Someone who TRULY wishes to kill you is dangerous regardless of what weapons are legal or not. For someone who wishes to commit murder, the threat of a firearms charge on top of a murder charge isn’t much of a deterrent. In the US where getting a firearm is relatively easy, strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing are still used rather frequently. Anyone who truly wishes you dead and has little or no regard for their own safety is most likely going to be successful. They have a higher rate of success if their target has no access to effective protection. If you and I are alone in a room, unarmed, and I want you dead, shoelaces make a wonderful weapon.

As for your assertion that guns are no protection against guns, I offer up almost any armed conflict since the implementation of gunpowder. Anyone who shot BACK at their opponent and hit them refutes your assertion. I would also offer up a couple of hundred years of pistol dueling as evidence, as well. Many times one participant rushed a shot and missed while the other aimed more carefully and came out alive. Also, if ANY pistol duel went more than one round, obviously there wasn’t that big of an advantage to shooting first.

Short of explosives, firearms ARE the best defense against other firearms. More importantly they are a deterrent against gun crime. Criminals typically don’t want a challenge or danger. If they were that ambitious or daring, odds are they either wouldn’t be criminals, or they wouldn’t be street criminals. A thug with a knife or even a gun most likely is going to shy away from targets that they either know or strongly suspect are armed and, even worse, trained. For example, the local city near me many years ago had a rash of carjackings, and in many cases, the people were beaten, stabbed, and a few shot. We changed the law to state that carjacking in any form can be considered a lethal threat, and therefore lethal force in defense was legal. Three or four dead carjackers later, and the criminals went back to stealing empty cars. Criminals don’t respect the law, but they DO fear for their lives. Sometimes you must speak in their language.

I understand the point you’re making i.e. a gun makes killing someone easier. That works both ways i.e. offense and defense. What you might overlook is that it also allows for a weaker person to defend themselves. You say if someone has a knife you might be able to run and find an improvised weapon. Fine enough. Let’s say the thug misses you, you grab a rock, and face your opponent. He’s 6’6” and 300 pounds. You’re female, 105 pounds, and 63 years old. Would you rather have that rock or would you rather have a firearm that you’ve been shooting for years? Firearms, better than any other tool, equalize physical traits in a fight.

Glock has got a solid lubricant that doesn’t freeze for such cold weather work. Duck hunters, for years, have fought similar problems.

Glocks have passed this test both for the US military and other countries with no significant issue. What’s left out is the “shaken out” part. It’s highly unlikely (bordering on impossible) for almost any conventional firearm to fire with the barrel full of sand or almost any other foreign material. Glocks DO perform once shaken out by hand. Granted, there is plenty of sand left all over the weapon including the mechanism and probably some in the barrel. On the other hand, the weapon’s barrel is not full of sand.

Glock isn’t the only weapon to pass this test.

A test Glock DOES do particularly well is firing in extremely cold conditions. Many weapons will either freeze up (lubricants) or will lose enough mechanical tolerances to cause inoperation. Glocks have a significantly positive history and reputation for cold firing.

Overall a very badly written piece, by someone who has not the slightest clue about these mentioned firearms.