I think that the attempts of this guy to claim that some negligent discharges are peculiar to revolvers is pure nonsense.
1) Any pistol in a holster with an exposed hammer could be cocked by brush, although it's extremely unlikely. More likely, if it happened at all, it would result in the hammer being only partially pulled back and then released. The internal safeties on any revolver or auto would prevent it from firing anyway.
2) A revolver enclosed in a holster has the cylinder pressing against the walls of the holster. Frequently, the cylinder is enclosed in a form-fitted section of that holster. Since cocking the hammer also requires rotating the cylinder 1/6 of a turn, any attempt to cock the hammer is going to be met with significant resistance. One characteristic of revolvers is a noticeable mechanical disadvantage, with regards to cylinder rotation. Binding cartridges can tie them up easily, and more than one cop has saved his life by grabbing the cylinder of a revolver in the hand of someone trying to shoot him. A last resort surely, but it does illustrate how difficult it might be to cock a revolver in many holsters. It would be far more likely with an exposed-hammer auto pistol.
3) Someone negligently pulling the trigger on a revolver again after experiencing a hammer-fall on a spent cartridge, is about the idiocy of the shooter. It's negligent gun handling, and has no bearing upon the relative safety of a revolver versus an auto pistol. Nobody with half a brain would assume that if one chamber is empty or spent that the next one will also be spent or empty, any more that they would assume that the chamber of an auto pistol is empty, because they only inserted the magazine and did not load the chamber.
