This is Glock's explanation of what their, now out of work, Vice President meant to say.

I am going to wait and see what happens. 

-- Tom Eaker / 21-Feb-03



Eric, the Administrator for posted the following.


Discussion of Glock Inc 60 Minutes Interview

This thread is for the discussion of the interview on 60 Minutes. Keep your comments civil or they will be removed. Thanks. Eric

Editted to Add The Following Statement:

A Statement From Paul Jannuzzo, Concerning Ballistic Fingerprinting

I talked with Paul Jannuzzo a few minutes ago and faxed me a statement concerning this matter and he gave me permission to post it here.


GLOCK is not for gun registration, plain and simple.

A database of firearms characteristics that are captured at the manufacturing site would actually be an argument against registration. GLOCK is not for retrieving and capturing characteristics of firearms that have already been sold, but rather, believes consideration should be given to capturing the characteristics on new firearms for sale. This way the characteristics are recorded to a serial number, not a citizen and his or her gun.

It seems the last point is the most important: The characteristics are tied to a serial number, not a person. This means that since the characteristics are not tied to a person, the ATF would have to do the exact same trace it is entitled by law to do now. Once they receive the cartridge casing from a crime scene, they then would (If the technology works) have a serial number. That way they can go to the manufacturer and ask for the first sale, which, in this case, would probably be to a distributor. Then they go to the distributor and ask for the name of the dealer and then from the dealer they go to look at the 4473 to see to whom it was sold. If the technology is any good, this would seem to be a good crime-solving tool, not gun registration. They have the absolute right to do such a trace under the law right now and they do it every single day, with every gun manufacturer in existence. To argue against the above scenario would seem to be an argument for criminal anonymity.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions. One has to ask oneself, how could some liberal anti-gunner say people-registration is necessary if this concept of a serial number being tied to a firearm's characteristics is viable? Can it be defeated? Sure it can, but the jails are not full and overcrowded because criminals are geniuses.

There are obviously limits that need to be set when one speaks of Government intrusion into the life of a citizen, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about recording the mechanical characteristics to a firearm and a firearm alone.

Will it work? We do not know. Will it be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps it will, but we cannot always just take the knee-jerk reaction and say no because we are used to saying no. It needs time and study to either prove or disprove itself. Because criminals are as a big a threat to civilian ownership of firearms as they anti-gunners are. If it were not for the criminals, the anti-gunners would not have an argument against firearms ownership, except that they do not trust the people. Would you not love to be around the day that mask finally comes off?

As noted above, it is a matter of drawing the line in an intelligent place. That place may be saying 'no' in this instance, but I do not believe we are at the place and have the necessary information to make that decision. Could ballistic fingerprinting be used as an excuse to go further? Certainly, we are not naive enough to believe the camel has its nose stuck as far under the tent as it cares to go. The trick is to draw the line on the slippery slope in an intelligent place. Obviously, a national database or DNA registry could be a great crime-solving tool, but will we as Americans allow that level of intrusion into our personal privacy? Of course we will not. Likewise, here there has to be a balancing of costs(intrusion into personal freedoms) to benefits(potential crime-solving tool), and since there is no intrusion into our personal freedom and there is a potential for it to be a crime-solving tool, the equation clearly comes down on the side of waiting to see if the technology has any viability.

Please note that all pictures are assumed to be in the public domain.
If you have any issues regarding copyright, please email me and I will remove all offending images.

Copyright 2003 Tom Eaker. All rights reserved.


Home || Contact Me