this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
737 points (94.9% liked)
Greentext
4459 readers
671 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just take the safety off. It's a mechanical device that can and will fail when you need it most. The best safety you have is yourself and rigidly held gun handling rules.
Is this a genuine opinion you hold?
It's a 1911...it has two external safeties at least. Glock fans like to say they're monsters that shoot you in the leg for fun.
I feel like our downvoted homie was making a joke in line with the copypasta.
Thank you, I didn't downvote them but I do appreciate the context.
No worries. I didn't assume anything negative - just wanted to answer. 1911 fudd vs Glock arguments aren't exactly mainstream.
Typically there's no cross-bolt safety on a 1911. Slide lock and beavertail are the main ones. The beavertail is on the back of the handgrip, and it's supposed to be particular - the force is supposed to be at the top for it to disengage the safety.
Most people consider the cross-bolt to be a safety, so they sort of suggested a firearm with no "safety" have the safety removed.
I am generally against safeties on pistols because they should stay holstered if you're carrying them, and the holster acts as the safety by blocking access to the trigger. If you're in the act of shooting the gun, the saftey routinely gets in the way and requires training in an extra step before firing, something that could be a problem in an emergency. A common way to lose a violent encounter while carrying a gun is to fail to actually shoot your gun.
A rifle needs a safety because there's no good way to block accidental trigger pulls like that, since you have to open carry to have any reasonable amount of access.
Anyone carrying a gun in a holster should be required have sufficient training to use the safety properly.
It gives you more time to think before killing something and also protects you from someone grabbing the gun or someone else mishandling your gun if it leaves your possession.
That's not how defensive pistol use works. I would suggest watching a bunch of videos from the Active Self Protection YouTube channel if you want to see how self defense pistol encounters go. But no, there's not enough time or space to pull your gun out and then contemplate using it. If you have that kind of time for reflection, you have the opportunity to disengage or de-escalate which should always be what you're working towards.
I am generally against safeties on pistols because they should stay holstered if you're carrying them, and the holster acts as the safety by blocking access to the trigger. If you're in the act of shooting the gun, the saftey routinely gets in the way and requires training in an extra step before firing, something that could be a problem in an emergency. A common way to lose a violent encounter while carrying a gun is to fail to actually shoot your gun.
A rifle needs a safety because there's no good way to block accidental trigger pulls like that, since you have to open carry to have any reasonable amount of access.
Sounds like a good thing to me. How long could it possibly take?
It's not actually the amount of time that it takes that's the problem. With pistols that have safeties, the proper training is (usually) to turn the safety off when raising the gun. The problem is that it's a critical step you can mess up or forget to do under stress. Then you're left with a dead trigger having just pulled a gun in a situation you viewed as dangerous enough to require shooting someone. You're also stressed to hell and unlikely to think "oh yes, my safety!" Throw in that these kinds of situations are ones where half a second can make a big difference, and the saftey is just another thing that can go wrong.
There's certainly tradeoffs, since not having a safety means it's more likely your mistakes will result in a round being fired, but you can layer other procedures and devices to minimize that risk. In the end, it's a feature that even the gun community can't agree on, which is why some guns have them and some don't.
Depends on the situation? Taking time isn't as important as establishing intent.
i have a massive counter for you. If you aren't trained well enough to be able to disengage the safety when needed.
you probably shouldn't be using a gun in an act of self defense
in case you haven't picked up on what im saying you need to train
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
Or
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.
i guess so but i'd still just argue that you should be training with the safety, such that it's so second nature to you, it literally wouldn't matter whether it exists or not.
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.
i could see it go either way, but i really just don't think it's that significant to the point where it matters enough to bother with.
Unless you're using a competition pistol at a competition or something, in which case you could make the argument situationally and i would understand it, but generally, i'd much rather have a safety on my pistol than not, especially if conceal carrying for example.
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.
yeah, matter of opinion i suppose, but personally, if i can't deholster my pistol and remove the safety in a quick enough time chances are i'm not going to be trained well enough to be able to properly utilize it at that point. It's all muscle memory at the end of the day, and if you don't regularly train for it, you can't use it when it needs to be used.
Likewise to you.