What Should Have Been Written About Glock
I read The New York Times because I’ve been doing it since 1958, and because there’s a terrible fascination in...
I read The New York Times because I’ve been doing it since 1958, and because there’s a terrible fascination in watching it decline from what it once was into the sad thing that it is now. The Times has never been one to pass up a shot at the gun industry, and in the January 15 edition was a piece entitled “Tucson Shootings Add to Glock’s Notoriety,” by a Andrew Martin. Mr. Martin is no lightweight. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard, and is co-holder of a Pulitzer Prize. His field of reporting is finance.
The article is a brief history of Glock and a review of alleged fiscal wrongdoing by members of the company. It was about what you would expect until it got to this sentence: “Made mostly of molded polymer, as opposed to metals, Glocks were lighter than other handguns and could carry more rounds.” Here is what should have followed, but didn’t. I can’t imagine why.
“When the Glock 17 was imported to the United States in the mid 1980s, its polymer frame created an uproar in both Congress and in the news media. Claims were made that the gun was all plastic and that it could be smuggled through metal detectors. Both allegations were completely false. The Glock 17 employs a pound of steel in its construction. No Glock has ever been smuggled through a metal detector. Today, the Glock 17 is the most widely used law-enforcement pistol in the world.”
If Andrew Martin should read this, there’s no need to thank me. However, let’s make a deal. If you don’t write about guns, I won’t write about money.