Glock lost a potential customer today

WalkingWolf · Jan 13, 2014

flhrci said:
Thanks for the info Wolf. Definitely something to pay attention to when looking at S&W. Do you think the S&W Performance Center guns would be better despite the higher prices?

David

The only way to know is to look at them, feel them, measure the tolerances. But then you pay even more for a gun that should be quality based on it's price to begin with. And also they seem to better on their semi autos, but if you do have a problem you will deal with the same level of service.

Personally I would buy a Ruger semi auto before I would buy a Smith. Ruger has sorta a funny guarantee, but most people have been satisfied by their customer service. And Ruger is well known for their past and current quality.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Jan 13, 2014

I have only one gun that had some work done by the S@W performance center a 3913 had a trigger job.

It has a very nice double and single action trigger now.

Running Wolf · Jan 13, 2014

Springfield Armory is much better than Glock anyway . . . .

HPmatt · Jan 13, 2014

flhrci said:
Read it over again. You are correct. I do not consider myself disabled btw but the VA does.

David

If the VA categorizes you as disabled, have they sent you a letter saying your are not fit to own guns? Another thread was saying this is how the Anti-gun nuts are attacking 2A rights via bureaucratic fiat.

flhrci · Jan 13, 2014

HPmatt said:
If the VA categorizes you as disabled, have they sent you a letter saying your are not fit to own guns? Another thread was saying this is how the Anti-gun nuts are attacking 2A rights via bureaucratic fiat.

No letter like that. I just get disability pay each month. Considered 60% disabled due to previous injuries/conditions, service-connected.

David

Fallschirjmäger · Jan 13, 2014

flhrci said:
Read it over again. You are correct. I do not consider myself disabled btw but the VA does.
David

I'm fairly sure you have to make a claim of disability unless the VA has recently started a 'no knock' program of entering people's houses and assigning them disability.
Did you ever see one of these?

If you don't consider yourself disabled, then aren't you accepting money under false pretenses?

Fallschirjmäger · Jan 13, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Perhaps you should have told them how your position as a disabled veteran protects and serves the community?

flhrci said:
How does a retired Veteran do same? The rest of the categories do.
David

I like your style, so... if you'll answer my question, I'll take a stab at answering yours.

davidmcbeth · Jan 13, 2014

That include inactive reservists?

Also, why punish people who would have joined if not for Obamalama being CIC?

Its all rubbish .. cops get discounts ...

Seems like Glock loves big government ... they should be denying these people access IMO.

flhrci · Jan 13, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
I'm fairly sure you have to make a claim of disability unless the VA has recently started a 'no knock' program of entering people's houses and assigning them disability.
Did you ever see one of these?

If you don't consider yourself disabled, then aren't you accepting money under false pretenses?

I think filled an electronic version out years ago. I don't feel I an taking the money under false pretenses as the services connected injuries/conditions are real. I just don't feel like I am disabled. Can't explain it differently other than disabled by VA standards and civilian standards seem to be different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flhrci · Jan 13, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
I like your style, so... if you'll answer my question, I'll take a stab at answering yours.

My status as a disabled Veteran does not serve the community or protect it. Is that what you wanted me to admit?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flhrci · Jan 13, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
That include inactive reservists?

I suppose it does. Not sure

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maverick9 · Jan 13, 2014

flhrci said:
I suppose it does. Not sure

Unless you want to be more specific, I guess we'll assume you're a Uni-baller.

Don't worry, maybe someday you can win the Tour de France, too?

(just kiddin')

Thanks for your service, though.

davidmcbeth · Jan 13, 2014

flhrci said:
I suppose it does. Not sure

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think almost all vets are inactive reserves ... lol

sudden valley gunner · Jan 14, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
I believe the discounts for certain segments of society are bigotry. And in some states may actually be against the law. It essentially comes out to be a bribe for those groups to encourage contracts not based on merit. That is why they do these programs so the public will pay more money for a arm that they believe is superior because government agents and agencies use them.

Unfortunately almost all the firearm manufacturers do this, making the general population pay more. Companies that don't do it already sell their weapons at a reasonable price to the public. Some of them get their customers by better service and warranty. Not something that S&W or Glock is known for. It is odd that the more economical firearms have better warranties, and better service.

+1

I support a private company's right to do so. I support their right not to do so too.

Citizen · Jan 14, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
I believe the discounts for certain segments of society are bigotry. And in some states may actually be against the law. It essentially comes out to be a bribe for those groups to encourage contracts not based on merit. That is why they do these programs so the public will pay more money for a arm that they believe is superior because government agents and agencies use them.

Unfortunately almost all the firearm manufacturers do this, making the general population pay more. Companies that don't do it already sell their weapons at a reasonable price to the public. Some of them get their customers by better service and warranty. Not something that S&W or Glock is known for. It is odd that the more economical firearms have better warranties, and better service.

(chuckle) I was looking for a post like this, and missed it. If SVG had plus-one'd it, I'd have missed it altogether.

I agree. The problem isn't that disabled vet status isn't worth anything to Glock; the problem is that Glock assigns value to other statuses.

Besides, why would one think someone owes a discount to him, veteran or otherwise?

A poster way above compliments the OPer for standing up for his values. The OPer is actually assigning a dollar value to his values. Which, now that I think about it devalues values to mere value, doesn't it?

Fuller Malarkey · Jan 15, 2014

Citizen said:
(chuckle) I was looking for a post like this, and missed it. If SVG had plus-one'd it, I'd have missed it altogether.

I agree. The problem isn't that disabled vet status isn't worth anything to Glock; the problem is that Glock assigns value to other statuses.

Besides, why would one think someone owes a discount to him, veteran or otherwise?

A poster way above compliments the OPer for standing up for his values. The OPer is actually assigning a dollar value to his values. Which, now that I think about it devalues values to mere value, doesn't it?

Touché! I didn't think that one through. Can't argue with your assessment about how this affects values.

flhrci · Jan 15, 2014

Citizen said:
(chuckle) I was looking for a post like this, and missed it. If SVG had plus-one'd it, I'd have missed it altogether.

I agree. The problem isn't that disabled vet status isn't worth anything to Glock; the problem is that Glock assigns value to other statuses.

Besides, why would one think someone owes a discount to him, veteran or otherwise?

A poster way above compliments the OPer for standing up for his values. The OPer is actually assigning a dollar value to his values. Which, now that I think about it devalues values to mere value, doesn't it?

As the OP, I feel I am part of one whole group, which is military service. I do not like targeted things like this. For example, the company I work with normally does a corporate wide pay raise for hourly workers. It was put off until this past October instead of the usual March. Any way, the raise was targeted at people by job description that deal with customers. I, by job description, do not work with customers and did not receive the pay raise. About half the company is in my job classification so a lot of people did not receive the targeted pay raise. This is a major shipping company btw. 300000 or so employees. So, I am part of the whole group, the company, but the pay raise was targeted to specific people.

Similar thing to the discounts being to only certain segments of military people. I am not assigning a value to my disabled veteran status. To me, former military is formerly military except those that are not honorably discharged.

David

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

WalkingWolf · Jan 15, 2014

Taking into account it is their choice in a free market, wouldn't you rather not have to jump through any hoops to buy a product at a fair price?

Where I have a problem is in the case of a LEA where officers are given gifts in order to secure a contract.

jfrey123 · Jan 15, 2014

Is there any consideration here to the way "disable veteran" is applied to those suffering with severe mental health problems after their service? Hear me out:

1. It certainly isn't appropriate for Glock to inquire as to the affliction that places a person in the "disabled veteran" category. Medical records are and should be private, so there's no way for them to know why a person is disabled.

2. I'm sure the legal team at Glock has tons of smart guy lawyers who examine liability. Because disabled veterans include those afflicted by mental health, it would be unwise to create a discount program that could be seen as encouraging those with mental disorders to buy discounted firearms.

I think their initial response was overtly short, but it does somewhat reflect the tone the OP's email to them was sent. Just some food for thought, I personally don't like the distinction they're making but I can see why they might...

Maverick9 · Jan 15, 2014

Problem is the OP is lying. He's not only not entitled, he's also not really disabled by his own admission, and he's cheating the system.

(OP, no diss intended, lots of cheating in that system, yours is probably mild).

Get a part-time sit-down job, buy the firearm and be glad nobody here knows who you are and reports you.

Also, I would not let a hissy fit deter me from buying the firearm that is best for the job. It's like saying 'I don't like that seat-belt manufacturers are liberals, so I'm not wearing one'. Stupid. Pick your battles carefully, which means avoiding shooting your own foot. HTH

Glock lost a potential customer today

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Active member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member