Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service Pistol

Re:Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service... by areyousure on Thursday January 26, 2017 @02:24PM (#13494409)

I think the main thing you've demonstrated with your calculations is that a 0.01% chance of negligent discharge per day is in fact rather unsafe. In particular, a 0.01% chance of discharging per day means that with daily carry for two years, you are more likely to have experienced a negligent discharge than not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service... by areyousure on Thursday January 26, 2017 @06:57PM (#13496571)

Sadly, this comment of mine is incorrect. I meant 0.1%. My error comes from the same error in the comment I was responding to:

> 99.9% safe (i.e., I have a 0.01% chance of a negligent discharge)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service... by easychewie on Thursday January 26, 2017 @02:55PM (#13494719)

Agreed! Which is why I stated that I think scenario #2 is the correct one, and we don't in fact have a legitimate case of survivor bias. Remember, this discussion began when I said I do it safely. The charge was made that this is survivor bias. By putting numbers to it, I think it becomes clear that the determining factor is not my bias but real, quantifiable safety.

[ Parent | on HN ]