Readit NewsA shop owner's actual best strategy, in states without firm stand-your-ground or castle doctrine laws that also apply to businesses, is probably an under-the-counter button that calls for police as a silent alarm while responding slowly to stall for time (and consider closing up shop and moving if local police are not quick and reliable to respond). Even in states with more friendly legal environments, risking your life by drawing to defend your inventory or cash register is practically the definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish. You are risking your life over, what, several hundred or a few thousand dollars? And even if you do walk away from the gunfight, how much would it cost to repair all the damage from the gunfight; if you get injured, how much are the hospital bills and subsequent increase in your medical insurance premiums?
No, while the Second Amendment may still be alive on paper, I think its protections don't do much for shop owners these days. A more effective defense would be if that police-alarm button also released a quick-acting sleeping gas, but those aren't really available in real-world contexts and carry lots of unintentional risks.
Data has shown that if you have a need to carry a firearm on your person, it is prudent to carry with one in the chamber and the safety off. For this reason, firearm manufacturers have been using this as a design criteria. It's not impossible to design safe firearms which meet this criteria. See Gaston Glock.
Back on topic, the Sig P320 was designed to not have a safety. The military version has one, but that's only because military requirements hardly ever change. The P320 and it's military counterpart, the M17, are designed to be carried loaded with no safety. The fact that they randomly go off when doing this is not a failure of the operator or some systemic societal problem. It's a failure of Sig to meet design requirements.
Stop victim blaming.
> There is no real-world situation where you are really just that much better at drawing and firing accurately that you will out-draw an adversary who drew on you first
There is, and it is called training. Get a timer, hit the range, and get your shots on target from concealment in under a second - while getting off the "x" - this is a standard I have trained many people to meet first-hand. And it doesn't take a specialist to get this level of training, either; it takes a few years, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance, just like any craft.
> In a real world firefight you're either close enough where martial arts is relevant or you're not. If martial arts are relevant, then the guns are irrelevant.
Disparity of force - another well known concept you ought to familiarize yourself, especially as it is one of the most critical elements of legal defense in a shooting.
> Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety.
Smart people legally carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family only from unexpected deadly threats. They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force. The "sheepdog" mentality you've put on display is honestly offensive and gives a bad name to firearms owners.
I thought most law enforcement and military agencies use the Glock as standard issue. Isn't it?
Not that rare. Gen 1 and 2 Glocks had slam fires (that's right, "Safe Action" Glocks... the irony). The XDS had doubles or slam fires. I'm sure there were others, and now the P320.
Seems like the only way to explore differnt outcomes is by editing messages and losing whatever was there before the edit.
Very annoying and I dont understand why they all refuse to implement such a simple feature.