[Pecos]

With respect to safety, a Glock is functionally the same as a revolver. Would you carry a double action revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber? Most people would not, prefering to be able to simply pull the trigger to get cartridge ignition. Understand what you are carrying, and the safety laws will follow. A 1911 carried cocked and locked looks dangerous and scary to the uninitiated, but only because the hammer is exposed. Functionally, it is as safe as any other semi-auto with an external safety. My vote is to always have a round in the chamber and adopt the right safety rules.

[Ozymandias Ghost]

To: AnalogReigns
“With respect to safety, a Glock is functionally the same as a revolver.”

While I agree w/your comments on the safety of a “cocked and locked” .45 ACP, the accuracy of the above quote regarding the Glock safety system depends on how you define “functionally,”

If you mean that both double action revolvers and Glocks will discharge if you pull the trigger w/sufficient force; I agree; however, the Glock Gen 4 pistols have a 3-part safety system;

1. Trigger
2. Drop
3. Firing Pin Block

See page 9 of the below linked .pdf file for a diagram of the Glock Safety System:

Link: www.glock.com/downloads/GLOCK_Gen4_en.pdf

I am not aware of any revolvers that have the same type of three-part, redundant safety system as the Glock.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... With respect to safety, a Glock is functionally the same as a revolver."

Only if we're talking about a single-action revolver with the hammer cocked.

With respect to safety, a Glock is not the same as a double-action revolver that's not cocked.