn't always work.

All firearms are potentially dangerous when misused... End of story...

Addendum: All flawed gun designs are potentially dangerous.

It is pure speculation to assume any safety will be effective at stopping NDs insignificant amounts, and that the absence of those safeties increases the chances of NDs a significant amount.

Actually, it was pure speculation that trigger finger discipline alone would solve the problem, an hypothesis now disproven by science.

As to whether an affirmative manual safety reduces the risk of NDs, I agree that I know of no experiment that has directly tested that hypothesis. But, Einstein made good progress using thought experiments (you can thank him the next time your GPS guides you to a destination), and we can do the same. In fact, just that has been done in this thread informally by me and others. The conceptual model is so simple I see no need to flesh it out mathematically, but I'm willing to do so if you'd like.

Being that NDs are highly situational, its hard to test for these factors in isolation. Something that is vital to show a causal relationship between phenomenon. Something that works in this situation may not work or worsen the problem in another.

The papers brought to this thread show examples of just some of that -- testing factors in isolation. I get the impression you are reaching wildly here, but perhaps you can clarify.

By the way, I got a kick out of Enoka's recommendations -- a great example of how a scientist can be an effective risk assessor, but a lousy risk manager.

Remember... The fact that the earth was flat was "common sense" for most of human existence.

Until empirical observations showed otherwise. With respect to this thread, empirical observations have affirmed common sense that is at least a century old, and undoubtedly goes back farther.

I think the point has been made. I would welcome additional experimentation, but I was trained in science. I will gladly cede the position of degraded gun safety to others, and feel sorry and ashamed of those who pick up that banner in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

 

[Limnophile]

Possibly, but we have to be mindful of the relative difference.

Huh!? Gats passing mention of a toddler is getting far too much attention. A red herring for those holding the weak hand in this discussion?

In the case of the child if the child is left alone for a long enough time (the determination of that time being the important question), he/she is potentially dead either way.

Straw man. Gats said nothing about leaving a child alone with a gun for an extended time. He merely pointed out that he had never heard of a toddler (not a "child," which is a far broader category of persons) who had shot the owner of a DA revolver with said revolver, making a quick point about the undisputable fact that a long and heavy trigger is harder to pull than a short and light trigger. He was not advocating tossing DA revolvers into cribs.

Frankly I don't know how much time it would take a child to figure out how to use multiple fingers. It may be a matter of a few seconds or many minutes, likely depending on the child. If my child is dead will I feel better knowing it took him/her say twice as long to kill himself/herself? Probably not. Similarly, if I crash at 100 mph into a tree I am likely dead, same as if I hit it at 200 mph. The difference being at the slower speed I have more time to react. That I grant you. But the relative time difference is the key and there is a lack of evidence beyond anecdotes and assumptions as to if that time difference will be lifesaving.

Entirely irrelevant.

When it comes to firearms and access to children, the goal should be prevention and not reliance on a heavier trigger pull to stop a tragedy.

You successfully slayed that straw man. Congratulations!

 

[44 AMP]

..the fact that the 2nd amendment allows us to own ...

Point of order:

While we commonly refer to our "2nd Amendment rights" in conversation, the 2nd Amendment gives us no rights, and does not allow us to own..anything.

The 2nd, and all the others in the Bill of Rights gives we, the people nothing. We have our rights as "natural rights" or "God given" (if you prefer).

The Bill of Rights is a listing of restrictions on Government, things the government cannot do with or about our rights.

"Congress shall make no law"
"shall not be infringed"
"shall not be issued"
"May not be twice.."
and so on. Its a list of rules for the GOVERNMENT, about us, not a list of things for us, or allowed to us.

I'm fine with using "2nd Amendment rights" as an identifying tag so we understand the topic. But do not draw the conclusion that these rights come from the Amendment, or from the Government.

THEY DO NOT.

Now please go on with telling me that studies show pulling the trigger makes the gun fire...

 

[TunnelRat]

Huh!? Gats passing mention of a toddler is getting far too much attention. A red herring for those holding the weak hand in this discussion?

Seeing as you addressed it as well and I am merely responding to your point of view, you would be guilty of the same crime.

Straw man. Gats said nothing about leaving a child alone with a gun for an extended time. He merely pointed out that he had never heard of a toddler (not a "child," which is a far broader category of persons) who had shot the owner of a DA revolver with said revolver, making a quick point about the undisputable fact that a long and heavy trigger is harder to pull than a short and light trigger. He was not advocating tossing DA revolvers into cribs.

When a child encounters said firearm he/she will be with that firearm alone for a period of time, unless the parent has chosen to leave a loaded firearm out for a child and observe what happens. More so he said this:

by affording the authorized user precious time to correct an imminent tragedy.

the implication being a heavy DA pull will take longer for a child to discharge as it requires more effort to pull and the authorized user (I assume parent) will be afforded the time to prevent an accident. Therefore the question of how much more effort it would take and how much more time that effort would require is very relative and not a straw man at all.

Entirely irrelevant.

No, not really. See above.

You successfully slayed that straw man. Congratulations!

The degree to which you write off others when the talking points they present are something you do not want to discuss or consider is concerning. It makes me wonder if you have any interest in a real discussion at all, or merely want forum members to read what you post and agree enthusiastically. You seem unwilling to accept that there are multiple points of view on an issue and are insistent that there is one definitively correct point of view (which you conveniently are the one presenting). I have rarely found that to be the case, nor has science (which you continue to claim is on your side) on many issues. Open-mindedness is a virtue and snark is unnecessary when you have received none from me in return.

 

[2damnold4this]

It's amazing to me that the US Army forced John Browning and Colt Arms to add a thumb safety to the M1910. The Army did not have the benefit of hard science to support its common-sense decision, but science, nearly a century later, has validated its decision.

In 1910, the Army used the example of a cavalryman needing to safely reholster his pistol while atop an unruly horse. The Army somehow knew that a trooper, no matter how well trained, could not be assured of his finger not touching the trigger with enough force to fire the gun.

That is an interesting point. I think a cavalry trooper trying to manage an unruly horse could well fit into the category of someone who was suddenly pushed off balance. Hopefully, the trooper would be trained to engage the 1911's safety and then attempt to holster. I suspect that some troopers with their 1911s drawn and ready to fire would reflexively squeeze the entire handgun and discharge it unintentionally.



Some modern instructors teach holstering a firearm without looking at the holster after a defensive encounter. I could see a police officer needing to holster a ready firearm while doing some other task or while watching a suspect but I wonder if that is the best course. As a CCW, I think it may be wise to wait until the threat is over and look while I holster.

Thoughts?

 

[Limnophile]

Is 30 seconds of leeway better than 10 in such a situation... Yes...

Hallelujah!!

The relevant point being: given that the trigger finger can be expected to stray onto the trigger unintentionally and unknowingly, despite training to not allow it to, one effective way to mitigate the residual risk is a long and heavy DA trigger. It's not foolproof -- nothing is; but, it helps reduce ND risk further.

But at that point you are arguing minor differences. Yes they can have big differences in result, but you can't predict nor account for every possible situation.

No one is trying to address every conceiveable situation, but the risk reduction is not minor if the overall reduction of ND rate is big. I submit that the big increase in law enforcement ND rates in the wake of adopting a sidearm with a short and light trigger, after switching from a platform with a long and heavy trigger -- a jump big enough to get the attention of a generally gun-ignorant media -- attests to the unquantified difference being sizeable.

A line has to be drawn at some point. You have to pick your priorities. Sometimes two priorities will be at odds in the design. (Like... Strength and lightweight)

It's a multi-criteria decision problem, and tradeoffs are necessary. Enhanced safety has distinct benefits, but comes at a price. A long and heavy DA trigger enhances safety at the cost of degrading accuracy and precision. A thumb safety enhances safety at the cost of complicating the draw. One's trigger finger should be trained to remain under control at all times, regardless, but a gun that puts all its safety apples in that one common, but less-than-reliable barrel is, in my opinion, flawed.

That's not just my opinion. The FBI Training Academy predicted the problem would be noticeable, and the problem arose in more than one law enforcement agency, despite the agencies being aware of the potential, and designing and implementing specific training to prevent the potential from materializing.

No one wants to use knowingly faulty equioment, but differing design choices with different priorities does not make one faulty and another not.

I don't believe I've evering used "faulty." In fact, Glocks, for example, while far from perfect, are highly reliable in an AK-47 kind of way. Because they work as intended they are not faulty, but because they are needlessly less safe I regard them as flawed in design with respect to safety.

That is where most of us have issue with your arguments.

One... that you claim a pistol as faulty based on your subjective preferences.

Two... That most of your arguments to justify your subjective viewpoint is based on flawed assumptions, logic, and data sets

1. Correction -- I claim Glocks have a safety design flaw based on an objective metric, ND rate.

2. You are obligated, under rules of productive debate, to set forth exactly which arguments (no straw men allowed) I've used and specific flawed assumptions, flawed logic, and flawed datasets they are based on.

If you are willing to accept that your personal goals and preferences are not what dictates poor or faulty firearm design... Then most of us would have no trouble with that..

My personal goals are to (1) handle my defensive sidearm safely (specifically, avoid any ND or a stray round damaging anyone or anything), and (2) deliver lead on target at defensive ranges with accuracy and precision. I suppose (3) is enjoy myself while doing it (at least while practicing). Any handgun that intrudes upon these goals is flawed, as I can't imagine my goals are much different than those of most others'.

 

[2damnold4this]

I claim Glocks have a safety design flaw based on an objective metric, ND rate.

What is the ND rate for Glocks? How does that number compare to other firearms?

 

[marine6680]

Why are we bringing Einstein into this?

As much as I love to get my nerd on with physics (pretty much all kinds) I don't think this is the space for it.

And Amp was right, I shorthanded the finer details of how the bill of rights works, but it was just to illustrate the point, so I don't see it as a problem. It wasn't the main focus of the point either.


Can we also avoid a "logical fallacy" fight... The last one I got involved in had the other guy switching to Ad Hominem so fast, I think he threw out some joints in his fingers. (he failed at proper civil discourse/debate, when where and why in his arguments was pointed out, it went nasty fast on their end)

My basic points summed up...

Trigger control is not always successful. Stressors can lead to lapses in following training.

Safeties are likewise vulnerable.



The idea that they can provide an extra level of prevention... I find dubious... When looked at directly, it does seem logical...

The problems arise in actual use scenarios.

During times of stress, large portions of training and procedures can be forgotten or neglected. So an extra layer of safety is available, but just as likely to be forgotten. I have seen several people screw up both trigger discipline and safety discipline within minutes of each other.

I have also seen people forget to disengage the safety, and freeze and spaz out for several seconds trying to comprehend why the gun isn't working. Longer than it would have taken them had they just been calmly firing at the range. I have even seen someone do immediate action when this happened to them. Which obviously didn't work and added confusion.

And this was just training... I would imagine actual life or death situations would only compound the problem.


The long pull of a DA may prevent a subset of NDs, but it is still vulnerable. Being that such things are highly situational, a blanket statement that they prevent NDs is not justifiable. They can help in some instances, but its just as likely that the same thing could be said of a glock trigger.

You can try to imagine a situation where someone pulls a trigger x ammount with y force, and the DA is fine but a glock is not. But how much of a percentage of all potential NDs does that entail? Is that the middle of the bell curve?

There are startle movements, which are likely to defeat any trigger. Then there are subtle tension movements, which are likely to only defeat a 1911 trigger. Then there is the bumps and snags, which would encompass a wide range of force/movement amounts. It is this range that one could argue on the merits of trigger weight and pull distance. Still where do they fall on the curve?


Also... I don't think we have seen any breakdowns of NDs by pistol type.

Glocks are extremely popular. One of the, if not the, most popular pistol in the US right now, and very popular with new shooters due to reputation and name recognition.

NDs broke down per capita would be very useful. That is a normalized data set that removes a variable that has a high impact on the numbers.


You can't go by "Well you never heard of ND problems back in the days of (insert gun type here)"... Because just like modern media makes the world seem more dangerous now than it was 10-20+ years ago, despite falling crime rates... due to the shear amount of info we are presented with... The same is true for NDs. We hear about them more, because its easier to get access to the story when it happens.


One could argue that their personal method of using a thumb safety is more "safe"... but that does not change the fact that current training doctrine says that a manual safety is to be disengaged as the firearm is brought to bear on the target... not after.


Also I find it irksome, that something is declared "flawed" simply because it uses a different design philosophy and different priorities, than one's own personal views.

Car A has a small trunk and only 125hp... Car B has a big trunk and 300hp...

Is car A "flawed"? No, it simply has a different set of priorities than car B.


Glocks are duty pistols... designed to be quick into action when danger is unpredictable and happens quickly. The small chance for NDs due to poor handling, was weighed as less important than being ready for the high likelihood of danger requiring quick action. Police and military can be reasonably assumed to be in a situation where the chances of a dangerous encounter are much greater than that of a civilian.

The military might not always be in a war, but when they are... priorities are on being ready, winning the fight. Police can be confronted with a dangerous person on any given day they are on duty, and the same priorities are there.


Some civilians desire the same... not all will be as diligent as they should, but we can't force the issue, we can only guide in the right direction.

The surest direction for success is training.

Remember... those untrained users will be equally risky with any firearm... as it requires training to know what is or is not safe, and how to operate a firearm, and any safeties on it.


Edit:

I regard them as flawed in design with respect to safety.

This is a distinction you have never made to this point. If it was implied, it was missed by most of us at least.

This is an important distinction... and one that can be addressed in a much more constructive manner.

You are obligated, under rules of productive debate,

True... and I can not claim to be the bastion of all logic and perfect skills of civil discourse... I try... sometimes I make mistakes.


Overall, I feel the ND problem is fairly even across the board when variables are factored out. Any differences would be within the margin of error.

I don't think Glocks or similar designs are flawed, they just have a different design goal. Whether or not that goal aligns with yours is another matter. While most would agree with your priorities of firearm ownership and defensive use/carry, how those priorities are assessed, and their personal levels of acceptable risk will not always align with yours.

We can't let ourselves fall into the "every mistake or potential mistake is a tragedy" mindset... that is the exact mindset anti-gun people use to justify their views. We do not need to help them along.

 

[Limnophile]

Can you name any police depts. that issued hammer shrouded DAO revolvers?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

My encyclopedic memory didn't follow me to old age, but my best recollection is reading about adopting the shrouded revolver being a way to reduce city liabilities comes from an Ayoob tale. My best guess is NYC, but am not sure as to location.

Hammer shrouds are intended to reduce the odds of snagging the hammer spur during a draw from concealment. Generally they have a slot to allow the hammer spur to be accessed so an SA shot is still possible. A shroud serves no purpose on a uniform carry duty weapon. It does have a use for concealed carry, such as a detective carrying under a suit jacket.

It is my understanding that the shroud has a twofold purpose -- eliminating hammer snag, as you mention, and making it difficult to place the revolver in SA.

It serves no other purpose, and even the ones that do not have a slot so you can cock the hammer do not serve the purpose of preventing SA fire with a DAO revolver, the DAO mechanism itself prevents SA fire.

Perhaps my terminology useage is wrong, which would not be a surprise, because I've never owned any revolver, shroud or no shroud. Could it be that DAO revolvers look similar to shrouded revolvers, say from a side view? If so, perhaps I melded the two inappropriately in my mind. Can you give me the model designations of a shrouded revolver and a similar DAO revolver so I can look them up and see if that might be the case?

I know of one major metro police dept that (at one time) had the SA ability removed from their service revolvers. I know of no others, and would like to hear of anyone else who did this, or issued hammer shrouded, and or DAO guns.

Out of curiosity, which PD is it? How was the modification done? Was the reason to reduce liability exposure?

Yes, it is amazing how in an earlier age the US ARMY and other people could make valid decisions based on real world observed results, without a scientific study to make them feel good.

As I recall, the Army gave the M1911 prototypes, beginning with the M1905, a long, hard evaluation -- about five years worth -- before adopting the pistol. I don't doubt during that long period that more than one trooper saw the absence of a way to safe the gun (all prototypes up to and through the M1910) while it was in hand as a design flaw. A flaw that was easy enough to fix that after the Army demanded an independent safety be added, some prototypes (M1907s, M1909s, and M1910s as I recall) were retrofitted with thumb safety locks and returned to the Army for further testing of the modification.

The original ARMY nomenclature for the 1911 thumb safety was "safety lock", and that name was still in use in Army manuals in the 1970s. It is descriptive, and accurate. Not all safeties are safety "locks" today. In fact, they weren't then, either.

The saddest part of exploring the history of the development of the M1911 for me was how it busted the myth of John Moses Browning's infallibility. The venerable safety lock was not JMB's idea, but the Army's! Of course, now I have yet another reason to be proud of our Army.

For me, JMB's initial submittal, the M1905, is a fright, an ND waiting to happen.

Without an active safety (meaning one that has to be switched on and off by the shooter as a deliberate act - something outside of the normal firing grip)applied (meaning "ON"), EVERYTHING will fire when the trigger is deliberately pulled. That's kind of the point to the whole thing.

True, but the intent of the affirmative safety, the entire reason it exists, is to prevent an unintentional pull of the trigger from causing an ND.

The pull can be intentional, or unintentional. It can even be done by a foreign object. Unintentional (and foreign objects) we generally call "accidental". We also call them negligent. Accident implies no one is at fault, but someone always is. Guns don't do anything entirely by themselves.

Agreed. It is generally only when a human is attached to a firearm that it becomes a potential safety hazard.

A trigger that has to move an inch and a half, against a 12lb resistance takes more effort than one that only has to move a third of that distance against a third of that pressure. I don't think you need any scientific study to realize this.

There is an old story (joke?) about an engineering study that "proved" a bumblebee cannot fly.

The bumblebee, however, does not know this.

Studies can be useful things, but what matters most is what happens in the real world.

(ok, yes, studies come from real world events, but the conclusions drawn sometimes do not.)

While 2damnold's contributions show us that a trigger finger can reasonably be expected to stray onto the trigger, despite long-term training and a proximate direction to avoid letting that happen. They also tell us that a finger rested upon the trigger can inadvertently defeat a 5-lb trigger, less frequently a 12-lb trigger, and is physiologically capable of inadvertently exerting even much greater pressures. This doesn't mean a heavy trigger pull has no effect on safety. In fact, it shows that a 12-lb trigger is safer than a 5-lb trigger, even ignoring the difference in the length of pull.

Times change, attitudes changer, some of what was good enough, or safe enough in the past is not considered such today.

Yet from my perspective, the gun safety standards of today seem more lax than they were in the 1960s.

Consider the DA trigger. Longer, heavier pull than an SA trigger, right? Why is this thought to be safer? Because for all those times when something "pulls" the trigger (be it a finger or a stick) without the shooters conscious intent to fire the gun, the longer, heavier pull requirement means that there is a greater chance that an accidental pull or bump will not be enough to fire the gun.

To be clear, you are referring to a long and heavy DA trigger. There are short and light DA triggers, ala Glock. One more reason the long and heavy DA trigger is relatively safer is undoubtedly that the long pull buys time for a tactile message of impending disaster to work its way to the inattentive shooter's mind. Unfortunately, none of the three papers tests this common sense hypothesis.

Less likely means safer, it does not mean safe.

Absitively! There is no such thing as a 100% firearm in the hands of a person, no matter how well that person is trained. (Excluding, of course, the example offered of a gun with firing pin removed.) This doesn't mean that training is ineffective. To the contrary, a well trained shooter is far more safe than an untrained shooter. We still need to train shooters to keep their trigger fingers under control at all times, but we must acknowledge that such training is not a panacea.

Guns with only passive safety(ies) are thought of as "less safe", but that does not mean unsafe. It only means that fewer unlikely events have to combine to produce an accidental discharge than in a gun that also has an active safety system, properly used.

I think this is a fair summary. And, I think any reasonable attempt to compare two such guns via mathematical modeling would show the latter gun to be safer.

How about inviting the wheel gun boys to weigh in? DA/SA revolver shot in DA vs a 1911 carried in Condition 1: which is safer to carry and use? I have no reason to offer for my initial guess, but I'm thinking the revolver would have the better track record in terms of a lower ND rate. I doubt this will motivate me to sell my CZs and buy DA revolvers to replace them.

 

[Limnophile]

Point of order ...

Point well stated and taken.

Given that you broached the topic, if the rights enshrined in the Constitution are natural, unalienable, and come from God, does that not mean that we, as individuals, owe others an opportunity to speak freely, bear arms, etc? While the Constitution does no more than restrict government, what are the moral obligations restrict us as individuals?

For example, disrupting somebody's speech seems to be an immoral infringement. Similarly, prohibiting someone from carrying a firearm onto the premises of a public accomodation seems as great a civil rights violation as barring entry to a person because of ethnicity, race, color, creed, etc.

 

[44 AMP]

You can try to imagine a situation where someone pulls a trigger x amount with y force, and the DA is fine but a glock is not.

This is where we run into problems with statistical models. Because statistics where a longer, heavier trigger pull prevented an ND simply do not, and cannot exist. We may get a collection of individual anecdotes, but not useful data of any kind, because NO ONE reports an ND that did not happen.

As an illustration, lets say you are doing the bad thing, finger on the trigger, and you fall, stumble, get startled, knocked off balance, whatever, and you clench your hand on the gun and on the trigger.

With a DA gun, your accidental pull might only bring the hammer back part way, not firing the gun. When that kind of thing happens the usual response is "wow, got lucky that time" and a resolve to be more careful in the future. And then, it's forgotten. SO, no data for statistics to play with.

The same amount of pull could fire an SA (safety off) and an AD/ND will NOT be forgotten. Not all of these get turned into data, either, but some do, and that is the data you have to work with. It's ..."flawed".

reading about adopting the shrouded revolver being a way to reduce city liabilities comes from an Ayoob tale. My best guess is NYC, but am not sure as to location.

I'll cover the city in a moment, but first, a short primer on hammer shrouds.
To reduce the risk of snagging the hammer spur in clothing during the draw you have two options, and both have been used. One way is to remove the hammer spur, the other way is to cover it. Cutting the spur off a hammer (and doing nothing else) CAN lead to unreliable ignition. Works, usually, but for reliability "retuning" with different spring tension might be needed.

Covering the hammer takes two forms, those that completely cover the hammer (and this includes "hammerless" revolvers) and those that leave a slot so you can still reach the hammer to cock it for SA shooting. "Shroud" generally means it is an after factory add on. Factory guns with "protected" hammer spurs are usually described as "integral hammer shroud".

S&W has made several models of guns with both covered and accessible hammers. One of the models with an "accessible" hammer is the Bodyguard Model 38. Look that one up, you'll see what I am talking about. A good picture is worth a ton of words.

Shrouded and "hammerless" revolvers predate liability concerns by generations. If Mas Ayoob was talking about liability, he was talking about what exists today (or then), not about what brought them into being.

Out of curiosity, which PD is it? How was the modification done? Was the reason to reduce liability exposure?

(I'm going from memory here, so I might get minor details wrong, bear with me, you can look it up in detail at your convenience)

The city was Miami. I think it was the late 60s, or maybe early 70s, when DA revolvers were still standard issue.

The situation resulted from a lawsuit where an officer held a suspect at gunpoint in a video arcade. Gun fired, suspect killed. Lawsuit brought. One side claimed officer cocked his gun, and then it accidently fired. One witness said he saw the gun cocked (SA mode). Officer said he did not, he fired DA, when the suspect "reached for a weapon".

There was an on going issue at the time with officers and SA fire. It was "common knowledge" that street punks were bluffing the cops, not complying with cops orders, even at gunpoint. They would only believe that the cops would shoot them if the cop "proved" he was serious by cocking his revolver. At this point, you should be able to see the problem with that, cocked revolver (SA pull) cop with finger on the trigger ready to fire...

Part of the result of the suit was that the city had the SA notch on the hammer removed, rendering the guns DAO. So an officer could NOT cock the gun and the "risk" of AD/ND from the short, light SA pull was eliminated.

To be clear, you are referring to a long and heavy DA trigger. There are short and light DA triggers, ala Glock.

Yes, I am referring to the DA trigger as found on typical DA revolvers and semi autos such as the Sig, Beretta, and others.

Glock is not a true DA trigger, and Glock does not refer to it as such. They call it a "safe action trigger" and are talking about more than just the little tab on the front.

The Glock is "partially cocked", and the trigger pull brings it to full cock, and fires it. A "true" DA action starts with the hammer/striker uncocked, brings it to full cock and fires it. A technical difference, more than a practical one, but since GLock says their gun is not a DA trigger, we don't refer to them as such.

 

[Limnophile]

Huh!? Gats passing mention of a toddler is getting far too much attention. A red herring for those holding the weak hand in this discussion?

Seeing as you addressed it as well and I am merely responding to your point of view, you would be guilty of the same crime.

If use of fallacious argumentation were a crime, the Capitol and White House would be empty.

Once again, I merely pointed out that Gats did not seem to intend to imply that a DA/SA was childproof, and by elevating his casual reference to a major argument does (and continues to do) this thread a disservice.

By the way, pointing out a logical fallacy is not fallacious, and neither is an attempt to clarify Gats's sentence. If I have misinterpreted Gats's sentence he can weigh in and tell me I'm full of beans, but I believe he invoked a toddler as an argumentum ad absurdum, an absurdly ridiculous point that illustrates the relevant point -- in this case, that a long and heavy trigger pull is safer than a short and light one.

Straw man. Gats said nothing about leaving a child alone with a gun for an extended time. He merely pointed out that he had never heard of a toddler (not a "child," which is a far broader category of persons) who had shot the owner of a DA revolver with said revolver, making a quick point about the undisputable fact that a long and heavy trigger is harder to pull than a short and light trigger. He was not advocating tossing DA revolvers into cribs.

When a child encounters said firearm he/she will be with that firearm alone for a period of time, unless the parent has chosen to leave a loaded firearm out for a child and observe what happens. More so he said this:

by affording the authorized user precious time to correct an imminent tragedy.

the implication being a heavy DA pull will take longer for a child to discharge as it requires more effort to pull and the authorized user (I assume parent) will be afforded the time to prevent an accident. Therefore the question of how much more effort it would take and how much more time that effort would require is very relative and not a straw man at all.

PLEASE BACK AWAY FROM YOUR KEYBOARD AND LEAVE THE STRAW MAN ALONE!!

Entirely irrelevant.

No, not really. See above.

The straw man is always irrelevant, which is why it is fallacious. Per Wikipedia:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The user of straw man argumentation is either sloppy or nefarious. I choose to view your use here as being attributable to sloppiness. The straw man is the President's favorite rhetorical ploy, and he's rarely called on it. I regard his addiction to its use as nefarious.

You successfully slayed that straw man. Congratulations!

The degree to which you write off others when the talking points they present are something you do not want to discuss or consider is concerning.

No one needs to substantively respond to a fallacious argument other than to demonstrate how such argument is indeed fallacious. You may find that annoying, but it is entirely fair and reasonable. In this case Gats nor anyone else ever argued that any gun is childproof, despite your unwillingness to admit thus fact.

It makes me wonder if you have any interest in a real discussion at all, or merely want forum members to read what you post and agree enthusiastically.

Classic psychological projection. It is the user of the straw man who desires to derail the debate on to grounds he creates out of thin air by falsely or erroneously putting words into the mouths of others.

You seem unwilling to accept that there are multiple points of view on an issue and are insistent that there is one definitively correct point of view (which you conveniently are the one presenting).

To the contrary, I am quite willing to entertain other opinions if they are rooted in facts and logic.

Take one relevant point here. Some have interpreted studies offered herein as supporting the idea that a long and heavy trigger is no more safe than short and light trigger, despite that conclusion grossly violating common sense. But, the studies do show that:

- a heavy trigger is safer than a light trigger (enough pressure was applied to a lab SIG trigger to defeat a 5-lb trigger pull more often than it was to defeat a 12-lb trigger pull) , and
- long-term training to keep one's trigger finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot (while unquestionably valuable and essential) cannot be relied to work 100% of the time; in fact, it fails far more often than anyone knew, and once that finger strays onto the trigger -- unintentionally and unknowingly -- the risk of an ND skyrockets.

I have rarely found that to be the case, nor has science (which you continue to claim is on your side) on many issues.

Science is on your side, too. Feel free to listen to and learn from it.

Open-mindedness is a virtue and snark is unnecessary when you have received none from me in return.

I hope any snark I've displayed can be viewed as witty and hopefully sophisticated, but I find the accusation comming from the slayer of straw men to be amusing, as the straw man is the epitome of assinine snark.

By the way, turning an argument to one about tone I have found is one of the last ditch tools in the toolbag of the vacuous debater. I say that with all my love in the hope you will be prompted to seek out a substantive argument for degraded gun safety.

 

[44 AMP]

How about inviting the wheel gun boys to weigh in? DA/SA revolver shot in DA vs a 1911 carried in Condition 1:

Which is safer? Depends entirely on the skill of the user. IF you have a specific question, ask, I shoot both, and have opinions, which are worth what you pay for them!

While the Constitution does no more than restrict government, what are the moral obligations restrict us as individuals?

I think probably the best way to look at this is "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

It is long established there are limits to our expression of our rights, agreed to, and complied with for the common good. There is an extensive network of laws covering many situations. And those not already covered become case law when they work through the system.

It might not be a violation of the other's guy's free speech when you shout him down, but it could well be a disturbance of the peace, etc.

Private property owners rights on their property trump your (and my) right to bear arms. (his nose)

Private property open to the public must comply with a number of laws, but blanket right to bear arms is not one of them, absent a specific law covering it. Some states have passed laws giving employees the legal right to have a gun in their car, in a company parking lot. They do not have the right to be armed on the premises, but due to the law, cannot be punished for a gun in their car while they are at work.

It's a complex matter, and has been discussed a lot, elsewhere.

And before we wander further into thread drift, (Including arguments about the quality of arguments), lets return to the OP and its topic.

 

[Limnophile]

That is an interesting point. I think a cavalry trooper trying to manage an unruly horse could well fit into the category of someone who was suddenly pushed off balance. Hopefully, the trooper would be trained to engage the 1911's safety and then attempt to holster. I suspect that some troopers with their 1911s drawn and ready to fire would reflexively squeeze the entire handgun and discharge it unintentionally.

Exactly, although I would change your final clause very slightly:

could reflexively squeeze the entire handgun and discharge it unintentionally.

Some modern instructors teach holstering a firearm without looking at the holster after a defensive encounter. I could see a police officer needing to holster a ready firearm while doing some other task or while watching a suspect but I wonder if that is the best course. As a CCW, I think it may be wise to wait until the threat is over and look while I holster.

Thoughts?

My input on this matter is not based on extensive experience. After three years of having my CPL I am beginning to be able to holster without looking, but I see no sign of weakness or technical ineptitude if one takes a peek.

When I cop has a bad guy in submission on the ground I would think it wise for him to reholster before handcuffing him, and it would be prudent for him to keep his attention fixated on the perp while he reholstered. I don't own handcuffs, so I don't have to worry about mastering that maneuver.

Your papers demonstrate that anyone involved in any form of dynamic shooting (ie, shooting where moving is required or anticipated; anything but static shooting at a range) is at risk of an ND caused by a stray trigger finger coupled with a reflexive clench of such finger. Even the time the gun is stored the dynamic shooter can be at risk of an ND, as attested by guns going off -- despite no finger being present -- in holsters, purses, pockets, and waistbands. To prevent such accidents an affirmative safety, properly used, does wonders.

 

[Limnophile]

What is the ND rate for Glocks? How does that number compare to other firearms?

The rate for Glocks is higher than that for DA revolvers, as attested to by news stories documenting the problem in the wake of police department experiences after switching from the latter to the former. If there would have been no change in ND rate after the switch there would have been no stories. And, the stories weren't of the sort, "New Glocks Best Safety Investment the PD Ever Made."

Unfortunately, the media did not document the difference scientifically. It is not possible to do so, because, to my knowledge, Glock's attorneys have never allowed a wrongful death or injury suit to go to a jury. Furthermore, no one compiles civilian ND stats.

The Glock ND rate is higher than that for say 1911s, as has and can be demonstrated by conceptual modeling. I'm all for seeing a new thread to flesh out a mathematical model if folks are interested in participating.

 

[JohnKSa]

In fact, it shows that a 12-lb trigger is safer than a 5-lb trigger, even ignoring the difference in the length of pull.

To be fair, it shows that a 12-lb trigger is less likely to be pulled accidentally. There is more to being "safer" than just how hard it is to accidentally fire the gun because there's more to the functionality of a gun than just preventing unintentional discharges. Otherwise one could just make a gun that can't be loaded and call it the ultimately safe gun.

Part of a gun being "safer" involves being able to reliably hit what you're aiming at (which speaks to the safety of the defender) and being able to reliably NOT hit what you don't want to hit (which speaks to the safety of bystanders). Both of those factors tend to be reduced by a long, heavy trigger. Which is why long, heavy triggers are far less commonly encountered in LE these days. A classic example of what long heavy triggers are capable of is the NYPD shooting where 9 bystanders were hit. I imagine that some of the bystanders would argue passionately that a police issue gun that could be shot more accurately would be safer even if the trigger weren't heavy enough to cut down on unintentional discharges.

As I alluded to in the other thread, focusing on one single aspect of a design to the total exclusion of all other features and functionality of the design is not particularly productive.

Yet from my perspective, the gun safety standards of today seem more lax than they were in the 1960s.

I think that your perspective is fairly unique and would likely change with additional research.

Safeties (passive and active) are much more prolific and effective these days. To the point that many designs that were once considered safe have been reworked to fix "problems" that no one really considered problems a few decades ago.

It is my understanding that the shroud has a twofold purpose -- eliminating hammer snag, as you mention, and making it difficult to place the revolver in SA.

The latter is quite unlikely and I've never heard or read such a claim before. The shrouded guns (and gun shrouds) are specifically designed with a provision to allow SA shooting although it would be simpler to make them without the function. If the department wishes to eliminate SA shooting, a revolver can be easily converted to DAO with a simple modification to the hammer.

Could it be that DAO revolvers look similar to shrouded revolvers, say from a side view?

Shrouded hammer revolvers are pretty unique looking and generally have a pronounced "humpback" look due to the presence of the shroud concealing an otherwise fairly normal hammer.

DAO revolvers generally look pretty normal with the exception of the fact that the hammer spur is usually removed. That makes the gun a little more snag proof and there's no reason for the spur to be there since the hammer can't be cocked.

Concealed hammer revolvers (which are also DAO) generally look as if they have no hammer at all. The hammer is internal to the frame and no access is provided, either visual or manual.

Was the reason to reduce liability exposure?

I don't recall the department. As I recall, it was done after a shooting that was ruled to be accidental and incurred liability for the department. The department apparently felt that whether the shooting was truly accidental or not, they could eliminate the argument that had been successfully used to support the ruling by eliminating the ability to cock revolvers in the future.

The saddest part of exploring the history of the development of the M1911 for me was how it busted the myth of John Moses Browning's infallibility. The venerable safety lock was not JMB's idea, but the Army's! Of course, now I have yet another reason to be proud of our Army.

It's amusing to see that you don't let anything at all get in the way of your opinions. If JMB disagrees with your philosophy of firearm design you consider it proof that HE is obviously wrong. It must be nice to be so absolutely confident.

I have no reason to offer for my initial guess, but I'm thinking the revolver would have the better track record in terms of a lower ND rate. I doubt this will motivate me to sell my CZs and buy DA revolvers to replace them.

I really, really hope you aren't seriously so far gone as to evaluate firearms purely on the basis of how unlikely they are to be discharged unintentionally. The fact is that virtually any modern design can be used safely if the user follows some very basic rules.

By the way, unless you go to a DAO revolver, you now have to deal with the possibility of unintentional discharges due to decocking accidents--a significant source of unintentional discharges--probably 10% or more.

These discussions tend to focus on unintentional trigger pulls but the reality is that when a gun goes off accidentally because the trigger is pulled, most of the time the trigger is pulled on purpose.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114287

If we ignore decocking accidents and doubled shots, 6 times out of 10, when the gun goes off unintentionally due to a trigger pull it's because the user intends to operate the trigger completely but believes the gun is unloaded. Heavier triggers can't prevent that. Neither can manual safeties.

 

[44 AMP]

And here's the bottom line, statistically, 110% of the time a gun goes off "accidently" the root cause is operator error.

The other 90% of the time, it's a training issue!

(do I have to say the "S" word??)

 

[Limnophile]

Why are we bringing Einstein into this?

Because whoever first invokes Time's Man of the 20th Century wins the debate, dude.

As much as I love to get my nerd on with physics (pretty much all kinds) I don't think this is the space for it.

I invoked Albert appropriately to demonstrate that knowledge can be gained through in the use of thought experiments (aka conceptual modeling) in lieu of nicely tabulated findings of an experiment tailored to the problem one is exploring.

Can we also avoid a "logical fallacy" fight... The last one I got involved in had the other guy switching to Ad Hominem so fast, I think he threw out some joints in his fingers. (he failed at proper civil discourse/debate, when where and why in his arguments was pointed out, it went nasty fast on their end)

Easily avoided if folks don't bring fallacious argumentation to the thread.

My basic points summed up...

Trigger control is not always successful. Stressors can lead to lapses in following training.

Amen, brother! I think we are making progress. While it is important to stress trigger control -- and ongoing education, repetitive as it is, is part of the process -- trigger-control training is not the end all, be all of gun safety. Cooper showed us that gun safety is a multi-pronged issue. A nasty gun accident usually involves at least two of his Four Rules being violated.

Safeties are likewise vulnerable.

Yes they are. While I was taught to use my safeties by Dad, when I got old enough to take the NRA-sponsored hunters' safety course, I couldn't help but realize there were differences. When I asked the instructor why no mention of the safety was made, I was told that is because safe gun handling should not be predicated on the use of a safety. In other words, the affirmative external safety is an extra feature to enhance gun handling safety momentarily. Just because a "safed gun is not safe" doesn't mean an external safety cannot be used to good effect to enhance safety.

Note that Cooper's Rules make no mention of use of an external safety. Yet, Cooper is credited with popularizing Condition 1 carry (although the Army had that figured out as early as 1912).

The idea that they can provide an extra level of prevention... I find dubious... When looked at directly, it does seem logical...

What's logical -- the effectiveness or dubiousness of external safety use?

The problems arise in actual use scenarios.

During times of stress, large portions of training and procedures can be forgotten or neglected. So an extra layer of safety is available, but just as likely to be forgotten. I have seen several people screw up both trigger discipline and safety discipline within minutes of each other.

I have also seen people forget to disengage the safety, and freeze and spaz out for several seconds trying to comprehend why the gun isn't working. Longer than it would have taken them had they just been calmly firing at the range. I have even seen someone do immediate action when this happened to them. Which obviously didn't work and added confusion.

And this was just training... I would imagine actual life or death situations would only compound the problem.

That's why we train before we encounter a life and death situation.

Your argument can be applied to trigger finger control, but no one, not even the pro-external-safety crowd, advocates for doing away with trigger finger control training, despite that no one can credibly dispute that trigger finger control training is not 100% effective.

Not one of Cooper's Four Rules is 100% effective. That's why there is redundancy. Cooper also knew that less is more -- four complementary, concisely stated rules will mean more to most (because they will be remembered) than a long list that will likely not be comprehensive. For example, Cooper believed in using a thumb safety, but didn't bother to mention it in his Four Rules. Because he felt that the use of such a safety was self evident? Remember that our Federalist Founders argued against codifying a Bill of Rights, because there was no need -- such natural, God-given rights were self-evident. If the Federalists knew what happened to self-evident, unalienable, natural rights I'm sure they'd be pleased to know the Bill of Rights was a good idea.

The long pull of a DA may prevent a subset of NDs, but it is still vulnerable. Being that such things are highly situational, a blanket statement that they prevent NDs is not justifiable.

Yes, a long and heavy DA trigger will undoubtedly reduce a gun's ND rate, but not to zero. Nothing will do that, not with current technology that is affordable and practicable.

What about gun handling is not situational? No one is arguing that a long and heavy trigger pull eliminates all NDs.

They can help in some instances, but its just as likely that the same thing could be said of a glock trigger.

I'd like to hear the conceptual model that demonstrates the Glock trigger is a net safety benefit. The news stories about the effect of police departments switching to Glocks were about the ND rate increasing, not decreasing or staying the same.

You can try to imagine a situation where someone pulls a trigger x ammount with y force, and the DA is fine but a glock is not. But how much of a percentage of all potential NDs does that entail? Is that the middle of the bell curve?

One of the studies did just that -- the German study using a SIG fitted with a pressure sensor on the trigger. It provides two points on the probability curve, enough to fit a curve if a distributional form (lognormal?) is assumed. The study likely overestimates the DA trip rate, because it seems like only trigger finger pressure, not length of pull, was measured.

There are startle movements, which are likely to defeat any trigger. Then there are subtle tension movements, which are likely to only defeat a 1911 trigger. Then there is the bumps and snags, which would encompass a wide range of force/movement amounts. It is this range that one could argue on the merits of trigger weight and pull distance. Still where do they fall on the curve?

I can't think of a startle, or a loss of balance that will defeat a safetied trigger, regardless of pull length or weight. I suppose it could happen, but two obstacles in the way of an ND is almost certainly more effective than in reducing the rate of NDs than merely one such obstacle.

Also... I don't think we have seen any breakdowns of NDs by pistol type.

Again, news exposes about how police departmental NDs climbed after switching from DA revolvers, as predicted by the FBI, is fairly strong qualitative evidence. I'd like to see a meaningful study. I'm pretty confident Glock won't fund one.

Glocks are extremely popular. One of the, if not the, most popular pistol in the US right now, and very popular with new shooters due to reputation and name recognition.

Argumentum ad populum (if that was intended to be an implied argument).

NDs broke down per capita would be very useful. That is a normalized data set that removes a variable that has a high impact on the numbers.

If per capita means per Glock, I kind of agree. Normalizing it by carry time would be good, too. The implicit data behind the news exposés is somewhat normalized in the tabulations of NDs by year can be assumed, if the size of the affected police force did not change appreciably over time.

You can't go by "Well you never heard of ND problems back in the days of (insert gun type here)"... Because just like modern media makes the world seem more dangerous now than it was 10-20+ years ago, despite falling crime rates... due to the shear amount of info we are presented with... The same is true for NDs. We hear about them more, because its easier to get access to the story when it happens.

Or, we hear more about NDs because the numbers have climbed along with the numbers of less-safe guns on the street.

One could argue that their personal method of using a thumb safety is more "safe"... but that does not change the fact that current training doctrine says that a manual safety is to be disengaged as the firearm is brought to bear on the target... not after.

I'm not responsible for unsafe use of safeties. During training one typically assumes the decision has been made to fire before drawing one's handgun. Ask Officer Slager in NC how that doctrine is working for him. A close viewing of the bystander's video shows Scott to be on top of Slager at the start, and it's clear to me that Slager was entirely justified in drawing his weapon and thinking at the time he did so that he would be justified in firing. It appears that Scott wisely read the tea leaves and disengaged by turning and resuming his run, this time as a violent felon who had just assaulted an officer. If Slager had had a step in his decision loop to reassess the need to fire after the draw, or to continually reassess during the entire draw, perhaps he wouldn't be facing a manslaughter or murder charge now.

The Slager case has nothing directly to do with a safety, as I believe his weapon was safetiless. But, the way I was taught to handle a gun deactivating the thumb safety would have been the final act before squeezing the trigger, giving me one last opportunity to refrain from shooting.

Also I find it irksome, that something is declared "flawed" simply because it uses a different design philosophy and different priorities, than one's own personal views.

My declaration of design flaws is influenced by the training I received in my youth, by the exercise of logic in my adult life, but is based primarily on the common knowledge that safetiless guns with short and light trigger pulls have an elevated ND rate.

Not being a gun designer, I have no design philosophy. I do have a user philosophy and am biased toward safety. If I were into declaring design flaws merely on the basis of personal priorities I would deem all polymer-framed guns aesthetically flawed.

Car A has a small trunk and only 125hp... Car B has a big trunk and 300hp...

Is car A "flawed"? No, it simply has a different set of priorities than car B.

But, if Car A has a tendency to flip over in a turn or go up in flames after a rear-end collision, it almost certainly has some safety design flaws.

Glocks are duty pistols... designed to be quick into action when danger is unpredictable and happens quickly. The small chance for NDs due to poor handling, was weighed as less important than being ready for the high likelihood of danger requiring quick action. Police and military can be reasonably assumed to be in a situation where the chances of a dangerous encounter are much greater than that of a civilian.

I trust you are not trying to say that only police and military should be allowed Glocks.

I'd like to see the data on just how much flipping off a thumb safety slows down a draw in a dire situation. The absence of such easily obtained data is more mysterious than the absence of a civilian ND rate by brand database. I've never had a problem deactivating a thumb safety, although the sample size of just me cannot be reliably extrapolated to the general population.

The military might not always be in a war, but when they are... priorities are on being ready, winning the fight. Police can be confronted with a dangerous person on any given day they are on duty, and the same priorities are there.

I've never been in the military, but if war comes to my neighborhood, my priorities will include being ready and winning the fight. And I won't be carrying Condition 3 like many militaries do. As a citizen I can be confronted by a dangerous person on any given day, and if I am the same priorities will apply.

Some civilians desire the same... not all will be as diligent as they should, but we can't force the issue, we can only guide in the right direction.

I don't see how an affirmative safety is any impediment.

The surest direction for success is training.

But good design for safety combined with training trumps training alone.

Remember... those untrained users will be equally risky with any firearm... as it requires training to know what is or is not safe, and how to operate a firearm, and any safeties on it.

I sincerely doubt that. A green user is probably safest with a DAO revolver. To assume all guns are equally safe (or unsafe, depending on your perspective) is naïve. For example, I think it is the CZ 52 that the decocker is affectionately regarded as the auxiliary trigger, because decocking is known to sometimes result in an unintended discharge. That pistol is less safe than a pistol with a non-flawed decocker.

I regard them as flawed in design with respect to safety.

This is a distinction you have never made to this point. If it was implied, it was missed by most of us at least.

This is an important distinction... and one that can be addressed in a much more constructive manner.

I'll admit that three years ago, after considering a Glock, but buying a CZ, I had Glocks categorized as "unsafe," but perhaps a year later I was persuaded to alter my position to "less safe." If I haven't made that clear I'm guilty of poor writing.

I was trained in my youth to regard all guns as unsafe and requiring handling with respect for personal safety and the safety of others.

You are obligated, under rules of productive debate,

True... and I can not claim to be the bastion of all logic and perfect skills of civil discourse... I try... sometimes I make mistakes.

I strive to be logical, but tact is not my strong suit. I don't view you or anyone else here as a bad guy, and I enjoy the debate. It was similar discussions that prompted me to rethink my position on the Glock and elevate it from unsafe to less safe. Heck, maybe some day I'll buy one, slap a thumb safety on it.

Overall, I feel the ND problem is fairly even across the board when variables are factored out. Any differences would be within the margin of error.

Sounds like a statement of religious belief, not a conclusion of logical thought. Your feeling does not explain the news exposés on Glock NDs. I think those surfaced about a decade or more ago, about a decade after the switch from revolvers to Glocks occurred. It may be that peak of elevated Glock NDs is behind us, although I suspect a residual remains, as demonstrated by the Glock NDing in a purse in VA in March.

I don't think Glocks or similar designs are flawed, they just have a different design goal. Whether or not that goal aligns with yours is another matter. While most would agree with your priorities of firearm ownership and defensive use/carry, how those priorities are assessed, and their personal levels of acceptable risk will not always align with yours.

.

I could care less about the risk to himself someone assumes by carrying a Glock. It's the risk to others that concerns me.

We can't let ourselves fall into the "every mistake or potential mistake is a tragedy" mindset... that is the exact mindset anti-gun people use to justify their views. We do not need to help them along.

I agree that "tragedy" is a word vastly overused. But are you revealing a bit of ankle here? Are you concerned that admitting that safetiless guns are less safe will somehow feed the anti-gun beast? I doubt it will. Besides, we would do best to admit reality a fight for our rights from there.

 

[44 AMP]

I could care less about the risk to himself someone assumes by carrying a Glock. It's the risk to others that concerns me.

That, and the tendency of (some) police to shoot to slide lock then asses the damage as they reload.

We had, what, 9 people (bystanders) killed or wounded in a single shootout in NYC recently, and by the reports I saw, NONE of them were hit by the bad guy.

Its a given the majority of police are not firearm enthusiasts.
Its a given that the police are always undertrained.
Its a given that a significant percentage of trained people will not follow their training.

So how is giving them a gun that both common sense observation and "scientific studies" indicate is easier to make a mistake with than previous designs, how it that "Perfection"?