Nushif
Member
I was reading yet another thread about range rules and a thought came to me.
There are, of course some rules at a range that are pretty much non negotiable. One for instance, being hearing protection. Another one being eye-pro. Along with that some basic safe gun handling rules.
Now, we can pretty much agree that wearing some muffs while being around really, really loud noises is a darned good idea. In an environment where shrapnel happens, some eye-pro is pretty smart, too.
However, where most of this griping pops up is with different rules, such as well, baseball caps, turtlenecks, nomex shirts and the like.
I was wondering where there is a line (or rather where the gray area starts) on range safety rules.
For instance, eye-pro is easy to justify, as losing one's eyesight is rather bad, it's easily done at a range and eye-pro isn't usually "invasive" when ti comes to training. This is good safety, right?
But depending on the skill or the proponent, a pretty good argument can be made to never, ever allow any shoots timed less than six seconds apart. Ranges like that are disregarded by a fairly large chunk of the shooting community as practically worthless for self defense shooting, though.
So my question here is, what constitutes a "functional" (for lack of a better term) range rule, for example eye and ear-pro, and what makes a rule "frivolous", for example a cap and long sleeved turtleneck requirement.
Because while there does seem to be this notion that it is indeed *safer* to shoot with a ballcap, a turtleneck, eye and ear pro firing nothing other than .22s every ten seconds there is much more resistance there.
Where is the difference, really? Because I don't think the argument of "safety" can be made. If we were trying to truly be safe we'd be steering clear of firearms entirely and be using padded clubs instead.
There are, of course some rules at a range that are pretty much non negotiable. One for instance, being hearing protection. Another one being eye-pro. Along with that some basic safe gun handling rules.
Now, we can pretty much agree that wearing some muffs while being around really, really loud noises is a darned good idea. In an environment where shrapnel happens, some eye-pro is pretty smart, too.
However, where most of this griping pops up is with different rules, such as well, baseball caps, turtlenecks, nomex shirts and the like.
I was wondering where there is a line (or rather where the gray area starts) on range safety rules.
For instance, eye-pro is easy to justify, as losing one's eyesight is rather bad, it's easily done at a range and eye-pro isn't usually "invasive" when ti comes to training. This is good safety, right?
But depending on the skill or the proponent, a pretty good argument can be made to never, ever allow any shoots timed less than six seconds apart. Ranges like that are disregarded by a fairly large chunk of the shooting community as practically worthless for self defense shooting, though.
So my question here is, what constitutes a "functional" (for lack of a better term) range rule, for example eye and ear-pro, and what makes a rule "frivolous", for example a cap and long sleeved turtleneck requirement.
Because while there does seem to be this notion that it is indeed *safer* to shoot with a ballcap, a turtleneck, eye and ear pro firing nothing other than .22s every ten seconds there is much more resistance there.
Where is the difference, really? Because I don't think the argument of "safety" can be made. If we were trying to truly be safe we'd be steering clear of firearms entirely and be using padded clubs instead.