A while back, I chronicled my thoughts on sack-o-crap Gersh Kuntzman of the New York Daily News, lying about having fired an AR-15. Now this week we saw another sack-o-crap, Christine Lavin of the San Francisco Chronicle, lying about owning a Glock. Excerpts follow, with my comments.
I had come to Oakland from Texas, where having guns was part of the culture. When you go to a church or a bar in Texas, you usually see a sign saying “Leave your guns outside.” I bought mine at a gun show, with no background check, just cash on the barrel, so to speak. I took a gun safety class and started to target-shoot for a hobby. I got pretty good. Eventually, I became an instructor in gun safety and taught classes on weekends.
A couple things; I haven’t spent much time in Texas for quite a few years, so any True Believers from that state, enlighten me; have you ever, ever seen a church with a sign stating “Leave your guns outside?” Unless someone tells me different, I’m calling bullshit on that one. Also, the buying of the gun at a gun show? I suppose she may have bought one cash on the barrelhead from another private party, but this stinks a lot like a backhanded swipe at the whole “gun show loophole” horseshit. In other words, I ain’t buying it.
I opened my glove compartment, took out my Glock 17, and flipped off the safety. It was the first time it had ever come out of the glove compartment for any reason other than target practice. I rolled down the driver’s window and held the gun in front of my chest in both hands, as I’d been taught.
Let that sink in for a moment. Ready? When I read that, my initial thoughts were these:
For those who may not be familiar with Gaston Glock’s designs, the Glock 17 – indeed, any Glock – has no external safety. This is, as was Kuntzman’s column, pure horseshit. Ms. Lavin does not and never has owned a Glock of any kind. She made up, out of whole cloth, the entire damned story.
Is it any wonder that journalists don’t exactly enjoy the unqualified trust of the American people any more? Why the hell would Ms. Lavin put out such a transparent, easily disprovable lie? What was she trying to prove? What point was she trying to make?
I guess it’s unfathomable to people who, you know, don’t lie to try to make a point.
You know, those of us who actually know something about firearms have of late been accused of “gunsplaining” when confronted with would-be gun-banners who generally don’t know the difference between ass and face where guns are concerned. That’s been the case for a long time, and we’re kind of used to it. But when someone writes what seems to be a sort of pro-gun article for a liberal paper, and stuffs it with horseshit like this, that’s just baffling.