From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 62

In article <93105.165359U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>>
>>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>>outside.)
>
>Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.

Kratz comments above show otherwise.

>It's basic purpose - not to let the gun fire until you're ready.

Bingo - now the question is, does the Glock's qualify?  Let's see
the evidence that Kratz uses.

>Christ, I've known that since I had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't
>know me so don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.

But first an aside.  Having an air gun proves nothing.  Moreover,
my comments are based on what Kratz writes.  He's free to argue that
he babbles in text but actually knows something off-line.

>>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
>trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.

Harder than what?  I note that almost all revolvers work the same way,
so it can't be "harder than revolvers".

>Every article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.

Sure they can.  (Moreover, we know now that Kratz' sample is
unrepresentative.)  We can look at the reasoning.  It is basically
"these Glocks are dangerous because they're not like my 1911/S&W third
generation."  Part of that is true, but since those same people don't
claim that revolvers, which share the relevant property, are
dangerous, we see that the argument fails.

>me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or

Why would I care?  I'm not looking for more bogus reasoning.

>rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
>here without someone getting right on your ass.

One can make hundreds of simple statements without having anyone
"getting right on your ass".  One merely has to make accurate simple
statements.  Then you get "attaboy"s by mail and publically.

Accuracy is a severe burden, but most of us manage it.

-andy
--
