4thHorseman
Member
Great Mitch, I respect your opinion.
Glock Spokesman Resigns
- Thread starter Guntalk
- Start date
- Status
If Januzzo was the problem, the problem hasn't been correctly diagnosed.sm
member
This was bulleted on my Homepage...Didn't see this posted anywhere else.
http://www.gssfonline.com/2002/hot_topics/glockofficialstatement.htm
Statement #1
GLOCK is not for gun registration plain and simple.
A database of firearm characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument again 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 before 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 were any good this would seem to be a valuable 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. Can a barrel be altered so that standard ballistic identification of a bullet is 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 of a firearm to a serial number and a serial number 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 disprove or prove itself.
Because criminals are as big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as the antigun 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. And 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 naïve 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 freedom) 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 crime-solving tool the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.
Statement #2 ( posted February 11, 2003 )
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.
We capture every shell casing so that the distribution network does not have to distinguish between firearms legal for sale in Maryland and New York and those legal for sale in the rest of the country. This is done for two reasons: one, it is easier for our distributors and dealers to maintain inventory and to ship to all 50 states; and, two, it helps to avoid shipping the wrong firearm to Maryland and New York and subjecting an unsuspecting dealer to criminal charges for selling an illegal firearm.
http://www.gssfonline.com/2002/hot_topics/glockofficialstatement.htm
Statement #1
GLOCK is not for gun registration plain and simple.
A database of firearm characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument again 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 before 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 were any good this would seem to be a valuable 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. Can a barrel be altered so that standard ballistic identification of a bullet is 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 of a firearm to a serial number and a serial number 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 disprove or prove itself.
Because criminals are as big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as the antigun 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. And 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 naïve 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 freedom) 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 crime-solving tool the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.
Statement #2 ( posted February 11, 2003 )
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.
We capture every shell casing so that the distribution network does not have to distinguish between firearms legal for sale in Maryland and New York and those legal for sale in the rest of the country. This is done for two reasons: one, it is easier for our distributors and dealers to maintain inventory and to ship to all 50 states; and, two, it helps to avoid shipping the wrong firearm to Maryland and New York and subjecting an unsuspecting dealer to criminal charges for selling an illegal firearm.
4thHorseman
Member
You would think Glock could afford a spell checker program.
Intune
Member
Big Brother comes knockin'
Are CNC manufactured barrels, bolts and firing pins as individualistic as fingerprints? I can hear it now: “So Mr. Smith, we have this casing from Glock Inc. and guess what? It is a close match to a casing we found at the crime scene. And you have no one who can vouch for your whereabouts on the night in question. Please step over here sir and put your hands on the wall…†What are the chances??? Frankly, I’d rather not take the chance of misidentification if there is one.
Are CNC manufactured barrels, bolts and firing pins as individualistic as fingerprints? I can hear it now: “So Mr. Smith, we have this casing from Glock Inc. and guess what? It is a close match to a casing we found at the crime scene. And you have no one who can vouch for your whereabouts on the night in question. Please step over here sir and put your hands on the wall…†What are the chances??? Frankly, I’d rather not take the chance of misidentification if there is one.
I wonder why everybody is all of a sudden bent up over this. It ain't anything new because I brought this up 2 years ago in GT after I read about it in an article and nobody cared. I guess because anything negative against Glock is supposed to be false according to GT.
Dean Speir
Member
I think there's some question about the genuineness of Glock, Inc.'s second statement in relation to this from ATF, almost three years ago:
And Jannuzzo didn't quit; he and his fiancée, Monica Berecky, Glock, Inc.'s Human Resources Manager, were fired by Gaston Glock at the end of SHOT Show over an issue which had nothing to do with the statement he made on 60 Minutes. Intuitively, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jannuzzo resurface with the company which pioneered the Ibis "ballistic DNA" system, Forensic Technology of Montreal.
ATF Source.
And Jannuzzo didn't quit; he and his fiancée, Monica Berecky, Glock, Inc.'s Human Resources Manager, were fired by Gaston Glock at the end of SHOT Show over an issue which had nothing to do with the statement he made on 60 Minutes. Intuitively, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jannuzzo resurface with the company which pioneered the Ibis "ballistic DNA" system, Forensic Technology of Montreal.
twoblink
Member
For those in the market for a glock, might I recommend a Steyr instead? Steyr, the other white meat!
4thHorseman
Member
twoblink, got a web site address for Steyr?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked