Take a safety feature off a chainsaw and you are asking fro trouble. Yet, Glock fanboys justify the Glock not having a safety?
Your finger is not a safety. There is an old saying, “always assume the presence of a belly button.” Which means we are all human and we all make mistakes. Safeties are there to compensate for mistakes. Except for Glocks, they do not have a safety and thus do not compensate for when people make mistakes.
Do you have children? Do you put your kids in a carseat? Why? Because it is safer for them then riding with just a seatbelt.
If we apply the same Glock theories to cars, chances are vechile safety would be set back 50 years, No seat belts, no air bag, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zone.. etc. Why would those things be removed? Because driving a car is all about training. Nobody around us ever has an accident, right?
Under the Glock theory, everyone on the road is an expert driver who “always” pays attention. With everyone an expert driver, there is no reason to have safety features.
We know everything about that car example is not realistic. Neither is the argument that your finger is a safety.
A safety is a mechanical device. A finger is attached to a less than perfect being who is human and who makes mistakes.
We all know people make mistakes, yet fanboys justify the Glock not having a safety?
It is idiotic to remove a safety feature from a device, then declare the device safe. No, that is not how it works. Removing safety features makes the device less safe.
If you disagree with safety features, are you going to take all the safety features out of your car? Probably not. Are you going to remove the safety features from your chainsaw or skilsaw? Probably not. Then why justify removing a safety from a handgun?