Funderb
Member
When a hamburger at a range causes a reasonable situation of endangering others give me a ring, friend.
Some people do not belong on the range
- Thread starter Mr.Revolverguy
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
sandwich said:
Yeah, like eating a sandwich.
Unless someone is being dangerously careless with handling a weapon on the range, it isn't none of your business. It seems the instigator is the guy who wishes to regulate the health of another complete stranger and uses the range rules as an excuse and then gets scared about the guy being upset, and then calls the cops for help. Mind your own business, live and let live.
PurplePeopleEater
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 16
I've seen a lot of unsafe practices at the ranges I frequent, but NEVER have I seen such wanton endangerment of other's lives as you have. Eating food? WHILE SHOOTING?! Then, after you had him kicked out, he had the nerve to be upset?!?!
It's a good thing you stopped him when you did. Who knows what may have happened if he had been able to eat his cheeseburger!
It's a good thing you stopped him when you did. Who knows what may have happened if he had been able to eat his cheeseburger!
Ok, what's wrong with this:
Man eating a hamburger at the range can create a mess someone else will have to clean up. Range rules exist for a reason, this one is so that someone doesn't come to the range and get hamburger grease all over their hands.
Man has a problem being told to eat somewhere else. THEY DIDN'T EVEN TELL HIM TO LEAVE, just don't eat in here.
He stays around outside after leaving, talking about the guy he perceived as the cause of all his problems, ignoring the fact he was breaking the rules.
No wonder people don't let anyone hunt on their lands given the fact that this many gun owners feel like they can do whatever they want on someone elses property.
Could the range's no-eating rule exist to protect it from potential medical lawsuits brought by morons who will grub in the midst of lead-laden air? When this dope forgets where he lives, who's he gonna blame?
- I'll take a number 4, with cheese, and don't skimp on the heavy metal particles, please.
- I'll take a number 4, with cheese, and don't skimp on the heavy metal particles, please.
Been watching this thread for a while...
...and now I'm going to jump in. A few questions:
1. Was a range rule broken? Yes.
2. Did the OP tattle on McKnucklehead? Does not appear that way. The ONLY people who know FOR SURE are the OP, the RO, and McKnuckles.
3. Was the OP being nosy? That all depends on one's definition of nosy. Some say yes he was, others say no.
4. Was law enforcement needed? Again, the ONLY people who know for sure are the OP, the RO, and McDipstick.
If a I were breaking a range rule I would want to know. At my range, we are asked (as first time shooters) to read a piece of paper with the range rules on it and sign at the bottom saying we acknowledge the rules and that we will not hold the range liable for any injury. As we all know, breaking rules comes with a penalty, and at my range the penalty is being asked to leave.
The "offender" was not asked to leave, simply to stop eating. HE got angry and LEFT the building of his own accord. If someone gets that upset when asked to stop violating a posted rule (even as "small" a violation as eating), we have to wonder just what might have happened had this been a more serious range offense.
Now, would I have called the cops? Eh.... don't really know about that one. Again, I wasn't there to judge the situation. We have to realize that the OP was doing what he thought to be best in this situation. He simply let a rule violator know of his infraction and left it at that. Why can't we leave it at that?
...and now I'm going to jump in. A few questions:
1. Was a range rule broken? Yes.
2. Did the OP tattle on McKnucklehead? Does not appear that way. The ONLY people who know FOR SURE are the OP, the RO, and McKnuckles.
3. Was the OP being nosy? That all depends on one's definition of nosy. Some say yes he was, others say no.
4. Was law enforcement needed? Again, the ONLY people who know for sure are the OP, the RO, and McDipstick.
If a I were breaking a range rule I would want to know. At my range, we are asked (as first time shooters) to read a piece of paper with the range rules on it and sign at the bottom saying we acknowledge the rules and that we will not hold the range liable for any injury. As we all know, breaking rules comes with a penalty, and at my range the penalty is being asked to leave.
The "offender" was not asked to leave, simply to stop eating. HE got angry and LEFT the building of his own accord. If someone gets that upset when asked to stop violating a posted rule (even as "small" a violation as eating), we have to wonder just what might have happened had this been a more serious range offense.
Now, would I have called the cops? Eh.... don't really know about that one. Again, I wasn't there to judge the situation. We have to realize that the OP was doing what he thought to be best in this situation. He simply let a rule violator know of his infraction and left it at that. Why can't we leave it at that?
caltek1911
Member
I've also been following this thread. I'm with a lot of the others and czdavid in that the OP did nothing wrong by informing the guy of the rules. It seems like lonegunman and few others are reading way too much into this and calling it as "pestering." I guess I "pester" people at the range also because I talk to other shooters.
DragonFire
Member
I've seen longunman refer to this "pestering" in other threads as well.
I don't know anymore. Aren't rules supposed to be followed? Or just the rules we agree with, or just the ones that "don't hurt anyone else"?
And even if the OP "snitched" on the hamburgler (which he didn't) is that wrong too? Trying to get others to follow the same rules we do, is wrong?
So remind me again, are the actions preached about on THR part of the answer or part of the problem with society?
I don't know anymore. Aren't rules supposed to be followed? Or just the rules we agree with, or just the ones that "don't hurt anyone else"?
And even if the OP "snitched" on the hamburgler (which he didn't) is that wrong too? Trying to get others to follow the same rules we do, is wrong?
So remind me again, are the actions preached about on THR part of the answer or part of the problem with society?
Funderb
Member
The problem I have, I don't know about anyone else, is that the OP considered using his concealed weapons to "convince" the "hamburgler" to leave the range, but called the police instead. In NO way would a private citizen using their firearm to threaten someone who had shown no outward threat of violence, be an option even worth spitting on. I don't know if that was an outward attempt to be suave or "cool" but it fails either way.
Everything else seems to be in order.
Everything else seems to be in order.
Ske1etor
Member
I was just about to post this. This is the reason food, drinks and smoking is not allowed on the firing line at your local range or even in the room if it is an indoor. Lead settles on everything and ingesting lead is extremely dangerous. He broke a rule, if he broke one he was most likely going to break another at some point. The rules are there for a reason, and that reason is not "to be broken".
Snowdiver
Member
I hate rules. If I have to follow the rules then you do to. No one is above the rules. Anarchy is always an option.
Gun BANS can make people stupid............They make people think that it's okay to give up their guns. Someone else will protect them all the time.
I was saddened when I read your story though. Don't we have enough animosity between gun owners now. Why do we need any more like this?
Apparently that guy is stupid. Probably not even concerned with 2nd Amendment rights and how forces are threatening it.
DragonFire
Member
Where in the world did you get THAT from? The OP said that when he went to leave the range and spotted the hambugler sitting outside the range, he went back into the range EVEN THOUGH he was armed.
So now the OP not only pestered the guy, but was going to get him to not only stop eating, but to also leave the range at gun point???? WOW, my reading comprehension must be terrible. Even after rereading the opening post I didn't understand he did all that!
highorder
Member
lead poisining takes years to manifest symptoms, unless you are actually eating your ammunition, not to mention the actual absorption of lead varies with age, gender, and other factors.
There are some valid concerns in this thread, but lead poisioning and the aftermath are not.
DragonFire
Member
The "fact" that lead poisoning takes "years" to show symptons (which I'm not sure it does), the fact is that you can ingest lead while from eating at the range. You may not end up "poisoned", but it's not good for you, and if you can avoid it, you should.
It may take years for symptoms from smoking to appear, but that doesn't make smoking any safer.
Besides it's not a question if the guy should have been eating or not. It's still against the rules. If the range wanted to make a rule against wearing suspenders they could and people would still have to follow it if they wanted to use the range.
And no matter if it was actually safe or not, the OP thought that it wasn't and tried to give friendly advise.
It may take years for symptoms from smoking to appear, but that doesn't make smoking any safer.
Besides it's not a question if the guy should have been eating or not. It's still against the rules. If the range wanted to make a rule against wearing suspenders they could and people would still have to follow it if they wanted to use the range.
And no matter if it was actually safe or not, the OP thought that it wasn't and tried to give friendly advise.
highorder
Member
I agree. that why I said,
I didn't say lead ingestion was impossible, or safe. I did suggest that the hazards are overstated these days. MY job depends on accurate assesment of risks, including lead exposure. We agree that the issue is the breaking of range rules.
I am apparently more sure than you are, thats all. Relatively large doses of lead can be ingested and not absorbed into the body with no short term affects. Long term neurological damage is the chief concern of lead exposure.
there is some great information available here:
http://mayoclinic.com/health/lead-poisoning/FL00068/DSECTION=1
Ed Ames
Member
The OP should've followed rule 0.
Don't be a busybody.
Yeah, eating in a lead-contaminated environment is dumb. So is shooting at all according to some people.
Life would be a lot more pleasant for everyone learned to disregard their busybody impulses and let others be. Don't try to save them from their smoking, from their drinking, from their eating, from their shooting, from their bad relationship choices, from their poor financial choices, from... from themselves. It ain't your job and you won't get a lick of thanks... won't get it, don't deserve it.
Information about the toxicity of lead is widely available to everyone. It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the western world is unaware that lead exposure is a health risk. If someone has chosen to accept some lead exposure, well, that's their lookout.
Oh, and for the record... yes, lead poisoning can be accute and immediate. There are quite a few reported cases of individuals suffering from lead poisoning due to hobby activities. Specifically, casting sailboat keels (shaped lead ingots weighing anywhere from 5,000 to 17,000 pounds) using bathtubs and similar to handle the molten metal, when the casting is done in insufficiently ventilated spaces (usually indoors, though a few reports have come from fenced yards on still days). Several hobbiests have caused themselves multi-year medical headaches of the worst sort by improperly handling lead in those volumes. Of course others have been killed by having the lead ingots fall on them. Hobies are often dangerous.
Of course, most lead poisoning comes from prolonged exposure. Look at the medical histories of people who worked at early tetra-ethyl lead plants... a disproportionately high number of "mental health" issues. Arguably anyone over about 15 has received far more lead exposure from leaded gasoline than any amount of eating at shooting ranges could cause.
I wouldn't eat at an indoor shooting range (I don't even like breathing at indoor shooting ranges) but then again I wouldn't smoke either. That doesn't give me grounds to be a busybody.
Don't be a busybody.
Yeah, eating in a lead-contaminated environment is dumb. So is shooting at all according to some people.
Life would be a lot more pleasant for everyone learned to disregard their busybody impulses and let others be. Don't try to save them from their smoking, from their drinking, from their eating, from their shooting, from their bad relationship choices, from their poor financial choices, from... from themselves. It ain't your job and you won't get a lick of thanks... won't get it, don't deserve it.
Information about the toxicity of lead is widely available to everyone. It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the western world is unaware that lead exposure is a health risk. If someone has chosen to accept some lead exposure, well, that's their lookout.
Oh, and for the record... yes, lead poisoning can be accute and immediate. There are quite a few reported cases of individuals suffering from lead poisoning due to hobby activities. Specifically, casting sailboat keels (shaped lead ingots weighing anywhere from 5,000 to 17,000 pounds) using bathtubs and similar to handle the molten metal, when the casting is done in insufficiently ventilated spaces (usually indoors, though a few reports have come from fenced yards on still days). Several hobbiests have caused themselves multi-year medical headaches of the worst sort by improperly handling lead in those volumes. Of course others have been killed by having the lead ingots fall on them. Hobies are often dangerous.
Of course, most lead poisoning comes from prolonged exposure. Look at the medical histories of people who worked at early tetra-ethyl lead plants... a disproportionately high number of "mental health" issues. Arguably anyone over about 15 has received far more lead exposure from leaded gasoline than any amount of eating at shooting ranges could cause.
I wouldn't eat at an indoor shooting range (I don't even like breathing at indoor shooting ranges) but then again I wouldn't smoke either. That doesn't give me grounds to be a busybody.
Much fewer laws and restrictions were necessary when people could accept minimal positive criticism of thier actions.
Now people get all uptight and consider anyone that gives them any criticism to be the bad guy. See a guy waiving a gun around, or being dangerous? Tell him that is unsafe and now you have an armed careless individual upset with you.
They are infringing on others rights to be safe. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a right others should enjoy.
Since people are less able to accept criticisim the guy that might have just been more safe is not confronted, and instead employees are told, or new rules are adopted that prohibit various actions.
Instead of a non issue that is remedied you end up with fewer freedoms at the range.
Inform someone that eating food while handling lead with the same fingers might be bad for thier health? "Mind your own business", you are now the bad guy.
While that might be unsafe, it really is thier own decision, and I respect it, just like I respect thier decision to use anything that might be harmful to them if they respect others rights.
However informing someone of something potentialy hazardous to insure they know the decision they are making is nothing worthy of taking offense.
I dislike people believing they have a right to impose thier views on others if thier actions are not potentialy infringing on others rights. However at the same time someone politely giving criticism in a non confrontational way before continuing on thier own way has done nothing wrong. We can disagree and ignore it, or consider it and disagree, or agree and potential benefit. No harm is done.
That is called communication. If more people communicated less people would go and create laws limiting our liberties. Labeling others "busy bodies" and other terms is just going to cause people to go around you and impose thier beliefs on you through legislation (or new range rules etc) rather than voicing them through communication.
Now people get all uptight and consider anyone that gives them any criticism to be the bad guy. See a guy waiving a gun around, or being dangerous? Tell him that is unsafe and now you have an armed careless individual upset with you.
They are infringing on others rights to be safe. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a right others should enjoy.
Since people are less able to accept criticisim the guy that might have just been more safe is not confronted, and instead employees are told, or new rules are adopted that prohibit various actions.
Instead of a non issue that is remedied you end up with fewer freedoms at the range.
Inform someone that eating food while handling lead with the same fingers might be bad for thier health? "Mind your own business", you are now the bad guy.
While that might be unsafe, it really is thier own decision, and I respect it, just like I respect thier decision to use anything that might be harmful to them if they respect others rights.
However informing someone of something potentialy hazardous to insure they know the decision they are making is nothing worthy of taking offense.
I dislike people believing they have a right to impose thier views on others if thier actions are not potentialy infringing on others rights. However at the same time someone politely giving criticism in a non confrontational way before continuing on thier own way has done nothing wrong. We can disagree and ignore it, or consider it and disagree, or agree and potential benefit. No harm is done.
That is called communication. If more people communicated less people would go and create laws limiting our liberties. Labeling others "busy bodies" and other terms is just going to cause people to go around you and impose thier beliefs on you through legislation (or new range rules etc) rather than voicing them through communication.
Vicious-Peanut
Member
I haven't read the whole thread, but have a story that happened last Saturday. I was at the range I frequent and they have about 10 50 yards benches and 30 100 yard benches. The 50 yard benches were all taken and there were two groups that each wanted one so they waited a few minutes and when I turned around there were a bunch of range officers telling all of them to leave. My father was shooting very close to where it happened so he told me they started arguing and one of then pushed another. I was pleased with how the range handled it, but the funny part of it all is that the cease fire two minutes after they had to leave yielded four free benches.
People that cannot refrain themselves over something as trivial as shooting benches do not belong on a range in my opinion.
People that cannot refrain themselves over something as trivial as shooting benches do not belong on a range in my opinion.
Ed Ames
Member
Zoog,
Fewer laws and restrictions were necessary when laws and restrictions were primarily to protect people from each other. It has nothing to do with accepting criticism and everything to do with what you think is legitimate to control.
At one point you could sell anything you wanted so long as you didn't force the buyers to buy whatever you sold. Want to sell rotten meat? Go right ahead so long as you don't force the buyer to accept rotten meat. Don't want to buy rotten meat? Don't. Caveat Emptor.
That went away and the justification was that it was too difficult for each buyer to individually exercise full dilligence. The buyer couldn't beware so laws were needed. A sort of collective wariness was legislated where sellers were restricted in what they could sell. Caveat Emptor became Caveat Venditor... the burden is on the vendor (and the government enforcers) with penalties for selling less than expected products.
Now, however, people are trying to use the law to control areas of behavior that should not be legally regulated. The types of substances you can consume as food or for recreation. The type of intercourse you may engage in with a consenting adult. On and on.
It doesn't matter how well people can take criticism. These busybody laws are entirely infringement on liberty and they are not necessary no matter how you measure it.
Trying to twist it around and say that it's the free person's fault that laws are necessary because they don't take cricisim is as strange as it is illogical. They don't need to take criticim and they don't need to do what others tell them to do... if they are free.
The real issue is that some people aren't happy knowing that someone else is exercising freedom when they don't.
Fewer laws and restrictions were necessary when laws and restrictions were primarily to protect people from each other. It has nothing to do with accepting criticism and everything to do with what you think is legitimate to control.
At one point you could sell anything you wanted so long as you didn't force the buyers to buy whatever you sold. Want to sell rotten meat? Go right ahead so long as you don't force the buyer to accept rotten meat. Don't want to buy rotten meat? Don't. Caveat Emptor.
That went away and the justification was that it was too difficult for each buyer to individually exercise full dilligence. The buyer couldn't beware so laws were needed. A sort of collective wariness was legislated where sellers were restricted in what they could sell. Caveat Emptor became Caveat Venditor... the burden is on the vendor (and the government enforcers) with penalties for selling less than expected products.
Now, however, people are trying to use the law to control areas of behavior that should not be legally regulated. The types of substances you can consume as food or for recreation. The type of intercourse you may engage in with a consenting adult. On and on.
It doesn't matter how well people can take criticism. These busybody laws are entirely infringement on liberty and they are not necessary no matter how you measure it.
Trying to twist it around and say that it's the free person's fault that laws are necessary because they don't take cricisim is as strange as it is illogical. They don't need to take criticim and they don't need to do what others tell them to do... if they are free.
The real issue is that some people aren't happy knowing that someone else is exercising freedom when they don't.
yakkingallover
Member
I am new here but have followed this thread and have been shooter for a few years. In regards to comments of the OP minding his own business about someone elses burger I would have to say beyond someones right to eat smoke,drink or ingest lead it comes down to the fact that if I or any other person in that range happened to set a case,firearm or foot down on some mayo,onions or anything else from a burger it would anger me as much as someone bugging me about eating. What about my rights and the rights of other shooters who obey the rules to not have our fun with other peoples mess involved. I do not want my 1911 with a side of ketchup.
Ed Ames
Member
Yakking....
That's not an issue.
Eating on the range was against the business's rules. The business made the rules and therefore had the responsibility for enforcing them. The business (eventually) did so.
They were minding their own business. Literally.
The OP, on the other hand, wasn't minding his own business. He was minding everyone else's. His business was to use, and take care of, his guns and to have a good time/learn a lot, perhaps making friends along the way. He wasn't doing that... instead he was trying to do the job of the range owner or the other shooter. He was minding everyone else's business instead of his own.
He shouldn't have been minding everyone else's business.
Why not?
Well, for one... if he hadn't decided to play volunteer unpaid range employee the burger-eater wouldn't have thought himself "turned in" by the busybody. It wouldn't have been a confrontation between customers. The burger eater might have realized that it was a simple violation of the owner's rules instead of some jerk trying to mess up his lunch/shooting break.
For another.... if he hadn't decided to play safety tzar he might've made a friend who, after being told not to eat in here by the range operator, might have been receptive to a "well, you know, they're probably worried about lead affecting your health...."
The list goes on.
Your business includes taking care of your guns, yes... but the busybody's guns weren't endangered by burger-eater's hamburger. Maybe a future customer's would've been... in that case it's the range's responsibility (caveat venditor) to clean the range, and the range customer who was assigned that shooting position's right to complain, if the issue came up.
There is absolutely no evidence the issue ever would've come up though. That's unsubstanciated speculation. It is exactly like saying, "I don't want you to have a gun because you might shoot my kids." We complain when people use those arguments against us as gun owners... we can't turn around and use them against other people without endangering our own rights by legitimizing an incorrect argument.
That's not an issue.
Eating on the range was against the business's rules. The business made the rules and therefore had the responsibility for enforcing them. The business (eventually) did so.
They were minding their own business. Literally.
The OP, on the other hand, wasn't minding his own business. He was minding everyone else's. His business was to use, and take care of, his guns and to have a good time/learn a lot, perhaps making friends along the way. He wasn't doing that... instead he was trying to do the job of the range owner or the other shooter. He was minding everyone else's business instead of his own.
He shouldn't have been minding everyone else's business.
Why not?
Well, for one... if he hadn't decided to play volunteer unpaid range employee the burger-eater wouldn't have thought himself "turned in" by the busybody. It wouldn't have been a confrontation between customers. The burger eater might have realized that it was a simple violation of the owner's rules instead of some jerk trying to mess up his lunch/shooting break.
For another.... if he hadn't decided to play safety tzar he might've made a friend who, after being told not to eat in here by the range operator, might have been receptive to a "well, you know, they're probably worried about lead affecting your health...."
The list goes on.
Your business includes taking care of your guns, yes... but the busybody's guns weren't endangered by burger-eater's hamburger. Maybe a future customer's would've been... in that case it's the range's responsibility (caveat venditor) to clean the range, and the range customer who was assigned that shooting position's right to complain, if the issue came up.
There is absolutely no evidence the issue ever would've come up though. That's unsubstanciated speculation. It is exactly like saying, "I don't want you to have a gun because you might shoot my kids." We complain when people use those arguments against us as gun owners... we can't turn around and use them against other people without endangering our own rights by legitimizing an incorrect argument.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked