A pistol without a manual safety?
If so, why?
As I read about the many accidental shootings involving these pistols, it makes me think they should not be considered for purchase.
If you look at the incidents where individuals have "inadvertent" discharges where no one is injured, shoot themselves accidentally, shoot others accidentally, and have children as young as three years old shoot others or themselves with pistols that do not have a manual safety, you get the picture.
Of course, gun owners who like the non-safety guns will have their arguments, but the only "safety" built into these guns is the "pre-trigger" feature which simply means you have more trigger to pull before the gun discharges! And history shows that this feature does not prevent the trigger being pulled by accident or by a person who otherwise might not know how to or be able to disengage a manual safety (say the 3-year-old toddler who recently shot himself in the head).
As to the relative "quickness" of employing a pistol that does not have a manual safety, consider that training and habituation allows a shooter to adapt to having a positive manual safety as part of the operating procedure for their pistol.
This ran on longer than I expected...but I hope some will consider this and that maybe it will benefit somewhere down the road.
Revolvers do not have manual safeties. Do you consider them unsafe?
If someone finds the trigger to be too light on the Glock or M&P, they have the option of installing one of the Glock NY trigger spring units which bring the pull weight up to 8lbs(for NY1) and 12 lbs(for NY2). The M&P can be ordered with a 10+ lb trigger.