Paul Barrett’s: Glock, The Rise of America’s Gun
- Thread starter Cheytac
- Start date
- Status
NinjaFeint
Member
That is his only post on this website
ol' scratch
Member
I heard your interview on NPR. Very nice interview. It is sad that you can't own the firearm you want in NYC and you have to travel to the desert to shoot.First, thanks for the interest in my book. Much appreciated.
No need for devotees of the venerable 1911 to take offense at my subtitle. I have great respect for the 1911's historic role. "The Rise of America's Gun" indicates that Glock became the iconic handgun of the late 20th century when Americans (cops, civilians, movie directors) adopted the Austrian pistol as their own. I chose the words carefully. I did not call it an "American Gun." On many levels, the Glock became America's Gun.
To those who have posted positive reactions to the uncorrected galley proof, my thanks! The final version of the book will be released Jan 10, 2012 (with typos fixed). You can preorder a copy right now, at a fat discount, from Amazon.com. I'd appreciate pre-orders, because they signal demand, and that signal ripples back through Amazon to my publisher, Crown. The more early demand, the more likely Crown will do a second printing more quickly.
If you are a serious blogger or freqent poster to firearm websites (or any websites, for that matter), I can arrange for you to gain online access to the galley. To make that arrangement with Crown, I will need a personal email. Send to me at [email protected]. You have to commit to writing a review and getting it around. This isn't supposed to be a way to score a freebie.
Thanks and all the best,
Paul Barrett
www.glockthebook.com
ol' scratch
Member
This really isn't a book about how great Glock is. It is a book about the history of Glock and the pistol's effect on pop culture. There are plenty of books about the 1911 and how influential John Browning was to the development of many firearms. By the way, I am speaking to you from the perspective of a huge 1911 fanatic who can't stand to shoot a Glock.
NYC Shoots
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5
I have read with interest comments about Paul Barrett's views on NRA, and RTKBA.
Let me offer a perspective from one who probably knows more about his writing on gun issues than most who have posted on this forum.
I lived in NYC for 18 years. Part of that time was spent running (as an unpaid volunteer) educational shooting events for opinion leaders in the NYC major market press. The events were run on weekends at a range near NYC and they consisted of an NRA FIRST Steps pistol course, a Q & A session on gun laws, explanation of firearms technology that confuse media (e.g. "assualt rifle" falacies), a look at NY and NJ gun laws, and much more. The intent was to provide media with an education experience, live fire, a chance to meet gun owners including NJ's champion shooters, factual information on gun ownership, and establish ourselves as sources should a journalist need information.
Mr. Barrett was among many journalists who were invited because he was covering the gun industry for the Wall Street Journal with a more junior writer and colleage named Vanessa. (I forgot her last name.) You would think that this opportunity (especially the live fire) would interest anyone who covered the gun industry as regularly as Mr. Barrett. Unhappily, however, he declined to attend each and every time we invited him and often did not return phone calls or even RSVP to written invitations. In contrast, Vanessa did attend as well as many other writers from the WSJ and other media outlets.
Mr. Barrett's coverage of the lawsuits against the industry were more troubling than his lack of open mindedness towards getting a free and fun education on guns. Many of his articles had subtle and sometimes blatant bias, and they reeked of a man with anti gun agenda. His articles appeared during the "post Columbine Clinton era" where our Second Amendment rights were at no greater risk. As memory serves me, one article that made the front page, "Six Who made a Differerence", undescored his disdain for Jim Baker at NRA and NRA's tremendous influence at stopping anti-gun legislation.
His coverage was in fact so cleverly biased against gun makers and NRA that a senior person at the WSJ asked a senior member of the NSSF if he thought Mr. Barrett was "fair." During that same meeting, a senior member of an organization I will not name said that "Paul impressed me as having an agenda and would some day write a book on the gun industry." Funny how correct that prediction turned out to be.
Now, in 2012, Mr. Barrett wants to sell books to people who support an industry he showed bias against while writing for the WSJ. He even made it to the SHOT Show this month to promote his book not knowing that many remember him more clearly that he may desire.
I asked a friend at Glock what he thought about the book. His response was that nobody at Glock would talk to him, so he became angry and interviewed people who had been fired from Glock to get "dirt". My friend also said that there were many material inaccuracies in the book.
Will I read the book? Yes, but not buy it. Mr. Barrett may have become more fair minded about guns since he wrote those biased articles years ago, but the more likely scenario is that he is acting opportunistically to befriend people who he would strip of their gun rights if given the chance.
For a read on Glock from a fair-minded reporter that actually flew to Austria to meet Gaston Glock and his family, see this 2003 article in Forbes magazine that Mr. Barrett surely used as a source for his book. Here's the link. http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0331/020.html
Let me offer a perspective from one who probably knows more about his writing on gun issues than most who have posted on this forum.
I lived in NYC for 18 years. Part of that time was spent running (as an unpaid volunteer) educational shooting events for opinion leaders in the NYC major market press. The events were run on weekends at a range near NYC and they consisted of an NRA FIRST Steps pistol course, a Q & A session on gun laws, explanation of firearms technology that confuse media (e.g. "assualt rifle" falacies), a look at NY and NJ gun laws, and much more. The intent was to provide media with an education experience, live fire, a chance to meet gun owners including NJ's champion shooters, factual information on gun ownership, and establish ourselves as sources should a journalist need information.
Mr. Barrett was among many journalists who were invited because he was covering the gun industry for the Wall Street Journal with a more junior writer and colleage named Vanessa. (I forgot her last name.) You would think that this opportunity (especially the live fire) would interest anyone who covered the gun industry as regularly as Mr. Barrett. Unhappily, however, he declined to attend each and every time we invited him and often did not return phone calls or even RSVP to written invitations. In contrast, Vanessa did attend as well as many other writers from the WSJ and other media outlets.
Mr. Barrett's coverage of the lawsuits against the industry were more troubling than his lack of open mindedness towards getting a free and fun education on guns. Many of his articles had subtle and sometimes blatant bias, and they reeked of a man with anti gun agenda. His articles appeared during the "post Columbine Clinton era" where our Second Amendment rights were at no greater risk. As memory serves me, one article that made the front page, "Six Who made a Differerence", undescored his disdain for Jim Baker at NRA and NRA's tremendous influence at stopping anti-gun legislation.
His coverage was in fact so cleverly biased against gun makers and NRA that a senior person at the WSJ asked a senior member of the NSSF if he thought Mr. Barrett was "fair." During that same meeting, a senior member of an organization I will not name said that "Paul impressed me as having an agenda and would some day write a book on the gun industry." Funny how correct that prediction turned out to be.
Now, in 2012, Mr. Barrett wants to sell books to people who support an industry he showed bias against while writing for the WSJ. He even made it to the SHOT Show this month to promote his book not knowing that many remember him more clearly that he may desire.
I asked a friend at Glock what he thought about the book. His response was that nobody at Glock would talk to him, so he became angry and interviewed people who had been fired from Glock to get "dirt". My friend also said that there were many material inaccuracies in the book.
Will I read the book? Yes, but not buy it. Mr. Barrett may have become more fair minded about guns since he wrote those biased articles years ago, but the more likely scenario is that he is acting opportunistically to befriend people who he would strip of their gun rights if given the chance.
For a read on Glock from a fair-minded reporter that actually flew to Austria to meet Gaston Glock and his family, see this 2003 article in Forbes magazine that Mr. Barrett surely used as a source for his book. Here's the link. http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0331/020.html
SleazyRider
Member
That's a pretty powerful accusation, backed up by mere hearsay, from a one-time poster. Mr. Barrett's writing speaks for itself, be it gun control or Gaston Glock. I'm far from an apologist for him, but his ample footnotes and references suggest a highly objective and open minded approach to a very controversial subject. I suggest you follow his example with your rebuttal.
In the meantime, it sounds like sour grapes because he didn't attend your party.
In the meantime, it sounds like sour grapes because he didn't attend your party.
I'm interested to see Mr. Barrett's response, as he has obviously been reading THR and this thread.
Reminder to both: there's a reason this forum is named what it is. Let's keep it civil, factual, and leave the ad hominem out of it, regardless of your position.
Reminder to both: there's a reason this forum is named what it is. Let's keep it civil, factual, and leave the ad hominem out of it, regardless of your position.
Paul Barrett
Member
barrett here
I am traveling and will respond in full this evening.
I am tempted to say nothing and let this blast of ad hominem hostility speak for itself.
But since THR has asked me to answer, I will do so.
No need to remind me to be civil. That's my m.o. My critic's use of personal smear and insult, by contrast, are surely beneath the dignity of this website. The instinct to employ that style of argument reveals a great deal about the critic and ought to raise immediate doubts about the substance of his verbal assault.
All best,
Paul Barrett
Author, GLOCK: The Rise of America's Gun
I am traveling and will respond in full this evening.
I am tempted to say nothing and let this blast of ad hominem hostility speak for itself.
But since THR has asked me to answer, I will do so.
No need to remind me to be civil. That's my m.o. My critic's use of personal smear and insult, by contrast, are surely beneath the dignity of this website. The instinct to employ that style of argument reveals a great deal about the critic and ought to raise immediate doubts about the substance of his verbal assault.
All best,
Paul Barrett
Author, GLOCK: The Rise of America's Gun
NYC Shoots
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5
You need to read my post again. I do not attack Mr. Barrett's current book other than to say at least one person at Glock felt it had material inaccuracies.
My comments simply relate to his writing on the gun industry while at the WSJ. You should read those articles and form your own opinions before you criticise me.
Read ll his articles than draw your own conclusions as to whether he was biased at that point in his career.
My comments simply relate to his writing on the gun industry while at the WSJ. You should read those articles and form your own opinions before you criticise me.
Read ll his articles than draw your own conclusions as to whether he was biased at that point in his career.
Birch Knoll
Member
Do you have any links for said articles?
NinjaFeint
Member
So I am supposed to be angry that he is more fair minded now?
Also, did you register just to bash this book/author?
Birch Knoll
Member
Heh.
Can you cite a credible, independent source for these accusations (such as an on-the-record interview with the "one person" at Glock, or links to Mr. Barrett's past articles), or should we just take your word for it?
That's pretty much what it looks like to me.
R
armarsh
Member
I just finished the book. All in all, a good read. I think the author's possible anti RKBA is overblown.
One area that I did not like was the the depiction of Ruby Ridge: "In August 1992, FBI agents and deputy US marshals faced off against a family of gun-trafficking white extremists at Ruby Ridge, Idaho."
Our government ended up paying damages to Randy Weaver, his children, and Kevin Harris. Basically everyone involved that the FBI did not kill were compensated. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi narrowly escaped prosecution for manslaughter.
In short, I thought you could have been a little more fair.
One area that I did not like was the the depiction of Ruby Ridge: "In August 1992, FBI agents and deputy US marshals faced off against a family of gun-trafficking white extremists at Ruby Ridge, Idaho."
Our government ended up paying damages to Randy Weaver, his children, and Kevin Harris. Basically everyone involved that the FBI did not kill were compensated. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi narrowly escaped prosecution for manslaughter.
In short, I thought you could have been a little more fair.
Paul Barrett
Member
GLOCK book author (belatedly) responds
Hello, THR people. Back from a reporting trip to one of my favorite cities, Pittsburgh, and I'm rested up and ready to get into the discussion here.
I don't know the identity of the anonymous commenter whose shooting sessions I impolitely did not attend back in the late 1990s. All I can say at this point, 13 or 14 years later, is that I wish I had gone, both because it was not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings, and because I'm sure I would have had fun. I enjoy shooting. I enjoyed it then. I did some shooting in that era (for example with Mas Ayoob, who, at the time, was based in New Hampshire, and at the Smith & Wesson Academy in western Massachusetts). But I think it's worth noting that I worked for a daily newspaper, and I had responsibilities as a legal affairs reporter that went beyond covering the gun industry. Instead of shooting at these events, I was probably interviewing boring corporate lawyers or poring over court records of a lawsuit concerning some busted-up merger. That's the way it goes sometimes.
As for the quality of my work at The Wall Street Journal, I'm sure it was not perfect. Read it and judge for yourself. I'm sure that my writing about guns, gun owners, and the gun industry has improved with time (I sure hope so!), and at this point I'd prefer that people just read my book about Glock and evaluate it on its own terms. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the old saying goes, not in the unsubstantiated complaints about articles written more than a dozen years earlier. But by all means, read it all, and let me know what you think.
Finally, on the notion that some unnamed person at Glock has found an error in the book, please point out said error, and I'll consider whether a fix is needed for future editions. I'm unaware of any material errors. I vetted the manuscript with a number of wise old sages from the gun industry, and I believe they helped me make it bullet-proof. But I learned long ago to be humble about such things, and if someone has a factual concern, let me know.
All best,
Paul M. Barrett
Author, GLOCK: The Rise of America's Gun
Hello, THR people. Back from a reporting trip to one of my favorite cities, Pittsburgh, and I'm rested up and ready to get into the discussion here.
I don't know the identity of the anonymous commenter whose shooting sessions I impolitely did not attend back in the late 1990s. All I can say at this point, 13 or 14 years later, is that I wish I had gone, both because it was not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings, and because I'm sure I would have had fun. I enjoy shooting. I enjoyed it then. I did some shooting in that era (for example with Mas Ayoob, who, at the time, was based in New Hampshire, and at the Smith & Wesson Academy in western Massachusetts). But I think it's worth noting that I worked for a daily newspaper, and I had responsibilities as a legal affairs reporter that went beyond covering the gun industry. Instead of shooting at these events, I was probably interviewing boring corporate lawyers or poring over court records of a lawsuit concerning some busted-up merger. That's the way it goes sometimes.
As for the quality of my work at The Wall Street Journal, I'm sure it was not perfect. Read it and judge for yourself. I'm sure that my writing about guns, gun owners, and the gun industry has improved with time (I sure hope so!), and at this point I'd prefer that people just read my book about Glock and evaluate it on its own terms. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as the old saying goes, not in the unsubstantiated complaints about articles written more than a dozen years earlier. But by all means, read it all, and let me know what you think.
Finally, on the notion that some unnamed person at Glock has found an error in the book, please point out said error, and I'll consider whether a fix is needed for future editions. I'm unaware of any material errors. I vetted the manuscript with a number of wise old sages from the gun industry, and I believe they helped me make it bullet-proof. But I learned long ago to be humble about such things, and if someone has a factual concern, let me know.
All best,
Paul M. Barrett
Author, GLOCK: The Rise of America's Gun
NYC Shoots
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5
Mr. Barrett:
Your WSJ articles did not make you any friends in the industry, and there were many besides myself who took issue with your lack of objectivity. This belief was not the case with others from your outlet (e.g. O'Connell, Gary Fields- DC office) or news reporters from even the anti-gun NY Times, who also covered the industry.
As for the articles in question, I encourage you to provide links to them all from www.wsjonline.com if you really are sincere about letting people read them. The readers will lack the context of what was going on at the time, but the articles will be instructional for those who have no idea how bad those times under Clinton really were. Also, I will glad to provide the substantiation you are seeking. Yes, you may be fairer and wiser now..let's hope so.
As for me bringing this issue to THR's attention, my motives have nothing to do "hurt feelings". I was not offended then and certainly not 10 years later. My point is to highlight the irony of (in the view of people connected to the issues you wrote about) a biased reporter (back then) who is now soliciting for book sales the very same industry he wrote against. That strikes me as an important consideration for everyone to make before buying your book.
I believe that Glock Gmbh would have given you a fair audience for writing your book had your reputation as a reporter to avoid not been established by your WSJ articles. Consider that Gaston Glock personally met with the Forbes reporter and gave her considerable access (ask Paul Junuzzo and Robert Glock) to the people at Syrna. Fairness may have given you access equal to what she was given, and a better book would have been the result.
To those who called my posting "heresay", you are wrong. I was present for the discussions and meetings I mentioned. They were not second hand info. Moreover, my bonnafides as a member of the RTKBA movement are well known.
As to those who think my post is about "bashing Barrett", you are also wrong. If I wanted to tank his book sales, I would have a dedicated website to blogging his WSJ articles, lots of e-mails to every forum and every state rifle and pistol association, Cam Edwards from NRA Live would take the issue up, etc. You recall what happend to the book Arming America from that erstwhile Emory college professor??
As I metioned before, posting the links to your WSJ articles would be helpful.
Your WSJ articles did not make you any friends in the industry, and there were many besides myself who took issue with your lack of objectivity. This belief was not the case with others from your outlet (e.g. O'Connell, Gary Fields- DC office) or news reporters from even the anti-gun NY Times, who also covered the industry.
As for the articles in question, I encourage you to provide links to them all from www.wsjonline.com if you really are sincere about letting people read them. The readers will lack the context of what was going on at the time, but the articles will be instructional for those who have no idea how bad those times under Clinton really were. Also, I will glad to provide the substantiation you are seeking. Yes, you may be fairer and wiser now..let's hope so.
As for me bringing this issue to THR's attention, my motives have nothing to do "hurt feelings". I was not offended then and certainly not 10 years later. My point is to highlight the irony of (in the view of people connected to the issues you wrote about) a biased reporter (back then) who is now soliciting for book sales the very same industry he wrote against. That strikes me as an important consideration for everyone to make before buying your book.
I believe that Glock Gmbh would have given you a fair audience for writing your book had your reputation as a reporter to avoid not been established by your WSJ articles. Consider that Gaston Glock personally met with the Forbes reporter and gave her considerable access (ask Paul Junuzzo and Robert Glock) to the people at Syrna. Fairness may have given you access equal to what she was given, and a better book would have been the result.
To those who called my posting "heresay", you are wrong. I was present for the discussions and meetings I mentioned. They were not second hand info. Moreover, my bonnafides as a member of the RTKBA movement are well known.
As to those who think my post is about "bashing Barrett", you are also wrong. If I wanted to tank his book sales, I would have a dedicated website to blogging his WSJ articles, lots of e-mails to every forum and every state rifle and pistol association, Cam Edwards from NRA Live would take the issue up, etc. You recall what happend to the book Arming America from that erstwhile Emory college professor??
As I metioned before, posting the links to your WSJ articles would be helpful.
Spec ops Grunt
Member
Eh, I agree that the NRA has an annoying penchant for scare tactics as a way to raise money. It's a pretty common political tactic, but the NRA excels at it. Even as a member myself, I can't stand their marketing.
As for the writer's politics, I see the discussion as irrelevant regarding this particular topic.
When I have some free time over the summer, I will look into the book for sure.
EDIT: I see a lot of people attacking the title of the book, which to me means it was a pretty good title choice.
As for the writer's politics, I see the discussion as irrelevant regarding this particular topic.
When I have some free time over the summer, I will look into the book for sure.
EDIT: I see a lot of people attacking the title of the book, which to me means it was a pretty good title choice.
Paul Barrett
Member
Dear NYC Shoots,
I don't care if you air your dusty grievances about my not attending your promotional press events at shooting ranges 15 years ago. It's a free country; bring up whatever you like. I tried to offer an olive branch, saying in an earlier post that I regret not having accepted your invite. If you'd prefer to argue over it...ah, well. As for my work at The Wall Street Journal, it's out there available for any and all to read. If you want to post links to it, God bless. Knock yourself out.
Overall, if you're trying to persuade people not to read my book, you may succeed with a few, but I'll bet you're making a lot more curious about what Glock (and you) don't want them to read.
Have fun posting your anonymous jabs. (Why are you hiding your identity, btw?) If you ever want to have an adult conversation over a cup of coffee and air out what's really on your mind (assuming you have something on your mind beyond petty personal resentment), I'm very easy to find, via my website or at my place of employment.
Oh, one other thing: I don't care if my work earns me "friends" in the gun industry. As it happens, I have plenty of friendly professional relationships with people who earn their living in and around firearms. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and if that displeases someone, such is life.
All the best,
Paul M. Barrett
www.glockthebook.com
I don't care if you air your dusty grievances about my not attending your promotional press events at shooting ranges 15 years ago. It's a free country; bring up whatever you like. I tried to offer an olive branch, saying in an earlier post that I regret not having accepted your invite. If you'd prefer to argue over it...ah, well. As for my work at The Wall Street Journal, it's out there available for any and all to read. If you want to post links to it, God bless. Knock yourself out.
Overall, if you're trying to persuade people not to read my book, you may succeed with a few, but I'll bet you're making a lot more curious about what Glock (and you) don't want them to read.
Have fun posting your anonymous jabs. (Why are you hiding your identity, btw?) If you ever want to have an adult conversation over a cup of coffee and air out what's really on your mind (assuming you have something on your mind beyond petty personal resentment), I'm very easy to find, via my website or at my place of employment.
Oh, one other thing: I don't care if my work earns me "friends" in the gun industry. As it happens, I have plenty of friendly professional relationships with people who earn their living in and around firearms. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and if that displeases someone, such is life.
All the best,
Paul M. Barrett
www.glockthebook.com
Ridgerunner665
Member
Paul,
I'm gonna buy the book when I get a chance...I listened to the "radio show" that somebody posted here on THR the other night. I was interested in the book before that, but now I'm even more interested.
I'm new to Glocks but not to guns (just plastic ones)...why do I want to read the book? Thats simple...history has been made with Glock, they are the 1911 of this generation...and anyone who disagrees with that is just kidding themselves.
Anyway, theres my 2 cents worth...
Lynn Ward (aka Ridgerunner665)
Just an old hillbilly that lives up in the hills...clinging to his guns and religion
I'm gonna buy the book when I get a chance...I listened to the "radio show" that somebody posted here on THR the other night. I was interested in the book before that, but now I'm even more interested.
I'm new to Glocks but not to guns (just plastic ones)...why do I want to read the book? Thats simple...history has been made with Glock, they are the 1911 of this generation...and anyone who disagrees with that is just kidding themselves.
Anyway, theres my 2 cents worth...
Lynn Ward (aka Ridgerunner665)
Just an old hillbilly that lives up in the hills...clinging to his guns and religion
Birch Knoll
Member
Oh, it's not hearsay. It's less than that, because you are anonymous. And you have no bona fides without an identity.
Maybe everything you say is correct. But Mr. Barrett is here under his own name, and you are tossing around accusations while hiding behind a pseudonym. If you want to be taken seriously, sign your name.
Spec ops Grunt
Member
Low post counts everywhere
we are not amused
Member
Last weekend, I bought four books at Barnes and Noble in Wichita, intending to read them in a specific order, with Paul Barrett's book being last.
I finished Mark Levin"s book Friday, and intended to read Larry Correia's Spellbound next.
Unfortunately, I got home from work and after doing chores, picked up Paul Barrett's book, intending to just read a few pages before starting Spellbound. Eight hours later, I finished reading Glock: The rise of america's Gun.
Fascinating read, and I think very fair. If Paul Barret is a gun hater, it sure doesn't show. If he ever writes another book on guns, I want to read it.
I don't agree with all his opinions, but there is a small, (very small) chance that his are better than mine. (not likely, I like my opinions, that is why I have them)
As Mr. Barrett has found out, it may be called The High Road, but there are plenty of low road people on it.
That being said, I thought it a very readable book, very enjoyable and informative. I had known virtually nothing about the Glock's history or Gaston Glock himself.
I was alternately amused and appalled by all the backbiting and political shenanigans displayed by everyone involved, both in Government, the various police and security agencies, various so-called gun experts, and the gun industry.
There is plenty of grist for the mill when it comes to upsetting or hurting people's feelings. It is not an apology for Glock, nor is it an attack on Glock, it seems to be an honest attempt to tell the story that is Glock.
I would rate this book as very informative and an honest effort to give the history of Glock Firearms in America and its rise to prominence.
Good job, Paul Barret, I will be paying attention to your writings in the future.
I finished Mark Levin"s book Friday, and intended to read Larry Correia's Spellbound next.
Unfortunately, I got home from work and after doing chores, picked up Paul Barrett's book, intending to just read a few pages before starting Spellbound. Eight hours later, I finished reading Glock: The rise of america's Gun.
Fascinating read, and I think very fair. If Paul Barret is a gun hater, it sure doesn't show. If he ever writes another book on guns, I want to read it.
I don't agree with all his opinions, but there is a small, (very small) chance that his are better than mine. (not likely, I like my opinions, that is why I have them)
As Mr. Barrett has found out, it may be called The High Road, but there are plenty of low road people on it.
That being said, I thought it a very readable book, very enjoyable and informative. I had known virtually nothing about the Glock's history or Gaston Glock himself.
I was alternately amused and appalled by all the backbiting and political shenanigans displayed by everyone involved, both in Government, the various police and security agencies, various so-called gun experts, and the gun industry.
There is plenty of grist for the mill when it comes to upsetting or hurting people's feelings. It is not an apology for Glock, nor is it an attack on Glock, it seems to be an honest attempt to tell the story that is Glock.
I would rate this book as very informative and an honest effort to give the history of Glock Firearms in America and its rise to prominence.
Good job, Paul Barret, I will be paying attention to your writings in the future.
I may buy two copies!
Why two, Il give one to the old timers at work who still think "plastic guns" are a dangerous fad, and one to myself.
FWIW, Ive carried a Glock on my hip for 20 years as an LEO. Back in the early 90's when I was hired on I was a rarity carrying a glock, but I dont think it can be described just how ingrained glock is with law enforcement. The new kids basically dont look at anything else, its all about GLOCK!
Glock totally and completly dominates the LEO market, it makes one wonder why the military hasn't adapted them
Tom
Why two, Il give one to the old timers at work who still think "plastic guns" are a dangerous fad, and one to myself.
FWIW, Ive carried a Glock on my hip for 20 years as an LEO. Back in the early 90's when I was hired on I was a rarity carrying a glock, but I dont think it can be described just how ingrained glock is with law enforcement. The new kids basically dont look at anything else, its all about GLOCK!
Glock totally and completly dominates the LEO market, it makes one wonder why the military hasn't adapted them
Tom
NinjaFeint
Member
Apparently, some dates were broken and some feelings were hurt, now they can tell the world their story.
Cheytac
Member
I am happy to see that people are interested in the book, I found it very interesting and informative, as others have mentioned.
As to those who believe that the 1911 is "America's" gun, I wonder what the old revolver people would have to say about that?
I have no problem with Mr. Barrett's title. However, I wonder if it were, "Glock, the rise of America's gun of choice," would it be any different?
As to those who believe that the 1911 is "America's" gun, I wonder what the old revolver people would have to say about that?
I have no problem with Mr. Barrett's title. However, I wonder if it were, "Glock, the rise of America's gun of choice," would it be any different?
- Status
