Manual safety on a handgun foils self defense shooting

[Mark 1911]

I often think about this topic. I do worry that I might forget about the safety under stress. Why worry? Because there have been times at the range, when I was under no stress at all, that I forgot to click off the safety.

I thought about that while watching the video about the off-duty cop who shot his would be robber at the gas station. I wondered what kind of handgun he was carrying, and whether or not he had to click off the safety first.

Very good topic to bring up. Thank you for posting BBB.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Lol that is SO not that funny.

It is too, dang it.

 

[MadMan66]

When people say they have forgotten to disengage the safety at the range, was this the first round trying to be fired? Or after you had set the gun down or loaded another mag? I feel it would be easier to forget to disengage the safety if you had already been shooting, then engaged the safety for some reason. I feel its more natural to disengage the safety while unholstering than it would be if it's already been unholster for a while at the range.

But then you have to wonder if you would forget to disengage the safety in a self defense situation where the threat is down, your gun still drawn but with safety engaged, and a new threat arrises. I don't know. Maybe I'm just rambling. I guess it would just be smart to leave the safety disengaged until holstered again. I guess habit is key.

 

[Purdue1000]

In stressful situations some people freeze and don't remember the simplest things. Being trained on how to properly use a fire arm is very important. Many people are rushing out buying guns that need to be taught the basics of gun ownership.

 

[youngda9]

I've expressed the same concern on this forum about all the carrying 1911's. The fanboys (and gals) come out of the woodwork to tell me they know what they are doing and that under stress it won't be a problem for them. Their life, whatev. LOL

 

[bingley]

I've expressed the same concern on this forum about all the carrying 1911's. The fanboys (and gals) come out of the woodwork to tell me they know what they are doing and that under stress it won't be a problem for them. Their life, whatev. LOL

If you switch to a Glock from a 1911 because you believe that no amount of training will ensure that you flip down the safety under stress, what makes you think that you can do anything with that Glock when you're under stress? Will you remember to aim? Or will you just fire wildly all around? Will you even remember where the trigger is? If you think so little of training, maybe you shouldn't carry a gun at all, because it could be taken away from you.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've expressed the same concern on this forum about all the carrying 1911's. The fanboys (and gals) come out of the woodwork to tell me they know what they are doing and that under stress it won't be a problem for them. Their life, whatev. LOL

Well, that's one reason I said not all safeties are created equal. I have thousands and thousands of rounds through a 1911 and in competition, shooting for time, and other "pretend" stress, I've never failed to deactivate the safety. There is absolutely no way I would carry one today, though, because for the past 8 years I've carried things without a safety. I would not have "deactivate safety" in my default reaction any longer like I did back then. I cannot switch back and forth between carry platforms. For the first few range days with a Glock, I was sweeping an imaginary safety.

Its the exact same reason I went to all Ruger in my revolvers. Its not that I think S&W or Taurus or Colt are bad guns, quite the opposite. I just can't have two latch releases onboard. When I'd train with my GP100 then try to operate my backup Taurus 850, I'd try to reload it like the Ruger. Which wasn't how you reload it. Now every revolver I have works the same way, push in. Similarly every semi-auto I own* works the same way, just squeeze the trigger.

*well, any of them that I would carry. I still own my 1911, it just doesn't see carry duty.

 

[youngda9]

Bingley...If you take the extreme position on most ANY issue you can make it sound crazy. That doesn't win logical arguments. LOL

 

[bingley]

Bingley...If you take the extreme position on most ANY issue you can make it sound crazy. That doesn't win logical arguments. LOL

You are the one who takes an extreme position, yet because you are so afraid of thumb safety, you can't see it. Tons of people have managed the 1911-style safety just fine. This is a fact. Fear, however, is a powerful blinder against reality and logic.

 

[youngda9]

"You are the one who takes an extreme position, yet because you are so afraid of thumb safety, you can't see it. Tons of people have managed the 1911-style safety just fine. This is a fact. Fear, however, is a powerful blinder against reality and logic."

I never mentioned fear. Never said I was afraid of a safety. Again you take an extreme postition up there on your high horse. You are going off the rails dude.

I know there are many 1911 carriers out there that haven't done the required thousands of draw and disengage safety repetitions required to engrain the safety sweep into muscle memory (research this topic) as you have. I've seen it actually...many times at the range trying to fire their 1911 while on safe. And I've seen several times in shooting competitions do the same. That is "reality and logic"...although clearly you are operating in a different reality.

Just because something works for YOU, doesn't mean that it's best for everyone else.

 

[youngda9]

The victom in the OP sure wishes they didn't have a firearm with a manual safety while they were being assaulted.

 

[bingley]

The victom in the OP sure wishes they didn't have a firearm with a manual safety while they were being assaulted.

Sure. I can also point to someone who got her safety-less gun taken away by the bad guy. So should we draw the conclusion that guns are more dangerous to the carrier than to the bad guy?

Do you think the AR rifle is a bad design, too?

 

[youngda9]

"Sure. I can also point to someone who got her safety-less gun taken away by the bad guy"

But they didn't get it taken away because it didn't shoot when the trigger was pulled...due to them fogetting to deactivate the safety. THAT IS THE POINT.

ROFL

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you think the AR rifle is a bad design, too?

Now you're getting into apples and oranges territory. There is little in common with commonly carried handguns and weapons with free floating firing pins that can be drop fired or slam fired.

 

[bingley]

"Sure. I can also point to someone who got her safety-less gun taken away by the bad guy"

But they didn't get it taken away because it didn't shoot when the trigger was pulled...due to them fogetting to deactivate the safety. THAT IS THE POINT.

No, she got it taken away because she wasn't willing to shoot. Don't change the facts to win an argument. How does that reflect on your integrity? I'm pointing out a single data point means nothing.

I'm not against safety-less guns -- except Glocks, but that's just because they're ugly -- I guess that's why I like shooting them so much. They blow up good. I just think the fear of manual safety is unwarranted. You program yourself with whatever system you have. I like BlueI's point that not all manual safeties are equal.

Now you're getting into apples and oranges territory. There is little in common with commonly carried handguns and weapons with free floating firing pins that can be drop fired or slam fired.

Sure, but the statement that I'm contesting is "manual safety is bad because under stress you'll forget to operate it." This is a psychological argument that applies to all weapons, and I think the case of the AR rifle would help point out that it's not a valid argument.

 

[youngda9]

No, she got it taken away because she wasn't willing to shoot. Don't change the facts to win an argument. How does that reflect on your integrity? I'm pointing out a single data point means nothing.

You just admitted that were throwing out a strawman and got caught. LOL

Sure, but the statement that I'm contesting is "manual safety is bad because under stress you'll forget to operate it." This is a psychological argument that applies to all weapons, and I think the case of the AR rifle would help point out that it's not a valid argument.

The story in the OP is that the victim DID forget to operate it while trying to shoot...and lost because of it. I'm glad the victim lived, but they didn't need to suffer at the hands of the attacker.

This may not apply to you because you are so awesome and well trained with a firearm. But clearly a safety is not a good thing for some people in stressful conditions. Or for some of the people that I've seen at the range in non-stressful conditions forgetting to use it.

Done arguing with you. If you can't see the facts that some people have trouble with this (and I've read the same story on several other threads similar to the OP on other websites), then I can't help you.

 

[88E30M50]

To me, the lesson here is to be intimately familiar with any weapon you may have to use to defend your life. If you have a dedicated house gun then you better be just as familiar with it and spend as much time with it as you do your carry gun. I have read way too many people say their house gun never leaves the house and their carry gun never gets shot at the range. I don't understand it. Be familiar and know what will and won't work. I'm sure there will be a bum rush on this thread from the anti-safety crowd but I think the true lesson here is weapon familiarity. You shouldn't wait until a situation like this to discover whether you picked the right gun for you to defend yourself with.

I agree that it's not a safety/no-safety issue, but an issue of training with what you will depend on. Anything can be mastered if taken seriously enough. The problem often is one of a person that is not into guns, and buys one with a safety because they think they are safer that way. But, this same person also neglects to train with the gun and when the balloon goes up, they find their skills lacking. I won't say that a person that does not train should not be armed because even those that don't have the ability to train still have the right to protect themselves. But, if you do not train, you really should not buy a weapon that requires additional training to master.

To be realistic though, I'm having a hard time finding a reason for, at the very least, not dry firing daily as a minimal form of training. Having a gun does little to protect you if you do not practice using it.

 

[youngda9]

Well said 88....reps for ya.

 

[youngda9]

double

 

[cosermann]

Competitors train and yet forgetting to disengage the "safety" is not a rare occurrence under only the stress of competition...

Just bringing this back up. Shooting competitors train and practice, frankly far more than most casual carriers, and yet people still occasionally forget to disengage the safety during a match. Hunters with "buck fever" forget too. It happens. There's a finite probability associated with it. This is observable. This is fact.

Manual so-called safeties have their advantages and disadvantages, as do handguns without manual safeties.

Everyone is free to carry what they want. People have different risk tolerances. Maybe one thinks the risk of a negligent discharge is higher than the risk of forgetting to disengage the safety. Maybe another thinks the risk of forgetting to disengage the safety is higher than the risk of a negligent discharge.

However, to flippantly think that one can eliminate the risk of forgetting to disengage the safety through training is naive. Yes, training can reduce it, but it cannot be eliminated. Add the stress of life/death (far more than the stress of competition or buck fever), and good luck.

Refusing to recognize the possibility of forgetting to disengage it is refusing to look at things the way they are.