[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Glock Follow Up (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/18/2003 12:27:28 PM EDT
|
I have been checking the Glocktalk board and apparantly Mr. Jannuzzo was at the Shot show. When a member of Glock talk asked him about his comments, he reiterated the weasel words about "looking at helping law enforcement". The member told him that a boycott of Glock products would probably result, he shrugged as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". So it appears as though Glock has spoken. I believe we should as well. BOYCOTT GLOCK! We must all hang together or we will most certainly hang apart. |
|
That leaves Kimber Colt Springfield Armory Smith and Wesson (who, because of pressure we brought has new owners and a new pro-RKBA attitude) And every other manufactor who knows that if they sell us out, we will crush them too. This is a war, and Glock chose the wrong side. |
|
Quoted: I am not really sure anymore where I stand on this whole boycott gun-manufacturers jag. Suppose we succeed. We drive them all out of business. Who wins? The enemies we should be fighting..... Scott Erm HORSESHIT!!!! If we drive those that have views like glock out of business GOOD!!!! Maybe we can have more like Barrett step up and emphasize their pro-gun views. The 'what if we drive them out of business' crap is just that crap. |
|
Hypocrites! How can you sell a product that is the direct extension of a right enumerated within the Bill of Rights while at the same time supporting activities that seek to limit that right. Oh, no... I think I've gone cockeyed. I personally am looking to off-load my Glock 22 w/ Surefire P111. I had promised it to my cousin when he gets back from his LDS mission to Anchorage, but I will be buying him a firearm produced by a firm that believes in the right to own firearms. |
|
Quoted: I am not really sure anymore where I stand on this whole boycott gun-manufacturers jag. Suppose we succeed. We drive them all out of business. Who wins? The enemies we should be fighting..... Who wins? Gun Owners. The 2nd Amendment. Gun companies who stick by the 2nd amendment (remember ronnie barrett's letters?) Freedom. Who loses? Glock. Ant-RKBA activists and politicians who wish to pit companies against the 2nd amendment. Again, Glock can be replaced. Freedom can't. |
|
Quoted: I have been checking the Glocktalk board and apparantly Mr. Jannuzzo was at the Shot show. When a member of Glock talk asked him about his comments, he reiterated the weasel words about "looking at helping law enforcement". The member told him that a boycott of Glock products would probably result, he shrugged as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". So it appears as though Glock has spoken. I believe we should as well. BOYCOTT GLOCK! We must all hang together or we will most certainly hang apart. You know, I'm pretty pissed about the whole Glock thing myself (I have a bunch invested in a Glock 19 and a TON of mags for it), but I'd cast doubt on ONE member from Glocktalk saying something like that. I'd need some kind of verification rather than just to take the ONE person's word for it. -Gloftoe |
|
fair Enough... My discussion with Januzzo... Finally got back last night and (except for the fact that Air Canada turned a 3-hour flight into a 16-hour ordeal), enjoyed the SHOT show very much. The 2nd day I was there, I finally criss-crossed onto the Glock booth, and did the job I was sent to do (collect catalogs, manuals, etc, find out about new models, and so on), and when I finished that, I went on to ask the rep I was dealing with "And what was Januzzo thinking when he opened his mouth on 60 Minutes?" The guy instantly had a flash of "Oh no, not again" cross his face, and then he went to another of their little display tables to return with none other than Paul Januzzo. Although Mr. Januzzo was very cordial, he seemed somewhat taken aback to learn that I am 1) Canadian, 2) a member of the law enforcement profession, 3) a trained operator of the IBIS/ballistic fingerprinting system, and 4) totally OPPOSED to any hint of registration, ballistic or otherwise. He went on to say essentially the same things that are present in the statement found on the GSSF homepage (www.gssfonline.com), and I thanked him for being there to answer my questions. All in all, I don't think Mr. Januzzo has Glock's best interests at heart, and when I told him the boycott was already on and starting to snowball (and would continue, unless Glock came out strongly, and immediately, against a national database), he shrugged it off like "so what". Right now, I'm torn. I would love to add a 3rd (and possibly a 4th) pistol to my Glock collection, but unless Glock makes it clear that Januzzo's position is not theirs, how can I? __________________ Gun Control in Canada: making the streets safer for rapists, muggers, and other violent criminals since 1936. [url]http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1371937#post1371937[/url] |
|
Quoted: I have three Glocks now and I will not be selling them. But they obviously don't care about me, so I will not be buying Glocks in the future. For plastic, it's Springfield XD for me. |
|
Quoted: Hypocrites! How can you sell a product that is the direct extension of a right enumerated within the Bill of Rights while at the same time supporting activities that seek to limit that right. Oh, no... I think I've gone cockeyed. It would be like the New York Times pushing for restrictions on the 1st Amendment - it makes no sense!!! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Hypocrites! How can you sell a product that is the direct extension of a right enumerated within the Bill of Rights while at the same time supporting activities that seek to limit that right. Oh, no... I think I've gone cockeyed. It would be like the New York Times pushing for restrictions on the 1st Amendment - it makes no sense!!! I am not sure if you were tongue in cheek on this, but didn't the NYT rail against the vast right wing conspiracy and the horrible rise of conservative talk radio (AKA the 1st Amendment) I think this can be much larger than the S & W boycott (which took years to be effective). Most gun junkies are on the internet now and this can spread quickly. We need to tell the gun shops to start pushing the XDs or something else on the newbies who don't know better. Finally, lawsuits directed against PDs who have NDs with Glocks (based upon the lack of a safety with Glocks) could really turn things around. Glock has made huge sums off of LEO sales, but those can't continue forever. Plus some local CLEOs might be on our side and look towards other guns. Eric, you up for pro bono work for a good cause? |
|
Quoted: I am not really sure anymore where I stand on this whole boycott gun-manufacturers jag. Suppose we succeed. We drive them all out of business. Who wins? The enemies we should be fighting..... Scott I belive the old saying "once bitten, twice shy" could apply here. Once the manufacturers see that we arent willing to purchase products from companies that sell out our rights, then they will think twice about doing so. Hey, Glock needs us more than we need Glock. I talked to a couple of Detroit cops a month ago, who said the dept is considering going to a different handgun and is developing a review board for it (its Detroit, what you expect them to do things overnight?...sheesh). Personally, I hope either Beretta or Sig wins... WAS |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hypocrites! How can you sell a product that is the direct extension of a right enumerated within the Bill of Rights while at the same time supporting activities that seek to limit that right. Oh, no... I think I've gone cockeyed. It would be like the New York Times pushing for restrictions on the 1st Amendment - it makes no sense!!! I am not sure if you were tongue in cheek on this, but didn't the NYT rail against the vast right wing conspiracy and the horrible rise of conservative talk radio (AKA the 1st Amendment)? My first thought was, "you've got to be kidding...". Then I realized news media has a liberal mindset so, of course the NYT would attempt to cut their own throats. This is inanity - but par for the course. |
|
I don't know all the paticulars of what was said by Mr. Jannuzzo I do know a boycott of any company will eventually hurt their sales. On the other had I also know Glock has over 60% of LE sales for duty weapons in the USA. And a large following in the private sales as well. If they are supporting compliance with required laws that are in effect you can not fault them much since most of their sales are to LE agencies and I venture to say LEOs who do buy guns for personal use/duty most likely purchase a Glock at some point. I am a Glock armorer at my department and they are a fine weapon very dependable. I don't think ballistic finger printing is a workable program at this time for various reasons, but some states have been requiring this for some time prior to the maryland shootings which brought it to the medias attention. And if a manufacture wanted to sell in that state they had to be in compliance. for those who feel a boycott is the only way to go I say go for it. For those of us who are Leos and dont have much choice in what our departments buy or what we can carry the Glock is a first class combat weapon and well worth carrying for self defense. Most of all I am sure there is some type of politics involved with the statement that was made than personal feelings of Mr Gaston Glock who is still the owner of Glock far as I know I think Mr Jannuzzo is just a rep. So has any one actually contacted the owner of Glock to find out if this is some type of misunderstanding? My $.02 worth of thoughts |
|
Quoted: That leaves Kimber Colt Springfield Armory [red]Smith and Wesson (who, because of pressure we brought has new owners and a new pro-RKBA attitude)[/red] And every other manufactor who knows that if they sell us out, we will crush them too. This is a war, and Glock chose the wrong side. And there went your argument. [toilet] |
|
Quoted: Smith and Wesson (who, because of pressure we brought has new owners and a new pro-RKBA attitude) |
|
Quoted: I don't know all the paticulars of what was said by Mr. Jannuzzo I do know a boycott of any company will eventually hurt their sales. On the other had I also know Glock has over 60% of LE sales for duty weapons in the USA. And a large following in the private sales as well. If they are supporting compliance with required laws that are in effect you can not fault them much since most of their sales are to LE agencies and I venture to say LEOs who do buy guns for personal use/duty most likely purchase a Glock at some point. I am a Glock armorer at my department and they are a fine weapon very dependable. I don't think ballistic finger printing is a workable program at this time for various reasons, but some states have been requiring this for some time prior to the maryland shootings which brought it to the medias attention. And if a manufacture wanted to sell in that state they had to be in compliance. for those who feel a boycott is the only way to go I say go for it. For those of us who are Leos and dont have much choice in what our departments buy or what we can carry the Glock is a first class combat weapon and well worth carrying for self defense. Most of all I am sure there is some type of politics involved with the statement that was made than personal feelings of Mr Gaston Glock who is still the owner of Glock far as I know I think Mr Jannuzzo is just a rep. So has any one actually contacted the owner of Glock to find out if this is some type of misunderstanding? My $.02 worth of thoughts Does that maybe, finally, sink in now??? It is amazing the lengths the Glockaholics will go to defend this crap. |
| I nearly spit my Coke on my Boob-Tube when I saw the 60min piece featuring that interview with glock. I was in the market for a personal sidearm and it came down to the HK USP 45 and the Glock 21. I was leaning more towards the Glock cause of mag prices and the price of the pistol itself. Lemmie just say I am the proud owner of an HK thanks to 60min and Glock's big mouth |
|
Quoted: On the other had I also know Glock has over 60% of LE sales for duty weapons in the USA. And there is the problem, because most large city CLEOs are political appointees, they pander to public opinion just like any other politician. Glock would rather sell 1000 weapons to a department than 1 to you our I. If the chiefs say balistic fingerprinting is needed, then they are of course going to buy from a manufacturer who goes along with the program, just so they can haul that out in a news conferance and say "look at me, look what I did" Yes I own Glocks, will I sell them? No. Will I walk right past the Glocks next time in the market for a new sidearm? Yes! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That leaves Kimber Colt Springfield Armory [red]Smith and Wesson (who, because of pressure we brought has new owners and a new pro-RKBA attitude)[/red] And every other manufactor who knows that if they sell us out, we will crush them too. This is a war, and Glock chose the wrong side. And there went your argument. [toilet] I ain't real sharp. So explain to me (using small words) how that destroys my argument. S&W had owners who made a deal with Clinton DOJ. A boycott by civilian firearm owners caused a drop in S&W sales. The owners sold S&W at a large loss. New Owners voided the deal and are trying to regain loyalty (difficultly, I may add. I personally don't like revolvers and that is the only reason I would buy a S&W). To wit, previous owners made a deal, got smacked, had to sell at loss. BECAUSE OF US THEY LOSS THEIR BUSINESS. New owners are trying to resurrect an old and once honorable name. So, explain to me (using very small words) why that throws out my argument. Thanks |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That leaves Kimber Colt Springfield Armory [red]Smith and Wesson (who, because of pressure we brought has new owners and a new pro-RKBA attitude)[/red] And every other manufactor who knows that if they sell us out, we will crush them too. This is a war, and Glock chose the wrong side. And there went your argument. [toilet] I ain't real sharp. So explain to me (using small words) how that destroys my argument. S&W had owners who made a deal with Clinton DOJ. A boycott by civilian firearm owners caused a drop in S&W sales. The owners sold S&W at a large loss. New Owners voided the deal and are trying to regain loyalty (difficultly, I may add. I personally don't like revolvers and that is the only reason I would buy a S&W). To wit, previous owners made a deal, got smacked, had to sell at loss. BECAUSE OF US THEY LOSS THEIR BUSINESS. New owners are trying to resurrect an old and once honorable name. So, explain to me (using very small words) why that throws out my argument. Thanks |
|
Quoted: as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". BOYCOTT GLOCK! WHOA! "as if to say" WTF? You are basing your decision to boycott Glock because someone interpreted a *shrug* "as if to say!" Geez. "as if to say..." [b]so what, we don't care about private sales anyway[/b] The guy DID NOT say this, just some moron walks up to the guy and begins hassling him. He shrugs his shoulders and you think this means "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway" And you then call for a boycott. Good grief! TRG |
|
Quoted: Quoted: as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". BOYCOTT GLOCK! WHOA! "as if to say" WTF? You are basing your decision to boycott Glock because someone interpreted a *shrug* "as if to say!" Geez. "as if to say..." [b]so what, we don't care about private sales anyway[/b] The guy DID NOT say this, just some moron walks up to the guy and begins hassling him. He shrugs his shoulders and you think this means "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway" And you then call for a boycott. Good grief! TRG |
|
Quoted: Quoted: as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". BOYCOTT GLOCK! WHOA! "as if to say" WTF? You are basing your decision to boycott Glock because someone interpreted a *shrug* "as if to say!" Geez. "as if to say..." [b]so what, we don't care about private sales anyway[/b] The guy DID NOT say this, just some moron walks up to the guy and begins hassling him. He shrugs his shoulders and you think this means "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway" And you then call for a boycott. Good grief! TRG As for SafTHammer, I don't have a copy of the article. It was in the Rifleman a few months back. If you don't believe me, fine. Don't buy S&W, I don't anyway. This was at the shotshow. The guy was industry talking to glock (everybody there is). The guy from Glock was the exact same VP who was on 60 minutes. I don't know about your company, but most don't let the janitor on 60 minutes to represent their company on national TV. This action was merely the culmination of several acts in the past 2 weeks. When your head is in the sand that deep, does it get in your ears? |
|
For me, the best outcome would be for Glock to turn things around. The loss of the biggest name in personal self-defense firearms for the nineteenth century because of wrong choices by unenlightened new leadership was a sad thing. The new Glock Model 37? It will be based on the Glock 22 frame, with a proprietary .45 caliber cartridge called the ".45Glock". Surely Glock at some point will realize that LEO sales are not going to keep the Model 37, and the following Model 38, alive in a new and unknown caliber. Especially one from a single manufacturer. Civilian sales will either make or break the new .45Glock and its vehicles of launch..... Scott [url]http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134789[/url] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway". BOYCOTT GLOCK! WHOA! "as if to say" WTF? You are basing your decision to boycott Glock because someone interpreted a *shrug* "as if to say!" Geez. "as if to say..." [b]so what, we don't care about private sales anyway[/b] The guy DID NOT say this, just some moron walks up to the guy and begins hassling him. He shrugs his shoulders and you think this means "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway" And you then call for a boycott. Good grief! TRG According to the post that was made here, it is based upon a simple shrug being interpreted by someone to mean "we don't care about private sales anyway" I did not see the 60 Minutes episode, and I am familiar with the S&W debacle, but come on. Really. Stop and think for just a moment about how SILLY it is to take a second or third hand "some guy who was in the industry that just saw the guy shrug and no that means Glock doesn't care about private sales." Seriously, the guy shrugged. Maybe it was the Five hundreth time he had been attacked that day and he finally got tired of responding. Don't let some *shrug* that you did not see, in a conversation you did not hear, carried out by someone you do not know and interpreted to mean something that it does not mean lead you down a foolish path. Think people. TRG |
|
stop photoshopping for a second and cruise over to Glocktalk. They have two threads covering the subject. Make your own call. I love my Glock, but you gotta close ranks when the time comes. If you are curious, give Glock USA a call and see what they say. I would love to hear I am full of shit. I just don't think that is the case. |
|
Quoted: stop photoshopping for a second I use MS Paint. Photoshop is for losers. [;D] Make your own call. I already did. I am calling people IDIOTS for *interpreting* a shrug [b]as if to say "so what, we don't care about private sales anyway".[/b] I love my Glock, Me too. But they are not the only handgun that I own. but you gotta close ranks when the time comes. If you are curious, give Glock USA a call and see what they say. Why? I understand what was said on 60 Minutes. I think the statements made by the VP are abhorrent. I would love to hear I am full of shit. You are, if you really belive you should be acting upon a third parties *interpretation* of a shrug to be a statement of company policy. I just don't think that is the case. See Above. A guy SHRUGGED. S H R U G G E D... He didn't say a damn thing and suddenly that shrug describes a Corporate Policy? Come on. TRG |
|
I think the reality of the situation is that the lawyers & bean counters at Glock Inc. believe that the company's long term future is in sales to Law Enforcement Agencies. Private sales of Glocks pad their profits, but their bread is buttered with LEO sales, and they have made a calculated decision that taking this stance will ensure continued sales with Dept. heads & city councils that are increasingly anti RKBA for non LEOs'. [b]Their position is one of crass appeasement in exchange for perceived financial gain. There is just no other way to spin it!!![/b] Ah... but the writing was on the wall. Just look at the way Glock handled the "recall." Frame rails are cracking on their guns, and they deem it necessary to only recall LEO weapons (and they do this very quitely). Only after the word spreads via the internet, does Glock admit that specific lots of their handguns have structural problems, and they graciously offer to replace the average Joe's defective Glock. To Glock Inc., a LEO's life is of greater value that a non LEO's life. If they didn't give a hoot that your average CCW holder's Glock could spit the bit in a [b]life or death[/b] situation, what makes you think that they care about your rights??? |
|
Quoted: Show me, using very small words, where the new owners voided the deal. I have already asked this is a previous post in this thread. Show me the money! Show me where SafTHammer voided the deal. Show me where these makers of trigger locks (a big part of that agreement) have voided the agreement and have become, in your words, pro-RKBA. Show me. I'll just use LARRYG's words if that is okay. They were good, and pretty little too. |
|
Quoted: See Above. A guy SHRUGGED. S H R U G G E D... He didn't say a damn thing and suddenly that shrug describes a Corporate Policy? Come on. TRG Well I heard about this guy that saw someone who asked him something and he [b]rolled his eyes[/b] as if to say "I am satan, and I come for your guns." [:D] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: See Above. A guy SHRUGGED. S H R U G G E D... He didn't say a damn thing and suddenly that shrug describes a Corporate Policy? Come on. TRG Well I heard about this guy that saw someone who asked him something and he [b]rolled his eyes[/b] as if to say "I am satan, and I come for your guns." [:D] The shrug would have meant nothing but the idiot made his views very clear on 60 minutes. It came right out of his mouth! The shrug now verifies the way Glock feels about the private market. |
|
I own one Glock, a G21 that I carry on and off duty. However, I, like several of my brother officers, bought my Glock with my own money as a private citizen. Until I figure out EXACTLY WTF is going on with Glock and this database thing (I too think it's a crock-o-shit) then I'll pass on my hard earned money towards a diferent company. I used to own a SIG P220, one of the finest firearms to ever grace this planet, and will undoubtedly buy another one. I won't be selling my G21, because it's a great gun that holds a hella-stank load of 45 in my mags. I'm also a Glock-Talk member and can tell you that we're as concerned about this as you all are. There is a great circling of the wagons while people try to sort their own beliefs out though. It's like learning that Santa Clause is a peder-ass. Truly sad. |
|
Quoted: Don't let some *shrug* that you did not see, in a conversation you did not hear, carried out by someone you do not know and interpreted to mean something that it does not mean lead you down a foolish path. Think people. TRG I don't need to see a shrug, eyeroll, flipped bird or any other sort of gesture. I saw and heard a V.P. at Glock state they support BF. If his statement was [b]not[/b] company policy then Glock Inc. would have refuted that statement by now. They have not. In fact they released another statement shortly after the telecast once again supporting BF, questioning the intelligence of those who are not in support of BF and also accusing those who do not support BF of seeking "criminal anonymity." I spoke to Mr. Januzzo's counterpart in the legal department and he also said the company stood by Mr. Januzzo's statement. Enough for me. Fuck Glock. Boycott Glock. |
|
I saw the 60 min piece. I wondered WHY. This was no ambush interveiw. This was a planned event. They support a program that is not a law in most of the country. I can only assume they are doing this to push CALF. sales. WHY ELSE ? I am the goto gun guy for my little circle of friends and I have it the PAST given the thumbs up for a few of their guns. NOT ANY MORE, unless I read a statement as to WHY glock supports B/F and how it will help stop crime. |