Security 9 and LCP II question

[tercel89]

Hello , I hear a lot of people moaning over the Security 9's manual safety . I don't like it either since I am a long time Glock owner and I like things as simple as they can be. I am about to get a Security 9 in a few weeks. My question is this : Why do people complain about the Security 9 having a manual safety but the LCP II does not have a manual safety ?
I think they are almost the same and are both hammer fired .
Again , I like guns with no manual safety but I never hear people complain about the LCP II not having one. Am I missing something

 

[s4s4u]

I never hear people complain about the LCP II not having one.

It is one reason why I don't own one.

 

[grobin]

The Glock passive, or any pistol or revolver without a safety requires a holster that covers the trigger for safe carry.

My SIG has a thumb safety-I disabled it. You don't need to do so-simply don't use it.

 

[22/45 Fan]

The thumb safety was probably added to allow sales in states that mandate them. Ruger didn't make it ambidextrous which says a lot about their view of the necessity.

The Security 9 can be carried with the safety off just like a Glock or any other pistol with adequate passive safeties.

 

[FergusonTO35]

I think the manual safety is a plus, given that the pistol does not have a passive firing pin block.

 

[mac66]

I think the Security 9 was intended for the average person who carries and perhaps for security officers, etc. In that case it becomes a liability issue. I have a safety on my LC9 but it being a DAO I don't use it. If it was a striker fired like the EC9s/LC9s or pro version I probably would. I grew up with the 1911 so thumb safeties don't bother me. I don't think they are necessary on a DAO gun but can see some value on a striker fired or one that uses a cocked hammer firearm.

 

[Coyote Hunter]

One reason I bought the Security 9 was the thumb safety. Have one on my S&W Shield, too.