Glock does not have an external safety, but guns that do, why not avail yourself, your family, of the free protection they provide?
Because I don't want to put myself or my family in danger by adding unnecessary, extra steps into the process of self defense. Many of my guns came with a trigger lock. Based on your logic, why not avail myself and my family of the free protection they provide? Because I'm not that naive, that's why.
.
Every year, how many people get shot with their own gun?
And how many of those guns were equipped with safeties? How many of those were owned by people that used their safeties just as you are proposing here? Probably quite a lot of them. That's because using a safety or not using a safety does not stop people from having negligent discharges. Supposedly most of them happen while cleaning their 'empty' gun, so theoretically every single one of those people could carry with the safety on just as you advise. Unfortunately what you do with a safety while carrying doesn't help while cleaning your gun, does it? That's why trying to use statistics on self inflicted gunshot wounds isn't even remotely applicable to whether or not a person uses a safety when they carry a gun.
.
Bag (sic) guy gets your gun, and bang.
Seriously? You think your safety would be the big issue in this scenario?
.
Toddler picks up a gun you thought they could not reach, and bang. Wife moves your gun, maybe to bring it to you, and bang.
Your problem here goes way beyond an external safety. If you don't see that, I really feel for you. I don't leave my guns where toddlers can get to them and nobody handles them that doesn't know how to.
.
If a gun has a safety, why not use it?
.
If you can add a safety to a gun like Glock, for the price of lunch out at a drive thru, why not get one, and use it?
Because I want to be as safe as possible. Introducing unnecessary, additional steps into the self defense process makes me less safe.
.
Do you carry your gun to protect yourself? Would you use it to protect yourself? If you answer yes to those questions, and you find yourself in court, to justify a shooting, one of the 1,000 questions you will be asked, is do you keep your safety on, on your gun? Why would they ask that? It shows your mindset, public safety, or fast & loose, ready to shoot as fast as possible.
They might ask that, sure. They might ask a thousand other irrelevant questions too. But the question will have no impact on you since any practice the police normally use is almost impossible to be used against you in court. Since the police don't usually carry DA pistols with the safety on, or carry striker fired pistols that have no external safety, this isn't going to be an issue for you in court.
.
When I carried by Bersa Thunder 380 (which is a DA/SA) I had one in the chamber safety off (de-cocker is a better term for it). Now I've switched to an Ruger SR40c. It's a striker fire with a really short trigger pull and I've had fears of it firing when I put it into the holster and something got in the way of the trigger. I guess I need to realize that once I get it in the holster the trigger is safe so why have the safety on? I'll carry it safety off from now on as most posters are right that there's no need to add an extra step. Keep the trigger clear until you're ready to use it and you won't need a safety. You are the safety.
These were the same fears when Glock basically pioneered the mass marketed, striker fired pistol. Striker fired pistols such as Glocks and the SR40 typically have lighter triggers, and negligent discharges have been more of an issue. Since Glocks were the first mass marketed striker fired designs, they got the bad reputation when people didn't take the proper care they should, and negligent discharges went markedly up. But there are a few things to keep in mind here. These incidences of negligent discharge have decreased significantly since the gun buying public has become more aware of the unique aspects of striker fired designs. Also, almost every single instance of negligent discharge occurs when the firearm is being handled, something that doesn't happen when a properly holstered pistol is being carried concealed. Note that I said 'properly holstered'. Some people still make the mistake of trying to carry concealed without a proper holster, which is a big mistake, especially with striker fired pistols. In those instances, having an external safety engaged might be a very good idea, if the gun has one.
.
You can learn through your own experiences, and advice from strangers on the internet, or you can learn from knowledgeable firearm instructors, and gun owners manuals, etc. Let us know how it goes. Your question, why have the safety on?
No advice from from strangers on the internet, huh? And yet to buttress that remark, you post a picture from a stranger on the internet. A stranger who could have incurred that injury in any number of different ways. Somebody just thought it might be funny to put it on a poster about guns. Even if the injury was done with a gun, there is no way to tell how it was incurred. For all we know, the guy was another paranoid freak who was afraid of his gun and carried it with the safety on all the time, but shot himself while cleaning it. And every knowledgeable firearm instructor I've ever discussed the topic with, TACTICAL instructors mind you, not armchair experts who teach at a shooting range, have said to carry with a round chambered and the safety off. Unless of course I had some kind of death wish. And those were the actual words of a cop/tactical instructor who also volunteers on the same rescue squad that I do. I'll take his many years of tactical teaching experience over your internet stranger advice any day. No offense.
h34r:[/QUO
