• Liz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      The amount of training is kinda-sorta irrelevant. The amount of training you should be putting in is way higher than the amount you need to master the safety. But, the amount of training you need to put in is also high enough that you won’t ever have to rely on the saftey to prevent the gun from firing. So for me, if I can handle the gun without having to rely on a safety, that’s just one less thing that could go wrong and prevent me from firing my gun when I want to.

      A pistol can be carried so that either

      1. the trigger is inaccessible
        Or
      2. The gun is in my hand

      You also set up your draw-stroke so that there’s no risk of the trigger catching on anything. With those conditions, the only thing a safety would do is prevent you from pulling the trigger. You shouldn’t have your finger on the trigger unless you’ve made the decision to fire, so the safety isn’t adding any value.

      The safety does have value on a rifle, where it’s harder to prevent things from hooking inside the trigger guard (since you will be carrying it uncontrolled with the trigger exposed) but a pistol doesn’t have the same manual of arms and, in my opinion, your carry gun shouldn’t have a safety.

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          I think that’s a reasonable opinion. The safety argument is one of those things that is right on the line, so quite a lot of people fall on either side.

            • Liz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              See I think that carrying is the exact scenario that warrants not having a safety, while I find it acceptable (even desirable) to have a safety on a range or hunting gun.

              Opinions, opinions…

              It’s been nice chatting anyhow.