• Comment (13)

America's Gun Culture and Its Effect on the 2012 Election

Paul M, Barrett, author of Glock explains the rise of the handgun and where gun control legislation is headed

April 20, 2012 RSS Feed Print

In the mid-1980s, an Austrian factory manager and curtain rod manufacturer named Gaston Glock introduced American consumers to a handgun that was lightweight, efficient, and could hold more bullets than the traditional six-round revolver. Soon, many police forces and private gun owners were hooked, and despite a number of challenges and controversies, the Glock handgun became a ubiquitous part of American culture, says Paul M. Barrett in his new book, Glock: The Rise of America's Gun. Barrett, an assistant managing editor of Bloomberg Businessweek, recently spoke with U.S. News about Glock's business and cultural legacy and how the weapon affected America's gun control debate. Excerpts:

How did Glock break into the American market?

Gaston Glock, until the early 1980s, was an obscure figure in Austria. Through a series of really serendipitous events he got the opportunity to design a new pistol for the Austrian army. He combined a number of elements in the firearm that previously hadn't been combined in quite that way, and he came up with a truly innovative product: a sidearm that had a very large ammunition capacity, was very light and very durable. It just so happened, and this was total coincidence, that at that moment police departments in the United States were looking for a new service weapon.

[Read: Mitt Romney Shoots for Middle Ground with NRA Speeches]

How did the Glock become so popular?

While it was welcomed in the United States by law enforcement as an innovative tool that solved problems that cops perceived themselves as facing, it was also met with fierce hostility from anti-gun forces, from the gun control movement, which branded the gun uniquely dangerous because it was made largely out of plastic. It branded the gun as a so-called hijacker's special. This led to congressional hearings, it led to bans on the gun in major jurisdictions, such as New York City, and all of that drew a tremendous amount of attention. Then it turned out that the main attack on the weapon was simply phony. The Glock was not able to defy X-ray machines at airports. Then there was another factor, which is the Glock looks different. It got an aura of sort of dark glamour that appealed to Hollywood and appealed to hip-hop musicians, who began referring to the Glock by name in their songs. This huge amount of free attention vastly accelerated familiarity with the Glock.

[Read more author Q&As in U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad.]

What about the gun's capacity to store more bullets?

There was another very concerted effort to restrict the Glock based on magazine capacity. That effort resulted in the enactment of provisions in the assault weapons ban that was passed and signed into law in 1994 that restricted the sale of any magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and the firearms that went with them. Many people saw that as a terrible blow to Glock. But in fact it had exactly the opposite effect from what its sponsors intended.

What happened?

The company had seen this legislation coming. Glock was able to stockpile huge amounts of large-capacity gear, magazines, and firearms. All the Glocks that were already manufactured and out there in the world on the day of enactment were legal. There was a huge run on these large-capacity magazines and guns, and it was a profit bonanza for Glock. They also came out with a new line of smaller new guns with 10-round magazines and smaller magazines. At every turn, Glock was kind of able to take advantage of efforts to restrict the sale of its wares and sell more.

Will gun control be a big issue in the 2012 presidential election?

I think it will be, as a kind of fake big issue or a symbolic big issue. I think whoever the Republican nominee is will attempt to scare gun owners and gun rights advocates into thinking that in a second Obama administration there would be a big crackdown on guns. The same thing was said in 2008. There were tremendous warnings that President Obama would be very aggressive in restricting gun ownership and he's done exactly nothing on that front. And I don't think it's likely he'd do very much of note in a second administration either.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]

Is there a visible trend in gun control legislation?

Tags:
gun control and gun rights,
2012 presidential election

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

i personaly think that guns should be allowed to anyone that has a permet. reason being is perhaps you are walking down the street and someone tryes to harm,kill, steel from you. you will have acess to something that will protect you. maybe even if your getting robbed at your home, again you will have acess to protection.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

E.cool of WI 2:38PM February 13, 2013

Ownership of arms is ALWAYS the mark of a free man.Obama has already made it perfectly clear where he stands on freedom...he hates it.

"I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban." -Barack Obama, 10-21-04"

More research please and less opinion Mr. Barrett.

Steve M of OR 8:25PM May 07, 2012

THE NRA NEEDS A BIGGER TENT...

The NRA must expand its membership and lobbying to include fishermen, boaters, RVers, equestrians, divers, ranchers, farmers, off-roaders and prospectors - as well as manufacturers who produce products and equipment for these groups.

By now it should be obvious that the NRA will have fewer and fewer members as areas open to hunting and shooting are being closed down. Every years millions of acres of our "public lands" are being closed to the public.

Everyday, across the nation, we all pay for the environmental crusade of the “eco-elite”. When a rancher or farmer is forced to stop or curtail operations for one “environmentally correct “ reason or another we all pay in higher food prices. When a utility company can’t produce power because of concerns about nuclear plants or can’t build hydroelectric plants because of a threatened fish or snail, it costs us all. When a home builder can’t build homes for a growing nation without spending millions in environmental studies - the fees are paid by the home buyer. Manufacturers of all types products are shackled by huge costs and fees generated by environmental, regulation, litigation and legislation and when you buy your next car, piece of lumber or box of detergent you’ll be paying.

It seems no price is too great for the “Crusaders of Environmental Purity”. That may be true for the Martin Sheens and the Barbara Striesands and other members of the “eco-elite”, but what about the working people laboring under the ever increasing burden of these costs? Try and explain to a family trying to keep food on the table or staggering under medical bills that it was necessary to spend millions of dollars doing studies and building fences and closing roads to protect some weed, insect or salamander!

And, what about the cost in freedom and the human spirit when access to our lakes, streams, rivers and forests is being lost as the result of draconian environmental regulation?

When the eco-elite demand and litigate that roads and campgrounds be closed do we consider that not everyone is a young, healthy member of the Sierra Club, able to hike many miles into the woods to enjoy nature. Isn’t the disenfranchisement of the handicapped, the infirm, families with young children, the working poor and seniors from the outdoors too high a price to pay? Would we accept this discrimination in any other sector of our society?

Is a legacy of closed roads, abandoned campgrounds, fences, outlawed recreational activities. and high fees for what little recreational opportunity remains really what we want to leave future generations?

The NRA must expand it's lobbying efforts and membership to include all groups and companies who are affected by being disenfranchised from our public wild lands. 20 million+ members would have a lot more clout than 4 or 5 million.

It the NRA doesn't learn this lesson soon they will simply become irrelevant.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:03PM April 23, 2012

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

advertisement