mean streets of 96816...
 

Yeah get all those gangs at St. Patrick & Sacred Hearts …

?

I’m really confused by this, as this is exactly the point I’m making:  Bang, first time every time when in the gravest extreme, no possibility of Bang otherwise unless YOU cause it by accident or mistake.  Revolvers more completely epitomize this characteristic mechanically, in their design.  In semiauto, Glock probably comes closest to this simplicity.  The firing pin channel block in the slide is the first and most secure safety preventing the striker from making it to the primer.  Modern revolvers have a steel hammer block, but then, the hammer isn’t cocked anyway, as the firing pin is in the Glock.

This horse is waaaay past dead.  You can tell when there seems to be differing opinions, but folks are apparently saying the same damn thing, back and forth!

i'm still not sure what you are saying.  Are you stating there are no semi-autos that are as safe to carry as a modern revolver unless it has a manual safety?

i'm still not sure what you are saying.  Are you stating there are no semi-autos that are as safe to carry as a modern revolver unless it has a manual safety?

No, nothing of the kind.  Obviously also not talking about SA DA semiautos which happen to use a slide to load the next round instead of a cylinder, and function exactly like a revolver for the purposes of this discussion, I.e. ready to fire immediately upon presentation without hammer / striker having already been cocked and prevented from release by some form of safety.

Ok?  So again, I’m talking specifically about this:

Look, nothing you’ve said here changes the fact that “one in the tube” means the firearm is ready to fire and is prevented from doing so by mechanical safeties - some, on some pistols, you must also manually articulate before firing.

You’re cool with living in that reality in CCW.

It doesn’t exist for me - and I give up NOTHING THAT MATTERS for that,

… but you are welcome to it!

Alternately, you are free to argue that ALL semiautos are simpler in design and complexity, are safer with respect to AD’s, and are more reliable in terms of function, than modern revolvers - and will unfailingly meet these criteria while digesting any load in its caliber - and there are ample numbers of semiautos that will accept magnum loadings, and function just the same.

Heading to the bar now, suggest you do the same.

No, nothing of the kind.  Obviously also not talking about SA DA semiautos which happen to use a slide to load the next round instead of a cylinder, and function exactly like a revolver for the purposes of this discussion, I.e. ready to fire immediately upon presentation without hammer / striker having already been cocked and prevented from release by some form of safety.

Ok?  So again, I’m talking specifically about this:

Alternately, you are free to argue that ALL semiautos are simpler in design and complexity, are safer with respect to AD’s, and are more reliable in terms of function, than modern revolvers - and will unfailingly meet these criteria while digesting any load in its caliber - and there are ample numbers of semiautos that will accept magnum loadings, and function just the same.

Heading to the bar now, suggest you do the same.

That's got to be the mother of all straw arguments.

 

That's got to be the mother of all straw arguments.

 

Yes, now we’re even 

i'm still not sure what you are saying.  Are you stating there are no semi-autos that are as safe to carry as a modern revolver unless it has a manual safety?

Yes, now we’re even 

i asked you if that's what you meant.  That's not how straw arguments work.  in fact, it's a far cry from it.

I never said what you said i was "free to argue" -- i never did make those arguments.

if you don't want to actually have an intelligent discussion, just say so.  i assumed you were serious about your opinions.  Now it seems you're more serious about ignoring my questions and muddying the waters for your own enjoyment.

i'll stop here unless you come back with something a bit more grounded and less like gobbledygook.