3 ms·

> 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 wh

> 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 ago
THIS. 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 ago
  Instead everyone brings guns into everyday situations like road rage.
- AngryData 1y ago
  That 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 ago
    Plenty 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 ago
    I 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.
    - AngryData 1y ago
      And how is that different than the US? Do you think people when they hear gun shots all grab their guns and run outside in the US? The US has a crime problem, but that crime problem is neither caused by guns nor will be solved by gun prohibitions. Even despite the prevalence of legal firearms the US busts illegal gun factories every week, there is no feasible way to disarm the US population except through them wanting to be disarmed and willingly destroying their guns. And until US police stop shooting people with impunity, courts stop imprisoning people for being poor, the government stops deploying armed US troops on US soil and running a gestapo squad, and until crime rates drop to something not resembling countries without functioning governments, I don't see why the US population should want to disarm themselves.
kortilla 1y ago
This isn’t true in robberies where someone pulls a gun as an intimidation tactic. There are plenty of videos where the store owner shoots a robber who pulled out a gun before the robber could fire.
- soco 1y ago
  I suppose the robberies where the shop owner gets shot instead aren't getting the same amount of clicks like the "justice being served" ones, so maybe that's the explanation.
- solatic 1y ago
  It's rather debatable whether it should be legal for store owners to shoot robbers and call it self-defense; not all states protect shop owners in such circumstances, and state law may differentiate between when robbers pull lethal weaponry and when robbers pull toy guns that were not actual lethal threats. In the US you take further risk if there end up being racial differences between the shop owner and robber. Consider https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-legal-for-a-shop-owner-to-shoot-someone-to-defend-their-business https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-legal-for-a-shop-owner-to-s... as a quickly Googled example. A shop owner's actual best strategy, in states without firm stand-your-ground or castle doctrine laws that also apply to businesses, is probably an under-the-counter button that calls for police as a silent alarm while responding slowly to stall for time (and consider closing up shop and moving if local police are not quick and reliable to respond). Even in states with more friendly legal environments, risking your life by drawing to defend your inventory or cash register is practically the definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. You are risking your life over, what, several hundred or a few thousand dollars? And even if you do walk away from the gunfight, how much would it cost to repair all the damage from the gunfight; if you get injured, how much are the hospital bills and subsequent increase in your medical insurance premiums? No, while the Second Amendment may still be alive on paper, I think its protections don't do much for shop owners these days. A more effective defense would be if that police-alarm button also released a quick-acting sleeping gas, but those aren't really available in real-world contexts and carry lots of unintentional risks.
  - 1y ago
MagicMoonlight 1y ago
Ex-military in what? A tank wouldn’t ride around empty. You wouldn’t search a house with an empty rifle. You wouldn’t go on patrol with an empty rifle.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  EDC !== military engagement
bugsMarathon88 1y ago
Why is every opinion qualified as "ex-military" always tend to be hyperbolic, technically incorrect and full of appeals to authority rather than actual factual information? > 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 There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your shots on target from concealment in under a second - while getting off the "x" - this is a standard I have trained many people to meet first-hand. And it doesn't take a specialist to get this level of training, either; it takes a few years, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance, just like any craft. > 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. Disparity of force - another well known concept you ought to familiarize yourself, especially as it is one of the most critical elements of legal defense in a shooting. > Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety. Smart people legally carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family only from unexpected deadly threats. They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. The "sheepdog" mentality you've put on display is honestly offensive and gives a bad name to firearms owners.
- deelowe 1y ago
  Well said.
- remarkEon 1y ago
  For what it's worth I'm also "ex-military" and the person you are replying to is in fact wrong. For many, a "manual safety" is a preference but for others confident in their training it's not necessary or desirable. I also own a P320 (but will be purchasing a Glock soon) and stopped shooting in shortly after these stories came out. Unfortunate, because all things considered I really did like that pistol. Anyway, depending on branch of service, deployment experience, time in service etc a lot of veterans' experience with handguns is minimal, amounting to firing enough rounds on the qual range once a year. No idea about OP's experience, but these things do tend to correlate if you get my meaning.
- 1y ago
upfrog 1y ago
There are in fact civilian situations - many of them captured on camera - where the difference between carrying in condition 1/2 vs condition 3 is critical to the outcome. Active Self Protection on YouTube has thousands of examples of defensive incidents involving firearms, and the cost of the extra time and mechanical complexity to rack a round is a common theme.

bell-cot 1y ago

THIS. 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 ago
Instead everyone brings guns into everyday situations like road rage.
AngryData 1y ago
That 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 ago
  Plenty 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 ago
  I 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.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    And how is that different than the US? Do you think people when they hear gun shots all grab their guns and run outside in the US? The US has a crime problem, but that crime problem is neither caused by guns nor will be solved by gun prohibitions. Even despite the prevalence of legal firearms the US busts illegal gun factories every week, there is no feasible way to disarm the US population except through them wanting to be disarmed and willingly destroying their guns. And until US police stop shooting people with impunity, courts stop imprisoning people for being poor, the government stops deploying armed US troops on US soil and running a gestapo squad, and until crime rates drop to something not resembling countries without functioning governments, I don't see why the US population should want to disarm themselves.

kortilla 1y ago

This isn’t true in robberies where someone pulls a gun as an intimidation tactic. There are plenty of videos where the store owner shoots a robber who pulled out a gun before the robber could fire.

soco 1y ago
I suppose the robberies where the shop owner gets shot instead aren't getting the same amount of clicks like the "justice being served" ones, so maybe that's the explanation.
solatic 1y ago
It's rather debatable whether it should be legal for store owners to shoot robbers and call it self-defense; not all states protect shop owners in such circumstances, and state law may differentiate between when robbers pull lethal weaponry and when robbers pull toy guns that were not actual lethal threats. In the US you take further risk if there end up being racial differences between the shop owner and robber. Consider https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-legal-for-a-shop-owner-to-shoot-someone-to-defend-their-business https://www.quora.com/When-is-it-legal-for-a-shop-owner-to-s... as a quickly Googled example. A shop owner's actual best strategy, in states without firm stand-your-ground or castle doctrine laws that also apply to businesses, is probably an under-the-counter button that calls for police as a silent alarm while responding slowly to stall for time (and consider closing up shop and moving if local police are not quick and reliable to respond). Even in states with more friendly legal environments, risking your life by drawing to defend your inventory or cash register is practically the definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. You are risking your life over, what, several hundred or a few thousand dollars? And even if you do walk away from the gunfight, how much would it cost to repair all the damage from the gunfight; if you get injured, how much are the hospital bills and subsequent increase in your medical insurance premiums? No, while the Second Amendment may still be alive on paper, I think its protections don't do much for shop owners these days. A more effective defense would be if that police-alarm button also released a quick-acting sleeping gas, but those aren't really available in real-world contexts and carry lots of unintentional risks.
- 1y ago

MagicMoonlight 1y ago

Ex-military in what? A tank wouldn’t ride around empty. You wouldn’t search a house with an empty rifle. You wouldn’t go on patrol with an empty rifle.

thunderfork 1y ago
EDC !== military engagement

bugsMarathon88 1y ago

Why is every opinion qualified as "ex-military" always tend to be hyperbolic, technically incorrect and full of appeals to authority rather than actual factual information? > 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 There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your shots on target from concealment in under a second - while getting off the "x" - this is a standard I have trained many people to meet first-hand. And it doesn't take a specialist to get this level of training, either; it takes a few years, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance, just like any craft. > 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. Disparity of force - another well known concept you ought to familiarize yourself, especially as it is one of the most critical elements of legal defense in a shooting. > Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety. Smart people legally carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family only from unexpected deadly threats. They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. The "sheepdog" mentality you've put on display is honestly offensive and gives a bad name to firearms owners.

deelowe 1y ago
Well said.
remarkEon 1y ago
For what it's worth I'm also "ex-military" and the person you are replying to is in fact wrong. For many, a "manual safety" is a preference but for others confident in their training it's not necessary or desirable. I also own a P320 (but will be purchasing a Glock soon) and stopped shooting in shortly after these stories came out. Unfortunate, because all things considered I really did like that pistol. Anyway, depending on branch of service, deployment experience, time in service etc a lot of veterans' experience with handguns is minimal, amounting to firing enough rounds on the qual range once a year. No idea about OP's experience, but these things do tend to correlate if you get my meaning.
1y ago

upfrog 1y ago

There are in fact civilian situations - many of them captured on camera - where the difference between carrying in condition 1/2 vs condition 3 is critical to the outcome. Active Self Protection on YouTube has thousands of examples of defensive incidents involving firearms, and the cost of the extra time and mechanical complexity to rack a round is a common theme.