
Kratz comments above show otherwise.


Bingo - now the question is, does the Glock's qualify?  Let's see
the evidence that Kratz uses.


But first an aside.  Having an air gun proves nothing.  Moreover,
my comments are based on what Kratz writes.  He's free to argue that
he babbles in text but actually knows something off-line.


Harder than what?  I note that almost all revolvers work the same way,
so it can't be "harder than revolvers".


Sure they can.  (Moreover, we know now that Kratz' sample is
unrepresentative.)  We can look at the reasoning.  It is basically
"these Glocks are dangerous because they're not like my 1911/S&W third
generation."  Part of that is true, but since those same people don't
claim that revolvers, which share the relevant property, are
dangerous, we see that the argument fails.


Why would I care?  I'm not looking for more bogus reasoning.


One can make hundreds of simple statements without having anyone
"getting right on your ass".  One merely has to make accurate simple
statements.  Then you get "attaboy"s by mail and publically.

Accuracy is a severe burden, but most of us manage it.

-andy