Not knowing anything about guns I would assume you would engage the safety when putting the weapon in the holster. Is that not true?
There's really 2 different things here:
Firstly, there's "How many things are between my finger on the trigger and shooting the gun". The furthest you get is not having a round in the chamber, where you have to pull back and release the slide to chamber a round. In that state, basically nothing you do to the trigger or any other part of the gun will result in a discharge. You could use the gun to hammer a nail into a board and it would be really inefficient but also not result in you shooting anybody. From there, you can have a round in the chamber but the safety on. Some guns have no safety. Some guns have more than one (a common combination is a toggle safety and then a bar built into the trigger that must be pulled first before the trigger can be pulled). The safety's job is to stop the gun from slamming the firing pin into the back of the round. All of this matters a lot for the kind of issues that were common with Serpa holsters, where users tended to slide their finger along near the trigger and were accidentally pulling it as part of their draw from the holster.
Secondly, there's "is there anything stopping the firing pin from just smacking the round and firing it w/o the trigger or anything else being involved". In some guns, the firing pin is physically blocked from striking the round until the trigger is pulled back: there's a piece of metal or other impediment that's in the way, and when you pull the trigger it slides out of the way and then the mechanism pushes the firing pin forward. But in other guns, that isn't the case: the firing pin is held away from the round by some style of tension, but isn't physically blocked. On those guns, if you have a round in the chamber and you whack the gun in the wrong direction, the firing pin can push into the round and fire it. Sig's prior claims were that this was not possible on the P320. Evidence suggests that they are incorrect.
There are no external safeties for the operator to engage with these handguns. They will only go off the trigger is pulled - so drops should not set it off, nor the actions in the video. You have to intentionally pull the trigger for the gun to go off, which is the ultimate last word in safeties.
There are still semiautos with external safeties hammers, the most famous being the 1911. These are what's called single actions. The trigger weight (amount of pull on the trigger) is relatively light, so they have an external safety for the operator to engage/disengage.
I personally prefer single actions, hammer cocked, safety engaged, but this is always a very, very personal preference by people that carry. I own Glocks, but I would not carry one because of the lack of external safety, however, I would never criticize anyone that does. This is 100% strictly boils down to what the person is comfortable doing.
Two built in safeties, plus a half-cocked striker instead of fully cocked like Sig. Another big difference is that one of the safeties is a physical thing sitting in between the striker and the primer. The equivalent on a sig 320 is a physical thing sitting in front of a lug attached to the striker, not actually in between the striker and the primer. That makes it a single point of failure, because if the lug shears off of the striker, the gun immediately discharges.
The big failure case for a Glock is something (drawstring, etc) getting into the holster and pulling the trigger. If you commit to never holstering without going really slow and shining a light down in there to verify nothing is getting at the trigger, it's safe. Which works if you just never take it out of the holster except at the range. Remove the holster and gun as a unit, stick holster and gun together in a safe, etc.
The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. A long time ago there were quite a few major incidents involving police and manual safeties which resulted in most departments changing their policies such that they carry with the safety off or, typically these days, glocks which have no manual safety.
Regarding the p320. For one, the 320 does not have a trigger safety. In fact, there are numerous "innovations" on this firearm which were made to cut costs, improve trigger feel, and various other things. This rose a lot of suspicion when the gun first came out actually - especially the lack of a trigger safety which many consider essential for striker fire guns intended for carrying on your person. On top of that, sig did end up making a p320 with a safety as this was a military requirement. The thing is, it is possible that the "innovative" sear mechanism within the p320 may allow the gun to fire even when the safety is engaged. In fact, there have been reports of just that happening.
The gun that was being carried in Air Force incident is the military version of the p320 which does in fact have a manual safety. Also, the leaked reports state the incident happened whenever the gun was in the holster and the holster was removed and placed on a desk facing the victim. This is when the gun misfired striking the victim in the chest. There is speculation that the gun may have in fact had the safety engaged whenever this happened. If so, this would explain the prompt response by the AirForce.
Regardless, the purpose of manual safeties are not to prevent guns from discharging on their own (aka. "uncommanded"). Manual safeties are intended to protect against "accidental" discharges where the trigger gets pulled "accidentally." That's not what happened in the above video or the AirForce incident.
One more thing to note. The officer in this video was using a Sig Sauer holster so there should be no risk of the holster itself being the problem.
I know there are a lot of people who share this opinion, but speaking as ex-military, I think it's quite disingenuous and dangerous. Real life isn't some old-fashioned Western film where draw speed matters. If an adversary is malicious, carrying a round in the chamber, and decides to pull on you, he has the element of surprise. 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, with the possible exception of Special Forces / Navy SEAL types who drill it ad-nauseum and had 99th-percentile reaction speed to begin with. But thinking that ordinary people can do it is sheer hubris. Thinking you can do it from concealed carry is utterly laughable.
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. If you're further away, what matters is whether you can get behind cover, which will give you time to unholster your weapon, disengage the safety, and chamber a round.
You don't decide to carry a gun in public because you think it will save you if someone walks up to you from behind and decides to shoot you in the back. You do it for the times when gunfights are not resolved with the first shot. Responsible citizens carry their guns in such a way that prioritizes the safety of those around them before their own personal safety.
Unfortunately, public perceptions are mostly driven by:
(1) Mass media portrayals - which are carefully scripted to maximize market share, clicks, and sales
(2) Rule of Cool - or whatever "feels right", to emotionally-driven humans living in a society where guns are a major point of contention in a bitter culture war
There are plenty of videos where the store owner shoots a robber who pulled out a gun before the robber could fire.
A 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.
Rapid fog generators seem ridiculous at first glance, but they're remarkably effective in many circumstances.
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.
Because I can show examples of store clerks being executed despite fully complying with the armed robbers.
A tank wouldn’t ride around empty. You wouldn’t search a house with an empty rifle. You wouldn’t go on patrol with an empty rifle.
> 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.
Even if I take you at your word for the sake of argument, what percentage, do you think, roughly, of gun owners are going to take "a few years, several thousand rounds of ammunition, and periodic maintenance" to get to that level? Because guns without manual safeties are sold to people regardless of such skill level, and no such demonstration of skill is required for licensing in order to purchase such a manual-safety-less weapon. Especially in legal environments where the Second Amendment is used to justify weapons purchases without or with minimal licensing or other restrictions, it is all the more incumbent for people to understand what their real limitations are, for their own safety.
> Disparity of force
Perhaps, instead of "a few years" at the range, you might want to take a couple of self-defense classes? In the range where martial arts matter, skill is a far greater determinant than sheer physical size. I'll grant you that martial arts is not a universal strategy (e.g. people in wheelchairs), but I would also argue that, of the people for whom martial arts is not a strategy, in a significant plurality if not a majority of cases where such incompatibility is due to frailty, such frailty will also usually preclude the kind of "few years, several thousand rounds of ammo, and periodic maintenance", not to mention reaction speed, that it would take to actually succeed in a drawing contest.
> They would never intervene, get involved with, or otherwise "rescue" anyone else with lethal force.
Many, many Good Samaritans out there would disagree with this offensive take that shows more how society has disintegrated than anything else in this thread. The audience should note that I, someone who does carry, am apparently a "sheepdog" because I decide to employ a manual safety, am aware of my limitations, and encourage others to be honest with themselves instead of thinking that they're big people just because they went out and bought a firearm.