3 ms·

Only a few days ago I learned (please pardon my ignorance) that it is legal (and actually seemingly quite common) to have handguns without a safety (I believed

by jaclaz 4y ago

Only a few days ago I learned (please pardon my ignorance) that it is legal (and actually seemingly quite common) to have handguns without a safety (I believed that safety in guns was something that - besides common sense - was legally mandated) and that these guns (namely the SIG SAUER P320) are curiously often enough at the center of self-discharge accidents: https://www.thetrace.org/2023/04/sig-sauer-p320-upgrade-safety/ https://www.thetrace.org/2023/04/sig-sauer-p320-upgrade-safe... I wonder what the possible failure modes of this smart gun could be: 1) fire in the hands of not authorised people 2) fail to fire in the hands of the authorized people when needed and frankly I cannot decide which one could be the worse.

h2odragon 4y ago
Cheap street "saturday night special" .25 autos frequently have a safety catch made as a plastic wheel type part; which means that (with some effort the first time), you can fire through the safety. Subsequent trigger pulls wear the plastic bit off further and the safety switch becomes completely cosmetic. In that case not having the switch at all is probably slightly better, at least it's not lying to you.
- jaclaz 4y ago
  >In that case not having the switch at all is probably slightly better, at least it's not lying to you. In theory, yes, in practice if the result is still shooting one's foot accidentally (or worse) there is no difference.
maxerickson 4y ago
Sig Sauer claim that it has an internal safety (or really, a couple internal safeties). Part of the problem is that people are choosing to carry a gun that is 'ready to fire' (like, they want it live as they remove it from a holster...). It's hard for me to get into the mindset of a civilian that chambers a round in their bedroom as they get ready to leave the house, so I wouldn't want to try to speak to how informed their choice is.
- jaclaz 4y ago
  I don't know, I am not a gun owner, let alone an expert, but "old" guns (like the Colt .45/M1911) had AFAIK both a thumb and a grip safety[0], and (say) Beretta 92's had a thumb safety and in order to arm the hammer[1] the trigger needed "full travel", both seem to me like much safer than these "new" guns (against accidental firing). [0] and additionally you had to arm the hammer [1] unless manually armed

by jaclaz 4y ago

h2odragon 4y ago

Cheap street "saturday night special" .25 autos frequently have a safety catch made as a plastic wheel type part; which means that (with some effort the first time), you can fire through the safety. Subsequent trigger pulls wear the plastic bit off further and the safety switch becomes completely cosmetic. In that case not having the switch at all is probably slightly better, at least it's not lying to you.

jaclaz 4y ago
>In that case not having the switch at all is probably slightly better, at least it's not lying to you. In theory, yes, in practice if the result is still shooting one's foot accidentally (or worse) there is no difference.

maxerickson 4y ago

Sig Sauer claim that it has an internal safety (or really, a couple internal safeties). Part of the problem is that people are choosing to carry a gun that is 'ready to fire' (like, they want it live as they remove it from a holster...). It's hard for me to get into the mindset of a civilian that chambers a round in their bedroom as they get ready to leave the house, so I wouldn't want to try to speak to how informed their choice is.

jaclaz 4y ago
I don't know, I am not a gun owner, let alone an expert, but "old" guns (like the Colt .45/M1911) had AFAIK both a thumb and a grip safety[0], and (say) Beretta 92's had a thumb safety and in order to arm the hammer[1] the trigger needed "full travel", both seem to me like much safer than these "new" guns (against accidental firing). [0] and additionally you had to arm the hammer [1] unless manually armed