18 Dec 03

Firearms Illiteracy in the Press:

In a recent editorial (masquerading as news article) entitled Top Police Gun Prone to Accidental Firing, appearing in the Detroit News, a fearful author, Melvin Claxton, pontificates about the malignant dangers of Glock pistols. It is painfully obvious that Melvin wouldn't be able to distinguish a Glock fro m a waffle iron if the two were sitting in front of him, but, as is the case with most of the self-important, leftist press, that doesn't hinder him from presuming to tell us all what to do.

With hands wringing, the author laments, "Glock pistols... have earned a reputation among some gun experts as a firearm with too few safety features and that is too quick to fire. Its reputation is directly linked to its design, which ignores important safety features... forces the user to handle the gun with extreme caution."

Well, duh! He fails to name any pistols which can be safely handled carelessly.

He goes on, "The gun's safety features, extremely effective in preventing discharges if the gun is dropped or hit, automatically are turned off every time the trigger is depressed."

Well, duh! I don't know about ya'll, but I want the pistol I carry for security emergencies to actually discharge when the trigger is depressed. W hat a radical notion!

"'What you have is a gun that is almost too eager to fire,' said Car ter Lord (never heard of him), a national firearms and ballistics consultant. I think it may be an appropriate weapon for highly trained paramilitary officers in a SWAT team, but not for most police officers and certainly not for civilians. '"

Apparently, no one ever told Mr Lord or Mr Claxton that, in America, ALL police are civilians. I'm not sure what country they live in, but in Americ a the police are not a branch of the military. We have civilian police officers here. Additionally, I personally resent the insinuation that all we "most police" are just too stupid to handle a Glock. I wonder what kind of pistol Mr Lord and Mr Claxton think we're smart enough to handle!

"Experienced gun handlers, people like former US Border Patrol agent Michael Roth, 66, a small-town sheriff and marksman with extensive gun training" apparently also fell victim to the iniquitous Glock, "In March 1996, Roth wa s tightening his belt in a mall restroom in Buffalo, NY, when the Glock TUCKED IN HIS WAISTBAND accidentally discharged, striking him in the leg."

Well, duh! With "experts" like this, we surely don't need amateurs.

As if that weren't enough rubbish for one day, we see this headline at the end of the article:

"Weapon easily converted into full automatic mode" "One of the Glock's most frightening attributes is its ability to easily be converted into a full automatic weapon capable of firing at the rate of 1,000 rounds a minute."

Of course, Mr Claxton has never himself even touched, much less fired, any gun in full auto. If he had, he would know how utterly useless a fully-automatic pistol is. Indeed, we should pray that all criminals carry full-automatic pistols and use them exclusively in that mode! They would hit nothing and r un out of ammunition in less than a second.

The fact is Glocks are no more "easily convertible" to full-auto fire than i s any other autoloading pistol. Mr Claxton himself, of course, has not the foggiest idea of how such a "conversion" could be accomplished, yet he is convinced that the process is "easy."

Where do these self-righteous cretins come from? The author obviously finds the idea that American police are equipped with modern weapons frightening. He apparently would rather us all be equipped with obsolete weapons.

The willful firearms illiteracy of the leftist press is indeed disturbing, almost as much as their arrogance.

/John

18 Dec 03

Comments on less-lethal force:

"Since your mayor is such an expert on less-lethal force, maybe he should personally train the entire department, even provide leadership and become t he Designated LL Response Officer. Yes, I'd like to see him confronting an aggressive knife wielder with anything less than a firearm. I'm sure he wou ld teach us all a thing or two, about getting killed!

What we have today in police use-of-force situations is rarely "excessive force," but rather EXCESSIVELY REPEATED APPLICATIONS OF LESS-THAN-ADEQUATE F ORCE by timid and indecisive police officers, allowing a potentially violent situation to spiral out of control."

We cripple our officers with impossible expectations and then naively believ e they will be able to protect us. We geld them, and then demand they be fruitful!"

Comment: Chicago PD used to put it this way: "When officers are confronted with unlawful force, they will respond with superior force, until the situat ion is under control." This seems to have been replace with, "... officers, fearful of making the 'wrong' choice, will dither around until the s ituation is out of control." If this is the overall effect of less-lethal equipment, we would be better off with none of it.

We surely need less-lethal options, combined with reasonable expectations. Mayors need to worry less about getting reelected and more about the welfare of their officers and the citizenry.

/John