Comments on: About the Glock Cover Story in the Current Business Week

By: Jim C

Jim C — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:23:42 +0000

Massad,

I have to disagree with you on the GLOCK article in NEWSWEEK being balanced.

I believe that several of the reasons that GLOCK has been so successful were ignored or just glossed over.

1. GLOCK has gone out and supported their sales while other companies either sat on their tales or their reputations.

2. While the low cost of the GLOCK pistols was mentioned, I did not see a reference to the VERY, VERY LOW PRICES that GLOCK charged. When I joined the I&NS, we could buy a brand new GLOCK for $350.00. That was at least $100.00 to $150.00 below what S&W and BERETTA were charging or what gunshops charged for a new GLOCK.

3. In many ways, GLOCK redifined the definition of reliability. SMITH & WESSON for got it for a while and COLT never knew what it meant. I never bought a new COLT 1911 without going straight to the gunsmith for a feed job. Now you can get a 1911 that works perfectly straight out of the box, but it was GLOCK that raised the bar.

4. I have owned or carried on duty just about all the major gun makers product. I love BERETTA’S for their fine trigger and accuracy with virtualy flawless reliability. My SIG’S shot very well and I am now issued an H&K. They are all good pistols, but GLOCK set the modern standard for duty arms and NEWSWEEK should have spent more time on that.

Sincerely,
Jim C

p.s.–I really liked your book on the BERETTA pistols. It convinced me to give the VERTEC a try.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:41:56 +0000

For what it’s worth, I thought it was a remarkably even-handed and fascinating piece. I purchased a Glock as my first handgun, but I’ve never paid any attention to the business side of the company. Given the obvious research put into the technical details, I’m inclined to believe that the information on the other aspects was similarly accurate.

By: HerbM

HerbM — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:23:38 +0000

Being “even handed” or “fair and balanced” on the 2nd Amendment or the inherent human Right to Keep and Bear Arms is precisely equivalent to being even handed on whether Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble, the right to vote, or a number of other unalienable rights may be curtailed and infringed by government.

These rights are both self evident — at least in a free society, a democratic republic — and explicitly protected by our Constitution and laws.

There is no room for granting respect to the ‘other side’ when they suggest the abridgment of such fundamental rights.

We will not accept that law-abiding citizens might be denied the right to vote, and we must not accept that law-abiding responsible citizens are forbidden to both own and carry firearms.

Compromise in such issues is as foolish as compromise with murderers, robbers, and rapists.