From picking up Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun, journalist Paul M. Barrett’s latest book-length work, you might not be sure what to expect. Academic treatise on America’s gun culture through the lens of the Glock pistol? Biography on Gaston Glock, the gun’s designer and manufacturer? Or an examination of gun laws and violence involving the Glock?

Turns out that Barrett weaves all of these and more together in an expansive and in-depth look at a pistol that has come to stand for gun in American culture. We Xerox something or reach for a Kleenex or, in this case, draw a Glock. As Barrett argues, “Glock is the Google of modern civilian handguns: the pioneer brand that defines its product category.” And he never stops successfully reinforcing that point.

Barrett intelligently opens the book, not on Gaston Glock as curtain rod manufacturer in Vienna, but with a vicious gun battle in Florida devoid of the titular firearm. Starting with the vividly retold scene draws you into the narrative and subject matter if not necessarily the book’s subject. This spark of action, what Barrett calls “The bloodiest day in FBI history,” sparks also a search on the part of the FBI for a better gun. For that, Barrett winds back the clock, beginning the process of weaving together America’s gun culture, Gaston Glock’s start and evolution as gun maker, and the way the two come to affect and feed each other.

He captures not only the evolution of the Glock company but the change in the man himself, Gaston Glock, from conservative, middle-aged manufacturer to jet-setting, paranoid, international multi-millionaire. From the start of Glock onto the firearm stage, he seems peculiarly American (though I’m doubting that Herr Glock would look too kindly on my analysis); he seems like sort of an old west individualistic, entrepreneurial capitalist. And he is that, in a way—intelligent, capable, and extremely hard-working. He doesn’t remain with that particular image, in the book’s narrative anyway, for very long just as the gun itself goes from unknown to ubiquitous. In just over twenty years, the Glock went from fresh Austrian import to sitting on the hips of well over half of America’s police officers.

Buried in this book is a lesson for anti-gun activists as well: you’re best efforts at minimizing gun ownership, largely, not only fail to work, but usually have the opposite effect. Those people stoking the flames against the Glock, and Barrett goes through a laundry list in the few decades of the gun’s existence, provided nothing more than free advertising and assistance in sparking a buying frenzy. The Brady Bill is a perfect example that the book covers, which did little more than allow for easy manipulation by gun companies to sell thousands of guns right up until the deadline and then re-sell previously manufactured guns grandfathered in.

Just because Barrett establishes the ineffectual nature of the legislation is not to say that he overtly takes sides in the matter. For the most part, he carefully walks a cool journalistic line throughout the book, pointing out issues on both sides of the debate and oftentimes following a course rooted in facts and studies. For instance, he is quick to dispel and revisit the idea of the Glock as the street-criminal’s gun. Rather, the Glock is the law enforcement’s gun if anything. Though, Barrett also establishes a pattern of handguns with high capacity magazines, which Glock played a crucial role in developing, used in mass-killings such as the Virginia Tech or more recent Tucson shootings. Both killers used a Glock.

The book spends plenty of time on America’s gun culture, establishing that connection between the plastic pistol and its popularity. As Barrett illustrates with an analogy involving cars, “Wheels and firepower—representing adventurousness and machismo—are seen by many shapers of popular culture as essential American characteristics.” Quite simply, the Glock succeeded here simply because it was America: a place that loves its guns. At times Barrett seems to drift from his focus of the Glock as it rises to become America’s gun, such as when he moves deeper into the intricacies of the Glock company. But it’s precisely this choice that helps round out the book and keep it from being either too academic or one-sided.

The roundness of Barrett’s analysis, as well as its depth, allow Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun to appeal to a wider audience. And appeal it should. The story has it all: corporate intrigue, an assassination attempt, international corruption, amorous quibbles, and, of course, lots and lots of guns.

Nate at UBG sent me a Black right handed outside the pants holster for my Glock 27 called the “Regulator”. I have, when the situation was correct, carried this holster now for close to a year. I have found it to be of very good construction and made out of quality leather. The Regulator is very comfortable and does a good job of concealment when wearing a cover garment. Frankly, I have beat the crap out of this holster. The straps have held up well, showing very minimal wear. The snaps are still crisp and directional and the leather still looks great.

I took the liberty of stealing a couple of Nate’s images from his website, the 2nd top image is a Regulator with shark skin trim. The bottom right is a Brown right hand for a 1911. The other images are of my black regulator holding one of my Glock 27s.

UBG makes this holster for Right or Left handed use, and in several colors. This model as well as others are available also in some exotic skins. The price for the Regulator starts at a modest $70.00 for standard leather, and gets more expensive for exotic skins. The review rankings are below. There is a bit of a wait because these are custom made to order. The wait is very reasonable, and I of all people do understand that sometimes you have to wait a bit for handmade quality!

Quality of materials – 8
Ease of putting the holster on – 9
Fit to firearm -8
Angle of carry – 8
Price (Value) – 10

Overall the Regulator from www.ubgholsters is rated a 9 out of 10. If you need a good hand made belt holster at a good price, you can’t go wrong with UBG Holsters. Nate makes several other models of holsters to fit a lot of current modern firearms.

Nate Gable
UBG Holsters
Stansbury Park, UT
jarhead79@ubgholsters.com

The escalating conflict around Iran should be contained by common effort, otherwise the promising Arab Spring will grow into a “scorching Arab Summer,” says Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO.

­“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” stressed Rogozin.

Here’s what Rogozin is talking about (notice how close the Southern tip of Russia is to Northern Iran):

A Chinese general has also allegedly said that China would launch World War III if Iran is attacked. And see this.

While many Americans still believe that our government would not be crazy enough to attack Iran, economic – not national security – considerations may be driving the warmongers.

In addition, Iran and Syria have had a mutual defense pact for years. And China and Russia might also defend Syria if it is attacked. So an attack on Syria could draw Iran into the war … followed by China and Russia.

By Chris Morran on December 7, 2010 10:20 AM

In a move that makes virtually no sense whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security has announced a partnership with Walmart “to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.”

From the DHS website, which we are pretty sure has not been hijacked by the editors of The Onion:

“The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and funded, in part, by $13 million from DHS’ Transit Security Grant Program—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities ”

“Homeland security starts with hometown security, and each of us plays a critical role in keeping our country and communities safe,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. “This partnership will help millions of shoppers across the nation identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to law enforcement authorities.”

Napolitano will also appear in a video that will run at select checkout counters. The Secretary somehow manages to stave off a smile as she tells shoppers to alert Walmart managers to possible threats of terrorism.

Secretary Napolitano Announces Expansion of “If You See Something, Say Something” Campaign to Walmart Stores Across the Nation [DHS.gov]

Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago is Scum. The un-safest City in America goes one step further.

CHICAGO (AP) – With the city’s gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city’s South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

“As long as I’m mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago,” said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :

- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

- Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city – which has been illegal since the city’s ban was approved 28 years ago – would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city’s ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

“We’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has,” said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges.

Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he’d hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

Georges said it would be expensive for homeowners to include guns on their homeowners’ and renters’ insurance policies, so such a requirement could be seen as being discriminatory to the city’s poorer residents. Limiting the number of handguns could be seen as discriminatory to people who owned weapons before the city’s ban went into effect in 1982 or before they moved into the city.

“We can limit the place in which those handguns can be located,” she said, before adding a not-so-veiled swipe at the court: “For instance, the Supreme court does not want them coming into the courthouse.”

Still, Daley indicated that no matter what was included in the ordinance, he expects legal challenges.

“Everybody has a right to sue,” he said