I've seen hotter pictures of Glocks with accessories, but these are official publicity pictures from the normally staid Austrian company. The last picture explains why the full-sized Glock fits so well in the hand---and also why when they make the handle shorter for the subcompacts it's all tits and butt and no waist, as it were.
3 comments:
Pundits and propagandists of the Chamber of Commerce and the "boomers" of the industrial system are fond of claiming the great productivity of industrial agriculture by pointing out how few farmers there are in ratio to the population. In reality, the most efficient systems are the most "primitive." Industrial agriculture is by far the most energy inefficient system of food production.
Hundreds of industrial workers participate with each industrial farmer. There are the oil field workers, oil refinery workers, the truck drivers, the plastics plant workers, the workers who create the packaging of farm produce, the packagers, distributors, wholesalers, delivery people and retail clerks. An enormous amount of machinery is required for this process. All machinery is produced by factories somewhere, by people who must be counted in the food production network. All the seed is dependent upon years of development by cadres of technical workers. The drying, freezing, canning, distribution and other processes rely upon an infrastructure of transportation and industry. If the food is from irrigated fields the input of effort stretches back through the digging of canals, the building of dams, laying out of the electrical systems to run the pumps, the planning of these systems and often the disruption of many lives that formerly occupied the space where the dam and its accouterments now exist. The industrial agriculturist does not simply go out to the swidden plot by his village and eat a fruit from the tree. Industrial agriculture is not just a planting of seed; it is a vast complex, expensive, energy intensive, destructive system that will ultimately collapse without possibility of recovery.
I have no idea what the connection is of post to previous comment, but I wish to comment on the post. I challenge Glock--If you can come up with 17 that big, why can't you shorten the front to back dimension for small paws on the 26, 27 so I can carry one. You've sent me to 1911 and to Kahr, just to get my short finger on the trigger. I mean, those are models. They have long thumb to finger lengths. Have a heart for the rest of us girls who love to shoot.
That's an artist's sketch of the "Unibomber" that the first commenter has chosen for himself, if you didn't recognize it. I doubt they let old Ted on a computer, so it's probably one of his many fanboys.
Post a Comment