It would seem to me that a double action pistol would be the smartest way to go, since you can operate the firearm entirely with one movement (safety mechanism aside for a sec).
There are pros and cons to every type of action. Pick your poison.
What was the intended use though for single action pistols, specifically, say, the 1911? I know there are different philosophies on it, but as it was issued in the Army and then distributed throughout the public, what were you "supposed" to do?
The Army does a lot of stupid things (e.g., clearing barrels at bases in war zones). Just because the Army has followed some cockamamie procedure in the past doesn't mean it is wise.
There are several different ways to carry a 1911:
Condition 0: chamber full, hammer cocked, safety off
Condition 1: chamber full, hammer cocked, safety on
Condition 2: chamber full, hammer down, safety off
Condition 3: chamber empty, hammer down, safety off
Of those, I greatly prefer condition 1. It always surprises me how some folks think a striker-fired gun like a Glock or S&W M&P are "safe" but they are scared by a 1911 in condition 1. Glocks and 1911s both have triggers that are fairly light (about 5 lbs out of the box) with short travels.
Let's compare some of the ways people do stupid things, and what might happen with the two action types. Let's say you draw the gun and while drawing you get your finger on the trigger and pull before the gun clears your leg. If you do that with a Glock, you'll probably shoot yourself. If you do that with a 1911 and you lowered the safety too soon, you'll probably shoot yourself. If you do that with a 1911 and you didn't lower the safety too soon, then nothing happens. Which is better?
Now suppose you are reholstering and leave your finger on the trigger while doing so. Your holster stops your finger, the gun keeps moving, and the trigger consequently gets pulled. If you do that with a Glock, you get a negligent discharge. If you do that with a 1911 and you forgot to apply the thumb safety, you get a negligent discharge. If you do that with a 1911 and you remembered to apply the safety, nothing happens. Which is better?
1911s and Glocks and M&Ps can all be carried and handled safely. 1911s and Glocks and M&Ps can all be carried and handled unsafely. Yes, with a 1911 you have to spend some training time to master the safety. IMHO, you'll have to spend at least as much time training to master the Glocks mushy, crunchy, nasty trigger.
You can make either work if you do your part. You can shoot yourself with either if you don't do your part. Pick your poison.
Always cocked seems dangerous to me (maybe I'm off here), and not cocked seems like it can cost you valuable precious time.
Why would "always cocked" be dangerous? What is it that you are worried about? You do realize that Series 80 and Swartz-style 1911s (S&W and Kimber II) can only discharge if either the trigger is pulled (Series 80) or the grip safety is depressed (Swartz), because each one has a firing pin block? A Series 70 can discharge if the sear tip breaks or if you drop it from a high enough height onto a hard enough surface.
Do you have an AR15? Does a loaded AR15 make you nervous? Do you realize that an AR15 is single action, has no firing pin block, and has a floating firing pin that is much heavier (i.e., has more inertia) than a 1911? Just about all long guns are single actions without firing pin blocks, but people are more scared of 1911s. I never will get it.
I do not recommend carrying condition 2. It is far faster and less fumble-prone to lower the safety than to manually cock the gun, particularly if it has a beavertail safety. Furthermore, lowering the hammer manually on a loaded chamber can result in a negligent discharge if you are not careful.