Summations Only

No, that would be a definition of "safe". Accessible and safe are two different things, which is the point of the thread. Depending on the weapon, that would be a definition of "useless".

Sometimes you do but it is never as fast as not having to reload. In addition, when using an semi-automatic you do not go through the same motions as your source should certainly know.With a revolver it is the same motions as a rapid reload(again still much slower than not reloading) but with a bottom feeder simply swapping the magazine leaves you with an unloaded gun UNLESS it is done when the slide is fully retracted. I know of no holster made to support a semi-automatic handgun with the slide fully back and locked.

Because it takes all of 1/2 second to pull back the slide.

Yup. Maybe less but still way too much time.

Too much time for what?

Too much time between drawing my pistol out of the holster and actually firing.No one should ever take their gun out of it's holster until there is an almost certainty that it will be fired. A handgun is always safest when it is still in the holster.

Sigh, two different, and orthogonal things. The 'necessary' accessibility does not necessarily compromise safety. So when I describe a safe, accessible method, I've also described an accessible method.In our quest for accessible we need not only pick unsafe measures which add no significant amount of readiness. A loaded gun with a biometric safety device, besides being safer than a hair trigger gun that is accessible to a three year old, might well also meet the definition of accessible and ready for an adult shooter. Unless you are insane.On the other hand, a gun with a trigger as described in these shooting events, is in your way any time you reach into your purse to get gum or to show your driver's license to a police officer, or when you leave the purse in the shopping card with a toddler while you can grab some paper towels.

I keep telling you, they are.

Just noticed in the news today that ATF director B. Todd Jones has stepped down in the wake of a controversy over the agency's proposal to ban 5.56mm armor-piercing bullets: ATF director steps down after bullet ban controversy--Percy

Yea cause you need those bullets just in case a deer puts on Kevlar armor.

Frako,Yes and the 5.56 can be quite effective against the Slovene Home Guard.I've never lived in a country where the people did not have a right to be armed. Why don't you explain to us the great benefits of allowing the government to round up people, put them in camps, and then in ovens.You know, my country was not a Nazi collaborator. Too bad you can't say the same.What exactly is your interest/concern in the laws of my country?Are you an Authoritarian Socialist Pig? They are very interested in telling everyone else how to live.

If you are seriously concerned that our government is going to do that, I'm very glad that you live 1,500 miles away from me, because you are a danger to yourself or others.

Petro,This is an international discussion board. People outside the US also have opinions - are you afraid to hear them?

Didn't you know? The First Amendment only applies to 'Muricans.

Wow! From questioning the need for a certain type of armor piercing bullet to the Nazis in one step. Thank you for that thoughtful and studied response. Godwin wins again.The issue is public safety. The goal of maximizing public safety must of course be balanced against other goals, but no goal has full or automatic supremacy over any other goal, and minimizing lives lost does seem like it should be given a fairly high priority.--Percy