Hold on...
"Made mostly of molded polymer, as opposed to metals, Glocks were lighter than other handguns and could carry more rounds."

Um, maybe I am missing something but the weight of the gun has no impact on the number of rounds it can carry. Certainly a gun that has a lower dry weight will have a lower loaded weight but the number of rounds is based on the construction of the gun (dimensions of the grip/handle and resulting magazine well dimensions) and the caliber and configuration of the bullets (straight stack vs. offset). The reason that the shooter had a 30 round capacity is that all magazine fed weapons can have load magazines that are as long as the designer/manufacturer want once they stick out the bottom of the weapon. He could have had a 1,000 capacity magazine if someone made it and be bought it.

The bottom line here is that a mad man decided to kill a bunch of people, Glock didn't decided to kill people, the magazine manufacturer didn't decided to kill people, Sarah Palin didn't decided to kill people, this guy did. He is to blame.

Even if you did make a plastic gun that was not detected by metal detectors, I have yet to see any plastic bullets.

Typical NY Times reporting

Hey, the Times is my lcoal paper and I love it, but I am a rare bird, a liberal New Yorker who is pro gun and hunts. The Times shares thevalues of most of its readership that "guns are bad". It is actually understandable since their association with guns is primarilly that of young men murdering one another. In that context more guns did not make the streets safer--just the opposite, since mpost of those being murdered were armed themselves and it didn't help. I don't share their values on this issue but they are certainly entitled to them. The Times editorial board is completely hostile to guns, but I was actually shocked that this article, which I read twice, was not more hostile to Glock. It was quite even handed for the Times.

I happened to be a fan of Glock. They're not pretty and the triggers a little creepy, but their form follows function and mine has been an incredibly reliable and consistent piece of machinery. Amusingly, if I remember one of the Die Hard movies had John McClean mention a Glock which one of the perps had as being a plastic gun that was invisible to X-Ray. I've seen sillier fire-arms events in movies, but they HAD THEM ON THE SET. There's an awful lot of steel in one of those things. I can't live up to Mr. Petzal's promise above. If I didn't write about what I didn't know, I'd soon lose what little ability to compose a sentence I possess due to lack of practice.

jamesti,
In his previous post, Mr. Martin, by his own admission, clearly defined that he was NOT a firearms expert, nor did he claim to be. I do not believe that his skills as a journalist should be in question. While Mr. Martin and myself may share different opinions in this regard, that is not grounds for me to disrespect him, not that you have, and that is certainly not the implication. By the very fact he took time to read the blog and reply, and the manner in which he replied tells me that I would probably, at this time, share my single malt, although not my duckblind, with him.
Andy Martin, you are AOK with me. Now if we can just get you a job with a respectable rag,,,,

Why should the media muddy the water with facts?

Being a cop I find myself at the court house all the time. Every time I walk through the metal detector both the Glock 22 on my hip and the Glock 27, that is elsewhere, set off the metal detector. If Mr. Martin would have just asked I could have cleared it up for him. Oh, and if you run a Glock through an X-ray machine it still looks like a gun just in case this question were to arise.

Andrew could be writing about how this fanatic blew up people with an explosion, in a world of forms there are numerous ways to harm a crowd, I just don't want to end up like the British without the ability to own a Glock legally.

seems behind everything lies the hidden agenda of someone to omit certain truths. And people say the media doesn't take sides.... ignorance is the opiate of the masses.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Ben Franklin

I don't know if there was an attempt to correlate the light weight of the Glock with the fact that it can carry more rounds, or if the two facts were simply mentioned one after the other in the same sentence.

Give me a break! I go along with comments similar to valgards and do not see what the fuss is all about in this instance. Mr. Martin's response above was perfectly reasonable. Yeah, a lot of these comments are pretty over the top and make us sound kind of hysterical; and I am saying this as fanatic supporter of the 2nd Amendment and no fan of most of the press, and that includes the Times. They keep letting us down in countless ways.

I like the Glock, it works. Especially in 9mm Par., it is the AK-47 of handguns. I carried one at work for years. I still do from time to time but now carry a HK USP in .45 most of the time because I have a choice. I have and use other handguns too. What ever gun is used, you need the best ammo. That is key.

Its all about selectively reporting that which will sell to a target group. In a way, its all about money. So Mr. Martin is indeed writing about money.

Never did like plastic pistols (and yes I have fired a Glock). I don't like that once worn out (I've heard they're good for about 10,000 rounds), they are essentially disposable and can't be rebuilt like a 1911 can. It would be one thing if they were disposable and compostable as well, but the plastic is nearly immortal even if the gun isn't. My 1911 Frankenstein pistol was likely rebuilt before I bought it, It shoots good and will likely be passed on when I'm done with it.
I can see the value of polymer framed weapons designed to wear out for military or police, where a low maintenance firearm for general issue is a good idea and having arms that are useless after their standard span of service limits the usefulness of captured arms.
But I'm a civilian now, thankfully (I was USAF in the '70s) and I have time to clean and oil things properly. I don't need something made for mass production, I want to customize every arm I have to my tastes. Stag grips on a Glock would be tatties on a boar hog!

i happen to find that glocks are pleasing to hold, shoot, and look at. it is a fine mechanism. which bring me a delima.for my CCW should i get a glock, beretta, or .357?

sorry "loudest"

That's interesting. Because (Bloomberg) Business Week had a Glock on this week's front cover and a story inside. (coincidence?)

They made the same comment about the uproar some made of it being plastic, and a screening security risk. But they did follow through with the fact that it isn't the problem originally made out to be. They did have some language I thought to be couching an anti-gun bias which I didn't particularly like. (I threw the magazine out and can't refer to specifics now.) But overall, they did an OK job describing the history of Glock and how it was marketed and became the handgun of choice with LEOs.

Trouble with Bloomberg taking over Business Week is that there is now a very political slant to the magazine. I don't plan to renew because of it.

Here here! Glock is a fine weapon, don't care for them personally. I call'em blocks because they are ugly IMHO. Plus they have no second strike capability. Other than that they are reliable and strong. What more could one ask?

earlyriser81, X-rayed a Glock in a fanny pack cluttered with other stuff including aluminum foil, came out in perfect detail!

Lie enough and the lie becomes the truth. Gun ignorance is probably the number one source of gun hatred and gun fear. Damn hoplophobes...

Just to answer one post, a Glock will last over 250,000 rounds and the original Army spec's for 1911's was only for 20,000 or 30,000 rounds. So they will outlast most completely metal firearms.

It's of no surprise that the Times(and other media) has pounced on Glock. The monosyllabic, near guttural word, ending with the hard "K" sounds ominous and adds punch even when written.

Back in the 80's when crack and the associated violence exploded in New York 9 M I L I M E T E R became boogeyman, not the drugs or the skells who used and/or dealt them.

Tragically, much of the media cannot bring itself to place responsibility of an individual on that individual. Society, business, inanimate objects, and the lack of a government program is always the problem.

If the Tuscon shooter plowed into the crowd with a Prius Hybird congress would ban them until the owners tied tied tin cans from the bumper to give "fair warning" of their approach.

Amflyer

Better watch out, New York Times uses recycled paper and ink no telling the origin of it!

That's good writing Dave. I hope Mr.martin does read it. And that he repents in dust and ashes.

Dr. Ralph:
Didn't Jocelyn Elders, MD say that what we needed were safer guns and safer bullets? This may not have anything to do with this article but it may show that the lefties have a screw loose on the subject of firearms.

nycflyangler did you mean Larry Flynt? I'm still scratching my head.

Thanks, DEP, for again lowering my blood pressure after reading un-informed anti-gun crap spewed to the public.

In the debate over large cap magazines, I'd like to see someone compare the speed with which a proficient practical pistol shooter or a good cowboy action shooter can reload and shoot versus a novice with an extended magazine.

Writers who've never held or shot a gun shouldn't have any more of a chance to write a story about them than a guy who's never had a checking account would be allowed to write about finance and banking.

In promising about money does that include things economic?

As a left-of-center Democrat (and avid hunter-shocking!) I realize posting here is akin to O'Reilly going on The View. HOWEVER, Mr. Petzal, what is the point of your blog? That an article on a psycho's use of a glock and that company's record should be fair? Was it a report or an editorial? If the former, I understand your irritation. If the latter, than there is no need to bring up a controversy that has NOTHING to do with the current events that led Martin to write the piece. You are simply doing one of the things you do best (behind simply writing about guns in a knowledgable and humorous way)-stirring the pot because someone doesn't agree with your particular (and terribly hidden) politics. Stick to writing about guns, and leave the politics out of it, and I promise to continue reading your stuff. (Actually, I'll probably do so either way, because I'm used to skipping over your editorial diatribes on the horrors of the Democrats)

"Mr. Martin is no lightweight. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard, and is co-holder of a Pulitzer Prize."

Wow, all that and he's still a moron. No surprise, and no surprise he works at the NYT.