"60 Minutes" tonight (Glock might not be our friend)


PDA

JeremyIA
February 9, 2003, 08:32 PM
I know that some people love Glock pistols and I know that some people hate them. We all need to rise up and remind Glock of what happened to S&W when they wavered.

60 Minutes did a special on ballistic fingerprinting this evening. Mr. La Pierre did a great job of countering the argument but it was naturally slanted to make the NRA look evil. Then I was floored. A representative from Glock Inc., USA took a position sympathetic to the pro-ballistic-fingerprinting crowd.

I don't think Glock has an email address so I'll be calling them in the morning and then I'll be writing them a letter.

If you enjoyed reading about ""60 Minutes" tonight (Glock might not be our friend)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cliff
February 9, 2003, 08:35 PM
what possible advantage could glock be getting by being for this issue?

Schuey2002
February 9, 2003, 08:40 PM
Don't they realize that this is only going to hurt their bottom line?!:fire:

bad_dad_brad
February 9, 2003, 08:42 PM
Glock is just being PC. Typical. Who cares. Ballistic fingerprinting plain don't work anyway. But the politicos will shove it down our throats, just to create another self-serving law enforcement agency and have an excuse to levy more taxes.

NRA link on the subject:

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=97

JeremyIA
February 9, 2003, 08:42 PM
What advantage did Smith & Wesson have for bending their ear to the anti-gun crowd? None. We have to remind Glock to keep up on the history of the issue.

Hkmp5sd
February 9, 2003, 08:52 PM
The guy was their VP in Georgia. At first he talks about how much additional it costs to do the testing for the two states that currently require it. Then he turns around and says he doesn't think it's really all that big of a deal.

Then the host mentioned that the two states that already require ballistic fingerprints have not had one single match in any of the guns in their database. They say that this means it just needs to be done on a national level.

One of their major jabs at the NRA was about a video the NRA produced that shows why ballistic fingerprinting is a waste of time and demonstrates how simple it is to alter the fingerprint. The 60 Minutes host promptly labeled it a "how to" video and said the NRA doesn't mind showing it to anyone that wants to learn how to do it. Implying of course, the NRA was teaching BG's how to alter their guns. :banghead:

10-Ring
February 9, 2003, 09:00 PM
I doubt Glock really cares. Until they get affected by something they say, build, sell, or recall through less sales, they couldn't care less. PC or not, w/ all those PD's & private citizen sales, why should they change anything?

JeremyIA
February 9, 2003, 09:09 PM
Hkmp5sd--The GLOCK VP did not say that he didn't think it was a big deal. He said that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss ballistic fingerprinting. He, in more words or less, implied that we should have an open mind to ballistic fingerprinting. The fact is, he sold out. He should have taken the pro-gun position instead of waffling when he was asked the tough questions.

gun-fucious
February 9, 2003, 09:13 PM
No one but CBS knows what other quotes and context were edited out

King
February 9, 2003, 09:27 PM
I don't think anything was taken out of context. The Glock VP from Georgia thinks it's a good idea even though they have to go to more trouble and expense to meet New YorK and Maryland requirements (two test fires for each firearm and keeping the shell casings tied to the serial number,etc).

No Glocks for me thank you.........

triggertime
February 9, 2003, 09:28 PM
Obviously, Paul Jannuzzo hasn't given this much thought. His general attitude is that he refuses to care whether ballistic fingerprinting infringes on our rights or not.

I'd say thats typical of a highly paid vice-president of a major corporation, wouldn't you?

hansolo
February 9, 2003, 10:23 PM
YUP! :banghead:

Uncle Ethan
February 9, 2003, 10:29 PM
I don't own a Glock-I never have owned a Glock, and after reading this, I never will.

BerettaNut92
February 9, 2003, 10:36 PM
Before we all jump on Glock, anyone got a transcript of this?

I didn't see it myself, but perhaps maybe 60 slanted the Glock rep's words?

Rembrandt
February 9, 2003, 10:36 PM
...looks like a new boycott coming,.....no Glocks for me.....how soon they forget....are they U.S. owned?

Hkmp5sd
February 9, 2003, 10:40 PM
Here are some useful resources in countering the "ballistic fingerprinting" lies. (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/tech/fingerprint.htm) Get your facts straight and let's flood Glock with letters. Cut this off early so we don't further divide the gun community.

andy
February 9, 2003, 10:57 PM
I own a Glock and love it but if what you guys say is true it will be the last one I buy. :mad:

sixgun_symphony
February 9, 2003, 11:03 PM
If Glock is being "PC", its probably because they get most of their business from police contracts and don't want to anger the mostly liberal city governments.

citizen
February 9, 2003, 11:04 PM
Never have, and never will handle a Glock !:neener: :fire:

Pat Bateman
February 9, 2003, 11:06 PM
Glock is starting to figure out who THEIR friends are...

BenW
February 9, 2003, 11:06 PM
I think it's important to have all the facts on this. I just saw the segment, and based on what I saw, Glock sold out. But as was pointed out earlier, 60 Minutes is quite good at creative editing.

How often do anti-gunners attack us without having all the facts? We don't want to be like them. I'd like to hear or read something from Glock itself, or at least hear of a corroborating interview before I pass the word to people I know to stop buying Glocks.

If this is actually Glock's position, they deserve a Kmart sized boycott.

Monkeyleg
February 9, 2003, 11:08 PM
Saw the whole episode, and there was no way the Glock guy was taken out of context. He wants to be PC, and the rest of us be damned.

LaPierre did a decent job, but he never pointed out that the "fingerprint" of guns changes as they're fired.

The "60 Minutes" gang never addressed the issue of how much it might cost the US to implement this system. Why not? Why not say that it might cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and result in a handful of traces?

The divide between us and them grows wider, and more precipitous, every day.

Airwolf
February 9, 2003, 11:50 PM
If Glock is being "PC", its probably because they get most of their business from police contracts and don't want to anger the mostly liberal city governments.

$Cha-CHING!$

Follow the money. Remember, Glock didn't seem to want to deal with Joe Citizen shooter when the frame rail problem came up. Their focus was on the GOVERMENT users of their product.

I've always been on the fence about Glocks. I think this is the final nail in that coffin for me. There are lots of good companies out there that are responsive to ALL their customers needs. I'll do business with one of them, thank you very much.

mdsteele
February 10, 2003, 12:03 AM
I saw it too. Nothing out of context. I don't think Glock is on our side.

Yohan
February 10, 2003, 12:09 AM
If Glock was on "our" side, they wouldn't have marketed such an ugly creation. :D :neener:

Zundfolge
February 10, 2003, 12:21 AM
I am curious to see how Glock responds to the firestorm they are about to have hit them (figure by middle of Monday morning someone at Glock will be squirming).

I don't trust 60 minutes any farther then I could throw Ed Bradly, so I'm not ready to start yelling for a boycott.

LaPierre did a decent job, but he never pointed out that the "fingerprint" of guns changes as they're fired.


I would bet even money that La Pierre did say something about ballistic "fingerprints" changing as guns are fired, but 60 minutes never does a story without an agenda, therefore anything that doesn't fit their agenda hits the cutting room floor (more reason I'm not ready to hang Glock ... yet). The folk at 60 minutes are NOT journalists ... they are propagandists.

I wish now I'd watched the 60min in question. I purposely didn't because when I start yelling at the damn TV my poor corgi goes and hides under the bed in the other room :(


If indeed Glock supports a ballistic fingerprinting database then boycott away (I still think people where too forgiving of Ruger).

JeremyIA
February 10, 2003, 12:33 AM
It was a shame to forgive Ruger. It would be a travesty to forgive Glock. Ruger supported hi-cap magazine bans. Glock seemingly supports a national database that could later be used to confiscate our means of self-preservation.

denfoote
February 10, 2003, 01:03 AM
It's a good thing I shoot my Walther P99 better than my Glocks!! :D

twoblink
February 10, 2003, 02:43 AM
Well, one of the major "ingredients" of gun alteration is toothpaste... I mean, that is some seriously blackmarket stuff... :rolleyes:

I think until I see the transcript, as much as I hate Glocks, I think their positions might be, whatever you guys want, sure, we'll comply. Just know this is an act of stupidity..

But if they are really "selling out" then we have a serious Grock problem...

Kahr carrier
February 10, 2003, 02:47 AM
:fire: :cuss: :what: :banghead:

Hand_Rifle_Guy
February 10, 2003, 07:46 AM
Didn't see the show. Some thoughts for the boycotters...

Unpleasantness from 60 Minutes does not surprise me at all. However, I'm not going to rush to judgement just yet. It's a bit early, and I want to give Glock a chance to respond in a context that is not so firmly entrenched in the enemy's camp. It's been, what, a few HOURS since the show aired?

I mean, c'mon now, it's not like Glock signed on to the S&W/HUD agreement or something. One corporate VP mouthing some platitudes on TV does not a commitment make. In the context of today's corrupt corporate environment, you actually assign this guy that much credibility? Why, if you don't trust the media because they spin things around to suit themselves, are you so instantly willing to believe this show as gospel truth?

So Mr. VP told the media what they wanted to hear so his company didn't get attacked. That sounds like CYA to me, that doesn't cost much. Glock can easily disavow their "position" without consequense if neccessary, without giving the media ammunition to sink them.

We should not let this relatively minor presentation cause rifts in the gun comunnity. We cannot afford devisivness at this time. DITCHING GLOCK MEANS THAT MIKE WALLACE WON THIS ROUND! Are you going to make it that easy for him? We lose when we let the media define the outcome for us, without even TRYING to shrug it off.

We NEED Glock. They're one of the bigger players in the industry, with more resources available for survival than most of the rest of gun makers. I find it hard to believe that they would so soon forget what happened to S&W. They're not THAT dense.

Ol' Mikey boy don't make policy in this country, last time I looked. ALL of the articles I've seen about ballistic fingerprinting lately have universally stated that it's basically unworkable, despite the ATF's whining to the contrary. The economy stinks, and we're about to launch into a war. Somehow I don't see the gubmint being able to justify the costs of such a program in that context.

This doesn't mean I'm saying that you should run out and buy a Glock right now to support the company. They're not under direct attack right this second. But if you were thinking about it, go ahead and keep on thinking about it. You aren't going to let Mike Wallace determine what you're going to buy, are you? He has lousy taste in guns.

I'm going to extend the benefit of the doubt for less altruistic reasons as well. Glock makes some good guns, and the PRK is somewhat design-choice limited these days. We cannot afford to lose anymore options than we already have.

And I want a G-29 in the worst way. I used to hate Glocks until I got my G-32. At least Glock bothered to pay the stupid DOJ test/listing fees for their entire line. That's more than I can say for some of the other guns I want in the future. Glock didn't give up on the PRK despite our severe liberal pollution and outright legislative extortion. That inclines me to not give up on them just yet.

jmbg29
February 10, 2003, 08:23 AM
I would bet even money that La Pierre did say something about ballistic "fingerprints" changing as guns are fired, but 60 minutes never does a story without an agenda, therefore anything that doesn't fit their agenda hits the cutting room floor (more reason I'm not ready to hang Glock ... yet). The folk at 60 minutes are NOT journalists ... they are propagandists.Exactly!

I didn't see Gaston Glock say anything, DID ANY OF YOU?

I saw some vice-flunky flapping his yap. Nothing more.

200 Glock execs could have told 60 Minutes to :cuss: off for all we know. 60 Minutes would never put anyone on that doesn't already agree with them unless they can find a way to do it while making the person look crazy or moronic.

Flunky boy said something stupid, but that was a foregone conclusion anyway, since one cannot speak with 60 Minutes and expect to do anything other than look stupid if 60 Minutes gets one in front of their cameras. It is what they do. They have been doing it for 35 friggin' years! Who does not know this by now?????

Talking to 60 Minutes is suicide. Flunky boy and LaPierre should get their heads examined!:fire: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead:

Robby from Long Island
February 10, 2003, 08:42 AM
I remember when Glocks first came out. Picked one up and thought it felt like a 2X4 in my hand. Didn't like them then and don't like them now.

Glock lovers have always tried to offset their ugly appearance by saying how their Glocks never fail to go bang when their triggers are pulled. Well, neither have my Smith & Wesson's, Beretta's or Para-Ordnance's.

Lately, without even owning one, have more reason than ever not to like "Perfection".

Safe shooting.

Detachment Charlie
February 10, 2003, 08:44 AM
First, we don't need Glock. Glock needs us, the market.
Second, creative editing can create monsters. Glock needs to immediately counter the statements.
Third, a corporate VP isn't some "flunky." A VP's lips don't move without thinking of his career and the company "line."
Fourth, Glock does thrive on the Gov't market. However, once a mere councilman starts yapping that the guns lack a safety and would be dangerous on the street, Glock could be dropped from a potential supplier list faster than a hot rock. (Cheap local politicians can be "useful idiots" if you know how to play them. That usually means dropping a quarter in their slot.)
Remember, either you are with me, or against me. :fire:

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 08:58 AM
I called Gock.I spoke to the secretary. She thought it was funny. When she laughed, I told her I didn't appreciate it, and that I was a strong supporter of the Second Ammendment.
She directed me to the legal department. Some guy started back peddling. He was statrted stamering and studdering. I told him the same thing is going to happen to Glock that happen to S&W.
Call the at 1-770- 432-1202 and voice your opinion.
Fax 1-770-433-8719
:cuss:

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 09:04 AM
By the way, the legal department supported 100% what 60 minutes stated. I asked if 60 Minutes took any thing out of context, he said "NO." I asked if everything 60 Minutes stated was true? He said "For the most part it was."
Call them at 1-770- 432-1202 and voice your opinion.
Fax 1-770-433-8719:cuss:

Nightcrawler
February 10, 2003, 09:05 AM
You know, sometimes I think that Glock could require all civilian purchasers to be beat with a tree branch and the Glock Perfection crowd would still line up to take their beating and get their plastic fantastics.

Is anyone especially suprised that an Austrian company doesn't give a crap about US Civil Liberties? What kind of gun rights do they get in Austria?

Glock heavily favors the LE crowd. They could likely stay in business without any civilian sales, but it certianly wouldn't be in their best interest.

I'd be shocked and amazed to see any kind of Glock boycott, regardless of what kind of stunts Glock pulls. Again, there are too many...well, rabid Glock fans to ever have that happen.

Let me define the "Rabid Glock Fan". I was once discussing the Glock 21 with such a fellow. I mentioned that it didn't fit my hand; between the Hump and the Finger Grooves, it was just uncomfortable to hold.

He got mad at me! He INSISTED that the Glock has the same grip diameter as the 1911 (which is absurd) and that if the G21 didn't fit my hand, I must be holding it wrong. He thought I should buy one anyway, and make myself get used to the grip.

Left an impression on me, that's for sure. Sure as heck didn't make me run out and drop $600 (about $200 too expensive for what you get, IMO) for a Glock 21, though.

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 09:08 AM
"DITCHING GLOCK MEANS THAT MIKE WALLACE WON THIS ROUND!"

No Sir it does not. If we let it go it means we believe what was said, we won't do anything about it and the rest of the gun makers can follow suit.
How quickly some of us forget about the S&W deal. S&W quickly got that that ********* out of there, didn't they?:cuss:
I'm furious about this SELL OUT.

mjustice
February 10, 2003, 09:21 AM
I watched the entire segment. If this Glock VP did not mean what he said, then he must of done a ton of backpedalling after that statement, and *ALL OF IT* must have been edited out.

I'll spring for a copy of the transcript and a certified letter to Glock. I was never a rabid Glock fan, and after last night's showing, it would take some serious explaining from Glock in writing before I would ever consider one of their pistols again.

I think we're all convinced that ballistics fingerprinting is not a fingerprint and really is not a crime-fighting tool. Even the segment last night made it clear. Any criminal willing to file/grind off a serial number will go the extra step and make some changes to the firing pin, extractor, breech face, etc.

Glocks comments fly in the face of the millions of dollars that hard-working, law-abiding gun owners have spent on their products over the years. We deserve an explaination.

MJ

ZekeLuvs1911
February 10, 2003, 09:29 AM
No Glocks for me. Ugly pieces of &%&5 when it came out and my other guns also goes bang for me everytime I pull the trigger. They can disappear for all I care.

trapshooter
February 10, 2003, 09:46 AM
I predict a glut of glocks on the market in the next few weeks. There's stupid, then there's ssstttuuuupppiiiddd!

This guy, and the'legal' department, are dumber than rocks.

I guess they are content to have the percentage of the LE market that will remain after this. (I bet they'll lose some of what they already have). Within a year, personnel changes coming at glock. (new lawyers, a new VP, and wholesale marketing dept. swapout).

Looks like 'perfection', is spelled 'defection'.

But then, I don't care for the product, anyway. Fat grip, stupid trigger, no exposed hammer. After three strikes, I quit counting.

BadJohn
February 10, 2003, 09:52 AM
Don't forget the VP is a former prosecutor.This may account for his position, which in my opinion,is wrong.

JPM70535
February 10, 2003, 09:53 AM
I saw the segment on 60 minutes and I agree there is no way the Glock reps. statements were taken out of context, and while it certainly looks as though Glock is not our friend, I really can't see where ballistic fingerprinting is going to mean a thing in the overall scheme of thing. We all know how easy it is to change the "Prints" made by our guns. I would be willing to bet that any of us who clean our guns regularly have totally changed the characteristics exhibited when they were new. And any criminal worth his salt now, thanks to 60 minutes now knows how to do the same thing. ( Those too dumb to alter their guns deserve to get caught.)

The real danger in this move is in what it has the potential to lead to. This is just one more step along the road to total firearms registration, which will without a doubt lead to confiscation.

We must not tolerate any attempt by any gun manufacturer to cave in to the liberal left and their view of Political correctness.
I own a Glock, don't particularly like it but if I ever contemplate buying another, I will remember who my friends are and will take my business elsewhere.

Carlos Cabeza
February 10, 2003, 10:03 AM
Can you say "Price drop on Glocks" :) I never much cared for them "plastic" guns anyhow..........................:D With the HAIRY trigger !!!!!!!!!! :scrutiny:

TheOtherOne
February 10, 2003, 10:12 AM
Contrary to most of those in this thread that are on the glock hating bandwagon... I actually like mine. I like the simplicity, I like the grip, I like the look, I like the (no) hammer, I like the trigger, I like the lightweight! And the G27 is the best carry gun in my opinion: A .40 in that small package is impressive to me!

BUT, all that said, if Glock takes up an official position of supporting ballistic fingerprinting then I'll boycott them. Like others here have said, it's just going to end up being another step to the ultimate end of our (legal) gun ownership.

Deathwind
February 10, 2003, 10:20 AM
Just thought I'd post the actual videos of the show so everyone can see and decide for themselves (thanks to chevrofreak over on GT for capturing and encoding)...

Partial Clip (edited for time/size to show just the part of the segment with Glock, Inc.):
Video Here: 60 Minutes - Find the Gun (MPEG1, 45 seconds, 5,029KB) [Mirror 1] (EDU line) (Provided by Deathwind) (http://www.duke.edu/~java32/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun.mpg)
Video Here: 60 Minutes - Find the Gun (MPEG1, 45 seconds, 5,029KB) [Mirror 2] (DSL 20kbps) (Provided by nothing) (http://www.arranrod.org/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun.mpg)
Video Here: 60 Minutes - Find the Gun (MPEG1, 45 seconds, 5,029KB) [Mirror 3] (DS3) (Provided by nothing) (http://208.137.150.116/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun.mpg)

Full segment:
Video Here: 60 Minutes - Find The Gun - Full Story (WMV (requires Windows Media Player), 12:30, 25,272kb) [Mirror 1] (EDU line) (http://www.duke.edu/~java32/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun_full_story.wmv)
Video Here: 60 Minutes - Find The Gun - Full Story (WMV, 12:30, 25,272kb) [Mirror 2] (DSL 20kbps) (Provided by nothing) (http://www.arranrod.org/60_Minutes_-_Find_The_Gun_full_story.wmv
)

jar
February 10, 2003, 10:44 AM
Before dismissing anything on the Ballistic Fingerprint Database, it doesn't matter is it works or not, OR if the fingerprint can be changed or not.

The Ballistic Fingerprint Database will require when each gun is sold, the casings along with the buyer's information be sent to the State to be entered into the database.

This is not a step on the road to National Handgun Registry, It IS National Handgun Registry!

schild
February 10, 2003, 10:46 AM
I just spoke to someone in Glock's legal dept., yes a lot of backpeddeling! The guy said Glock would do what ever was required by law. I told him I have three Glocks and I wouldn't be buying more.

Boats
February 10, 2003, 11:01 AM
I had been on the fence as to whether I should buy a Glock 20 or a CZ 85B. That dilemma just resolved itself in a hurry last night.:cuss:

It is funny. S&W sold out to HUD for apparent LE federal market advantage. Glock is apparently selling out to the antis to indirectly curry favor with LE. Some people never learn. All the while, Beretta, which makes a ton of dough off the government, has been pretty staunch about RKBA and lawsuits without any perceptible downside. Go figure.

muddyboots
February 10, 2003, 11:02 AM
I quit watching "60 Minutes" when they did the hit piece on Audi. They don't do news; they do propaganda.

As for the Glock, the trigger stinks. Get a Sig. If you don't like the double-action first shot, get a 1911.

M58
February 10, 2003, 11:05 AM
Internet talk is cheap.
Sell all your Glocks.
Do not buy anymore.
Those that have no Glocks?
Write letters.
Did I mention talk is cheap?
Thanks to those that posted the clips!

twoblink
February 10, 2003, 11:08 AM
The only other comment I can make is; these "PR" people are slicker then snot; and the one that was on there probably has never touched a gun in his life, and is quick to kiss 60-minute's rear end..

Whatever..

I however, want to hear it from the horse's mouth. If Gaston said it; well, color me boycott.. Otherwise, that is just fluff spoken by someone who is paid to grease every wheel regardless of conflicting statements 15 seconds apart..

And then of course; 60 minutes has the "creative editing staff"...:rolleyes:

Flying V
February 10, 2003, 11:12 AM
That settles my "Glock 20 or Witness 10mm" decision.

El Rojo
February 10, 2003, 11:14 AM
I will send an e-mail or call. Let them know my displeasure in their selling out. When I leave the house today, the Glock 27 will still be on my side. I guess I don't need a Glock 36 after all.

Hand_Rifle_Guy
February 10, 2003, 11:14 AM
I called. Hard to get through.

You all are right. Legal backs the exec. They're doomed.

So much for hoping. What is WITH these fools running the companies? They oughta know that potential registration is a hot button amongst gunowners.

I'm not a rabid Glock fan by any stretch. I have one Glock. I have 23 other handguns. The 29 is off the list. I'll go get a cowboy gun instead, as it's next on the list.

Apologies all round for ruffling feathers, I was merely trying to salvage what I could out of a miserable situation. Don't take my posting personally as an attack on your righteous and well-deserved anger at yet another gun company betrayal, as that was not my intent.

I just wanted clear thinking until we got a straight answer, to not jump to conclusions.

The straight answer is that once again, we all lose. Wonderful.

You don't waste energy getting angry in the PRK. All you get is a little more numb. :(

Boats
February 10, 2003, 11:15 AM
Get serious

Januzzo is Smyrna's mouthpiece. He doesn't get to ad-lib. Who cares what Gaston thinks. First Glock did a big Hamlet act on whether to sign on with S&W over the HUD agreement instead of giving a "pound sand" response. Now Januzzo comes on and publicly tells the American shooting public that Glock has no problem selling you out. What more do you need?

mjustice
February 10, 2003, 11:15 AM
I just fired off a letter to Glock. I suggest all of you do the same.

GLOCK Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082

Tel.: +1 770 - 432 1202
Fax.: +1 770 - 433 8719

GhostShooter
February 10, 2003, 11:24 AM
And just when I was considering buying my first Glock (19).http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/jpshakehead.gif

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

MrKandiyohi
February 10, 2003, 11:32 AM
The Ballistic Fingerprint Database will require when each gun is sold, the casings along with the buyer's information be sent to the State to be entered into the database.

This is not a step on the road to National Handgun Registry, It IS National Handgun Registry!

That's my primary objection to this database (among many others). They'll get all of this data, throw away the ballistic fingerprint data and have what they really want.

I'll be checking what the Glock VP said.

I have two Glocks and do not support registration!!

MN_Strelok
February 10, 2003, 11:46 AM
I'm not going to launch into a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other, but I will point out that most of the wannabe Glock boycotters on this thread appear to be basing their view on a pre-existing dislike for the company's product. Despite warnings that rabid Glock backers are going to show up any minute, all I've seen here is rabid Glock bashing. That strikes me as odd considering the number of previous complaints about trap shooter and race gun elitists. Is there a difference between someone with a shotgun bashing your autoloading rifle and you bashing someone else's Glock?

Stay focused on the issue at hand, and don't let brand loyalties (one way or the other) dictate your response. Take your concerns to the company and wait for an official response. But please don't try using this opportunity to rally support against Glock just because you don't happen to like their product.

org
February 10, 2003, 12:00 PM
MN-Strelok....most dislike Glock pistols?? Many if not most already own Glocks. You need to go back and read the thread again. This is going to hurt Glock, regardless of what the apologists and head in the sand types say.

spacemanspiff
February 10, 2003, 12:30 PM
how long before glock holds a press conference to win their customers back?

CZ-75
February 10, 2003, 12:40 PM
You can't get through to Glock, and, what's more, the system drops you if you try to wait on the line.


Does anyone have the extension of a person in authority there?

You need an extension to leave a message.

jar
February 10, 2003, 12:45 PM
Folk, this goes way beyond buy or not buy some gun.

This is not the silly S&W Agreement that was DOA when issued, it's not Taurus being the first company to install and advicated internal gun locks, It's not even Bill Ruger selling us all out over Magazine capacities.

This is the biggest threat we have faced. Period. This IS National Handgun Registration.

MN_Strelok
February 10, 2003, 12:50 PM
MN-Strelok....most dislike Glock pistols?? Many if not most already own Glocks. You need to go back and read the thread again.

I said most of those ready to immediately boycott. If you really want to argue semantics, knock yourself out. I don't have time to engage in a mostly pointless internet debate.

The reason I posted was because I noticed a number of people contributing to the thread seemed almost gleeful over the prospect of a company they clearly don't like getting itself into trouble.

This is going to hurt Glock, regardless of what the apologists and head in the sand types say.

I agree, and do not consider myself either of those things.

Bainx
February 10, 2003, 12:50 PM
Glock has stepped on it this time.

2dogs
February 10, 2003, 12:51 PM
Repeating myself (not dementia, but I posted this reply in Legal).



Glocks are ugly.

Now I have two reasons not to own one.
:what: :neener: :D

spacemanspiff
February 10, 2003, 01:02 PM
MN STRELOK, go look at the threads on glocktalk.com about this topic. it appears that many longtime fans of glock are ready to take their business elsewhere. it most certainly isnt the isolated opinion of glock bashers. maybe people are "jumping the gun", whoa, thats a cool pun! but if the legal dept is supporting what the execs say, and those who have talked today with the person interviewed indicate that glocks corporate position is what was portrayed in the 60 minutes interview, what else is the consumer to do? roll over and let the antis win?

besides, there are other vendors out there to choose from.

MonkeyMan
February 10, 2003, 01:03 PM
Glock 20, EAA Witness, or Dan Wesson ?

I guess that question may get a little easier.

Poohgyrr
February 10, 2003, 01:04 PM
I'll say it again, taking those responsible for this madness and voting them out of office is the only sure way to end this stuff. Failing to do this will only result in more of the same. Other actions, like personal letters/ calls/ etc to politicians/ 60 Minutes etc. are fine, but our Votes are mandatory.

OK, everyone with a Glock meet for lunch, and swap barrels and top ends.

TheOtherOne
February 10, 2003, 01:26 PM
The reason I posted was because I noticed a number of people contributing to the thread seemed almost gleeful over the prospect of a company they clearly don't like getting itself into trouble.:word: I don't know why everyone is bashing on you. You speak the truth. I saw what you saw in this thread. Even if nobody else here did.

And, I'll say it again, I'm a fan of Glock. I like the guns! However, no matter how much I like them, if they continue to support this then I won't buy their products anymore.

thumbtack
February 10, 2003, 02:14 PM
For all of the people that were considering buying a Glock, go ahead and get one, you will not be disappointed. Just buy a used one.

P12
February 10, 2003, 02:29 PM
Had been considering a Glock for lite cover carry.

Hell I was stupid enough to buy a *&# Sigma compact nine before the *&# sellout. I sold it mainly because it was un-safe. In light of that, the Glock would have been several steps up.

Now, scrooooooum.

:cuss:

Master Blaster
February 10, 2003, 02:43 PM
Quote<> We NEED Glock. They're one of the bigger players in the industry, with more resources available for survival than most of the rest of gun makers. I find it hard to believe that they would so soon forget what happened to S&W. They're not THAT dense. Quote<>


I just called them and asked to speak to Mr. Januzzo. I was immediately transferred to the legal department. I politely advised the young lady that i had seen the 60 minutes segment last night, I asked if Mr. Januzzo was misquoted or taken out of context in his support for the ballistic database, she said No he was not. I politely advised her that I own one glock a G26, and it would be the last Glock I ever buy, and to pass that along to Mr. Januzzo, tahks and have a good day. She hung up on me.

I guess that phone has been ringing nonstop in Smyrna today.

They can sell all the guns they want to LEOs for $280 a pop,
I sure as hell will never shell out $550 for another.

They are that dense, I have no need for an Austrian company that does not give one damn about the rights of their customers, and thinks that we are so stupid that we wont know that they are screwing us.
:fire:

P12
February 10, 2003, 02:52 PM
Just got off the phone with Glock legal dept.

:D Talk about back pedaling. I told him I learned of the 60min. segment from here.:cool: Told him about *&# a couple of banks and Dell.

His quote "Glock cares about the rights of the people" or something like that. I told him they had better get a press release for damage control cause we on the boards have power. The power to talk at light speed. I directed him to here and Glock-Talk and told him he had better get someone on it before it's too late.

He said thanks and we hung up.

:banghead:

stephen_g22
February 10, 2003, 02:53 PM
I remember when shortly after the HUD S&W agreement was created, Paul Januzzo (Glock VP whose head is being called for by many today) wrote a very strong response AGAINST the S&W HUD agreement. There was a thread on Glock Talk singing praises for Januzzo and his stand. Now based on a sound bite on CBS the boycott cries are sounding again.

Let's take a look at what was said last night:

60 Minutes:
At the moment, manufacturers like the Glock company in Georgia must test fire all handguns shipped to New York and Maryland and include a sample cartridge casing with each firearm.

Januzzo:
"It's been expensive. It slows production, uh, to make sure that we're getting the right cases to the right serial number. At this point we now go through test firing the guns twice."

60 Minutes:
But Paul Januzzo, Vice President of Glock, a former prosecutor, and a lifetime member of the NRA, says he's willing to give a national database a chance.

Januzzo:
"I think the people who right now are saying that there's no use for it, that it can't be used, that it's an intrusion upon our freedoms, have arbitrarily drawn a line too soon."

I don't see where Januzzo or Glock said, "We support ballistic fingerprinting." CBS SAYS that Glock is willing to give a national database a chance. Januzzo or Glock were not quoted as saying anything remotely close to that. We all know ballistic fingerprinting is bad science. Januzzo is not going to risk government contracts with liberal states by holding up a Glock and saying "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" he has to walk the fence, especially on the network of Dan Blather.

I don't see in his statement full support of BF anyway. I would like to see what his next sentence after "...line too soon" was. What did he say next, did he clarify/quantify his statement? I think CBS is putting words in his mouth by stating Glock is in support of a national database.

Is having a fired handgun casing tied to a firearm serial number in a database somewhere really a further intrusion of your freedoms? I think it is a serious waste of tax dollars on junk science, but it is no worse than the 4473's for all firearms purchased already sitting in the ATF databases? Our guns are already registered (except for the used ones bought from private sales). We should be screaming about that.

I think we need to give Januzzo a break and not crucify him over a sound bite that was subsequently interpreted by CBS into support of a national database.

That’s my humble opinion based on what I saw….



By the way, if any of you are going to chunk your Glocks in a river in protest, please send me the Hi-Caps!

denfoote
February 10, 2003, 03:11 PM
I am shooting a letter off to Glock today asking for clairification!! Their response, or lack of it, will tell the tail!!! :rolleyes:

gun-fucious
February 10, 2003, 04:10 PM
i wonder how much toner the fax machine has?

Politically Incorrect
February 10, 2003, 04:16 PM
Another reason to buy a 1911.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Elbarfo/dedhorse.gif

Somebody had to say it. :neener:

jmbg29
February 10, 2003, 05:23 PM
Is having a fired handgun casing tied to a firearm serial number in a database somewhere really a further intrusion of your freedoms?Yes. In order for there to be any reason to keep the case/serial #, there must be a corresponding database of names/addresses to serial #/case. The only useful purpose of a database like that, is for confiscation.

And since even a child can understand that a case/serial # database has no practical crime-solving use (barrel-swap, firing pin/extractor swap, file taken to the breech, etc.), the ulterior motive for the database becomes immediately plain.

REGISTRATION FOR THE PUPOSE OF CONFISCATION.

MitchSchaft
February 10, 2003, 06:07 PM
The only useful purpose of a database like that, is for confiscation.

Doesn't take a genious to figure that one out, folks.:scrutiny:

Braz
February 10, 2003, 06:16 PM
Sad,

Glock just had a ND and shot themselves in the foot. Selling mine to cut into their profits and they're now on my er, list.

"You're with us or against us."
G.W. Bush

benewton
February 10, 2003, 06:28 PM
Agree with an earlier poster: I wanna go 10MM and was forced to consider the Glock, which doesn't fit me. 'course, I could make myself fit it, and nobody ever said that it didn't work...

Feels to me like a 2"x4", and I've yet another reason to avoid the dark side!

Seriously, though, there isn't any reason beyond registration of owners, followed by confiscation, for the BFP.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Glock joins S&W on the list.

What else could I do?

wanderinwalker
February 10, 2003, 06:38 PM
Quite frankly, I have been considering putting my Glocks toward my next handgun (possibly a Walther P-99 or a 1911). This honestly hasn't driven the nail in the coffin of the two I have, but I don't feel I will be looking for anymore.

rock jock
February 10, 2003, 07:00 PM
Stupid, stupid, stupid move on Glock's part. Januuzo's comment that "[paraphrasing] those who think this is a violation of their freedoms have drawn the line prematurely" indicates a clear ignorance of the implications of the BF database or the mneaing of the 2A. No new Glock for me.

BTW, I can't believe LaPierre let that ridiculous "fingerprint" analogy slip by. The proper analygy is not fingerprinting as it exists now because only criminals, LE, and a select portion of the general population have their physical fingerprints on file. A more correct analogy, since BF applies to all law-abiding citizens, would be to a national fingerprint system where everyone is fingerprinted at birth. Is this acceptable? An even better analogy would be to a national genetic fingerprinting system for every man, woman, and child. Ask Morry what he thinks of that.

Peetmoss
February 10, 2003, 07:14 PM
This VP could give new meaning to the Dark Side all us Glock owners are a part of :mad:

stephen_g22
February 10, 2003, 07:14 PM
Eric the Administrator at Glock Talk Called Paul Januzzo and was faxed the following statement.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133977


GLOCK is not for gun registration, plain and simple.

A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun.

It seems the last point is the most important: The characteristics are tied to a serial number, not a person. This means that since the characteristics are not tied to a person, the ATF would have to do the exact same trace it is entitled by law to do now. Once they receive the cartridge casing from a crime scene, they then would (If the technology works) have a serial number. That way they can go to the manufacturer and ask for the first sale, which, in this case, would probably be to a distributor. Then they go to the distributor and ask for the name of the dealer and then from the dealer they go to look at the 4473 to see to whom it was sold. If the technology is any good, this would seem to be a good crime-solving tool, not gun registration. They have the absolute right to do such a trace under the law right now and they do it every single day, with every gun manufacturer in existence. To argue against the above scenario would seem to be an argument for criminal anonymity.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions. One has to ask oneself, how could some liberal anti-gunner say people-registration is necessary if this concept of a serial number being tied to a firearm's characteristics is viable? Can it be defeated? Sure it can, but the jails are not full and overcrowded because criminals are geniuses.

There are obviously limits that need to be set when one speaks of Government intrusion into the life of a citizen, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about recording the mechanical characteristics to a firearm and a firearm alone.

Will it work? We do not know. Will it be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps it will, but we cannot always just take the knee-jerk reaction and say no because we are used to saying no. It needs time and study to either prove or disprove itself. Because criminals are as a big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as they anti-gunners are. If it were not for the criminals, the anti-gunners would not have an argument against firearms ownership, except that they do not trust the people. Would you not love to be around the day that mask finally comes off?

As noted above, it is a matter of drawing the line in an intelligent place. That place may be saying 'no' in this instance, but I do not believe we are at the place and have the necessary information to make that decision. Could ballistic fingerprinting be used as an excuse to go further? Certainly, we are not naive enough to believe the camel has its nose stuck as far under the tent as it cares to go. The trick is to draw the line on the slippery slope in an intelligent place. Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy? Of course we will not. Likewise, here there has to be a balancing of costs(intrusion into personal freedoms) to benefits(potential crime-solving tool), and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 07:21 PM
"A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun." - stephen_g22

Come on Steve, do really believe what you just said?

stephen_g22
February 10, 2003, 07:24 PM
jmbg29 wrote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is having a fired handgun casing tied to a firearm serial number in a database somewhere really a further intrusion of your freedoms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. In order for there to be any reason to keep the case/serial #, there must be a corresponding database of names/addresses to serial #/case. The only useful purpose of a database like that, is for confiscation.

And since even a child can understand that a case/serial # database has no practical crime-solving use (barrel-swap, firing pin/extractor swap, file taken to the breech, etc.), the ulterior motive for the database becomes immediately plain.

REGISTRATION FOR THE PUPOSE OF CONFISCATION.

What do you think every 4473 on file at the ATF is, document retention? It is registration. It is already there. Unless you bought every gun you own at garage sales and have never filled out a 4473, your guns are registered.

If there is a database matching a serial number to a fired casing, the ATF would go to that manufacturer and find the dealer that was shipped that particular pistol. The ATF would then go to that dealer and look at 4473's to find the original purchaser, just as they do today.

Do I think ballistic fingerprinting is a stupid idea, yes. Do I think Paul Januzzo's statement that was cleverly edited into an anti-gun piece by CBS is worthy of boycotting Glock, no.

biere
February 10, 2003, 07:27 PM
I think 60 minutes used editing to make it look really bad, but it is bad no matter what.

I read the statement released by the glock guy and have to say it is still sounding like a tad much, someone should kick the camel's nose instead of seeing if this works.

The current data bases are in gun manufacturers hands and that one place where they have yet to be used to solve one case, but it has been used to consume millions of dollars.

Akurat
February 10, 2003, 07:29 PM
repost;

I saw the 60 minutes report as well. And to think I was looking into a G26...well not anymore. What a shame..

On a side note the tone of the show was completely pro-ballistic-fingerprinting and completely anti-NRA. Editing La-pierre's comments so that they would be imflamatory...choosing to chastise them for showing the video on how easy it is to change a fingerprint...giving more air time to the opposition...how blatantly biased can you get...LAME.

I'll stick with FoxNews.

spacemanspiff
February 10, 2003, 07:32 PM
look at how investigations are already botched because someone transposes a number and law enforcement knocks down the wrong door. heck, i had to correct one person filling out the serial numbers on a 4473 for me since they wrote down the numbers backwards (the numbers were the ones that look the same upside down, like 8s, 6s, 9s, 0s.)
there will be human error as investigators go to follow the paper trail from the manufacturer to the retailer who then goes through the hardcopy of the 4473's and relays the info.
this alone is basis to NOT create the data base in the first place, not to mention that all it will take is someone replacing their barrel/firing pin to nullify the BF originally taken.
we may as well create a database of tire tread marks to track down hit-and-runs.

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 07:34 PM
Lets say for some unknown miraculous reason it does work...Now the Second Ammendment comes into play...........I believe as most others do, the Second Ammendment is there to take our government back if things get a little nasty for us common folk. The government finds an empty shell casing....off to jail you go, along with most of your family.
Make no mistake about it guys, it stinks to the highest degree.

stephen_g22
February 10, 2003, 07:42 PM
4th Horseman said "A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun." - stephen_g22

Come on Steve, do really believe what you just said?

I was posting a statement by Paul Januzzo. He said it, not me.

Here is what I believe.

I believe any firearm purchased that has a 4473 associated with it is already registered, and I think that stinks. I believe that because it is against the law to carry a concealed handgun without a permit (registering my fingerprints and the strong possibility that I possess a handgun) that my 2nd Amendment rights have already been trampled. What difference would it make if the government had a shell casing to match the 4473 registration form it already has. It is not a slippery slope because the gun is already registered.
I think this whole situation has been blown out of porportion by the editors at CBS and a few people with their boycott triggers tuned a little tight.

I need a drink.

PS 4th Horseman, I really like your signature line. My behind the blade of grass gun is a M44!

4thHorseman
February 10, 2003, 07:49 PM
Steve you're a good man with good intentions. I truely believe that.
Sir if you read earlier posts, I mentioned I called Glock this morning and talked to their legal department, as many others have. They stand behind their VP 100%. Do you think that they have not been briefed on what to say? Do you think their PR program is taking serious incoming rounds now? Have they changed their statements?
Steve, hang in there buddy, we'll make it together.;)

Airwolf
February 10, 2003, 07:52 PM
There are obviously limits that need to be set when one speaks of Government intrusion into the life of a citizen, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about recording the mechanical characteristics to a firearm and a firearm alone.

Will it work? We do not know. Will it be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps it will, but we cannot always just take the knee-jerk reaction and say no because we are used to saying no. It needs time and study to either prove or disprove itself.

:what:

WRONG ANSWER!

I'm convinced that their primary interest is continuing to supply the cops and feds. The "civilian" market doesn't appear to mean much to them and they are selling out.

How the hell can a company that manufactures FIREARMS be so bloody out of touch with the American gun-owner?!?

This is ludicrous in the extreme.

The deserve everything they are going to get.

:cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

Boats
February 10, 2003, 08:09 PM
Maybe if the camel insists on sticking its nose where it doesn't belong the camel should be had for dinner, no?

Every gun owner should absolutely fear ballistic fingerprinting and draw their line of opposition to it right here, right now, while our nominal friends are in charge of national gun policy and the technology is in its infancy.

By evidence of Mr. Januzzo's clarification and the opinions of those among you who do not see a problem, perhaps you are not crediting the imagination of your foes nearly enough. Perhaps you do not see the unintended consequences of the potential crime fighting tool.

First of all, BF proponents are NEVER going to settle with a BF system of new handguns only, or handguns alone. Once a BF system is in place, it doesn't need to work! Has no one been paying attention? Gun control laws largely do not work, yet the solution is invariably more of the same medicine. It is almost axiomatic that the initial failure of a national BF database will be attributed not to the inherent flaws of such a database, but because there is not enough information in it. The expansion of such a system would come as surely as night follows day, it would only be a matter of when Democrats or their successors are in charge again. Who is going to randomly "serialize" your anonymous older pistols,rifles and shotguns and cases so that it can all be matched to you in the legally permissible manner? Who is going to sell you a new extractor without a "by your leave" from the law enforcement authorities because you'd be changing the "fingerprint?"

I'd also take a moment to point out that when such a "tool" is created, it will be abused. The FBI has been caught in repeated scandals regarding its abuse and sloppiness regarding DNA evidence. Lately, the FBI practice of "testilying" about its ability to chemically match batches of lead to particular lots of bullets, which can be conclusively linked to the ones found in a suspect's possession, has been all but discredited as a twisted science fantasy. Yeah, let's give the LEOs innumerable amounts of discrete and mutable tool marks to play with. No concerns? You might be if your casing taken from a range by a criminal and planted at a murder scene "mathematically proves that only you or someone with access to your Glock could have committed the crime."

Mr. Januzzo speaks of an "intelligent" point at which to draw the line. Well it seems to me that the best way to avoid falling down the slippery slope into oblivion is to not let someone push you onto it in the first place, not volunteer to see just how slippery it is. The intelligent point to oppose BF is before the slope starts. Mr. Januzzo, and by extension, Glock, are missing that intelligent point right about now and missing it badly. I am not going to buy that Glock 20 I had my eye on after all. I'd rather buy something more anonymous that is not available for sale in NY or MD.

trapshooter
February 10, 2003, 11:07 PM
I second what Boats just said. That's an x-ring.

Is the water boiling yet?

Also, pretty fast spin-control to G-T. Must have tied up the phones in Smyrna, guys. I'm sure, given some of the boot-licking responses over there (G-T), that they'll go to sleep tonight in Smyrna secure in the knowledge that at least some people bought it.

We'll see what the bottom line is at year's end. How much will the piper charge?

gun-fucious
February 10, 2003, 11:30 PM
awwww come on, they wouldn't want to BF yer new trap shotgun would they?

MARYLAND SB 208 (http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/billfile/sb0208.htm)

Sponsored By Senators Forehand, Ruben, Britt, Conway, Exum, Garagiola, Grosfeld, Jones, Kelley, Lawlah, McFadden, and Teitelbaum

Entitled Firearms - Shell Casings and Other Identification Information
Committee
Assignments Senate: Judicial Proceedings

Synopsis:

Applying to all firearms specified requirements concerning shell casings and other identification information; requiring a manufacturer that ships or transports a firearm to be sold, rented, or transferred in the State to provide a separate sealed container with a specified shell casing and additional information; requiring a dealer to forward the sealed container to the Department of State Police on the sale, rental, or transfer of the firearm; etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


YES THEY WOULD!

Now how are they gonna BF a flintlock firearm?
i guess those become illegal to purchase in Maryland, just like all the 2003 Cowboy Action pistols this year

Gee maybe we can "compromise" and only loose assault weapons this year:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/billfile/sb0494.htm

JeremyIA
February 10, 2003, 11:36 PM
MN STRELOK--How's the weather up in MN? I'm a MN native boy myself. I grew up in south Minneapolis. Where 'bouts are you from? I don't mean to stir up bad blood. I just wanted to raise a flag to get people's attention. I own a Glock 23 and absolutely LOVE Glock pistols. I was considering the purchase of a Glock 36 later this year. Then again, I absolutely love the "value-priced" S&W 457 which is a very accurate little piece. It's coming out in stainless steel this year so I may forgo my Glock purchase in light of our current situation.

To all the other members.....I just received an email from a MAJOR Glock distributor with whom I have done business. He's probably the greatest person from whom I have purchased shooting products in the past. He always sends me free Birchwood Casey Shoot-n-See targets with my orders (no matter how much I order) and has gone out of his way to greater lengths than any business man in the firearms industry in order to satisfy his customers. However, he's not all that refined and his grammar his a bit hokey at times but he knows Gaston Glock personally. I'll stop being long winded. Here's the brief note he sent to me:

Jer:

They don't have a 2nd ammendment in AUSTRIA.
POLICE STATE.
They give 2 HHOTS ABOUT OUR CIVILINA rights, as they are an LE, MILTARY company, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK THEY MAKE ON CIVILIAN SALES.
THEY GIVE 2 hoots.
GSSF is their only "GIMME".
AS the models 34 & 35.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE PAUL JANUUZO 770-432-1202 ext 224 legal dept.

St. Gunner
February 10, 2003, 11:38 PM
The big question to me with all of this, is what happens if they get it in place, have it all set-up, and then spring on all of us that it doesn't work because they have no way to trace private transfers? Hasn't it already happened in states with a requirement for the ballistic fingerprint?

Some of us spend to much time trying to look for the silver lining in all the crap that gets thrown at us daily. Gun control issues are progressive by nature, they don't come out and ask for all of em at once, they work it piecemeal. Today it is a ballistic fingerprint, come on guys it solves crime. The next day it is, but the ballistic fingerprint doesn't work when the guy on the 4473 sold the gun in a private transfer. So in order to help us solve crime we need to stop private transfers, everyone has to go through a dealer, and hey it is a good thing the dealer can make a little money and stay in business.

All this as the BATF runs more and more guys out of the business.

It has to end, they have encroached and encroached and it is time to not only kick the camel, but to eviscerate the stinkin thing. What if 10,000 gun owners told Glock, "why don't you talk to S&W about kissing up to BATF. Ask them what it did to their bottom line."

But the gun rag writers(we all know who they are) will beg us to reconsider, not kill a company that is just trying to survive a brutal time. Tell ya what guys, any of you esteemed writers ever heard of the goal of feeding the tiger, all it does is ensure it eats you last. I don't want to spend my money on a company that refuses to stick their heads together with the group with integrity and realize a way to not appease the tiger, but beat the sucker to death. Charlie Beckworth is quoted as saying, "I'd rather travel up the river with 7 studs than a 100 sh*theads." Well that sumarizes my feelings on this matter totally and most of life in general.

I'm sick and tired of having supposed leaders of the culture tell me things could be worse, yep we keep saying that they will be. :fire:

El Rojo
February 10, 2003, 11:39 PM
What a mess.

rock jock
February 10, 2003, 11:42 PM
After reading Paul Januzzo's clarification, I take back some of my earlier criticism. I have changed my mind. I DO NOT believe anymore that this is registration. It is still a bad idea, but it is not registration. The only way it could hurt a gunowner is if the situation 4th Horseman comes up (i.e., a SHTF scenario). If that happens, they have already got your name from the 4473's. Think about it, let's say the Feds want to confiscate handguns. The BF system will give them nothing, no info to go on. Your name will not be part of the BF system. They will not rely on the BF system to find out you have guns; rather, they will have to use the existing 4473 database.

JeremyIA
February 10, 2003, 11:49 PM
Okay, I'll even concede that this does not necessarily mean that BF will lead to confiscation considering the "yellow forms" that are already in the hands of dealers and the federal gov't. However, this is going to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars that will lead to little if nothing with regards to solving gun murders. The antis DON'T want any of the new or existing laws to work. That's right. The Violence Policy Control Center does not want any of our gun laws to work. If the gun laws work then they can't make cases for more gun laws that won't work. Ultimately, they want to show that absolutely no gun laws work which will, in the minds of many, mean that confiscation is the only solution. Americans will blindly play into the hands of the confiscation nuts and ignore the failures of confiscation laws that have passed in places like Austrailia and the UK. If this law plays out, it will be another MAJOR gun law that will be another LANDMARK case to be made by the antis on why NO laws work. Hence.....confiscation....

stephen_g22
February 10, 2003, 11:51 PM
Okay, the liberals and their ilk seem to think that BF is the latest great thing to make our world safer for the childruuuun.

Most of the debate seems to be is Glock with us or against us. Where is the line in the sand? For some it is the support of a hypothetical BF database that is tied to the serial number of a pistol, not the owner. For others the line was crossed when the personal ownership of machine guns was banned. For others it will be when their hunting arms become the next pariah.

Gun owners argue about which gun organization, NRA, GOA, JFPO etc. best protects our 2nd Amendment rights. While all of them do some good, no one organization is right by all gun owners. Why?

Gun owners are diverse. We like to argue about 9mm vs .45, Glock vs. Sig, revolver vs. autoloader etc. Our tendenancys to lock horns over things like this work against us when the liberals come for our guns. We fight with each other rather than the enemy.

Is Glock with us or against us? There is no national legislation pending related to BF that Glock is supporting. They are not entering into agreements with government agencies. They are not testifying that no one needs a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. They are trying to make a "non-PC" product in a PC world. They have to appear as warm and fuzzy to the sheeple as possible. IMHO

I just think that as gun owners if we boycott every manufacturer that doesn't issue a "from my cold dead hands" level of statement whenever questioned about a particular issue, we will soon run out of gun manufacturers to purchase guns from and the anti's win.

When Glock supports a bill before Congress that erodes our 2nd Amendment rights, I will be the first to call for a boycott. If they go on CBS and come across neutral to supportive about a hypothetical ballistic fingerprinting database, I think I will wait and see what happens.

United we stand and divided we fall. The liberals will try to get us fighting amongst ourselves and we will doom our own cause.

I know I am rambling and not making any sense, but we, as gun owners need to pick our battles and our enemys. I don't think this is a battle (yet) and I don't think Glock is our enemy.

:banghead:

MitchSchaft
February 10, 2003, 11:53 PM
Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy?

This guy really does have the wrong idea! :uhoh:

MitchSchaft
February 10, 2003, 11:56 PM
Is Glock with us or against us?

Some people don't like to wait until it gets worse. Others will wait until the very end. The way I see it is you can either nip it in the bud now or when it may be too late; at the end.

ahadams
February 11, 2003, 12:03 AM
just a couple of comments:

1. Taurus USA - which told the clintonistas to take a hike, and also manages to produce the first DA .45 acp I can both afford *and* fits my hand. :D

2. Kimber - if you have either a Taurus or a Kimber why bother with a swiss plastic gun?:neener:

and hey - S&W ended up being bought out by real Americans, maybe glock USA will be too!

mdsteele
February 11, 2003, 12:03 AM
Actually, stephen_g22, Your post makes alot of sense. Thanks.

Boats
February 11, 2003, 01:03 AM
I cannot abide all of the "moral complexity" that is being imbued into this issue, which in reality is pretty easy to figure out:

Either you are on the parapets facing down the enemy or you are not. If you need a check of the compass on this one, you're too lost to help.

Then again Gaston is a French name non?:evil: Vivé l'esprit du lâcheté, eh Gaston?!?

Master Blaster
February 11, 2003, 09:34 AM
First it will be Only new guns, then It will be the old ones you send in for repair, the regulation of all gunsmiths will follow, soon it will be that you are not allowed to buy parts for your existing guns cause it might alter the fingerprint.

Then once this has had time to gel, they will be asking that you have a fingerprint done on every gun you own, at your expense, then you will need to show a certificate before you can buy any ammo or reloading supplies, a certificate indicating that you own a gun in the caliber of the ammo being purchased, and that it has been fingerprinted. Next it will be a felony to have an unfingerprinted gun in your possession.

You cant fingerprint a shotgun, shotguns will become illegal LEO only weapons next.

Yes it will happen one small step at a time this is the ultimate goal.

Boycott GLORK and send a clear message, that traitors will not be tollerated.

I called Mr. Januzzo, and of course was transferred to the leagl department I suggest you do the same.

Unless of course you dont care about your rights.


One step at a time:fire:

Leatherneck
February 11, 2003, 10:09 AM
No Glocks for me. And I was thinking of trying on a small .40 for CCW. You screwed the pooch on this one, Januzzo.:fire:

TC
TFL Survivor

BenW
February 11, 2003, 11:10 AM
Well, I stated we shouldn't jump to conclusions without checking around first. Checking around seems to be sinking Glock, as evidenced in this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8383

jar
February 11, 2003, 12:17 PM
Forget the 60 Minutes interview. Maybe that was edited.

But this is from his faxed statement

and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

If THAT is GLOCKs attitude then they are in deep kimshee.

Braz
February 11, 2003, 12:24 PM
We spanked S&W,

They're still in business. Just under a new ownership. You keep falling back to re-group, if that's what your heart tells you to do. My line in the sand is here.

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 01:29 PM
What the H*LL is this idiot. Januzzo, thinking?!?
Glock will not always be a LEO primary gun. Others will follow. They always have. Glock will need the support of the civilian population soon. It won't be there.:cuss:
I expect Glock to make a job replacement real soon.
Maybe Januzzo can work for one us? NO WAY!

hops
February 11, 2003, 02:58 PM
First, grateful thanks to the person who made the 60 minutes segment available for downloading!

Overall, in trying view the piece from an unbiased point of view, the BF segment was not 'too' bad. Could have been a lot worse. 60 mins at least made 'some' effort to show both sides 'pros and cons' of the issue.

Having said that:

1) Glock screwed up big time! I was looking at a 10mm toy and Glock just lost a potential sale!

2) BF gives 'them' a potential list of suspects. Wayne did ok in explaining that part of BF BS. I feel that a lot of honest people will get to explain their whereabouts to Law Enforcement.

3) BF is going to cost us in $. Tax on guns, tax on what ever. All it means is more money to the Feds and less of my hard earned money for me.

4) I see lots of ways to defeat BF, if I ever were to even consider using a gun in a criminal venture. Would be quite easy to give LE a decoy to just send them the wrong way.

5) Yes, we'll all get to take our hand guns in possession to a federal testing center once this BF BS is up and running for all new guns. Give gov.org and nanometer and they'll take a terameter.

Disclaimer: I own no Glocks, but think they are ok handguns. Also, I do not watch 60mins ever since the Audi butcher job many years ago. I'm very baised against what ever 60mins does. They are scum bags.

rock jock
February 11, 2003, 05:32 PM
BF gives 'them' a potential list of suspects.
Please explain this. BF gives the police a list of potential matches, that must then be investigated by going to the dealers that sold those potential matches.

We need to be careful about how we categorize BF, as presented in the 60 Minutes segment. It is a very bad idea because of all the other reason you list (costs too much, can easily be defeated, may lead to a system which cross-matches names which this proposed system does not). However, it is NOT registration. If we continue to blather on about how this is registration, we look stupid. Argue against the system based on what it is, not what it is not. I think many here are having a knee-jerk reaction, as I first did when I heard about the story. Further examination reveals that it cannot possibly lead to confiscation on its own. I also retract my earlier comment - I don't think Glock has violated our rights by supporting this program.

Monkeyleg
February 11, 2003, 05:50 PM
rock jock, let's say it doesn't lead to registration, that it just has the "fingerprint" of the gun tied to the serial number. It's not going to lead to just one gun, it's going to lead to dozens, perhaps hundreds. And, when it does, you may be one of those who gets a visit from the Law.

They're not just going to be able to look at you and say, "have a nice day." They're going to need to take your gun to test-fire it for ballistics. When you'll get it back is anyone's guess. Will it be rusted, scratched?

And what if They are in such a rush, and are so certain, that they use SWAT tactics to visit you?

The cost of this system is going to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's say it's going to cost $500 billion. How much will that add to the cost of a new gun? There's roughly 240,000,000 guns in the US right now. That's $2083 per gun. While the gubmint probably won't charge that for every gun, the public is going to want gun buyers to pick up some of the cost. How much?

It's a taxpayer boondoggle, and just another senseless infringement on gun owners.

And I never could warm up to Glocks, either.

:neener:

rock jock
February 11, 2003, 06:15 PM
Good points, monekyleg. And I don't disagree with any of them (with the exceptoin of your cost estimate - there is no way this would cost hundreds of billions). I simply want us to argue intelligently aginst the system. I would also reiterate that while it is a bad idea, it does not necessarily violate our rights and I think a boycott of Glock at this stage is unwarranted.

riverdog
February 11, 2003, 06:39 PM
The cost of this system is going to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's say it's going to cost $500 billion. Where on Earth did you arrive at those numbers? $500 Billion with a "B" like in Bull?

I don't like the idea of a national data base either for a number of reasons, including the great potential for false positives. However, throwing out $500 Billion as the program cost is BS. There's obviously a lot of emotions running rampant right now. I'd suggest you all look at this a lot more rationally and stick to facts. That said ...

Incrementalism will lead the gun control types out there to want all guns (new, used and currently owned) "fingerprinted", the data base has too many holes without having every firearm included. Without all firearms listed, a shell casing from a firearm not on the list will be compared only to firearms listed. There will be a couple or more potential matches in a given geographic area and all of those matches will be false. Therefore all firearms must be listed or there's no point in starting down the path.

For those of you who think that the list does not constitute registration, how will all the not-newly-manufactured handguns get on the list? In order to get the fingerprint of a not-new handgun, you first need the handgun, which requires a serial number put to a current owner so the firearm can be obtained for testing. Names >>> Serial Numbers >>> FP.

How can they avoid having a registration list as part of the complete firearm fingerprint database? Beats the hell outta me. So for those who think that they can limit this database to just new firearms ... that too is BS.

P12
February 11, 2003, 06:40 PM
We all know who will bear most of this cost. US!! Let's just go ahead and call it a "Ballistic Fingerprint Tax" Because that's what it will be.

So;

BF Tax = Class III Tax = Poll Tax = INFRINGEMENT

I can't see this any other way.

SCROOOUM

Monkeyleg
February 11, 2003, 07:08 PM
"Where on Earth did you arrive at those numbers? $500 Billion with a "B" like in Bull? "

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Yeah, hyperbole got the best of me. Looking up some numbers, I found that it cost Maryland $1.1 million to start up the system and $750,000 annually to keep it running. NY's system cost $4.5 million, and there's no numbers for annual operational costs. So, we're talking somewhere between $50 and $100 million to start, and sums close to that for upkeep. Tack on whatever percentage you want for federal incompetency, and it's still a lot of money for nothing.

Boats
February 11, 2003, 07:26 PM
I would also reiterate that while it is a bad idea, it does not necessarily violate our rights and I think a boycott of Glock at this stage is unwarranted.

I think a boycott of Glock is entirely warranted. They are actively participating in an attempt to create a viable BF technology scheme. It is not the canard of having the BF only matching a serial number--hence no confiscation that alarms me, it is something else.

Something that Glock shooters have in common with 1911 fans such as myself is the amenability of the respective platforms for DIY gunsmithing. National BF, to have any systemic integrity at all, absolutely requires constancy of conditions. No breechface mods, no extractor claw shaping, no firing pin change, no custom ejector, no match barrel for you. Either aftermarket "tinkering" will be outlawed, or replacement parts installation will have to be performed by a licensed smith who will refingerprint your weapon, everytime it is modified. Such a scheme is plausible and a necessary outcome of BF. This infringement would drive many away from the increased "hassle" of owning a firearm. When there aren't as many people to protest, then you get into the talk about type banning until our Olympic shooting team has to travel to the Third World to practice.

Which brings us back to Glock. Say you are manning the perimeter of a besieged position. How much or how long would you tolerate one of your "trustworthy" fellows traipsing through the wire to conduct actions that further the strength of the enemy against your position?

Glock needs to be shot for treachery.

tetchaje1
February 11, 2003, 07:30 PM
I've never liked Glock's corporate policy in regards to continually turning out ergonomic bricks, refusals to address the kB!-non-problem, recalls...er...voluntary upgrades, out-of-battery firing, etc...

It was for those reasons that I have never bought a Glock, though I do admit that I have eyeballed the 33 and 26's many, many times and have nearly purchased one several times.

This just solidifies my position that I will NEVER own a Glock.

:fire:

Airwolf
February 11, 2003, 07:48 PM
My response to Glock.

After seeing and reading through comments and statements on many firearms forums, I had come to the conclusion that Glock's stated corporate polices are not in my best interests as a law-abiding American.

The final straw came in the form of this statement issued on the GSSF website www.gssfonline.com/2002/hot_topics/glockofficialstatement.htm

GLOCK IS NOT keeping a database on ballistic fingerprint of GLOCK pistols being shipped and neither are we giving anyone else data to retain. We are not collecting any data that could be put into a database. The questions about ballistic fingerprinting were conceptual in nature as the technology is yet to be proven.

Yes, GLOCK is capturing shell casings at the time of test firing. For a firearm to be shipped to either Maryland or New York it must be accompanied by shell casings. Otherwise, law abiding citizens in Maryland and New York could not purchase handguns of any sort.

Since GLOCK may be the only handgun manufacturer that test fires every single weapon it ships, we capture shell casings from each pistol and put them in a manila envelope. Nothing further is done with the shell casings. No ballistic fingerprint is taken, no data is collected and, therefore, no data is or can be stored.

Contrast Glock's official statement with the following:
www.atf.treas.gov/press/speech/fy00/040700ggdsymposium.htm

ATF is now making this computer technology available to police authorities around the country through the National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN). This network is a joint effort between ATF and the FBI to provide the latest technology to our state and local partners. Under this arrangement ATF will be responsible for the ballistics technology and the FBI will provide the computer network that will join the state and local systems together. Currently this provides a valuable tool for law enforcement authorities that will allow us to associate a suspect or a firearm with seemingly unrelated crimes. The future of this technology offers even greater potential. ATF is currently conducting a pilot project with Glock, wherein they will capture digital image a test fire shell casing for handgun they manufacture. That image will be associated with the serial number of the firearm in a computer database. Later if a shell casing is recovered at a crime scene it could be compared against the Glock database. This comparison could lead to the identification of the exact weapon that fired the round. Without ever recovering a firearm ATF could then trace the weapon used in the crime.

mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0211.rtf

In December 1999, the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the FBI signed a Memorandum of Understanding that requires the two agencies to work cooperatively by taking advantage of the strengths of ATF's Integrated Ballistics Information System (IBIS) and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system to create one Nationwide Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The ATF will have overall responsibility for all current and future system sites and the FBI will establish and maintain a high-speed, secure communication network. The Glock manufacturing company has agreed to submit ballistics data on all handguns made at their plants to NIBIN.


It would seem that Glock has in the past submitted ballistics data to government agencies. My suspicions would lead me to consider that you still are.

I would gather from this information that Glock already has established technologies and protocols to implement a ballistics database with the knowledge and participation of the federal government. The "60 Minutes" report was only letting the cat out of the bag.

I will never consider purchase of a Glock product unless and until a full public retraction of your untenable position is made. I will actively discourage anyone I meet with an interest in firearms from purchasing a Glock product.

4thHorseman
February 11, 2003, 07:55 PM
"Since GLOCK may be the only handgun manufacturer that test fires every single weapon it ships, we capture shell casings from each pistol and put them in a manila envelope. Nothing further is done with the shell casings. No ballistic fingerprint is taken, no data is collected and, therefore, no data is or can be stored."

Bullsh*t!:cuss:
Why are they spending money to store all these hundred of thousands of shell casings unless they have a further use for them.

Al Norris
February 11, 2003, 08:24 PM
So the Feds aren't considering a BF law? Then you haven't kept pace with this:

Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108cgMAwl:e465882:)

Then tell me it's not coming down the pike!:fire:

GAMALOT
February 11, 2003, 08:27 PM
YOUR TAX DOLLARS HARD AT WORK!
I cannot imagine the cost of implementing this new data base and the cost of employing all the new staff for the FBI & ATBF
and even at Glock but I am certain who is paying for it and my tax dollars are once again being used for something I am in total disagreement of.
What I find most upsetting is the results on election eve when I realize many of the same voices heard here today, voted the idiots who sponsor these assinine bills into office.
Just consider where we would be today if Gore was in the WH and then remember, HE GOT AT LEAST 50% of the votes.
We will never get our message accross when at least half of our friends and loved ones are voting against us.

Uncle Ethan
February 11, 2003, 08:52 PM
Al, your link didn't work-give me a place to go-I'm really interested.

Al Norris
February 11, 2003, 10:16 PM
Gads! it worked when I posted it. Blasted government computers!!

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and type in S. 22 in the search box. Scroll down (about 3/4's of the way) till you find Part 2 of the included "Our Lady of the Peace Act"

Sir Galahad
February 11, 2003, 10:37 PM
Glad I bought a Springfield XD-40. You do have a choice. XD! (Better pistol, too, IMHO)

trapshooter
February 11, 2003, 11:51 PM
This isn't court. I can judge for myself. Only an idiot can't see what's happening here. It appears likely that Glock is already coughing up the fired cases of every gun it has sold (with the possible exception of LE sales, but I wouldn't bet on that, either). After all, what's the point of giving the Feds 50 cases, or a 100? Half a hog ain't a hog. They are not on our side since that started, if they ever were.

IF I owned a Glock, (which I don't), it would be sold tomorrow, if not already. You poor suckers who bought them will have to decide for yourselves. I've got nothing to lose, as I only owned a G19 for about a month, and got rid of it. I never cared for Glocks, and never really understood what people see in them. I'm not particularly biased against the guns, I just don't like them. That's a personal preference. Given Glocks actions of late, not just the BF stuff, I think that just this once, I've made the right choice in not buying another one.

The thing that worries me, is, how many other manufacturer's are or have been doing the same, and haven't been stupid enough to puke it to 60 Minutes, or someone else?

What better way for the anti's to get what they want, than by coercing and co-opting the gun manufacturers?

Someone asked where the line was. Well, it's drawn every day. It's here, it's now, and the fight has been on for many years. We are losing. Slowly, to be sure, but losing nonetheless. Every year, more laws are passed that restrict what rights we have left. We whine, we commiserate with those who live in locations with laws more onerous than ours, we write e-mails, letters, and send money to the NRA, GOA, etc. And what happens? More useless laws get passed that only we obey, albeit grudgingly. The crooks just laugh and go on doing whatever they please.

We settle for 'deals', and 'negotiation' for 'reasonable compromises' that let us keep what we have, while surrendering more for those that follow.

What are you going to do about it? Vote? Yeah, I vote. Maybe that forestalls the inevitable for a bit. But I'm realistic. I may never have to make the hard choice. Maybe someday, someone will. But that's the plan. A push here, a push there, and were off the cliff one day without even realizing it.

Like many have said before, how hot is the water? Is it boiling yet?

rock jock
February 12, 2003, 12:08 AM
There is no way that the feds can make minor modifications to your gun illegal. My goodness, they are going to happen over time on their own due to wear and will be accelerated by a alck of maintenance. Take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion - are you telling me that the feds will be sending folks to prison because they did not properly clean their handgun, and therefore accelerated the rate of wear and consequent change in the ballistic signature?

For those of you who are so disgusted that you want to sell your Glcok, let me know and I will be glad to take it off your hands. Oh, and I know that you would be selling out of principle so price would not be a factor in your decision.

MN_Strelok
February 12, 2003, 12:37 AM
JeremyIA: MN STRELOK--How's the weather up in MN?

Dunno, unfortunately I'm an Illinoisan. The MN in my id stands for Mosin-Nagant, but so far I'm 3 and 0 for people thinking it's Minnesota. ;)

JeremyIA: However, this is going to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars that will lead to little if nothing with regards to solving gun murders.

When it comes to the arguments for and against ballistic recognition, I think this is the most important point to remember. The best case result (solving more crimes that have already been committed) cannot possibly outweigh the probable financial costs and invasiveness of such a system.

4thHorseman: Why are they spending money to store all these hundred of thousands of shell casings unless they have a further use for them.

It's my understanding that the casings go to the state if the weapon is sold in a place with "fingerprinting" laws. Everywhere else they just drop the casings in the box with the pistol.

Airwolf: It would seem that Glock has in the past submitted ballistics data to government agencies.

That's some extremely interesting information. I notice they consistently use the future tense though (i.e. "they will capture" and "has agreed to submit"). That struck me as odd so I looked around for anything that would confirm such a program is ongoing. Here's what I found:

"Actually, Glock Inc. has been providing spent cases to the ATF in a test program since November 1999. But only cases. Now it appears that their program will become a permanent one." -- Joseph P. Tartaro, April 1, 2000 (http://www.gunweek.com/archives/2000/hs040100.html)

"In FY2000, Glock G.m.b.H. – a leading manufacturer of handguns – initiated a feasibility study to ballistically image newly manufactured handguns. Glock initiated this study because the firm viewed ballistics imaging as a more viable alternative than proposals being considered by the Clinton Administration to require that serial numbers be etched onto the inside areas of gun barrels, so that the serial numbers could not be obliterated. The imaging equipment and data rights being used in this study belong solely to Glock, and ATF does not have access to the images generated by this study." -- William C. Boesman and William J. Krouse, July 3, 2001 (http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/leg_pdf/gun2.pdf)

"Firearm fingerprinting can be an invaluable tool to law enforcement since it can link together crimes that otherwise would be pursued as separate cases. An automated tracing system has been created (Integrated Ballistics Identification System) to implement this scheme... In addition to recording the markings from guns used in crimes, the system is designed to record markings from the test firing of every new gun. Currently, manufacturer participation is voluntary and only Glock USA, is contributing information to the database." -- Bartholomew Roberts, October 25, 2002 (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html)

Yohan
February 12, 2003, 12:39 AM
My response to Glock-

"Sir, your guns are ugly

-Sincerely
Yohan"

ojibweindian
February 12, 2003, 09:30 AM
Never liked Glocks. Hate them now.

Airwolf
February 12, 2003, 06:10 PM
I didn't see this tidbit posted before so I thought I'd add it to the thread for completeness and to give us a more detailed historical record of these events.

A member of full-auto.com contacted Glock to find out what the deal *really* was.

full-auto.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004307

I'm leaving the link cold since Full-Auto doesn't have our "standards of decorum" :D

I'm also editing this to stay within THR standards.

********

I have been very vocal (imagine that!) with all my friends, congresscritters, etc on my RKBA position, and I wont start laying low now.

I was fairly troubled after 60 minutes Sunday night. I did the Glocktalk thing, and was watching the thread. Mr [Jannuzzo] released a fax yesterday, which you can ready for yourself here.

After reading his position, I decided to call and leave him a goodbye message. Switchboard put me through to Legal, which told me to hold on. He, [Jannuzzo] answered.

We chatted for a few minutes, he was very aggressive/defensive from word one. After he saw I wasnt swayed by his attempt to rationalize his position, he said and I quote, "This whole thing was started by a bunch of Internet yay-hoos". I was thinking, who the **** is he calling a yay-hoo? He proceeded to imply 60 Minutes did a spin, which I dont doubt, but I aksed, If they spun you so bad, why did your fax not relay that thought, and why did it reenforce your position of pro BF?

He then told me,"You obviously havent been listening to a G** Damn word I have said. Click.

*********

That pretty well speaks for itself, does it not.

It would appear that Glock really doesn’t think much of a large portion of its customer base.

Well, THIS "Internet yay-hoo" will be doing his best to see your business pay the price for such misjudgment and unfathomable arrogance.

4thHorseman
February 12, 2003, 06:16 PM
Airwolf, this interner yay-hoo is with you 100%.
Good job by the way in getting through to him. Thanks for reporting the Jannuzzo conversation to us.

hops
February 12, 2003, 06:44 PM
The power of the internet. Yahoo's indeed!

I've followed this issue on the net. Spent time at GT today getting all caught up.

The information made available via the net to 'inform' us all and launch a grass roots movement to protect what little rights we still have on this issue is just awesome.

I caught wind of this monday. downloaded the 60 minute mpeg to judge for myself. posted my somewhat informed opinion, then followed more links on the net about BF and related items, all links gathered and posted by other members.

I think Glock has no clue, up until now, what firestorm they have unleased upon themselves with this, in such an incredible short time.

I think the VP of Glock and Glock are just now beginning to realize what is going on. We're are too well versed in seeing though spin-control, having lived with that from the Klinton administration for 8 years.

Keep Glock's feet to the fire I say! Glock managment are getting nervous. A frusturated VP just makes the point.

MN_Strelok
February 12, 2003, 06:46 PM
After reading his position, I decided to call and leave him a goodbye message. Switchboard put me through to Legal, which told me to hold on. He, [Jannuzzo] answered.

I suppose it's possible that a Glock VP is answering angry phone calls, but I'm not sure we should be taking a full-auto.com post at face value.

MitchSchaft
February 12, 2003, 06:53 PM
Are you saying he made it up?

MN_Strelok
February 12, 2003, 06:57 PM
I'm saying I have no idea who he is, and I'm not in the habit of believing every unsubstantiated thing I hear. If I did that I'd probably be anti-gun. ;)

MitchSchaft
February 12, 2003, 07:01 PM
http://www.gun-talk.com/ubb/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Airwolf
February 12, 2003, 07:27 PM
Just to be clear. I am only reporting the incident as posted on Full-Auto.com. I am not the one that made the call.

I share a certain amount of skepticism about the event as posted but we all know stranger things have happened.

Given how oblivious Glock has been from the start of this whole event and how out of touch they seem to be with their "civilian" customers, I have a gut level feeling that the conversation probably did take place much as stated.

I have also seen several postings from people that have claimed to have dealt directly with Mr. Jannuzzo. Most of the comments I’ve seen regarding this gentleman wouldn't clear the language filters here.

Taking all the information we are finding, I think the assessment that Glock has pretty well sold its corporate soul in order to obtain government contracts for its products seems to explain most, if not all their behavior.

The "Internet yay-hoo's" like us are not considered important to their business success.

I'd like to prove them wrong in the worst way.

rock jock
February 12, 2003, 10:07 PM
Well, in his defense there is a lot of disinformation being thrown around on the Internet boards, including this one. There are still folks calling this registration, which it is not. There are still folks claiming that BF is a violation of our rights, and yet they fail to explain exactly how. We all agree it is a bad idea, but from my perspective it is because it simply won't work, it is a feel-good attempt at crime control. Most of reactions I have seen with their vitriolic comments and cries for boycotts are based purely on emotionalism. It makes us look like a bunch of soccer moms.

Airwolf
February 12, 2003, 11:22 PM
EDITED:

Moved post to: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8801

clem
February 12, 2003, 11:31 PM
I was over at WWW.glocktalk.com (I'm not a member) reading some of their members postings.

My God they are in denial about what VP Paul Januzzo said on television!

4thHorseman
February 13, 2003, 01:05 AM
Yeah, read the comment from the forum moderator on Glocks forum. Denial is the first step in realization. Heck all the ideals were sold out from under them in a matte of minutes. 60 Minutes to be exact.
Those guys are devistated over there. :(

Silver Bullet
February 13, 2003, 02:20 PM
This makes me wonder if any other manufacturers have started to keep case ballistic prints. I guess I need to query them before I buy. We should keep tabs on them in a separate thread.

As in, "These manufacturer are known to keep ballistic fingerprints on new firearms they sell:

1. Glock
2. ..
3 ..

These manufacturers claim they do NOT keep ballistic fingerprints on new firearms they sell:

1. ..
2. ..
3. ..

Silver Bullet
February 13, 2003, 07:11 PM
I'm not being sarcastic ! I'm seriously suggesting that we might want to track manufacturers for their involvement with this scheme. Anybody about to buy a new firearm could, if they want, check out how their manufacturer is behaving on this issue.

(Nobody was responding to my last post, I thought maybe nobody knew how to take my suggestion :) . I killed the thread ! :) More likely, of course, nobody cares about my idea ! :) )

twoblink
February 13, 2003, 08:15 PM
I'm a Grock basher... I can't stand them, 2x4 in the hand. But, they go bang when you pull the trigger, and Sara Brady hates it and so despite my personal perferences, I have no problems with other people buying a grock..

That said;

This situation is like your wife coming home, and finding you in bed with another woman (Sara Brady/60 Minutes) and you can say all you want to, "It's not what it looks like honey, I can explain". And when your wife storms out and you are served with divorce papers the next day, you complain about how you weren't given a chance to explain.

The situation is bad, no explaination needed. Anything that is said later on is simply damage control, that's it.

I have a friend who specializes in "data-mining" which is basically what this is. Yes, what he said is true; but if I then add a manditory gun purchase registration, then I can link ballistics to a serial number, and a serial number to you, and so that means I can link ballistics to you.. Because gun-fingerprinting is so inaccurate, I might be charged with a crime that I was nowhere near! That thought alone brings out the 1984/Brave New World fears in me..

For those who read SQL:

SELECT name, address, phone FROM registrants WHERE ballistics.glock = glock.4473
AND registrants.4473 = name.registrants

A simple database call, and I have linked a ballistics to a person's name.

It's for confiscation folks, plain and simple. If you can't read the writing on the wall, then learn to read SQL.

MountainPeak
February 13, 2003, 10:18 PM
Gaston Glock bragged about his cooperation with BATF in implementing a BF program in the 2000 Glock Annual. I'm glad I don't wait for "Sixty Minutes" for BREAKING news!:banghead:

Inspector Callahan
February 13, 2003, 10:28 PM
The combination of Glock dragging their feet on civilian gun issues affected by the recall, and now this, is definately enough for me to take a sideways look. Especially after I read the back-pedalling statement from the Glock VP after this 60 Minutes thing blew up. Sheesh. You are either for the Second Amendment or you are against it. Period.

Ruger. Smith and Wesson. Now Glock. Who's next?

Lightsped
February 13, 2003, 11:56 PM
What is the best email to use to email Glock about this issue?

Someone should make one of those online petitions. Write it up nicely reminding Glock of what happened to S&W not so long ago.

Wrangler
February 14, 2003, 01:47 AM
GLOCK Inc. USA, Canada
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
USA
Tel.: +1 770 - 432 1202
Fax.: +1 770 - 433 8719

Airwolf
February 14, 2003, 02:47 AM
You may also express your thoughts at:

http://www.gssfonline.com/

Click on the guestbook - lower left. They are apparently leaving all of the postings up (execpt one that I saw that was deleted for language).

M58
February 14, 2003, 03:46 AM
Inspector has it right.
If you guys believe what you are saying, Glock, Ruger and S&W should all be destroyed.
Soon you will find reasons to go after Sig and HK.

Reminds me of the elite shotgunners: no need for handguns.:banghead:

Boats
February 14, 2003, 09:04 AM
Find reasons?

We are being given reasons. It is amusing to see these guys who are called the "braintrust" of their respective companies earn the distrust of their most important resource--their customers. Bravo! How stupid do you have to be to not take a lesson from S&W's tribulations?

Sven
February 21, 2003, 02:22 PM
Chime in on the Yahoo message board:

http://post.news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=NEWS&action=l&ft=1&board=37138456&sid=37138456&title=Austrian%20Handgun%20Maker%20Glock%26%2339%3Bs%20Top%20U.S.%20Official%20Resigns&tid=dowjones200302210059000021&date=02-21-2003&url=story.news.yahoo.com%2Fnews%3Ftmpl%3Dstory%26u%3D%2Fdowjones%2F20030221%2Fbs_dowjones%2F200302210059000021&.sig=tgg7DOCbdCuUnpN7tlnY1w--

If you enjoyed reading about ""60 Minutes" tonight (Glock might not be our friend)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!