Obscure Objects of Desire: Glock This!

[HTML1]

WARNING: This video is guaranteed to have Bloomberg, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, The Brady Bunch, Magoo, and other Gun Grabbers frothing at the mouth. (I can’t wait.) Here we see a fine example of a cross-pollination between European technology and Yankee Ingenuity: a double-drum magazine for a (slightly-)modified Glock (formerly semi-)automatic pistol. Don’t try this at home, kids, unless you have a Federal Permit to own machine guns, or think an up-close and personal visit from the ATF, FBI, or other alphabet agency (think “body cavity search” and “proctological-grade search warrant for your premises”) would look great on your To-Do list. But I gotta admit, getting past the cost of flinging a hundred or so rounds of lead downrange, and the obvious overkill of the process, shooting with this kind of rig looks like massive fun.

comments

  1. avatar Ryan Finn says:

    I’m drooling on my phone’s keyboard. Shooting an auto Glock is fun when you only have 33 rds, but that setup takes it to a whole different level.

  2. avatar sdog says:

    a thing of real beauty

  3. avatar John D says:

    Damn, there’d be soooo much crap to clean up!

  4. avatar Rob Crawford says:

    It’s like sex — hours of preparation and anticipation, seconds of the actual event.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Damn. I took a quick look at the picture and thought I was seeing a Glock with balls. They turned out to be a couple of drum mags. Sigh.

  6. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

    That definitely would be fun, but more on target with three shot burst. That and a barrel extension for a bit more control. Back pack fury!

  7. avatar Texas Deputy says:

    How does that Glock dissipate all of that heat?

    Could the heat generated damage the pistol?

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      No idea. But there are a couple of companies making alloy replacement bodies for Glocks, which would get around melting the frame risk. I would imagine, if you ported the barrel/slide that would dissipate some of the heat generated from the gasses.

  8. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Yeah, massive fun, in that adolescent school-boy way that some men never seem to outgrow.

    This theme of “fun” when it comes to firing guns is just another way to describe the psychological inadequacy many of you suffer from, for which guns are a good medicine.

    I admit that doesn’t necessarily make you dangerous or irresponsible, that’s another matter more to do with basic statistics and percentages. Some of you are dangerous and irresponsible and when that’s combined with the psychological inadequacy you’ve got a bad combination.

    I seems quite possible to me that these negative descriptions of gun owners apply not so much to the readers and writers of this blog but to the others, the ones who are not passionate like you guys. I think it’s a mistake for you to pretend that all or most gun owners are like yourselves. I think you have to take into account the many (the majority) who are not.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Mike, if we are willing (and we are) to acknowledge that there is a percentage of gun owners who behave irresponsibly, are you willing to acknowledge that they are, statistically, a very small portion of the total number of gun owners? I think this is a matter of perception. Neither of us can accurately claim to be unbiased on this issue. So realistically, the only way to decide the issue is to look at statistics. For instance, if we compare the number of households that keep at least one gun in the home versus the number of firearms-related injuries or deaths, that would give us one metric. Of course, you’d have to account for the number of guns that are used by criminals, because no amount of gun laws will stop criminals from getting guns and using them. (If life worked that way, the land across the pond would be bereft of gun violence, no?)

      We’d probably differ on stats that include suicide death by firearms. I’d say including those skews the results (because if someone’s going to kill themselves, sans-gun, they’ll find another way). I suspect you’d disagree.

      The number we’re really looking for is the one that tells us how many irresponsible gun owners there are; in other words, how many people own a gun and handle it in an unsafe manner, resulting in accidents leading to injury. That’s a hard number to get an accurate handle on, because accidental discharges and the like are not always reported. Let’s see if we can agree on some categories of ownership, then. See if you agree with this:

      • Gun owners who operate guns safely, practice regularly, keep them stored safely
      • Owners who are generally safe, but violate one or more safety rules, i.e.: don’t lock their guns in a safe, etc.
      • Owners who buy a gun, get training, then go to the range only infrequently, lessening their skills needed should they have to use their gun
      • Owners who buy a gun for protection, stick it in a drawer and forget about it – no practice, no eye towards safety, no training, no practice
      • Owners who inherited a gun and don’t have clue as to how to use it, but keep it around “just in case”
      • People who are clinically-depressed or suffer from some other mental illness, who either own a gun, or acquire one, intending to do harm to themselves or others
      • Criminals who acquire a gun through less-than-legal means (theft, illegal sale, etc.
      • Law Enforcement/Private Security who own/use guns in a safe and responsible manner
      • Law Enforcement/Private Security who own/use guns in an unsafe and irresponsible manner
      • Children who have unsupervised access to guns

      Did I leave anybody out? If we can agree on the categorical list, then we have to look at what the percentage for each category, to get us to 100%. From the latest stats I’ve seen, the number of gun owners number around 80 million. To quote RF in his recent post, Three Things You Need to Tell a Liberal About Guns,

      … less than one-half of .01 percent of American firearms owners were involved in a shooting. Half of those deaths were suicides. Most of the remaining deaths involved guns held illegally by previously convicted criminals.

      If you’re math-impaired like I am (thank God for calculators), that’s around 400 shootings. That’s out of a total 2010 population of 308,745,538. Running these two numbers through my iPad Calculator (there’s an app for that), I get .0001295565281983 or to state it more plainly, .0001% of the population has been involved in a shooting.

      Your chances of being shot by a gun owner (other than a criminal) are infinitesimally less than being injured or killed in a car wreck. And I’ll bet you’ve never once thought about the wisdom of banning cars.

      When you look at the numbers, the irrational fear of gun owners just doesn’t make sense.

      Now, we do have some common ground. I wish that all gun owners would do a lot of training. (Hell, I wish I could afford to do more, myself.) But I’m against mandatory training, because I see this as an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights. I wish that all gun owners would act responsibly with their guns. But since there’s no way to legislate responsible behavior (or as Ron White says, “You can’t fix stupid”) we differ on the wisdom of trying to force responsible behavior through legislation.

      I think the bottom line is that I’m willing to accept some risk on the part of myself and from my fellow man, in order to retain the right to self-defense. You don’t see it that way. And on that, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email