external safety hatred syndrome

[JetGirl]

All this hubbub... Wonder how many more pages will come from mentioning the fact that Massad Ayoob even recommends adding aftermarket frame safeties to Glocks (along with New York triggers).

Pot stirrer!

 

[gunman41mag]

All this hubbub... Wonder how many more pages will come from mentioning the fact that Massad Ayoob even recommends adding aftermarket frame safeties to Glocks (along with New York triggers).

TEN RING will install a frame mounted thumb safety on a GLOCK for $125

 

[INyooper]

TEN RING will install a frame mounted thumb safety on a GLOCK for $125

Ahhh ...the plot thickens! This isn't about "external safety hatred syndrome" after all. It's really "Hey, what's wrong with your Glock?!? AKA: Why your pistol should really have an external safety like mine does!"

I'm only, maybe, 5% Freudian in my psychology, but he got the defense mechanisms down pretty well, and there's a lot to be said about projection in many of the arguments presented within this discussion. ...just sayin'.

Again, it really comes down what your preference and training dictates. Use what you have, yet always keep in mind that your life may depend on someone who has your back with a Glock, XD, 1911, Sig, Kahr, Ruger, Taurus, or maybe even a Hi-Point someday. Be glad that we live in a state that allows us (for now) to choose.

 

[kingnereli]

Ahhh ...the plot thickens! This isn't about "external safety hatred syndrome" after all. It's really "Hey, what's wrong with your Glock?!? AKA: Why your pistol should really have an external safety like mine does!"

I'm only, maybe, 5% Freudian in my psychology, but he got the defense mechanisms down pretty well, and there's a lot to be said about projection in many of the arguments presented within this discussion. ...just sayin'.

Again, it really comes down what your preference and training dictates. Use what you have, yet always keep in mind that your life may depend on someone who has your back with a Glock, XD, 1911, Sig, Kahr, Ruger, Taurus, or maybe even a Hi-Point someday. Be glad that we live in a state that allows us (for now) to choose.

It's not about preference and it's not about convincing others to make the same decisions we did. Experience tells us that negligent discharges are more likely with a firearm that has a shorter, lighter trigger pull such as single actions and striker fired designs. It is unsafe to carry such a weapon in that condition. The problem is, as this thread demonstrates, there is such a tendency to focus on hypothetical and ideal circumstances and arguments.

It is inarguable that if you never break even one of the four rules, if nothing ever snags the trigger, if you never exhibit any signs of imperfection there is no reason to worry about carrying a firearm without a safety. The truth, however, is that we should all be wise enough to understand those things are either impossibilities or fail any sort of reasonable risk/benefit test.

 

[groovatron]

It is inarguable that if you never break even one of the four rules, if nothing ever snags the trigger, if you never exhibit any signs of imperfection there is no reason to worry about carrying a firearm without a safety. The truth, however, is that we should all be wise enough to understand those things are either impossibilities or fail any sort of reasonable risk/benefit test.

The same argument exists for safeties malfunctioning and costing you your life. That's a chance I'm not willing to gamble with.

 

[INyooper]

It's not about preference and it's not about convincing others to make the same decisions we did.

And yet, the title of the thread would (has, and does) suggest otherwise in a way that Freud would call projection. Certainly, it wasn't begun as a call to action by those who choose striker-fired weapons. Frankly, the title would suggest that those who use a striker-fired weapon are "up in arms" (pardon the pun) about external safeties. Maybe I don't hang around enough Glock guys ...but is that true? (Seriously, I just don't see that being an issue.) If the discussion had no intent or motive to do other than what it's done (25+ pages of beating a dead horse), it might have gone to four posts....

Bob: I think people who shoot Glocks have something I'll call "external safety hatred syndrome."

Doug: Yep.

Bob: So ...think I'll have some bacon for lunch today.

Murphy: [belch] Fry some up for me.
​

But then, except for the frying bacon, what would be the fun in that?

 

[jeremy]

It's not about preference and it's not about convincing others to make the same decisions we did.

Good neutral start there...

Experience tells us that negligent discharges are more likely with a firearm that has a shorter, lighter trigger pull such as single actions and striker fired designs. It is unsafe to carry such a weapon in that condition. The problem is, as this thread demonstrates, there is such a tendency to focus on hypothetical and ideal circumstances and arguments.

It is inarguable that if you never break even one of the four rules, if nothing ever snags the trigger, if you never exhibit any signs of imperfection there is no reason to worry about carrying a firearm without a safety. The truth, however, is that we should all be wise enough to understand those things are either impossibilities or fail any sort of reasonable risk/benefit test.

Huh...

All the ND/AD that I have personally observed have occurred only with Firearms with an External safety...

 

[db1959]

I've decided to do away with all safeties on my Beretta and fill the barrel with lead. That should be safe enough, right?

 

[Steven]

I've decided to do away with all safeties on my Beretta and fill the barrel with lead. That should be safe enough, right?

Unless you drop it on your foot..................

 

[kingnereli]

The same argument exists for safeties malfunctioning and costing you your life. That's a chance I'm not willing to gamble with.

So you aren't willing to take the very small chance that a very simple mechanism will malfunction but you are willing to take the much larger chance that you'll do something stupid. Fantastic logic.

And yet, the title of the thread would (has, and does) suggest otherwise in a way that Freud would call projection. Certainly, it wasn't begun as a call to action by those who choose striker-fired weapons. Frankly, the title would suggest that those who use a striker-fired weapon are "up in arms" (pardon the pun) about external safeties. Maybe I don't hang around enough Glock guys ...but is that true? (Seriously, I just don't see that being an issue.) If the discussion had no intent or motive to do other than what it's done (25+ pages of beating a dead horse), it might have gone to four posts....

Bob: I think people who shoot Glocks have something I'll call "external safety hatred syndrome."

Doug: Yep.

Bob: So ...think I'll have some bacon for lunch today.

Murphy: [belch] Fry some up for me.
​

But then, except for the frying bacon, what would be the fun in that?

If this thread hasn't shown you that there is a significant number of people with a vehement dislike (hatred might be too strong a word) towards safeties as well as erroneous information and assumptions about them I doubt anything will. The OP noticed this, labeled it "external safety hatred syndrome" and asked the reason for it. Again, no projection. The real question is why you're trying sweep away the real issue in the thread with the psychobabble nonsense.

Good neutral start there...



Huh...

All the ND/AD that I have personally observed have occurred only with Firearms with an External safety...

Yes, those two paragraphs were written with the intent of convincing everyone that there has never been a ND with a safety equipped firearm.


Really, realizing that there has been should stress the concept of safety in layers. People do stupid things. It is simply wise to all the controllable circumstances as safe as possible without rendering the shooter ineffective.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Really, realizing that there has been should stress the concept of safety in layers. People do stupid things. It is simply wise to all the controllable circumstances as safe as possible without rendering the shooter ineffective.

Yup, that's why if I'm not ready to shoot at a target, it remains in the holster in condition 0. If I remove it for any other reason, the safety is flipped on. Always follow the 4 rules of gun safety.

 

[redpitbull44]

I'm not going to read through 7 pages of the squabbling that I am sure followed the original post.

I carry an M&P 45 with no safety whatsoever cocked and locked, round in the chamber, and thats fine with me. Some times I even gangsta carry it in the front of my pants Did the same with my XD45, my Sig P250 45, and my 1911 that preceded this M&P.

I carry a Kel Tec P3AT in a pocket holster, with a round in the chamber, and a full magazine too.

I ain't skeert. Some of you guys worry too much. If you don't have the gun on your person, unload it,lock it up, and hide the ammo. DUH!!!!!

 

[INyooper]

If this thread hasn't shown you that there is a significant number of people with a vehement dislike (hatred might be too strong a word) towards safeties as well as erroneous information and assumptions about them I doubt anything will. The OP noticed this, labeled it "external safety hatred syndrome" and asked the reason for it. Again, no projection. The real question is why you're trying sweep away the real issue in the thread with the psychobabble nonsense.

No psychobabble ...when a person makes a big thing out of something that really isn't, they can "project" their feelings onto others.

...projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings...

If you'd like, I could quote Shakespeare and (little rusty) just say "me thinks thou dost protest too much.' Essentially, it means the same thing.

I have no problem with safeties ...use 'em if you've got 'em. My Glocks have three. I had a Taurus that had a thumb safety; it didn't make it impossible to draw and fire ...even while deactivating the safety. My AK and Mosin each have their own safeties as well and, you know, they're all implemented differently and, dang, if I'm not able to figure each of them out and use them as designed (though, admittedly, the Mosin's a bit difficult to implement at the moment).

Where the psychobabble comes in is that I don't see those who use striker fired weapons creating threads about how much they hate, despise, agonize, or lose sleep over weapons (or the people who use them) with external safeties. Please, direct me to such discussions that were started by these safety-hating people. It may just be I don't read them (?) ...idunno.

While there has been "spirited discussion" (and that's an understatement, I'm sure ), throughout this thread (contributed by various points of view), the whole thing wasn't initiated because a striker-fired firearms user was making a confession. Some might call that projection ...some might not, I suppose.

Honestly (and I've said this before) use and train with what you have. Gain competence and confidence with whatever you use and whatever styles of firearms you have. But please don't tell me that I have a problem just because I happen to use a firearm that you might happen to have a problem with. Again, some might call that projection ...psychobabble notwithstanding.

 

[LPMan59]

i'm sure my opinion has been stated many times but here goes:

I like to carry a Glock because i figure that if the SHTF, messing with a safety is one less thing I will have to worry about. Just draw and shoot (and with my luck drop the mag ).

Obviously manipulating a safety can become second nature with training, but the Glock works for me.

 

[kingnereli]

Yup, that's why if I'm not ready to shoot at a target, it remains in the holster in condition 0. If I remove it for any other reason, the safety is flipped on. Always follow the 4 rules of gun safety.

I will admit that you are miles ahead of anyone who carries without a safety at all. Your main worry would have to be holstering and drawing. I still say it's best to use the safety and train with it. You may have missed the point of the post you quoted. It's wise to add as many layers of safety as possible so long as we don't cross a threshold where the the shooter becomes ineffective. Trigger locks on home defense firearms would be an example of a safety layer that crosses that threshold. IMHO, you have stopped well short of that threshold.

I'm not going to read through 7 pages of the squabbling that I am sure followed the original post.

I carry an M&P 45 with no safety whatsoever cocked and locked, round in the chamber, and thats fine with me. Some times I even gangsta carry it in the front of my pants Did the same with my XD45, my Sig P250 45, and my 1911 that preceded this M&P.

I carry a Kel Tec P3AT in a pocket holster, with a round in the chamber, and a full magazine too.

I ain't skeert. Some of you guys worry too much. If you don't have the gun on your person, unload it,lock it up, and hide the ammo. DUH!!!!!

How do you carry cocked and locked when you don't have a safety to lock?

No psychobabble ...when a person makes a big thing out of something that really isn't, they can "project" their feelings onto others.

Of course, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that people who feel that safeties are good or necessary are projecting those feelings onto other people with the claim that there seems to be a high percentage of people on this board that are vocal with their feelings that safeties are bad or dangerous. You'll have an even harder time convincing me that projection is the root cause for the OP starting this thread.

If you'd like, I could quote Shakespeare and (little rusty) just say "me thinks thou dost protest too much.' Essentially, it means the same thing.

Shakespeare would suit me better. I was an English Lit. major in college.

I have no problem with safeties ...use 'em if you've got 'em. My Glocks have three. I had a Taurus that had a thumb safety; it didn't make it impossible to draw and fire ...even while deactivating the safety. My AK and Mosin each have their own safeties as well and, you know, they're all implemented differently and, dang, if I'm not able to figure each of them out and use them as designed (though, admittedly, the Mosin's a bit difficult to implement at the moment).

Glocks don't have any safeties. To save you the repetition I'll just suggest that you look at one of my earlier posts where I commented on internal "safeties."

Where the psychobabble comes in is that I don't see those who use striker fired weapons creating threads about how much they hate, despise, agonize, or lose sleep over weapons (or the people who use them) with external safeties. Please, direct me to such discussions that were started by these safety-hating people. It may just be I don't read them (?) ...idunno.

You not noticing is far different from it not happening. The discourse in this thread is typical of any occasion where safeties are mentioned. For instance, there are a lot of threads where a person will ask advice on two carry guns they are considering. If either gun is equipped with a safety they'll inevitably get bombarded with the same overzealous objections voiced in this thread. The safety will slow you down. You'll forget to disengage it when you need it. My finger is my safety. This and all the other statements that are either verifiably untrue or are a training issue.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../66491-close_contact_shooting_with_an_xd.html

This is my favorite anti-safety thread. It demonizes grip safeties because you can't have one and do a particular new super ninja technique.

While there has been "spirited discussion" (and that's an understatement, I'm sure ), throughout this thread (contributed by various points of view), the whole thing wasn't initiated because a striker-fired firearms user was making a confession. Some might call that projection ...some might not, I suppose.

Again, the OP asked a question based on an observation. He hasn't said specifically but it is a safe bet to assume that this thread confirmed his observation.

Honestly (and I've said this before) use and train with what you have. Gain competence and confidence with whatever you use and whatever styles of firearms you have. But please don't tell me that I have a problem just because I happen to use a firearm that you might happen to have a problem with. Again, some might call that projection ...psychobabble notwithstanding.

I say I'm just as free to tell someone they're doing something irresponsible as you are to tell someone else they are activating a psychological defense mechanism because they disagree with you.

 

[thompal]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../66491-close_contact_shooting_with_an_xd.html

This is my favorite anti-safety thread. It demonizes grip safeties because you can't have one and do a particular new super ninja technique.

Wow. I missed that thread when it was alive.

Has anyone ever actually tried firing their semi-auto WHILE PUSHING FORWARD ON THE SLIDE WITH THEIR THUMB??

I'm almost surprised that the safety-haters aren't actually attacking the 1911 because it won't fire out of battery. Oh wait, that's an INTERNAL safety, so it must be good.

 

[snowman46919]

I will admit that you are miles ahead of anyone who carries without a safety at all.

So what I am inherently more dangerous because I carry a gun with no external switched safety? Because I properly carry in GOOD holsters I think I am miles ahead of people who solely rely on a mechanical device, or those who carry without holsters. If you always treat a gun as loaded (which you should), keep your muzzle pointed in a safe direction (which you should), never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready (once again which you should), and you never point your firearm at something you do not intend to completely decimate (I think you are getting the picture) then how are you suppositioning that just because someone carries a gun without a safety is unsafe.

I would think an unsafe or irresponsible method of carry would be far worse

 

[88E30M50]

It's funny how some folks portray external safeties as some complex device to be manipulated. It's not a combination lock for crying out loud! It's just a simple paddle that rests right under your thumb anyway. I just spent more energy typing this message into this stupid phone than I will expend on my 1911s safety over the next year.

 

[snowman46919]

It's funny how some folks portray external safeties as some complex device to be manipulated. It's not a combination lock for crying out loud! It's just a simple paddle that rests right under your thumb anyway. I just spent more energy typing this message into this stupid phone than I will expend on my 1911s safety over the next year.

I didn't really see that nor did I say that but oh well.