Oh, c'mon, that's stretching it a little.
You're saying that someone such as myself, qualified with a number of weapons from 6 different armies of other countries, as well as five from our own army, carried a pistol for nearly 20 years for 8 hours a day, fired probably a million rounds thru a 1911 and a few thousand thru a Glock, as well as a few thousand thru a 9mil/military, etc, etc, etc, can't be expected to not say anything adverse against any particular gun manufactured today?
My personal opinion of a particular weapon would carry great weight, I would think, toward the determination of reliability and functionality of the weapon, but would not have anything to do with the "evil" intents of the manufacturer, would you not agree?
There are those that think that Glock is the spawn of the devil, but there are those that feel the same way about Springfield and Kimber and other brands. That's just simple human nature. I, for one, cannot stand to have an Izod sport shirt touch my flesh. I prefer Bass. Notwithstanding the fact that the fabrics are probably both made on the same loom in China.
I fail to see how a functionality comparison based upon extensive experience of a personal nature can play into the "gungrabbers" hands.
Personally, I dislike the Glock, but not because the manufacturer is evil or irresponsible. It simply does not fit my personal parameters of what a duty weapon should be.
I'm not flaming you and so do not misinterpret my disagreement with you.
My concern is that we become so paranoid about what the anti-gun nuts do or not do, that it affects us in reporting what we feel are valid concerns with the weapons we all are so familiar with.
Perhaps the key words there, though, are "valid concerns".
Simply stating that the Glock is a plastic POS is not sufficient, and I agree with you that such words should be backed up with truth and verifiable facts.
Again, I do not think the Glock is a plastic POS, as it is a fairly well made weapon, well-suited for the basic design intents.
It just does not satify me.
Now, if you wish to discuss irresponsibility in manufacturing, we can discuss the RG Roehm .22 revolver or the early (very early) Taurus pot metal "ripoff copies" or similiar so-called "Saturday Night Specials", the existence of which none of us can deny. Irresponsible, yes. Evil...I don't know, unless the pursuit of the almighty dollar can be categorized as evil under those circumstances.
I have actually purchased a couple of them for no other reason than to destroy them and remove all possible points of contention that the Brady Bunch may have or use.
"You're saying that someone such as myself, ... can't be expected to not say anything adverse against any particular gun manufactured today?"
No, but I would expect that whatever you do say, if it's picked up by a reporter, will not end up looking like what it was when you said it.
FR is very popular these days, and our friends and foes have been known to quote from here.
There are some people here who trot out "plastic gun" every time a Glock is mentioned; never mind that here the shooter used ammunition which Glock said not to use. Even were the gun faulty, "plastic" had nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.
In other threads people have trashed a particular gun when the situation was actually that the wielder pointed it in an inappropriate direction (at his own foot) and pulled the trigger.
So no, I don't expect people to withhold their opinion! But I do expect that whatever they say ought to have some vague relation to the actual facts at hand.