Attn: Dean S-p-e-i-r
And what I see from CZ52GUY is what passes for General Education today. Not only is he unable to get my name right in any of his posts, but after drawing odious parallels with Ralph Nader and "tree-huggers," M³ers and the Brady Bunch, he then makes the claim that the various Glock reports cited are "Anecdotal evidence passed off as incontrovertible evidence." This is the type of Intellectually Dishonest sophistry and word play the antis like to use… making a greater claim for something the better to attack it… and essentially that's all CZ52GUY has done here, is "attack."
I call them as I see them.
Your articles pointed to two instances where individuals experienced bad things with Glocks.
Those two incidents do not a compelling case provide.
The L.A. times recently posted a similar editorial from the Anti-side, describing the "carnage" associated with firearms in this country. Providing anecdotal evidence when tragedy struck without recognizing that the inanimate object was not the source of the tragedy, but the criminal human operator. The similarities in tactics were disturbing, that's why I mentioned them.
"Incontrovertible evidence?" It's information, is all, and documented information at that.
"The Gunperson's Authoritative Internet Information Resource."
Your articles call into question the quality of a product. I don't care if it's Glock, or a GE toaster oven...that individuals have had experiences with a lemon is consistent with any product that has ever been marketed. Is there a material problem with the design that is backed up by statistical evidence? A prudent consumer would be looking for that data. An authoritative source should seek to provide that type of information whether it be comprehensive, or representative (in this case, the experiences of a good size metro' police department would be useful).
Statistical analysis is fine, but that approach doesn't carry much weight with the shooter looking at a ruined pistol and a damaged hand because he'd blithely assumed that the Glock advisory to use only factory new ammo was boilerplate legalese insisted upon by attorneys, or the cop on the NYC street trying to get back into action after a Phase 3 malfunction, all the while wondering *** happened to the vaunted "Glock Perfection."
Absolutely, for the individual involved, the experience is conclusive. However, we wouldn't recall an entire product line of anything based on that one incident. The Anti's believe if any child is killed by a gun, that's one child too many, we have to get rid of these evil objects. The consistency between your application of one or two individual experiences, and the approach anti's use to justify their bogus cause is too much to ignore.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…from what I have read firsthand at the Gunzone, I find your "evidence" regarding Glocks indistinguishable in credibility from what I might read at jointogether or HCI...namely, Glocks are bad because I know of two incidents where something bad happened with them...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We get back then to either the failure of this reader's education or his willingness to distort in support of his own agenda… which agenda becomes more apparent with subsequent posts:
Earlier you characterized my comments as "attacks"...I read this and can't help but wonder why the pot finds it so easy to call the kettle black. My level of education is sufficient to function as an analyst at a Fortune 500 company. It is also sufficient to draw my own conclusions regarding the quality (or lack thereof) of material I consume. Again, I challenge you based on your claim of "authoritative source location" to deliver the goods.
I contend that if your analytical assessment of an individual's education is based on whether they type "i-e" instead of "e-i" than you help make my case that you are way too willing to draw conclusions based on insufficient data.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reacting to a gun rag writer accusing anyone who did not buy his so-called journalism as being a "Kool-aid drinker".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the overstatement, and the personal attack, which can only be explained if he is one of the hard corps GTers for whom Rosco Benson devised that particular coinage, and is burning under the shame of that opprobrious appellation.
Your liberal use of the term "Kool-aid drinker" within your articles, and within posts here confirms the "pot and kettle" concerns I've raised above.
I am not a member of the GT cult. I do not worship at Eric's feet (or Gaston's either). I believe that Glock Inc. has some serious issues not the least of which is their ambiguous position regarding the value proposition of Ballistic Fingerprinting legislation currently pending in Congress. I believe that Jannuzzo's statements on 60 Minutes were deplorable.
You seem to have a co-dependency going with Glock Inc. that makes you believe that anyone who would question the quality of your work a member of the demographic you seem to despise.
You cannot allocate to me membership within that demographic. I am a customer of your content that found it lacking and plainly stated my objections above. If you consider that an attack, I sincerely apologize because as a member of THR, I seek to follow the guidelines as published. At the same time, I stand by my analytical assessment of the content I consumed within the Gunzone.
Two incidents over a decade old do not have relevance to whether the gentleman in question should feel confident in procuring a new Glock.
You could have offered arguments regarding the "Corporate Character" of Glock that would merit current consideration, but that was absent from both your post and Gunzone articles.
And as for my "authoritative" credentials in this matter, those were established for me by Glock Inc. in Federal District Court in Uniondale, NY in some years ago. I never sought them, but Glock was anxious to keep me from taking the stand and happily stipulated that the facts that I would testify to concerning their product's catastrophic failures and unintentional discharges was true and accurate.
An authoritative source for product safety needs to go beyond simple anecdotal evidence. Anyone could stand up a web site regarding the Ford Explorer, the Boeing 737, or any other product you can think of and cite historical incidents where a specific model at a point in time had discrete safety issues. One could also do the kind of "attack journalism" that 60 Minutes does where sympathetic individuals who have suffered injuries from the product in question describe how Ford, or Boeing or whoever, weren't very nice to them when they reported their problem several years ago.
Should that influence whether I get on a Boeing jet on a business trip today?
Should it influence whether I buy a 2004 Ford Explorer tomorrow?
I contend that information alone is not sufficient to draw conclusions as to whether it is safe to get on that plane or buy that automobile. More compelling objective evidence is required. An authoritative source should expect that its consumers will demand that evidence whether comprehensive, or at least representative.
And speaking of anxious, StressPuppy writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Speir,
Please leave me out of this crap!!!!!!! I am no fan of flame wars.
You have stated that I should read something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated nothing of the sort… that was JC2… but you get credit for at least getting my name right. So, congratulations on your purchase, g'luck with it, and I genuinely wish you many years of trouble-free shooting with it.
Now, stop whining and hit the range again for another 100 rounds. If you think this was a flame war, then don't ever venture onto Assault Web or Hard Core Talk.
I find this regrettable and unnecessary. Your comments to this gentleman who simply reviewed your content and came to a similar conclusion regarding its value proposition (or lack thereof) are consistent with adolescent behavior.
You publish content to be consumed.
Individuals consume it and draw their own conclusions.
Within this thread individuals have consumed that content and found its quality to be lacking.
You have been challenged to do better.
You can either rise to the challenge and provide better content OR you can continue to insult those who provide candid feedback regarding its quality and continue down the same path you are on.
I find it useful to have my point of view challenged. It gives me the opportunity to reflect on the basis of that point of view. I can either revise my position (which is a good thing if it needs revising) OR I can revisit the evidence and find that my original position has been confirmed.
In your case, I find that your response to my criticism of your work, and your attitude confirms my evaluation of your content and unfortunately, your character.
I sincerely believe you have something to offer the gun-owning community. You have strength of conviction to take the path of the contrarian. However, you are unwilling to accept candid scrutiny which is unfortunate.
Regardless, I wish you the best Dean, and hope that you have learned something from this encounter...that being, at least one of your critics does not consume "Kool-aid"
CZ52'
