Globe Still not Telling the Truth about Westfield

[GOAL]

Below is a link to yet another Boston Globe article about he proposed Club Regulations and the Westfield tragedy. I also included a copy of my post for the article.

In my opinion, the Globe contiues to leave out the most important information regarding this issue. Gun owners everywhere should be angry and respond to the Globe by firing up the comment section on this article.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...bs_all_fired_up_against_proposed_regulations/

Leave it to the Globe to not tell the whole story. Even after spending a lot of time with this reporter on the phone several times, she has still chosen not to tell the whole story about the Westfield tragedy.

The event that took place in Westfield was not run by the local gun club. It was in fact run by off duty public safety officials.

According to the information that has been presented to Gun Owners' Action League, it was an off duty police chief who was running the machine gun shoot. The same chief who discharged a firearm in a class room several years ago.

Further, he was using off duty police officers to man the range. To make matters worse, theses public safety officials allowed a 15 year boy to supervise an 8 year old boy firing a machine gun.

Still more, as we understand it, the machine gun that was supplied on the range was a micro uzi. To our knowledge this gun is not available to the civilian market even if you have a machine gun license.

This post is not intended to disparage the fine men and women in the public safety field. However, if the public and our government are going to start making judgments on the clubs of Massachusetts, the public needs to know the truth about what took place.

 

[securityboy]

If we want to complain that the globe is not getting the facts straight, we too must do the same.

...Still more, as we understand it, the machine gun that was supplied on the range was a micro uzi. To our knowledge this gun is not available to the civilian market even if you have a machine gun license...

That is incorrect, there are a number of transferable micro uzi's out there.

 

[richc]

Interesting... I spend a lot of time at a gun club, with my teenage son, and it is incredibly safe. He went through the same training class I did for safety. I have an LTC-A and he has an FID. Safety is first.

Members are self-policing. If members or guests do something wrong another member kindly tells the offender and will try to teach. If the member or guest does it again they may catch the wrath of a member. To the point where some members have been asked to leave.

Every member takes great care. We know our firearms, and we know how to handle them. There is a spirit of kinship that is present. If I don't know something I ask. I generally get incredibly knowledgeable advice. We have nothing to prove other than enjoying our hobby and being safe.

No new regulations are needed to protect me or keep me safe. I am fine. Members of my club are fine. I feel incredibly safe at my club.

What the public needs to worry about are the illegal gun owners and non-law abiding members of society. Those that have obtained firearms despite the laws and regulations. In fact there is no amount of regulation that will stop them. They just don't care.

 

[Half Cocked]

According to the information that has been presented to Gun Owners' Action League, it was an off duty police chief who was running the machine gun shoot. The same chief who discharged a firearm in a class room several years ago.

Further, he was using off duty police officers to man the range. To make matters worse, theses public safety officials allowed a 15 year boy to supervise an 8 year old boy firing a machine gun.

Sooooo.... GOAL wants to defend the club but disparage the LEO's who were supporting a pro-2A event?

Are these LEO's not licensed gun owners themselves? Are you not giving additional fodder to the press about licensed gun owners?

Again..... a poor delivery....IMNSHO...

 

[Navy Moose]

This is my shocked face

 

[Lynne]

Are these LEO's not licensed gun owners themselves? Are you not giving additional fodder to the press about licensed gun owners?

Just because someone is a licensed gun owner, it does not spare them from being whipped for using poor judgement, when that poor judgement invites criticism for us all.

 

[Underwhere]

Sooooo.... GOAL wants to defend the club but disparage the LEO's who were supporting a pro-2A event?

Are these LEO's not licensed gun owners themselves? Are you not giving additional fodder to the press about licensed gun owners?

Again..... a poor delivery....IMNSHO...

I think they just want to get the facts straight.

I also think that when the public is given info about a brazen gathering of civilian gun nuts they have a very bad perspective about the situation.

If they found out it was held by off-duty LEO, maybe they'll realize that it was likely a more safely organized event and the incident was simply an accident.

It's not always about what happened, but who did it.

I could take a dump on a sidewalk and I'd end up in jail.
If Obama left a steamer on a curb someone would happily scoop it up, jump in their Prius and snack on all the smelly tidbits on the way home.

Yes these were LEO supporting Pro-2A events, but at this point it's about preventing panic-driven legislation from being enacted.

While I don't think it's necessary to throw the LEO's under the bus, the truth (As I have heard) is that they held the event and there were mistakes made. We need to associate the mistakes with those who were actually responsible for them. My assumption is that the LEO as well as the gun club are all Pro-2A...so regardless of who you "blame", you will be targeting someone pro-2A...but it's better to get the facts straight.

 

[tj western ma]

I could take a dump on a sidewalk and I'd end up in jail.
If Obama left a steamer on a curb someone would happily scoop it up, jump in their Prius and snack on all the smelly tidbits on the way home.
/QUOTE]

classic

 

[Half Cocked]

It's not always about what happened, but who did it.

Yes these were LEO supporting Pro-2A events, but at this point it's about preventing panic-driven legislation from being enacted.

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

 

[JonJ]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

Deflection.

 

[Pete85]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

The way I'm seeing this is that people think that in the Westfield tragedy, it was the club that acted irresponsibly, when that is clearly not the case. The legislators are trying to enact legislation that for the most part would not have prevented this tragedy because almost all of the proposed regulations were met (with the exception of age restrictions on machine guns). It's nothing against the police, but a shout out against faulty reporting.

 

[Half Cocked]

It's nothing against the police, but a shout out against faulty reporting.

Then why mention them as being LEO?

 

[jasons]

Sooooo.... GOAL wants to defend the club but disparage the LEO's who were supporting a pro-2A event?

Are these LEO's not licensed gun owners themselves? Are you not giving additional fodder to the press about licensed gun owners?

Again..... a poor delivery....IMNSHO...

I don't think that a desire to see accurate reporting is "disparaging" anyone. All of us gun owners (LEO or not) need to learn from this tragedy so that it doesn't happen again. A kid died - set the politics aside for a minute.

Lesson one: Don't give a brand new shooter (especially a kid!) anything with more that one round in it....[sad2]

 

[Mike S]

HC, I think your judgment is clouded by your dislike for GOAL. I'm sorry you feel that way.

This has nothing to do with going after LEO's we respect the hell out of each and every one of you.

This has everything to do with more bad laws being made because of the poor judgment of a Chief LEO who has a less than stellar record handling firearms.

 

[Mustad]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.
.

I think the Point is that having a police detail would not have necessarily prevented the mishap. The shoot was already acting in access of compliance standards this new law would require, when the accident happened. That fact makes the situation not a viable example of the need for more restrictions.

I do not think this was a shot at the LEO's at least I hope not. If anything GOAL is looking out for these particular Officers. If the law was imposed they would have to hire at least one of themselves as a detail. Where the State would impose an income tax, and an employment tax.

 

[Pete85]

Then why mention them as being LEO?

Was that supposed to be a secret? There are many people who believe that when you become a police officer, you're given some magical power that makes you immune to accidents with firearms. As this incident shows, that's simply not the case.

The legislation that was written as a result of this incident (and many of the MSM articles about it) makes it sound as though this child would still be alive if there was a police presence at the event. They make no mention that this event was run by the police and that the legislation is nothing but feel-good BS.

 

[TomH]

I too don't see how them being LEO's has anything to do with it. Bad judgments were made by several people. Has nothing to do with cops, clubs, or gun laws. That is really how it sums up in my mind.

And I don't see how saying a micro-uzi isn't legal helps anything at all... obviously it IS legal to get one. Talk about misinformation...

 

[eisenhow]

Still more, as we understand it, the machine gun that was supplied on the range was a micro uzi. To our knowledge this gun is not available to the civilian market even if you have a machine gun license.

And I don't see how saying a micro-uzi isn't legal helps anything at all... obviously it IS legal to get one. Talk about misinformation...

Are there any transferable micro-uzi's? I'm guessing the answer is NO, so you'd have to be a LEO or a machine gun manufacturer to have one.

 

[TomH]

Are there any transferable micro-uzi's? I'm guessing the answer is NO, so you'd have to be a LEO or a machine gun manufacturer to have one.

Someone stated earlier this was not the case. I have no personal knowledge of it either way. Personally I think the "legality" of the MG on the civilian market is irrelevant. What makes it any different than one that is available? I certainly won't put blame on someone simply because of the type of weapon since I believe any and all citizens should have the ability to buy whatever they want.

 

[PaulD]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

You're being disingenuous. The typical Globe reader and the state government considers LEOs with firearms and private citizens with firearms to be two very different groups. The first group is considered to be totally competent and of a higher class with regards to firearm handling. The latter group is always under suspicion.

If the Westfield event had been for LEO only and one LEO's son was there, and the same tragedy happened, would a new law be enacted? I doubt it.

 

[terraformer]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

Deflection.

It is neither deflection nor LEO bashing. The general public has been acculturated that only cops and military are well trained for firearms and that they are the only ones who are capable of and are appropriate to hold these events. And as a result, we are hammered by stupid regulation that requires us to have cops all over public events. Meanwhile the event that precipitated these regulations was hosted by a club but managed by LEOs. So clearly the presence of, and BS to bring them into the fold, cops at future events is NO GUARANTEE that the event will be safe.

What GOAL is doing is trying to demystify their boogie man and put the onus where it should be. That this was an issue of NOT FOLLOWING PROPER SAFETY PROCEDURES. So that any future regulation should, if deemed needed, focus on that.

 

[TomH]

It is neither deflection nor LEO bashing. The general public has been acculturated that only cops and military are well trained for firearms and that they are the only ones who are capable of and are appropriate to hold these events. And as a result, we are hammered by stupid regulation that requires us to have cops all over public events. Meanwhile the event that precipitated these regulations was hosted by a club but managed by LEOs. So clearly the presence of, and BS to bring them into the fold, cops at future events is NO GUARANTEE that the event will be safe.

What GOAL is doing is trying to demystify their boogie man and put the onus where it should be. That this was an issue of NOT FOLLOWING PROPER SAFETY PROCEDURES. So that any future regulation should, if deemed needed, focus on that.

I don't like the direction that is going. Pretty soon it won't be "only the police should have guns", it will be "nobody should have guns." It happened in England. Saying the police are the same as civilians when it comes to gun safety will only convince them that even the well-trained police are in danger from these evil devices.

 

[Half Cocked]

What GOAL is doing is trying to demystify their boogie man and put the onus where it should be. That this was an issue of NOT FOLLOWING PROPER SAFETY PROCEDURES. So that any future regulation should, if deemed needed, focus on that.

Which is how they should have worded it.

My point is that they have do not seem to have any polish in how they write and as a result they tend to alienate people.

They could simply have stated..... that "this was a tragedy that was the result of following improper safety procedures. This event, although held at the club, was not a club event and was in fact supervised by local law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to the Chief of Police. This accident re-inforces the fact that no matter who is involved in handling firearms, whther it be be LEO, Military or average Joe that proper safety procedures need to be followed. Enacting new legislation would not prevent a similar incident and would not be addressing the issues that were overlooked in this incident...

Or something along those lines......

 

[drgrant]

Are there any transferable micro-uzi's? I'm guessing the answer is NO, so you'd have to be a LEO or a machine gun manufacturer to have one.

Get a green card and enough cash, and a signoff (if necessary) and you can get one. There indeed are transferable micros on the NFA market.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

Which is how they should have worded it.

My point is that they have no polish in how they write and as a result they tend to alienate people.

They could simply have stated..... that "this was a tragedy that was the result of following improper safety procedures. This event, although held at the club, was not a club event and was in fact supervised by local law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to the Chief of Police. This accident re-inforces the fact that no matter who is involved in handling firearms, whther it be be LEO, Military or average Joe that proper safety procedures need to be followed. Enacting new legislation would not prevent a similar incident and would not be addressing the issues that were overlooked in this incident...

Or something along those lines......

OK, if that is what you meant, then I am behind you. There was no need to be obtuse about GOALs point. He could have been more up front about it.

 

[jasons]

Which is how they should have worded it.

My point is that they have do not seem to have any polish in how they write and as a result they tend to alienate people.

They could simply have stated..... that "this was a tragedy that was the result of following improper safety procedures. This event, although held at the club, was not a club event and was in fact supervised by local law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to the Chief of Police. This accident re-inforces the fact that no matter who is involved in handling firearms, whther it be be LEO, Military or average Joe that proper safety procedures need to be followed. Enacting new legislation would not prevent a similar incident and would not be addressing the issues that were overlooked in this incident...

Or something along those lines......

That is a good point.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I talked to the reporter about this story a while back (she's the same one that wrote the other one). She was trying to get in touch with the NRA to be able to dispute Rosenthal's comments about the NRA having deep pockets to pay for clubs' police details.

The NRA wouldn't call her back.

 

[wahsben]

I believe LEO's were mentioned because the regs. they want to pass require that LEO's be present at every event held at a gun club which the MSM and other antis want the general public to believe that this would make things safer. Westfield showed that this is not neccesarily so.

 

[terraformer]

I talked to the reporter about this story a while back (she's the same one that wrote the other one). She was trying to get in touch with the NRA to be able to dispute Rosenthal's comments about the NRA having deep pockets to pay for clubs' police details.

The NRA wouldn't call her back.

This is my shocked face...

 

[Bob P]

My point is....... what difference does it make that they are LEO's they were licensed gun owners who happen to be LEO's.

If this was an event sponsored and run as a "police" event then I would have no problem with pointing it out but if I am not mistaken it was not a police event.

FWIW..... I am not defending the LEO's involved I just have an issue with GOAL's response.

Because the new law is going to require that a LEO detail be present at any event. The mention of the LEO's at Westfield is an attempt to demonstrate that the extra expense will not make the events appreciably safer. Further, the coverage has supported the Globes position that civilians are somehow less-capable of rational behavior when it comes to firearms.

While the desire is to close ranks and protect another gun owner, the truth is this was a screw up of massive proportions. The coverage needs to focus on the individuals involved rather then 'the club'. We need to be able to show that we're willing to police ourselves when someone screws the pooche