Question on safety.

[DukeEB]

6 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

you don't have to dq them, just eject them from the range. At our range, you are simply not allowed to be there without eye protection. period. Has nothing to do with USPSA.

None of our ranges in Western Wa would allow no eye pro either.

[Dutchman195]

No DQ,

 

But boot them from the range. Thats usually a range rule as well. 

You dont want to follow the rules, then you cant be here.

[HCH]

1 hour ago, dmshozer1 said:

How about if you told them twice and they still did not do it for the rest of the 5 stages?

 

Doesn’t sound like unsportsmanlike conduct IMO. Aside from 10.6 or whatever was quoted earlier, there’s not a DQ for this instance. It isn’t unsafe gun handling. They aren’t trying to get a reshoot by knocking off their glasses during a COF. It’s just stupidity on the competitor’s part. 

 

To quote a chemistry professor I once had: “You lose hearing over time. Eyesight is lost instantly.”

 

 

15 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

you don't have to dq them, just eject them from the range. At our range, you are simply not allowed to be there without eye protection. period. Has nothing to do with USPSA.

 

This is what I would say. 

[MikeBurgess]

43 minutes ago, HCH said:

 

Doesn’t sound like unsportsmanlike conduct IMO. Aside from 10.6 or whatever was quoted earlier, there’s not a DQ for this instance. It isn’t unsafe gun handling. They aren’t trying to

 

 

 

 

There IS a DQ for this instance, it is lined out in 10.6.1 "failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official" seems pretty cut and dry to me, we do not need a rule for every conceivable action a competitor could make with a corresponding action to be taken. I would bet my own $100 that if a competitor tried to arb a 10.6.1 DQ for the above described situation they would loose it quite quickly.

[HCH]

7 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

There IS a DQ for this instance, it is lined out in 10.6.1 "failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official" seems pretty cut and dry to me, we do not need a rule for every conceivable action a competitor could make with a corresponding action to be taken. I would bet my own $100 that if a competitor tried to arb a 10.6.1 DQ for the above described situation they would loose it quite quickly.

 

Then why does 8.3 *SPECIFICALLY* state “the competitor must place eye and ear protection” ??

 

I would be willing to throw down my $100 if an RO tried to DQ me for not wearing ear pro during reset. (I always have on some form of sunglasses when I walk outside, so I have to use a different example )

 

I said it before: stupid of the competitor to not wear eye pro at the gun range. Also stupid of the RO to issue a DQ for “unsportsmanlike conduct”. 

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

4 minutes ago, HCH said:

 

Then why does 8.3 *SPECIFICALLY* state “the competitor must place eye and ear protection” ??

 

I would be willing to throw down my $100 if an RO tried to DQ me for not wearing ear pro during reset. (I always have on some form of sunglasses when I walk outside, so I have to use a different example )

 

I said it before: stupid of the competitor to not wear eye pro at the gun range. Also stupid of the RO to issue a DQ for “unsportsmanlike conduct”. 

 

 

8.3 may say that because you may be making ready on a cold range where up till that point ear and eye protection was not necessary. 

I agree being on the range without eyes is dumb.

But if you are making the argument that language in 8.3 saying to put eyes on somehow also means that you are free to not wear eyes except when shooting regardless of  5.4.1 specifically stating you need to whenever yo may be exposed to splatter I will disagree with you on that. 

 

 

[dmshozer1]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

you don't have to dq them, just eject them from the range. At our range, you are simply not allowed to be there without eye protection. period. Has nothing to do with USPSA.

This sounds good to me.

[ATLDave]

Taking off ears while pasting is one thing.  Taking off eyepro while someone else is shooting steel is another.  It's being inconsiderate of the shooter to put that kind of risk of their splatter causing an eye injury anywhere near them.  

 

[LuvDog]

I usually don't even get out of my truck without eyes and ears. LOL

[motosapiens]

46 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

Taking off ears while pasting is one thing.  Taking off eyepro while someone else is shooting steel is another.  It's being inconsiderate of the shooter to put that kind of risk of their splatter causing an eye injury anywhere near them.  

 

it's being inconsiderate of everyone at the range, or who is a member of the range. You know when someone loses their eyesight their insurance company is going to look for people to blame. It's pretty standard policy for any injury now to try to find someone else to blame.

[ATLDave]

Yep.  It's like riding around with no seatbelt in your car.  Why would you do that to someone who gets in an accident with you?  Put your stupid loss of life on their conscience?  It's a jerk move. 

 

You want to stay home and gouge out your eyes?  Knock yourself out.  Want to come to where I and my friends are trying to have a good time safely and make it partially our problem when a piece of frag slices your eyeball in half?  GTFO.  

 

I have absolutely no patience for this nonsense.  I think the rules are clear.  If they're not, that's something HQ could productively do.  

Edited June 6, 2019 by ATLDave

[amokscience]

I wouldn't bother with a rule.

 

I would eject them from the range. I would go to the range owner or board if the MD refused to back me up. I've been hit by a full sized 45 slug while walking between bays and have seen a ricochet from a bay over punch a hole in a no shoot. Multiple instances of frags drawing blood from over 15 yards back. No tolerance. 

[Schutzenmeister]

On 6/5/2019 at 3:35 PM, HCH said:

 

To quote a chemistry professor I once had: “You lose hearing over time. Eyesight is lost instantly.”

 

 

Your chemistry professor has clearly never heard of cataracts or glaucoma … or diabetic retinopathy, and a host of other maladies.

 

Nevertheless - Point taken.

[Abflyboy]

On 6/6/2019 at 11:52 AM, ATLDave said:

Yep.  It's like riding around with no seatbelt in your car.  Why would you do that to someone who gets in an accident with you?  Put your stupid loss of life on their conscience?  It's a jerk move. 

 

You want to stay home and gouge out your eyes?  Knock yourself out.  Want to come to where I and my friends are trying to have a good time safely and make it partially our problem when a piece of frag slices your eyeball in half?  GTFO.  

 

I have absolutely no patience for this nonsense.  I think the rules are clear.  If they're not, that's something HQ could productively do.  

 

Well stated. Buh Bye.

 

On 6/8/2019 at 1:32 PM, amokscience said:

I wouldn't bother with a rule.

 

I would eject them from the range. I would go to the range owner or board if the MD refused to back me up. I've been hit by a full sized 45 slug while walking between bays and have seen a ricochet from a bay over punch a hole in a no shoot. Multiple instances of frags drawing blood from over 15 yards back. No tolerance. 

 

I haven't had the pleasure of a .45 slug but a piece of frag from another squad embedded in my cheek. Wound was superficial but inspection of my eye pro showed where it caught the frag before it stuck in my skin below the lens.  My son also got a frag cut under his eye.  Absolutely ridiculous to even consider not wearing eye protection.

[laz2011]

Did the range have any rules requiring eye and  earprotection? Most do but that does not mean people will follow those rules . I tell them a story of someone who was a bystander at a shotgun match who got hit in the face with a clay bird target . They had go to the emergency room to remove the clay bird shrapnel. I tried to warn the individual to always ware glasses,but it didn't take .