This is not a new argument, but still it has not been resolved.
Fact. The stock Glock trigger pull is comparable to a 1911.
Fact. The Glock has no other safety aside from not touching the trigger.
Fact. A typical (unmodified) revolver has a trigger pull of at least twice that of the Glock.
Is the Glock more dangerous? Maybe, if you assume the amount to pull a trigger has something to do with safety, and it does, which is why some LEO departments actually add weight to the trigger. How about that nervous LEO holding a gun on a suspect? How about just sticking it in your holster, or pulling it out? Is the gun which requires twice the amount of trigger force (revolver) to discharge a round less safe then a gun which requires half that amount (Glock)?
EVERY gun I have ever owned had a selectable safety. Every one, except for the Glock. Yes, I had one, and I managed not to shoot myself. But, It did bother me that other then pulling the trigger, or it accidently being pulled, it had NO SAFETY.
I sleep well with the 1911 under my pillow. I didn't trust the Gock even in a drawer because I might have to fumble for it in the dark.
The Glock is the equivalent of a 1911 going off with the SAFETY OFF, with a round chambered, AND squeezing the hand grip safety, all at the same time.
You guys, you like the Glock? I don't have a problem with that.
But to compare a Glock to a revolver or a 1911, which at the very least requires that the grip safety be depressed before it will fire, are kidding yourselves.
If you're real perfect, you might not shoot yourself with a Glock, or someone else who you didn't intend to shoot.
You can't compare the two honestly. One goes off when a round is chambed if you pull the trigger. The other won't, unless the safety is off, and you grip it like you're going to shoot.
Don't like safeties? Buy a Glock.