No more far out than blaming human error when visible evidence points in a completely different direction.
Ronald H. Coase, a renowned British Economist is famous for saying: "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything".
Understood. Human error is usually the factor in most accidents, but as your analogy pertains to the subject at hand, my point is, if all the UD incidents were caused by human error, wouldn't it stand to reason we would be seeing a somewhat even distribution of these incidents across various other brands and models of pistols? Why is all the human error only confined to carrying the P320? Even if we stay within Sig pistols only, why are there no incidents of P365s firing inside holsters? Why are holsters only faulty or misapplied or poorly designed when used with a P320, but there are no holster issues with other striker fired pistols? The common denominator in all of these cases is the P320. Doesn't that raise red flags? Granted people do stupid things all the time, but again, why are all of the reported cases of pistols allegedly firing inside holsters only confined to the P320 and no other pistols?
**stares in Boeing 737-MAX8, where the computer is coded to put the nose down to mimick older models without the cost of a new type certificate.**
I had to Google "obfuscate".
How many of those single action pistols are going off inexplicably in holsters?
Alternatively: you're an open-minded, risk-tolerant range owner. You allow drawing from holsters, etc. No range master in a low-ratio relationship. You even allow classes to be taught, an la Gunsite. You allow a pistol with an objectively-questionable design on your range. While on the gun line with a loaded pistol in between sets, a students holstered pistol in a high-end service pistol high-retention holster goes off without human intervention and strikes the leg of one of your instructors, causing a debilitating injury.
I don't think you are understanding that the reason ranges are banning the P320 isn't based on heresay, speculation, or lack of any safety system or because someone needed a "latest target." The reason ranges are banning the P320 is simply because there are videos of them firing inside holsters, lots of UDs with this pistol, lots of lawsuits against Sig...and none of this is occurring with ANY other firearm presently. The P320 is the ONLY handgun with claims of unintended discharges. The infamous "Glock leg" was caused by people not accustomed to handling striker fired handguns at first, using the old DA/SA handgun manual of arms mindset. It was solely caused by careless handling. That is not the claim being made about the P320. It is firing while inside holsters without the person carrying it touching the gun. If this was happening with multiple brands and models of handguns, then there would be a stronger case made for human negligence being the cause, but the fact these cases are only involving the P320 and no other current handgun makes the negligence explanation less likely. At best, the gun is less tolerant of minor mishandling than other competing striker fired handguns. There is too much correlation to the same common factor: the P320. There is something wrong with the gun.
