TL;DR: Bond villains.

    In 1999, at the age of 70, Glock survived a hit job in a Luxembourg parking garage carried out by a mallet-wielding former French legionnaire nicknamed Spartacus. Glock knocked out several of his attacker's teeth before rendering him unconscious. The police linked the attack to an embezzlement scheme by Glock's business associate Charles Ewert, who'd earned the nickname Panama Charlie for helping Glock set up foreign shell companies to evade Austrian and US taxes. Investigators hired by Glock later alleged that Ewert had misappropriated $103 million in corporate funds.

    According to a lawsuit filed against Glock by one of those investigators, Glock knowingly participated in the scheme—allegedly paying himself royalties for nonexistent trademarks and laundering money with phony payments, rents, and loans. When the investigators confronted Glock, he convinced state and local officials in Georgia to indict them instead, on charges that they'd overbilled him for legal services. The charges, later dropped, "were fabricated based on falsified evidence, influenced witnesses, and evidence either destroyed or withheld," according to the suit.


This article seems to switch between attacking the owners of gun companies and the companies themselves when accusations cannot be leveled against the owners. There are some valid arguments that the article makes, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison to Bond villians. Except for Glock and Lüke. That's some crazy stuff.

And honestly, most of these individuals and corporations believe that firearms ownership is an inherent right. Mother Jones definitely disagrees, and it shows. But I'd be more surprised if the people named in the article acted against their personal beliefs and economic incentives.

posted by kleinbl00: 360 days ago