Glock
Mr. Cho, the student blamed for mudering 32 students at Virginia Tech, apparently used a Glock 9 mm pistol to commit the crime.
Although Glock is known for manufacturing efficient weapons--including weapons of mass destruction--a visit to their website (Glock.com) suggests that they are also masters of Orwellian language.
Their logo reads: "Glock Perfection." Perhaps they feel that their 9 mm pistol is perfect for assassinating large numbers of innocents.
The word "safe" appears prominently on the Glock home page, along with "Safety Pack." Do the students at Virginia Tech feel safer thanks to the folks at Glock?
Glock doesn't limit itself to making guns. They also offer a line of tactical lights with the slogan "Shed light on any dark situation." I invite the Glock team to shed light on what happened at Virginia Tech.
We've all heard it said that guns don't kill people: People do. Do you suppose that the people at Glock think of themselves in as people killers?
Although Glock is known for manufacturing efficient weapons--including weapons of mass destruction--a visit to their website (Glock.com) suggests that they are also masters of Orwellian language.
Their logo reads: "Glock Perfection." Perhaps they feel that their 9 mm pistol is perfect for assassinating large numbers of innocents.
The word "safe" appears prominently on the Glock home page, along with "Safety Pack." Do the students at Virginia Tech feel safer thanks to the folks at Glock?
Glock doesn't limit itself to making guns. They also offer a line of tactical lights with the slogan "Shed light on any dark situation." I invite the Glock team to shed light on what happened at Virginia Tech.
We've all heard it said that guns don't kill people: People do. Do you suppose that the people at Glock think of themselves in as people killers?
Labels: Glock, guns, massacre, pistols, semi-automatic weapons, Virginia Tech, weapons
posted by Murray Suid at 10:48 AM
4 Comments:
You should never look at a company product and say that it is the fault of the company. They designed it to work and it is not glocks fault that idiot did what he did. It is the fault of the individual. But the people who follow the letter of the law should not be punished either.
We have the right to bear arms and that is the way it should be. There is nobody that should have the power to tell me what I can and cannot own. Maybe we should look back to 1776 and say what did we kick the British out of our country for, they wanted to take away our firearms, liberty and freedom. It all goes together, a package deal so to speak. Leave our guns alone and prosicute he criminals.
I wasn't questioning the quality of the product nor its legality. My gribe was with the marketing LANGUAGE that the Glock company used to describe their product.
I certainly agree with you that people who obey the law should not be punished nor castigated.
I disagree with you about your assertion that nobody should have the power to tell you what you can and cannot own. For example, I agree that the government has the power to regulate ownership of exotic animals. I would also think that the government is within its rights--and responsibilities--to forbid ownership of atomic bombs or key materials that can be used to make such bombs.
Thanks for writing.
My perception of what Glock is trying to portray with the terminology ‘Safe’, is that the guns if handled properly will not ‘accidentally’ or ‘unintentionally’ be fired. In fact, they are trying to give you multiple ways to insure that your gun cannot be fired even if you want to, for maximum safety. You wouldn’t for example be holding the gun and have it go off if it were bumped, hit, or dropped, even with great force. You would have to purposefully put your finger on the trigger and pull it all the way back for it to fire, making the use of the gun the complete and sole responsibility of the individual holding the pistol. Your example of Exotic animals, or nuclear devices or ingredients, is a prime one. Both the animals and the bombs are less safe than a Glock. The atom bomb can be set off in a myriad of ways, and most of them could be accidental or unintentional. The ingredients of the bomb are also hazardous and or lethal completely on their own. As with exotic animals, they are not ever completely under the control of their owner or handler. There have been a plethora of incidents where an animal, even a domestic pet, has wounded or killed their owner or handler. No gun has ever provoked or elicited the actions that require the use of its force. A tiger and a gun on the sidewalk in front of you, the tiger will always kill you first, while the gun sits there waiting for you to pick it up and choose to use it. Choice and responsibility, it is all in the hands of the individual.
godraejess@yahoo.com
Very well put, godraejess. I couldn't have said it better myself. I just don't understand what the issue here is with this individual manufacturer. I do understand somewhat where Murray is coming from, but IN MY OPINION I believe that his views toward Glock are rather extreme. My Aunt was killed in a car accident years ago by a drunk driver who drove into her head-on; So should I have a problem with Ford since they produce the vehicle or Jack Daniels since the produce the liquor? Both companies praise their products, with Ford's claims of their safety ratings as well. So who's to blame here? By his post, it seems that Mr. Suid should be more prone to pointing the finger at a manufacturer, and not at the PERSON who, ON THEIR OWN ACCORD, made the decision to use these products. I would like to believe he would lean towards the latter, but this is just MY OPINION, and only Mr. Suid can answer this for himself.
Post a Comment
<< Home