5 ms·
Many modern guns for personal protection do not have manually actuated safeties and instead rely on other mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. For exampl
by deelowe 1y ago
Many modern guns for personal protection do not have manually actuated safeties and instead rely on other mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. For example, glocks have a "trigger safety." Without getting into minutia, these sort of features do a fine job of ensuring the gun does not fire unless the trigger is intentionally actuated.
The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. A long time ago there were quite a few major incidents involving police and manual safeties which resulted in most departments changing their policies such that they carry with the safety off or, typically these days, glocks which have no manual safety.
Regarding the p320. For one, the 320 does not have a trigger safety. In fact, there are numerous "innovations" on this firearm which were made to cut costs, improve trigger feel, and various other things. This rose a lot of suspicion when the gun first came out actually - especially the lack of a trigger safety which many consider essential for striker fire guns intended for carrying on your person. On top of that, sig did end up making a p320 with a safety as this was a military requirement. The thing is, it is possible that the "innovative" sear mechanism within the p320 may allow the gun to fire even when the safety is engaged. In fact, there have been reports of just that happening.
The gun that was being carried in Air Force incident is the military version of the p320 which does in fact have a manual safety. Also, the leaked reports state the incident happened whenever the gun was in the holster and the holster was removed and placed on a desk facing the victim. This is when the gun misfired striking the victim in the chest. There is speculation that the gun may have in fact had the safety engaged whenever this happened. If so, this would explain the prompt response by the AirForce.
Regardless, the purpose of manual safeties are not to prevent guns from discharging on their own (aka. "uncommanded"). Manual safeties are intended to protect against "accidental" discharges where the trigger gets pulled "accidentally." That's not what happened in the above video or the AirForce incident.
One more thing to note. The officer in this video was using a Sig Sauer holster so there should be no risk of the holster itself being the problem.
- solatic 1y ago> The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary is malicious, carrying a round in the chamber, and decides to pull on you, he has the element of surprise. There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first, with the possible exception of Special Forces / Navy SEAL types who drill it ad-nauseum and had 99th-percentile reaction speed to begin with. But thinking that ordinary people can do it is sheer hubris. Thinking you can do it from concealed carry is utterly laughable. In a real world firefight you're either close enough where martial arts is relevant or you're not. If martial arts are relevant, then the guns are irrelevant. If you're further away, what matters is whether you can get behind cover, which will give you time to unholster your weapon, disengage the safety, and chamber a round. You don't decide to carry a gun in public because you think it will save you if someone walks up to you from behind and decides to shoot you in the back. You do it for the times when gunfights are not resolved with the first shot. Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety.
- bell-cot 1y agoTHIS. Unfortunately, public perceptions are mostly driven by: (1) Mass media portrayals - which are carefully scripted to maximize market share, clicks, and sales (2) Rule of Cool - or whatever "feels right", to emotionally-driven humans living in a society where guns are a major point of contention in a bitter culture war
- ahoka 1y ago[flagged]
- Hikikomori 1y agoInstead everyone brings guns into everyday situations like road rage.
- AngryData 1y agoThat isn't going to stop crime in the US or make dangerous areas in the US really any safer though. Nobody is concerned about someone legally carrying deciding to randomly shoot them.
- jajko 1y agoPlenty of mass school (or other) shootings were done by legal firearms, using legally bought ammo. I get what you say, but if folks are smart they should be concerned by any firearm, legal or not. Its trivial in US to obtain one if your record is still clean, you can be a proper psycho weirdo and still get it. The people afraid of doing psychotests to get a gun which can kill tens of people easily in skilled hands... I'd say they are afraid for a good reason. Its like being afraid of driving test to get the license to drive.
- Yeul 1y agoI live in the Netherlands a country with a huge drug cartel problem and still civilians don't carry guns. Criminals shoot eachother and occasionally they shoot law enforcement if they are really dumb. Normal people when there is a shoot out just hide until the incident is over. You'd have to be stupid to get involved. More guns do not equal more safety- especially not because your average wannabe Rambo can't shoot for shit.