Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGreat book about the Glock and the Gun business......
Glock: The Rise of America's Gun
http://www.amazon.com/Glock-Americas-Paul-M-Barrett/dp/0307719936
Good book about the invention of the Glock and about the business of selling guns.
Really interesting how Glock became so popular and the marketing of the gun.
Worth a read!!
Info from Amazon....
Based on fifteen years of research, Glock is the riveting story of the weapon that has become known as Americans gun. Today the Glock pistol has been embraced by two-thirds of all U.S. police departments, glamorized in countless Hollywood movies, and featured as a ubiquitous presence on prime-time TV. It has been rhapsodized by hip-hop artists, and coveted by cops and crooks alike.
Created in 1982 by Gaston Glock, an obscure Austrian curtain-rod manufacturer, and swiftly adopted by the Austrian army, the Glock pistol, with its lightweight plastic frame and large-capacity spring-action magazine, arrived in America at a fortuitous time. Law enforcement agencies had concluded that their agents and officers, armed with standard six-round revolvers, were getting "outgunned" by drug dealers with semi-automatic pistols. They needed a new gun.
When Karl Water, a firearm salesman based in the U.S. first saw a Glock in 1984, his reaction was, Jeez, thats ugly. But the advantages of the pistol soon became apparent. The standard semi-automatic Glock could fire as many as 17 bullets from its magazine without reloading (one equipped with an extended thirty-three cartridge magazine was used in Tucson to shoot Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others). It was built with only 36 parts that were interchangeable with those of other models. You could drop it underwater, toss it from a helicopter, or leave it out in the snow, and it would still fire. It was reliable, accurate, lightweight, and cheaper to produce than Smith and Wessons revolver. Made in part of hardened plastic, it was even rumored (incorrectly) to be invisible to airport security screening.
Filled with corporate intrigue, political maneuvering, Hollywood glitz, bloody shoot-outsand an attempt on Gaston Glocks life by a former lieutenantGlock is at once the inside account of how Glock the company went about marketing its pistol to police agencies and later the public, as well as a compelling chronicle of the evolution of gun culture in America.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And it's certainly not about the RESPONSIBILITIES of those who wish to.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I look at durability, reliability, safety and function.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)A book about the history of a company need not include content lecturing on the duties of the consumers of the product.
And marketing and fashion are very much part of the discussion around here. Anti's bring them up all the time.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And I'm curious why you don't have a similar reply to Post #6, in which the poster specifically said they didn't?
The problem with gun worshipers is that they don't see that their devotions to their irrational passion affect anyone but themselves - in spite of the massive casualties.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,266 posts)1911
Winchester 1894
Kentucky (or Pennsylvania) flintlock
M1 Garand
M16
Thompson
Colt Single-action Army (and Navy) revolvers
and the list could go on ...
"Glock" seems to be THE handgun of the 1990's. And every black blocky gun is called a Glock by reporters, even if it's a S&W, Sig, etc. I liked the rumors about Glocks: They are invisible to metal detectors; they cannot hold a fingerprint.
My biggest complaint about Glock is the lack of a positive thumb lever safety. Yes, there's a sort of "safety" lever in the middle of the trigger, but that's just dumb. Other than that, it seems like a pretty good gun. Lighter than the 1911, too.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)Iver Johnson patented such a revolver in 1881. Note the "trigger safety" existed a century before Glock claimed to have invented it.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,266 posts)It's gotta be double-action only, so a safety seems truly redundant.
Interesting info, thanks.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:04 PM - Edit history (2)
this ad could run in the Ladies' Home Journal. Now the anti's would have an exploding head shit brain hemorrhage over an advertisement like this...
but in 1901 the idea was that a revolver that had a 12 pound trigger pull and the trigger safety could not be fired by a child. As the ad notes, "without intent to do so, Iver Johnson revolvers cannot be discharged."
The gun was drop safe, since the hammer was completely shrouded, it was impossible for it to fall or be struck in such a way for it to fire. A child's finger was not large enough to activate the safety and pull the trigger.
Iver Johnson is not as famous as Colt or Smith & Wesson, nor did they make the large caliber guns used by the military or frontiersmen. They made millions of .32 and .38 caliber revolvers that were the nightstand and sock drawer guns kept for protection in American homes between 1870 and 1940. They were an innovative company and produced good quality guns at reasonable prices. Iver Johnson also pioneered the transfer bar ignition system and marketed their hammer revolvers with a "Hammer the hammer," series of ads.
Again, this was decades ahead of Colt's positive lock or S&W's safety block. S&W first incorporated a passive hammer block in 1915 with .38 S&W Military & Police Model of 1905 (4th change). That was in response to Colt, which had upgraded their New Police revolver in 1907 with an internal hammer block safety, and renaming it the "Police Positive."
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Doesn't fit in the SoP of the forum.
Maybe Non-Fiction Group would be a good place for it.
Regards,
Krispos42, Gungeon Host
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...I've decided to unlock the thread, as it apparently contains extensive discussion of American gun-control laws and politics of the last 30 years or so.
Regards,
Krispos42, Gungeon Host
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)The author appears to be poorly educated w/regards to firearms, and has an anti-gun bias.
Not inspired at all from what I've read about this book thus far.
Logical
(22,457 posts)think it was anti-gun and many would read it and think it was pro-gun.
Maybe step outside your bias and read stuff you do not 100% agree with. You might learn something!
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)If you had "stepped outside your bias" and actually checked out the review I was talking about you would have found this:
THE UGLY:
- The author received some shooting lessons directly from Massad Ayoob, a well regarded shooting expert. In return, he makes Ayoob look silly for choosing to carry a weapon (never mind that Ayoob is a former police officer and minor celebrity who probably has good reasons to care about his safety). Referring to Ayoob and his girlfriend, the author sarcastically opines: "Like many gun owners who carry, they find last night's local television news report of an armed robbery at the neighborhood's 7-11 more compelling than the statistically small chance of being the unlucky customer paying for a Slurpee when a bad guy attacks."
- The author has some pervasive anti-gun bias that shows up even when he discusses facts and data which are inconclusive or contradict his opinion. The last chapter before the epilogue tries to discuss the impact of the Glock and handgun ownership on American society. When discussing the recent Virginia Tech massacre, the author says about the shooter: "Whether his choice of the Austrian brand raised the horrific body count remains a matter of speculation. It probably did." Later on he quips "A national ten-round cap seems like a logical compromise that lawful gun owners could easily tolerate." And then on the next page he admits that "The total number of guns in private hands in the United States is at an all-time high, yet violent crime is back down to where it was in the early 1970s. The murder rate is even lower - at the level of the early 1960s." Basically, he ends the book with a strange and contradictory chapter which tries to be an overarching synthesis of gun ownership in America, but ends up looking unfocused and bad.
VERDICT:
I wonder who this book was written for. The author works for Bloomberg and lives in New York City, where it is practically impossible to own a gun, and he clearly does not pretend he cares about guns. So maybe this book is for other big city yuppies who want to know about this Glock thing rappers sing about. For that audience, the book is great. However, for those who own a Glock (I do not, by the way): this may not be your book. The book is still valuable because of the investigative details it presents, but it is clear that the author is not very passionate about his subject.
While I'm sure that I'd pick up some technical info. about the Glock that I'm currently unaware of by reading this book, I'm certainly not going to support an author of this ilk with the purchase.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)What he recounted from the author's statements is what caught my attention.
Clear yet?
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)THE SILLY:
- There are some non-sequitur statements like "Glock is the Google of modern civilian handguns" or mentioning how one police department wanted to upgrade their firepower so they went from .357 Magnum to 9mm.
Wonder why you're shilling for this "great work".
Logical
(22,457 posts)The book has many pro-gun stories also. If you want to base your decision on a small set of pages go ahead. The book is highly rated. Some people are confident enough to make their own decisions. Then there is you!
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)The assinine statement regarding Ayoob and CCW in and of itself shows what this author is made of.
Unlike you I read a wide variety of opinions on many topics.
You know not a GD thing about me - and with this statement you loudly broadcast what you are made of.
Logical
(22,457 posts)in your little world. If it is working for you then congrats!
Hmmm.....I know how you make book decisions. So I know something about you.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)It's not the number of pages that's at issue here, "Einstein", but the dumbass attitudes displayed by the author within that short span of pages.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)First you want me to "be my own man" and ignore an online critic posting the author's own words, then you expect me to be moved by what some other group of critics has to say.
Logical
(22,457 posts)read something you disagree with. Like fox viewers. Or limbaugh fans.
Here is some smiley faces for you.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)As if there's any real difference between ignorant readers and ignorant critics!!
The fact that you need to resort to insults and presumptions about a person you don't know enhances your credibility, does it?
And by all means - go ahead and keep pimping for an assclown who believes that a 9mm is a more potent cartridge than a .357. That makes you look really bright! I read plenty from people I disagree with as long as they don't display extreme ignorance regarding the subject that they are writing about.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Like being hit by Lightning.
Doesn't mean I'm gonna go stand on the roof and hold up a golf club in a fucking thunderstorm...
And I'm not a fan of the Glock nor the 9mm Parabellum, either.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I won't give money to the anti's ever.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Upton
(9,709 posts)a lot of their Kindle books are free..
Logical
(22,457 posts)paranoia.
Upton
(9,709 posts)not MAIG, Businessweek, but the fact that he works for him ought to make you think..
Logical
(22,457 posts)Upton
(9,709 posts)but why would you ask that question?...I mean, do you send money to the Brady Bunch or MAIG?
Logical
(22,457 posts)same.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but I would be 100 times more likely to send money to the NRA than to Bloomburg or his clingers. Why would Bloomy allow his progeny to write or publish a book about guns which is unbiased? Maybe it is, I wouldn't spend my money to find out. There are too many other free books and books whose authors whose political positions I don't adamantly disagree with. The NRA OTOH spends a lot of money actually providing educational and life saving instruction to people ranging from school children through advanced law enforcement training. I happen to disagree with the politics of the leadership, yet appreciate the commitment to firearms safety and to defense of the 2nd amendment against prohibitionists like Bloominidiot.
Response to ileus (Reply #9)
Post removed
pipoman
(16,038 posts)is the need to dry fire the gun to disassemble. Should people check the chamber before dry firing? Of coarse. Do they? Usually. I would venture a guess that there have been more nd's with Glock during this step of disassembly than any other hand gun in history...it really is a serious, dangerous design flaw IMHO.