If I were to ask a 100 people on the street what a safety is on a gun 99 of them would describe a manual safety. When people throw around the term safety, thats what they mean. As everyone has pointed out though there are many types. This is no different then any industry. Just as an example, I work in tech and people throw around the work 'multimedia' daily but when a client says that to you they need to clarify what exactly they are referring to.
What do you consider a "safety"?
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It isn't always clear to anyone other than the shooter that a self-defense shooting is, in fact, a self-defense shooting. And that ignores the fact that some prosecutors simply don't think plebians should be allowed to have guns and to defend themselves.44 AMP said:
I can't control what a prosecutor might tell a jury. If a shooting is at all questionable, I don't discount the possibility that a prosecutor will tell a jury that I intentionally removed or disabled a safety device on my firearm in order to make it easier for me to kill people. Sure, if I have a competent defense attorney he/she should try to refute that argument -- but I would prefer not to have to refute that argument at all.
As I think Frank Ettin has expressed in discussions about using reloaded ammunition for self-defense: Why give the opposition things they can use against you?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I just think it's a lot easier to be able to say "This firearm is exactly the way it left the factory, with all factory safety devices intact," which can be verified by expert witnesses for both sides, than it is to say, "Well, I removed the dingleframmis, but I don't consider that to be a safety even though the manufacturer says it's a safety device."
Basically, I'm inherently a risk-averse person. I've been an expert witness in a number of (non-firearms, non-criminal) court cases, and I've seen first-hand, up close and personal, how effectively even a second-rate attorney can twist words. YMMV.
Basically, I'm inherently a risk-averse person. I've been an expert witness in a number of (non-firearms, non-criminal) court cases, and I've seen first-hand, up close and personal, how effectively even a second-rate attorney can twist words. YMMV.
All safeties, whether passive or manual are also safety features, but 'safety feature' is a term that encompasses more than just 'safeties'.
A safety feature is anything that is designed to:
Prevent a potentially dangerous occurrence
Make a potentially dangerous occurrence less likely
Make a potentially dangerous occurrence less dangerous
Safety features include things like:
Triggerguards
Manual safeties
Passive safeties
Design features that are intended to protect the shooter from injury or reduce the chances of injury/serious injury if certain failures occur.
Design features that are intended to reduce the likelihood of failures that could cause injury.
Manual and passive safeties are in a specific category of safety features. This category is focused on preventing the gun from firing inadvertently.
Manual safeties do this via some means that requires the shooter to make a particular action to engage and disengage the safety. The safety will not be engaged if the shooter doesn't take the specific action required to engage the safety. The safety will not be disengaged unless the shooter takes the specific action required to disengage the safety.
Passive safeties engage automatically as a consequence of normal operation without the shooter taking any action to engage them and often (but not always) disengage automatically as a consequence of normal operation when certain conditions are met. Some passive safeties engage automatically but must be manually disengaged.
A safety feature is anything that is designed to:
Prevent a potentially dangerous occurrence
Make a potentially dangerous occurrence less likely
Make a potentially dangerous occurrence less dangerous
Safety features include things like:
Triggerguards
Manual safeties
Passive safeties
Design features that are intended to protect the shooter from injury or reduce the chances of injury/serious injury if certain failures occur.
Design features that are intended to reduce the likelihood of failures that could cause injury.
Manual and passive safeties are in a specific category of safety features. This category is focused on preventing the gun from firing inadvertently.
Manual safeties do this via some means that requires the shooter to make a particular action to engage and disengage the safety. The safety will not be engaged if the shooter doesn't take the specific action required to engage the safety. The safety will not be disengaged unless the shooter takes the specific action required to disengage the safety.
Passive safeties engage automatically as a consequence of normal operation without the shooter taking any action to engage them and often (but not always) disengage automatically as a consequence of normal operation when certain conditions are met. Some passive safeties engage automatically but must be manually disengaged.
To me, a safety feature is a function of the gun that blocks an unintended firing test case.
I would love to see guns tested with 5-25 unintended firing test cases and then rated as pass fail. I think that would be the key to really highlighting the reason some current guns are a relatively new(last 50 years….my goodness I’m old) are fundamentally less safe. Not bad, just less safe.
Things like pull trigger with safety off & on at 5lb, 8lb, 10lb, 15lb, 30lb…with grasping and without grasping the gun.
Drop free and fixtured at 1ft, 3ft, 6ft, 30ft. With and without manual safety applied.
Fire with and without magazine.
Can loaded chamber be assessed without gun function?
Can cocked status be confirmed visually.
I would love to see guns tested with 5-25 unintended firing test cases and then rated as pass fail. I think that would be the key to really highlighting the reason some current guns are a relatively new(last 50 years….my goodness I’m old) are fundamentally less safe. Not bad, just less safe.
Things like pull trigger with safety off & on at 5lb, 8lb, 10lb, 15lb, 30lb…with grasping and without grasping the gun.
Drop free and fixtured at 1ft, 3ft, 6ft, 30ft. With and without manual safety applied.
Fire with and without magazine.
Can loaded chamber be assessed without gun function?
Can cocked status be confirmed visually.
On second thought, I withdraw my objections. This approach is an excellent idea.
When I think about the word 'consider', to me it means: 'do with'.
In my opinion, the word 'safety' means: 'raffia basket'.
I realize that some people may object to that, but I maintain that 'dictionary definitions' just don't cut it for this kind of discussion. It's clear that everyone can use their own personal definitions and the result is productive. You actually CAN change reality by simply changing what you call something. I find it is very useful to come up with personal definitions and to use them in place of the standard ones when communicating.
Anyway, back to the OP's question. "What do I do with raffia baskets?" I put stuff in them--stuff that's suitable for either transport or storage in raffia baskets, of course.
When I think about the word 'consider', to me it means: 'do with'.
In my opinion, the word 'safety' means: 'raffia basket'.
I realize that some people may object to that, but I maintain that 'dictionary definitions' just don't cut it for this kind of discussion. It's clear that everyone can use their own personal definitions and the result is productive. You actually CAN change reality by simply changing what you call something. I find it is very useful to come up with personal definitions and to use them in place of the standard ones when communicating.
Anyway, back to the OP's question. "What do I do with raffia baskets?" I put stuff in them--stuff that's suitable for either transport or storage in raffia baskets, of course.
The fun thing about English, or rather the way it is used, is generally is is very context dependent.
So i would say yes, they are all safeties. Even a locked container or a trigger lock would be an external safety, meaning one not integral to the firearm.
However when speaking of firearms they are generally phrased in the terms of safeties, meaning manual safeties. Passive safeties, like grip or trigger safeties. And passive safety features like firing pin blocks. So it is important to be clear you are correct.
All language/communication is context dependent to one extent or another. That's not the issue here.
Everyone clearly understands the context of the discussion and is on the same page in that respect. The terms are all terms that have accepted meanings. And yet people (at the invitation of the OP, it must be noted) are still making up their own definitions instead of using the accepted ones--as if the terms are open to redefinition--as if making up personal definitions is constructive instead of destructive or as if knowing various personal definitions is enlightening instead of confusing.
This type of thing is a contagious disease. People believe, and are encouraged to believe that they can actually change reality by simply redefining terms or by renaming things. I'm not going to give examples from outside the gun community, but I think it shouldn't be hard for people to come up with some on their own.
Ironically, the gun community has typically been a stickler for not getting caught up in it. Instead, they have fought against the idea of renaming 'semi-auto magazine fed rifles" to 'assault rifles', to name one example, pointing out that both terms already have definitions and those definitions should be used correctly.
Anyway, that's all getting away from the OP's question.
I'm curious to know what other people on this thread do with raffia baskets?
Everyone clearly understands the context of the discussion and is on the same page in that respect. The terms are all terms that have accepted meanings. And yet people (at the invitation of the OP, it must be noted) are still making up their own definitions instead of using the accepted ones--as if the terms are open to redefinition--as if making up personal definitions is constructive instead of destructive or as if knowing various personal definitions is enlightening instead of confusing.
This type of thing is a contagious disease. People believe, and are encouraged to believe that they can actually change reality by simply redefining terms or by renaming things. I'm not going to give examples from outside the gun community, but I think it shouldn't be hard for people to come up with some on their own.
Ironically, the gun community has typically been a stickler for not getting caught up in it. Instead, they have fought against the idea of renaming 'semi-auto magazine fed rifles" to 'assault rifles', to name one example, pointing out that both terms already have definitions and those definitions should be used correctly.
Anyway, that's all getting away from the OP's question.
I'm curious to know what other people on this thread do with raffia baskets?
Yes, that is the problem with a trigger safety.Limnophile said:
We agree, but disagree. Operation of the trigger is the normal. Inadvertent would be the operation of the trigger while not intending to, right. That is the act of reholstering and snagging…aka inadvertent operation.TunnelRat said:
With all due respect safety level is just about laying out all the test cases and checking the pass boxes. Then add them up and see who wins. I can tell you all that certain near safetyless designs will have fewer checks.
As already noted, passive safeties (including trigger safeties) can and do prevent some types of inadvertent operation. At least if we are using normal definitions for 'inadvertent operation' and not narrowing the focus artificially to only take into account a subset of the ways that a gun can be inadvertently operated.
Such as having the trigger operate from being dropped. Trigger safeties are very good at preventing inadvertent operation from inertia events (dropping/jarring).
They are less effective at preventing snagging, but, depending on the design, they can prevent some snags. If the snagging object impinges on the trigger in an area where the trigger safety can not be operated (the side of the trigger or at the top of the trigger bow in the typical "flipper" type trigger safety) then the trigger will not be operated by the snagging object.
Could you explain how asking people what they consider a safety or "the safety" is, in any way inviting them to create their own definitions?
What brought about my asking the question was someone referring to a "magazine disconnect safety".
I recognize what a magazine disconnect is, and what it does, and how it prevents the gun from firing, but I don't in any way consider it a "safety" or even a safety feature. SO, I was asking what other people considered to be a safety.
The result has been...interesting, with some people essentially thinking along the same lines I do, and others considering anything that either prevents the gun from firing or allows safe carry to be a "safety" in their view.
If the term didn't have any accepted meaning then asking people what they thought it meant might make sense. Since it already has an accepted meaning, asking people what they think it means is asking them to make up their own definitions.
Ok. I understand what you are saying, but that opinion is misaligned with the common usage of the terms 'safety' and 'safety feature'.
A magazine safety is, by any reasonable definition, a safety. To make it easy, that's precisely why it's called a magazine safety. And, also by any reasonable definition, a safety is also a safety feature--safety feature being a more general term than the word 'safety' as it applies to firearms.
Firearm safeties are a specific category of the much more general category of 'safety features'. Safeties deal specifically with preventing inadvertent discharge of the firearm while safety features are any design features designed to prevent undesirable dangerous occurrences, reduce the chances of injury or the severity of injury from dangerous occurrences, or to reduce the likelihood of dangerous occurrences.
Willie Lowman
New member
of all the handguns I own, 2 of them have a switch that prevents the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled. My Glock, Sig, and revolvers have no such feature.
So for me my safety is located between my thumb and middle finger.
So for me my safety is located between my thumb and middle finger.
Agree but missing the relavence ??
Unless I'm missing something, I would not see any benefit on having a conversation about the distinctions. ..
Example; I have a firearm that lists three (3) safeties. Per your thinking, I guess that at least one, is a "safety feature" and not sure on the other two.
Be Safe !!!
Can't say my opinion is of much help as I really don't see the benefit of me splitting hairs. So I have no reason to question your thoughts/opinions. As previously stated; I teach Hunter Safety and Firearm's Safety. I "try" to practice what I teach and that is four basics firearm safety rules and "Read your manual", and be informed of all it's features. I do mention that "Use all safeties present" but don't trust them. Instead, trust the four fundamental rules......
Unless I'm missing something, I would not see any benefit on having a conversation about the distinctions. ..
Example; I have a firearm that lists three (3) safeties. Per your thinking, I guess that at least one, is a "safety feature" and not sure on the other two.
Be Safe !!!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That last sentence is, IMHO, the key.Pahoo said:
For most of us, most of the time, this is nothing but an exercise in splitting hairs, arguing about a distinction with no [real] difference. Where it could make a difference, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, is if/when you have used a firearm and have been charged criminally or sued civilly because someone didn't think it was a "good shoot" (justified use of a firearm in defense of self). In court, if you have removed or disable any "safety feature" that was on the firearm when it left the factory, you should expect the other side to use that fact to paint you as a dangerous nut who disregards safety to make it easier for you to kill people.
I owned a pistol with a magazine safety..Once. I think it was a MAB PA-15.
If you removed the magazine, the trigger and slide were locked.
That means if there is a round in the chamber,you cannot remove the magazine and then clear the chamber.
It IS possible to manually pull the slide back and lock it open with the slide stop, then remove the magazine. That is rather cumbersome an not a very intuitive move. Or you can cycle the slide for every round in the mag till the gun is empty. The magazine safety encourages the practice of removing the magazine and leaving a round in the chamber, assuming the gun is "safe".
Others may disagree,but I believe magazine safeties are inherently dangerous.
No,I do not remove them. I just will not buy or own any pistol with a magazine safety.
--------------------------------------------------------
And if they differ from yours,?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Something I have seen too often is the phrase "Its on safe" as justification for compromise.
So I maintain that the Human Being responsible for the gun is the most important safety.
But certainly that Human Being can,and should,take advantage of the "extra layer",the redundancy ,of manual safeties and safety features.
My hands are a bit odd. The heel of my hand is quite beefy. The center of my palm is hollow. Its not a reliable hand to compress a grip safety on a 1911.
No,I don't defeat the grip safety. Though some very serious pistoleros do.
I use only flat mainspring housings and grip safeties with a speed bump.
On top of that I tune the grip safety to minimum travel necessary. I make sure it works for me.
IMO,its a good idea to consider the holster as a safety feature,
Too many versions of "minimalist carry" don't consider the holster's role.
Belt clips, un holstered pocket or purse carry, etc leave an unprotected trigger subject to a pencil or cartridge brass or clothing or seat belt snag.
If I pocket carry,I use a kydex pocket holster. In an otherwise empty pocket.
Firearm safety is never reliant on one feature.
It does not matter one bit whether Alec Baldwin's trigger was pulled or his half cock notch failed or his thumb slipped,
The safety between his ears was not engaged.
"Treat all guns as if they are loaded" was broken.
"Don't point your gun at anything you do not want to kill"
Those are the "Safeties"
YES!! I use my safety! But if its that safety that keeps someone alive, my entire 359 degree universe of gun safety has FAILED. And I got lucky.
If you removed the magazine, the trigger and slide were locked.
That means if there is a round in the chamber,you cannot remove the magazine and then clear the chamber.
It IS possible to manually pull the slide back and lock it open with the slide stop, then remove the magazine. That is rather cumbersome an not a very intuitive move. Or you can cycle the slide for every round in the mag till the gun is empty. The magazine safety encourages the practice of removing the magazine and leaving a round in the chamber, assuming the gun is "safe".
Others may disagree,but I believe magazine safeties are inherently dangerous.
No,I do not remove them. I just will not buy or own any pistol with a magazine safety.
--------------------------------------------------------
And if they differ from yours,?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Something I have seen too often is the phrase "Its on safe" as justification for compromise.
So I maintain that the Human Being responsible for the gun is the most important safety.
But certainly that Human Being can,and should,take advantage of the "extra layer",the redundancy ,of manual safeties and safety features.
My hands are a bit odd. The heel of my hand is quite beefy. The center of my palm is hollow. Its not a reliable hand to compress a grip safety on a 1911.
No,I don't defeat the grip safety. Though some very serious pistoleros do.
I use only flat mainspring housings and grip safeties with a speed bump.
On top of that I tune the grip safety to minimum travel necessary. I make sure it works for me.
IMO,its a good idea to consider the holster as a safety feature,
Too many versions of "minimalist carry" don't consider the holster's role.
Belt clips, un holstered pocket or purse carry, etc leave an unprotected trigger subject to a pencil or cartridge brass or clothing or seat belt snag.
If I pocket carry,I use a kydex pocket holster. In an otherwise empty pocket.
Firearm safety is never reliant on one feature.
It does not matter one bit whether Alec Baldwin's trigger was pulled or his half cock notch failed or his thumb slipped,
The safety between his ears was not engaged.
"Treat all guns as if they are loaded" was broken.
"Don't point your gun at anything you do not want to kill"
Those are the "Safeties"
YES!! I use my safety! But if its that safety that keeps someone alive, my entire 359 degree universe of gun safety has FAILED. And I got lucky.
Last edited: