The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

BlueTrain · December 4, 2005, 07:08 AM

For what it is worth, I believe there are more accidents with long guns than with handguns. At least more are reported in the paper (mainly hunting accidents) but I otherwise have nothing to back up my opinion. However, it is claimed that handguns are safer because they are designed to be carried, loaded, all the time, whereas rifles and shotguns are not.

The French MAS-36 series of rifles has absolutely no safety but few others have none. It could be claimed that the Glock has none in the sense that it has no active safety. With the exception of a very few modified examples, I can think of no revolvers with an active safety, the exceptions being war surplus revolvers with alterations.

December 4, 2005, 07:08 AM	#23
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	For what it is worth, I believe there are more accidents with long guns than with handguns. At least more are reported in the paper (mainly hunting accidents) but I otherwise have nothing to back up my opinion. However, it is claimed that handguns are safer because they are designed to be carried, loaded, all the time, whereas rifles and shotguns are not. The French MAS-36 series of rifles has absolutely no safety but few others have none. It could be claimed that the Glock has none in the sense that it has no active safety. With the exception of a very few modified examples, I can think of no revolvers with an active safety, the exceptions being war surplus revolvers with alterations. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.