• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Globe Still not Telling the Truth about Westfield

Bob P said:
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.
Click to expand...


Please read my last post... I agree
 
TomH said:
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.
Click to expand...

The police are the same as civilians when it comes to firearms. The fact still remains that ANYONE (whether a cop or civilian) who is neglegent with a firearm is dangerous. Wearing a piece of metal on the breast of your shirt doesn't change that fact.
 
Not to nit pick here folks, but, police ARE civilians. They aren't military, ergo.... Yes, they're law enforcement, but they are still civilians.
 
Pete85 said:
The police are the same as civilians when it comes to firearms. The fact still remains that ANYONE (whether a cop or civilian) who is neglegent with a firearm is dangerous. Wearing a piece of metal on the breast of your shirt doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...

It does in the eyes of the public...which is why LEO can open carry and civilians in MA can't unless they want people freaking out.
 
Half Cocked said:
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......
Click to expand...

That's a response I like as well.
 
Doesn't Massachusetts love to tax people to pay for their programs? Why should this one be any different? If we're taxed to pay for the liberals' programs, why shouldn't they be taxed to pay for ours? Such hypocrisy.
 
The MSM and other antis want the public to have the perception that clubs would operate more safely if LEO were present. The paper by not including this information spreads more disinformation and feeds this mis-perception.
 
I know and respect many LEO's. That being said I have talked to many more who have no clue about their duty weapon or any other.

My favorite response to a question as to if the officer was carrying a Sig in 40 or another caliber was "um.. no it's a 9 I think. I'm not really a gun guy." [rolleyes]

Dude! this is what is going to save your life in the right (bad) situation and you don't even know what caliber it is? How many times has this idiot even gone to the range with it? Boy, do I feel safe. NOT!
 
PennyPincher said:
I know and respect many LEO's. That being said I have talked to many more who have no clue about their duty weapon or any other.
Click to expand...

More to the point, being an LEO does not qualify one to be a range officer. This point was repeatedly made during the July hearing and made quite effectively my a local police Lt. There's more range safety expertise in the civilian (oops, non-police) sector than there is in the police world.
 
My question/comment is this: John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence is quoted in this articel. This article disputed or not has no concern with violence or criminal use of firearms. His opinion and bias and that of his organization should bear no relevance to this topic. This is an article discussing safety during the sporting use of firearms which he ostensibly claims to support.
The globe needs to identify another "go to" for comment on all matters firearm related.
Nonetheless, it is in the benefit of all those that support the second constitutional amendment that he is oft quoted because of the obvious speciousness of his baseless arguments.
 
KDK said:
The globe needs to identify another "go to" for comment on all matters firearm related.
Click to expand...

This is the GLOB we're talking about here. The most anti gun publication
in the state.... yeah, they're going to seek accuracy, all right.

The sooner that rag goes under, the better.

-Mike
 
KDK said:
My question/comment is this:
The globe needs to identify another "go to" for comment on all matters firearm related.
Click to expand...


They get the answers that they want, in the way they want it. They get the "correct" opinion to reinforce the biases of their editors.

Why would they ever go any place else??
 
Half Cocked said:
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......
Click to expand...

Well said. Thanks.

The problem we have here is that Mass already puts LEOs in a special class when it comes to guns, and the newly proposed law further elevates LEOs as overseers of shooting events, with the clear implication being that law enforcement has special knowledge or expertise regarding gun safety absent in the general public. By pointing out that law enforcement personnel were involved in the unfortunate incident, GOAL illustrates one of many problems with the proposed legislation (namely, the police detail requirement).

If law enforcement organizations in Mass would come forward and say what you said above, and to deny special powers with respect to gun safety, and to embrace the principal that all citizens, regardless of their employment, should share the same rights to gun ownership, we would all be much better off.
 
Last edited:
Underwhere said:
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.
Click to expand...

You rule!!!!

TomH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being as cops can get certain guns I can't(without jumping through hoops and paying an arm and a leg) this tells me the state thinks they are more qualified to handle firearms than I am.Therefore,certain responsibilities come with this added extra specialness.One of these "duties" should obviously be handling firearms more safely than me,the ordinary citizen.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Last edited:
TomH said:
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.
Click to expand...
It does when we have power mad little Napoleons as CLEOs in various towns (certainly not all) and a gun grabbing governor/legislator feeding the myth of the super-LEO gun expert who is "the only person in this room qualified to handle this firearm - BANG!"

The liberals and media have for decades pushed this myth of police as "protectors" so that we need not (and do not need to be allowed to) protect ourselves...

LEOs work hard and I am grateful for that and have deep respect for the risk they take to make the world a better place, but they are only human... Whether they like it or not, they are civilians and citizens every bit as much as anyone not wearing a military uniform.

So, particularly in light of these proposed regulations which would have required these very same people that were DIRECTLY responsible for this tragedy to be there because us lowly citizens are not qualified to supervise ourselves, this is a critical (and I believe intentional) omission in this story...

It allows this myth of the light-speed traveling, all knowing, all powerful incorruptible police officers obviating the need for self defense to continue. This myth is toxic and dangerous and we now see in the UK with people being prosecuted for exercising such a basic and essential right...
 

Similar threads

Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
535
houdini
houdini
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
648
groundscrapers
G
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Another gun myth or truth?
2
Replies
31
Views
855
johngalt2
J
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
671
chris_1001
chris_1001
Back
Top Bottom