THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 603, January 16, 2011
"Liberalism as it's currently practiced,
isn't so much another point of view as
it is a form of mental illness"
Question to SF Gate about their Glock Column
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
I need you to help me out here because I have to admit that you confused me in this mornings column regarding Glock pistols.
Are we for or against?
My assumption always is that any SF Gate columnist will go with the obligatory... gee we hate guns, guns are bad, wouldn't it be wonderful if they all went away, mmmkay etc... but you don't go this way initially!
Now you have my attention.
"The semiautomatic is treasured by thugs, gun enthusiasts and police departments. Add this sad oddity: Giffords, now badly wounded by one, remarked last year, "I have a Glock 9mm, and I'm a pretty good shot."
You might have said the same for Ford Mustangs... or German Shepards,or Netflix!
You've also established that congresswoman Giffords owns a Glock and by her own admission was a capable user (when she recovers sufficiently do you think that she'll say that she wished that she had had it with her... or better yet just made it known that she was regularly in possession of it when she made public appearances). I'm still fuzzy though... what no TeaParty guilt by association or have you guys abandoned this approach. Krugman hasn't... maybe he didn't get the memo?
Oh well there is still most of your column to go, so lets keep going.
"Made in a small Austrian town, Glocks are reliable, quick-firing and light, thanks to composite plastic, a feature that lifted the brand from the pack of look-alike competitors. When the handguns landed here in the 1980s, a star was born."
Did you clip this line from Glock promotional literature?
"For police, the guns were an easy sell. Cops wanted an equalizer in confronting gangs and others toting powerful weaponry. The escalation wasn't lost on the world of rappers and wannabe thugs looking for male jewelry: a super-lethal fashion statement."
Again, not too bad. But let me help you with the question behind your statement: Why wouldn't police (and members of the general public) want a reasonably priced, high capacity firearm that is easy to disassemble and reassemble, that is less prone to corrosion than an all metal handgun and is lighter and easier to carry than most guns available when Glock made its appearance in the US. In this area at least, logic hasn't completely escaped the members of law enforcement. Again though, I fail to grasp your point. if you are anti guns fine. Thats your opinion. Criticizing Glock alone is ridiculous in this instance. There are other firearms manufacturers who would have filled the void for "thug jewelry" had Glock never existed. Best of luck though trying to stop the march of technological innovation... in any field.
"New York Giants star receiver Burress was carrying a Glock when it went off accidentally in a Manhattan nightclub, injuring his leg. For this idiot move, he drew a two-year sentence on an unlicensed-gun charge."
Oh right you are Marshall... you've taken a member of society, productive in his chosen field and incarcerated him at taxpayers expense (pricey in the New York system too I understand) for doing nothing more destructive than harming himself. Had the gun fired and hit someone else there was still a raft of criminal charges that could have been brought against Mr. Burress. But this didn't happen and Mr. Burress injured only himself. You're right though, the money taken off the NY tax rolls is well worth taking this violent psychopath of the streets... ooooh.
I'm no fan of taxes but in my estimation this situation strikes me as a lose/lose for both state and society... and hey, don't get me started on the blatant violation of constitutional principles that the very existence of a gun license entails.
"An estimated 602,000 Glocks were imported in 2009. The online gun world of weekend shooters, off-duty cops and collectors treasures the Glock lineup for its reliability, design and performance."
Yeah, and a bunch more before that! Your second sentence??? Still cutting and pasting from the Glock website I see.
"But we're still talking about a concealable handgun. Enumerating the gun's virtues and popularity is like praising the AIDS virus for its longevity. The guns don't teach children, provide clean drinking water or help a senior across the street. Glocks kill. Or, as the Glock catalog puts it, they offer "efficient defense in emergency situations."
Sorry Marshall, here is where your train starts to go off the tracks. Praising the Glock on it's technical merit is not at all like praising the aids virus and in your attempt to being clever you undermine the argument you try to make and cheapen discussions about AIDS. Again, this isn't surprising.
No guns don't teach children to read, provide clean drinking water or help senior citizens cross streets. Did you think that they did (You guys really do get the best weed in the city. Just like that Fiore' animation I bet)? So this statement is pure stupidity! Stupidity on stilts!
"Which brings us to Tucson. As the circle of Glock lovers has widened, it has drawn in nuts who have no business owning one. Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people including himself at Virginia Tech in 2007, carried one on his rampage. Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock with an extra-capacity magazine last weekend to inflict lethal mayhem on a crowd gathered to meet Giffords. Both shooters used Glock 19s, the company's state-of-the-art top seller."
Again, Are you just mad at Glock or firearms in general? Or the mentally ill? I'm confused again.
"If you think such notoriety will dent its appeal, think again. A Tucson gun shop owner says Glock sales have gone through the roof since the shootings. Why? A fearful public wants protection and buys a hot-selling option, some say"
Now it's too early to say at this point whether Glock sales are going through the roof or not. Rather than making a declarative statement now, why not wait a while until you have some real data. I mean data. Data that you can request from states concerning gun sales on a certain date or over a range of dates, not the anecdotal statements by a guy in who runs a store called, coincidentally, "Glockmeister" (Yeah, in a tough economy he wouldn't have any reason to put the spurs to a "fearful public" as you put it to stoke sales). You know, like newspaper men used to do.
"One thing the public doesn't have to worry about is finding a Glock. Gun control efforts, which surge after public outrages like the Tucson killings, will probably subside, given the sorry history of such efforts. The National Rifle Association, which is both judge and jury on gun laws in Washington, hasn't even bothered to weigh in to oppose new anti-gun measures."
Yes, the public doesn't have to worry about finding a Glock and that's a good thing. I leave the arguments as to why as a homework assignment for you. The most effective firearms sales campaign in history was that which followed the Clinton assault weapons ban that you champion... it's my understanding that the factories were running all three shifts. So go ahead and call for more "tough on guns" legislation. It always works.
Your second statement is just more SF silliness. The NRA is neither judge nor jury on gun laws and again, if you were to have done any real investigation (AKA, your job) you would know this. The NRA is generally useless and much more interested in selling memberships and magazines than lobbying (of course they want the money) effectively. I suppose they are better than nothing though. Presently, the NRA is paid to influence congress. This is legal. Environmental Defense Fund, NARAL, ACORN (until recently... oops!), The American Lung Association, Lesbian Nuns on Wheels (just kidding) etc. all lobby congress for things they want. I know that this will come as a shock to you... but pssst... Josh Sugarmans outfit lobbies too. So until the anti-gun side can raise enough money to mercilessly propagandize the public to the point that you get your way... stop whining!
"The reason for the NRA's quiet confidence is clear. Even with the near assassination of a congresswoman, few politicians want to take up even the tamest change, such as banning the extra-capacity bullet clips used by Loughner. A federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and four others died in Tucson, but the gun will live on."
Why would the NRA say anything? The battle lines have been drawn and your side lost. The rock headed public has awakened to the fact that gun control..or victim disarmament doesn't work. They aren't listening to you.
Boy when you focus on something you guys are just like those whom you accuse; Glock, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party. Focus... and get a real good "two minutes hate" going and then it's off to the key board. Just like those you oppose (and accuse).
PS -- I'll expect better from you in the future Ed... when I look for a veritable Jackson Pollack of tortured language and juvenile stupidity I read Morford.