8 year old shot in head at Westfield MG shoot

[Scrivener]

FA firearms are not that well understood, even by adults. If you are going to be renting them out, you need someone at each station that is highly knowlegeable [sic] in control. Having the father supporting the child while firing, instead of an instructor or owner, was the mistake. A father would not know what to look for (rising barrel), and was probably himself flinching from the noise.

Did you even READ the information on this incident? The father was NOT "supporting the child while firing;" he was not even on the line. He was BEHIND the line, getting his camera.

 

[Mass-diver]

here's my suggestion. Instead of everyone offering their opinion, I think this site should do what it does best and help support shooting and the families that participate in the sport I would like to suggest to derek that he start a fund and or auction so we can help ease this families burden irregardless of fault or percieved impropriety. Regardless of right or wrong, this gentleman needs to pay to put his son in the ground and will likely be looking at considerable legal fees as well over the next couple years. How about we put away the blame stick, even if just for now, and just do what we can to help.

Per several posts here, the Father is an MD. I'm sure he has the resources to bury his child. As far as legal fees, I have no interest in helping him with that as I think it was irresponsible to allow an 8 year to shoot this weapon.

 

[rwl1955]

HUH!

Yes there is a reason the Army transitioned from F/A to 3 round burst, and it has nothing to do with spraying a crowd of spectators.

*******
It was because the muzzle would climb and rounds were wasted because the weapon was hard to control for the average Joe. That was my point. The kid was killed because when he pulled the trigger he lost control of the weapon.

 

[tele_mark]

Did you even READ the information on this incident? The father was NOT "supporting the child while firing;" he was not even on the line. He was BEHIND the line, getting his camera.

Of all people, you should know how much credibility to give to the media. This article says otherwise:

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10835274

Francis Mitchell, a longtime member and trustee of the club, said he was told the boy's father was supporting his son from behind when the accident happened.

 

[SnakeEye]

Did you even READ the information on this incident? The father was NOT "supporting the child while firing;" he was not even on the line. He was BEHIND the line, getting his camera.

No I didn't, but knowing that now, and for perhaps the first time ever, I am in total agreeance with you.. (waits for universe to implode)

 

[Scrivener]

That is the first and, so for, only assertion that the father was supporting the son when the kid was firing.

If he WAS doing so, it's no benefit. The MG owner should have been the one in control, as Hanson does.

 

[terraformer]

Of all people, you should know how much credibility to give to the media. This article says otherwise:

negation as failure... (failure of logic)

Francis Mitchell, a longtime member and trustee of the club, said he was told the boy's father was supporting his son from behind when the accident happened.

Great, trusting hearsay over the fathers own words. The father said, in is own words, he was behind and to the side fetching his camera.

 

[JRyan]

That is the first and, so for, only assertion that the father was supporting the son when the kid was firing.

If he WAS doing so, it's no benefit. The MG owner should have been the one in control, as Hanson does.

IIRC the father said he was a few yards back getting his camera ready.

 

[drgrant]

If no laws are broken - then you are right. There should be no prosecutions. The biggest problem I see with that though is with rampant hoplophobia in this state - a lack of prosecution will lead directly to even stricter gun laws. The lunatics must be appeased somehow.

Yes, because we all know that feeding a few people to the sharks will make the sharks go away... yeah, that works, for a few minutes, then they just come back again. Appeasing an anti really isn't much different. You of all people should know that. In the grand scheme of things if bad legislative action is going to happen, it'll happen regardless of whether or not someone goes to jail over the incident.

-Mike

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If no laws are broken - then you are right. There should be no prosecutions. The biggest problem I see with that though is with rampant hoplophobia in this state - a lack of prosecution will lead directly to evehe stricter gun laws. The lunatics must be appeased somehow.

Unbelieveable!!!! "Appeasement" is why Massachusetts is where it is today with regard to gun laws.

The "just one more law will fix it" mentallity is EXACTLY why this state is so screwed up.....in every realm, not just guns. How about a 20 year moratorium on passing ANY NEW LAWS. Enough is enough!!!

As I've said before, this state is regulating itself right out of existance and collapsing further daily under the weight of its own ignorance.

 

[RG617]

Unbelieveable!!!! "Appeasement" is why Massachusetts is where it is today with regard to gun laws.

The "just one more law will fix it" mentallity is EXACTLY why this state is so screwed up.....in every realm, not just guns. How about a 20 year moratorium on passing ANY NEW LAWS. Enough is enough!!!

As I've said before, this state is regulating itself right out of existance and collapsing further daily under the weight of its own ignorance.

Do you live in the same Massachusetts I do? You're really surprised by this?! Supposedly I'm being "self-defeating" by believing that it's a good idea to be proactive for a change to minimize the damage this tragedy will inevitably bring to gun owners in this state rather than follow the same path of letting the anti's make the first move. Saying "accidents will happen" and expect everyone else in a state where we're a minority to go along with it is impractical. 38 years of living here and having had multiple family friends in office have given me enough insight to know that AIN'T gonna happen.

You and I share the same opinion about it being a tragic accident. Where we differ is in understanding the difference between what we want to happen and what will happen. One is a concept and the other is a time proven fact.

Gun laws get passed in this state at the drop of a hat, especially with something like this all over the national news and Duval probably bucking for a cabinet post. My opinion was that it was in our best interests to take the initiative for a change rather than let the anti's take the offensive and use this as a lever to pass laws far beyond the scope of the issue. If taking the fight to the enemy is "self defeating" in your eyes then you're absolutely right.

This is the type of political atmosphere we have to work with at the moment. We don't have to like it or stop trying to change it, but we fail to accept what it presently is and doing what we can with it at our own peril.

 

[jar]

If taking the fight to the enemy is "self defeating" in your eyes then you're absolutely right.

Volunteering to give up rights isn't taking the fight to the enemy. It's bringing the fight to us by conceding territory. Appeasement has never worked before and it's not going to work now.

 

[clinotus]

Volunteering to give up rights isn't taking the fight to the enemy. It's bringing the fight to us by conceding territory. Appeasement has never worked before and it's not going to work now.

This is an interesting point of view, however knowing that some activities are conducted in the grey area of the law (It's not illegal...but..) - we have to be full aware that that grey area is about to be lit up with bright lights.

 

[depicts]

If we offered a new law on our own, the anti's would come later and say that we were too lenient, and trying to protect our own interest, and that there should be a REALLY TOUGH LAW to cover this.

"Never give an inch". They (anti's) don't respect it, or give a damn.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

This is an interesting point of view, however knowing that some activities are conducted in the grey area of the law (It's not illegal...but..) - we have to be full aware that that grey area is about to be lit up with bright lights.

There was no "grey area" with this incident and for you to imply there was is more than misleading.

As for the post further above, yes I live in the same Massachusetts you do and have for the past 52 years....unfortunately. I've seen a steady stream of appeasement gun laws passed my entire adult life, and here we are......lets just pass one more and it will all be better and go away. Its BS and you know it is.

If you have so many political connections with friends and family in office, you can relay a message from me to them........THEY'VE DONE A LOUSY JOB AT GOVERNING AND THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

If things are going to change, I want them changed in my favor not further restricting my almost completely absent liberties. I want laws repealed, not more laws passed. I want GOOD laws with bad clauses fixed, not new ones passed along with ten others stuffed into one pass all or fail package.

If you support appeasing those who seek your demise, you deserve what you get.....I don't.

 

[Gaffer]

Part of the problem is the stupid acts generated by Mass. sportsmen that turn out poorly and tragedly such as this one. In hindsight it is obvious that allowing an 8 year old to use a full auto was a tragic mistake. There are many clubs that would never allow full auto guns use at their ranges and that now seems even more prudent.

I fully understand the feelings of many who think that we should be able to use and shoot any kind of gun we want but if such results in similar incidents it is time to reconsider those options. Gun safety is an issue that tends to become more important the longer you are around them and the longer you go without an AD or ND the closer you are to having one.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There was no "grey area" with this incident and for you to imply there was is more than misleading.

Not that I agree with what I'm about to post here, but since you brought it up . . .

When some anti sent the Hanson flier to the AG and Sec. of Public Safety ~18 months ago to complain that "this can't be legal". EOPS and Chief Ron Glidden (GCAB) came to a conclusion that THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW was that NO F/A can be handled (at any time) by anyone that doesn't possess a MG License and that licensee must maintain "control" of the mg/smg at all times. [They came to this conclusion by reading MGLs that SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS any licensee to supervise a non-licensee in shooting a rifle/handgun/shotgun . . . but since there is NO SUCH phrase in the MA MG Law, they concluded that such action is not legal wrt F/A firearms.]

Thus, Hanson has had the gun owner hold onto the barrel as the renters shoot the guns in F/A. I was talking with someone who is involved with the Hanson shoots last night and he's well aware of everything I posted above.

When people (media or legislators) start asking EOPS or GCAB about this incident, it's likely to blow up in all our faces.

 

[MaverickNH]

Yup - this incident is already being waved in my face by Aussie cyclists as evidence of how bad we all are in the US. When a kid is killed by a gun at a gun club, under close supervision, in one of the toughest states for gun laws, the world reads that no laws short of a total ban will suffice.

 

[RG617]

There was no "grey area" with this incident and for you to imply there was is more than misleading.

I guess allowing an eight year old to drive a motorized scooter down a busy street simply because there are no laws governing it isn't a "grey area" in your eyes? Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't lacking in prudent thought.

As for the post further above, yes I live in the same Massachusetts you do and have for the past 52 years....unfortunately. I've seen a steady stream of appeasement gun laws passed my entire adult life, and here we are......lets just pass one more and it will all be better and go away. Its BS and you know it is.

Yes, I'm talking just to hear myself and know it's actually "BS".
Listen carefully: THERE WILL BE FALLOUT FROM THIS. Hide your head in the sand and stamp your feet all you want, but the fact remains we are a minority in a state that takes full advantage of the right given to them by the government to regulate firearms. Until that or the attitude people have towards firearms changes we're stuck playing the hand we're dealt. In this case that means damage control. If you have a better approach that might actually get us somewhere, I'm all ears.

If you have so many political connections with friends and family in office, you can relay a message from me to them........THEY'VE DONE A LOUSY JOB AT GOVERNING AND THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Considering you have no idea who I know and what their voting records are, that's a rather presumptuous statement. Save your efforts on that front for your voting ballot and helping the candidates you prefer, or if you can't put forth the effort and it really bothers you that much consider moving someplace where the voting reflects the majority of your beliefs. There are plenty of our NH brethren that can tell you how much they like it there. That's not a dig, just the best advice I an give you considering where we live.

If things are going to change, I want them changed in my favor not further restricting my almost completely absent liberties.

I think you may be a little overboard with saying your liberties are almost absent, but I agree with wanting them changed in our best interests. If it's pouring rain outside but you have a lot of important things that need doing you can either get indoors and avoid it or you grab a good coat and an umbrella and make the best of a bad situation. In this time and place making the best of a shit situation is, in my opinion, a play that shouldn't be ignored out of hand. That was what my point was.

I want laws repealed, not more laws passed. I want GOOD laws with bad clauses fixed, not new ones passed along with ten others stuffed into one pass all or fail package.

So do most people in this forum. That doesn't change the fact that we don't have the pols in place or the vote behind us to make it happen.

If you support appeasing those who seek your demise, you deserve what you get.....I don't.

Enacting a law that is sensible (unless letting someone under 16 or 18 handle a FA somehow cripples your individual freedoms in a way I don't understand) and could go a long way towards avoiding worse laws in a state where - I'll say it again - we are a minority goes a long way towards helping our cause and dispelling the stereotypes that surround our culture. If you can't see how that could be beneficial then I don't know what else to tell you.

Compromise is the result of an attempt to find a middle ground between two positions. Appeasement is letting your opposition tell you where that middle ground is going to be. Tell me, which has been happening in this state up to this point?

 

[gonzoga51]

The Globe story today quotes the Father as saying he was off the firing line:

From Globe today:

"In a telephone interview yesterday, the boy's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, said he stood 10 feet behind his son as a professional trained in using the 9-mm Micro Uzi machine gun stood beside the boy on Sunday afternoon. He said he doesn't think the shooting instructor was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger, as guides did with other children firing the weapon."

Regardless of what happens in terms of any (criminal) investigation of the specific incident, this tradegy has all the emotional hot buttons for the Anti Gun Lobby to drive new legislation. I'm not in favor of giving up any rights but "we"/GOAL are going to have our hands full with this one.

Personally I don't think letting young kids shoot FA weapons like this is a good idea-even under direct supervision/control. Again just my opinion, others I am sure feel differently but I don't think young kids have the physical/mental skills-even under direct supervision/control for FA.

While I don't know first hand details of the event in terms of what exactly happened, I have young kids this age and they don't always listen to instructions, especially if they are excited and even when you are standing right next to them or holding their hand.-In my experience, half the time they want to do the very thing you tell them not to first . I know every kid is different but young minds can often respond unpredictably-even when you are doing your best to control them and unpredictability is not a good mix with FA weapons IMO.



My condolences to the Father and family.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Not that I agree with what I'm about to post here, but since you brought it up . . .

When some anti sent the Hanson flier to the AG and Sec. of Public Safety ~18 months ago to complain that "this can't be legal". EOPS and Chief Ron Glidden (GCAB) came to a conclusion that THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW was that NO F/A can be handled (at any time) by anyone that doesn't possess a MG License and that licensee must maintain "control" of the mg/smg at all times. [They came to this conclusion by reading MGLs that SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS any licensee to supervise a non-licensee in shooting a rifle/handgun/shotgun . . . but since there is NO SUCH phrase in the MA MG Law, they concluded that such action is not legal wrt F/A firearms.]

Thus, Hanson has had the gun owner hold onto the barrel as the renters shoot the guns in F/A. I was talking with someone who is involved with the Hanson shoots last night and he's well aware of everything I posted above.

When people (media or legislators) start asking EOPS or GCAB about this incident, it's likely to blow up in all our faces.

So, if thats the case, could someone please point to the MGL that "allows" one to breathe oxygen?

Laws don't "allow" things, they prohibit things, and if something is not specifically prohibited, there are no grounds for anyone to be procecuted for engaging in such action. This is where the general public has been buffooned into thinking their rights come from government.

 

[jdubois]

Laws don't "allow" things, they prohibit things, and if something is not specifically prohibited, there are no grounds for anyone to be procecuted for engaging in such action. This is where the general public has been buffooned into thinking their rights come from government.

Your logic is correct. However, in this case, C 269 § 10(c) specifically prohibits possessing a machine gun without a MG license, and there is no law which puts exemptions on that prohibition as are spelled out in C 140 for rifles, shotguns, and firearms.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So, if thats the case, could someone please point to the MGL that "allows" one to breathe oxygen?

Laws don't "allow" things, they prohibit things, and if something is not specifically prohibited, there are no grounds for anyone to be procecuted for engaging in such action. This is where the general public has been buffooned into thinking their rights come from government.

I agree with you, however this is also where my friendship with Chief Ron Glidden got massively strained. They (he, GCAB, EOPS) now look for "does the law allow it?" and rule that "if not, it must be illegal" . . . rather than "if it isn't specifically prohibited, it must be legal". I don't like this approach any more than you do . . . I'm just reporting what actually transpired and why.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I agree with you, however this is also where my friendship with Chief Ron Glidden got massively strained. They (he, GCAB, EOPS) now look for "does the law allow it?" and rule that "if not, it must be illegal" . . . rather than "if it isn't specifically prohibited, it must be legal". I don't like this approach any more than you do . . . I'm just reporting what actually transpired and why.

Thanks, I know you are Len, and I didn't mean for my reply to imply any bad on your part.

The politicians and legislature of this state think that they are dictatorial kings sitting on a throne, handing out permission to exist to the residents of this state. Sad part is, so many people in this state think its ok and never realize that it is absolutely wrong for government to operate in such a manner.

 

[jdubois]

They (he, GCAB, EOPS) now look for "does the law allow it?" and rule that "if not, it must be illegal"

While I agree that the end result (only those who possess MG licenses can touch a MG) is bogus, this is just simply not a case of implying that if a law doesn't say it's ok, that it's be default illegal as you guys are implying. It is a case of liberally interpreting a prohibition that is very much and specifically written into the law.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

While I agree that the end result (only those who possess MG licenses can touch a MG) is bogus, this is just simply not a case of implying that if a law doesn't say it's ok, that it's be default illegal as you guys are implying. It is a case of liberally interpreting a prohibition that is very much and specifically written into the law.

Huh? We are saying just the opposite of what you wrote.

Please post a reference to the law which you are citing.

 

[jdubois]

Please post a reference to the law which you are citing.

I already did, a few posts back. C 269 § 10(c):

"Whoever, except as provided by law, possesses a machine gun, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, without permission under section one hundred and thirty-one of said chapter one hundred and forty; [...] shall be punished..."

No MG license, no possession.

 

[clinotus]

Finalygotabeltfed, jdubois is likely speaking to federal NFA laws over which direct control is required in some circumstances like storage and usage.

Either way, criminal charges are being investigated into the incident. And the DA is not looking for the law violations, but rather areas where no concrete law is stated in order to form the basis of the case.

 

[Scrivener]

So, if thats the case, could someone please point to the MGL that "allows" one to breathe oxygen?

Laws don't "allow" things, they prohibit things, and if something is not specifically prohibited, there are no grounds for anyone to be procecuted for engaging in such action. This is where the general public has been buffooned into thinking their rights come from government.

Absolutely true.

However, breathing is NOT regulated; possession of firearms generally, and machine guns particularly, IS - extensively - by both state and federal law.

Hence the obvious distinction and the point on which your analogy fails.

 

[Scrivener]

When some anti sent the Hanson flier to the AG and Sec. of Public Safety ~18 months ago to complain that "this can't be legal". EOPS and Chief Ron Glidden (GCAB) came to a conclusion that THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW was that NO F/A can be handled (at any time) by anyone that doesn't possess a MG License and that licensee must maintain "control" of the mg/smg at all times. [They came to this conclusion by reading MGLs that SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS any licensee to supervise a non-licensee in shooting a rifle/handgun/shotgun . . . but since there is NO SUCH phrase in the MA MG Law, they concluded that such action is not legal wrt F/A firearms.]

Thus, Hanson has had the gun owner hold onto the barrel as the renters shoot the guns in F/A. I was talking with someone who is involved with the Hanson shoots last night and he's well aware of everything I posted above.

Hanson also had a minimum age AND proof of age checked by a cop examining photo ID AND possession of a license AFTER viewing the training film and signing the waiver.

All of which brings us back to the obvious question;

Why was Hanson's event crippled by all the onerous restrictions Glidden, et al, imposed on it, while Westfield apparently operated without any such impediments?