To answer the question(s) directly - No - I do not view the safety/decocking as impossible to train. I view some safety mechanisms as requiring more training to run appropriately than others. But all of them require more training than 'nothing'.
I do think some folks find it to be too many steps. I'm with them to a degree - there is a maximum cognitive bandwidth for any person. Which means we must drill safety/decocking so hard it becomes subconscious.
We also recognize that as people are inoculated to stress in a training environment, their cognitive bandwidth increases (I do think there is an absolute max bandwidth available, but it's much higher than realized maximum for the vast majority of people).
The trope about 'fine motor skill' vs. 'gross motor skill' under stress is just that a trope. We (and I know I'm preaching to the preacher on this) recognize that people can do A LOT of stuff in stressful situations that would be categorized as 'difficult' even under normal situations. The trick is...they have to be both practiced at the the thing they're trying to do and have practiced it (even just a bit) under high stress. They more they do both of these things the better and better they'll become.
I think you've probably set this one up as a false dichotomy here: I wouldn't argue that the presence of a safety/decocker/etc. means that fingers are where they should be either; or absent the safety fingers go bad places; or absent the safety the fingers are always where they should be.but at the same time, it is easy to ensure that someone's finger is always where it should be?
What I will argue is that the addition of some redundant safety mechanism (manual safety, decocked pistol with heavier trigger pull) means that if fingers aren't where they are supposed to be, it reduces the risk of something bad happening. It's like the 4 Rules, there is redundancy within the system.
I think it's a great set of thoughts here.a way for me to argue with folks. I am looking to see how people think in this manner, because this forum has a boatload of good critical thinkers, and I would like the input on this. I am agnostic on this and it does not chap me one way or the other what people do with their carry guns. I would just like to know what experienced and thinking people have to say.
I think I've tried to maintain this clearly here and elsewhere - for the most part the absence of a manual safety does not make a weapon inherently less safe (unless that safety is specifically designed to enhance something like drop safety). There are few exceptions to this and we could get into them, but I'm not sure it really matters.
The only thing absolute in life is that you die and that someone is going to try to collect taxes from you. Otherwise - I think we're looking at a series of 'best practices' and the ways in which those best practices play out are at least a reflection of each person's experience and 'reality'. 'Reality' in this situation being the summation of personal circumstances, lifestyle, rules/laws surrounding where and when they carry a weapon, how often they practice with their weapon(s), etc.