Comments on: BARGAIN BIN — Great Deal on Shooting Glasses

By: Boyd Allen

Boyd Allen — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:13:25 +0000

Very few shooters can speak from the perspective of one who has built or run a range, I can. No one can sign away his right to redress in court for what he or his lawyer thinks is actionable. Ranges are not made of money. Having spent considerable time range building and running, I can assure you that I would rather do without the business of anyone who has issues with posted rules. Most shooters are at a range “on the cheap”. They have not built it, run it, nor will they replace it if it is closed. With all due respect, I think that most shooters that I have spoken with who object to range rules have issues with authority in general. I think that they should all get together and build and run a range, where they can write their own rules as they will. In the mean time I think that they should all take a turn as a range master on a public range just before hunting season. It might give them some insight into the problems involved.

By: richard donald

richard donald — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:10:51 +0000

The military does not and has not required safety glasses for millions of troops for more than 100 years. The odds of getting injured are so small that I for one am willing to take the risk. That should be my decision, not the range. The range already has me sign a waiver that I won’t sue them, even if they are negligent. They do this before there is even an accident. I just want to be left alone, no micro management, I will sign the waiver!

Editor: Do a little research, and call a personal injury attorney, or even an insurance agent. You will find that little piece of paper — the waiver — does not foreclose you from filing suit. It may be relevant to the question of comparative negligence, but it doesn’t eliminate the potential for lawsuits.

By: Hugh Caddell

Hugh Caddell — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:08:18 +0000

I’m with you Fred.
If you want to see the last word on rules, regulations, and “do gooders”… come and live here in Australia !!!
It starts with a “gun registration for the good of the country” and ends with a ban on semi autos, hand guns, and auto / pump action shoot guns.
I’m an adult, I can make my own decisions !

By: Fred Bohl

Fred Bohl — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:19:42 +0000

Before this gets out of hand let me clarify my position.

I try to encourage the use of safety devices and features. For example my vehicle has full time 4WD, ABS, and Traction Control systems.

I have no problem with match rules that establish safety practices to control behavior that is likely to affect the safety of other shooters or of the spectators.

I vehemently object to match rules that are intended to control my personal behavior that the organizers/sponsors/hosts in their uninformed opinion think are WRONG or DANGEROUS for me and does not affect the other shooters or spectators.

I attended a match in 2006 at which a participating member of the host club mentioned that one of the other participants should be excluded because he was endagering himself by driving the 720 miles to get there since “everybody knows those over 70 are unfit drivers”. By the way, the 72 year old won the score match the next day.

Anti gun groups frequently condemn the mere posession much less use of firearms as WRONG and DANGEROUS – as did Washington DC to justify there position on the Heller case – as did California in banning 50BMG firearms.

If the use of eye and ear protection is to be mandatory at matches then the match directors need to provide the equipment or at least define the acceptable specifications and what certifications the shooters have to provide for their own equipment that will get them past technical inspection for match use.

Sorry, it got out of hand anyway. I lost the hearing in one ear and some vision while defending individual rights. (Back in 1969 Uncle Sam didn’t provide us with eye or ear protection, just guns and amo.)

By: Editor

Editor — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:07:17 +0000

Fred’s a respected member of our Forum and raises some interesting points. However, there are new materials, such as Trivex, that make it possible to obtain good, PRESCRIPTION safety glasses with outstanding impact resistance.

We explain these options in our FREE Guide to Shooting Glasses. Any good optometrist can explain and craft prescription shooting glasses, including bifocals and even tri-focals.

Yes, shooting without eye protection can be a matter of personal “free choice”, but we maintain it is the WRONG choice, and a DANGEROUS choice.

Should one exercise “free choice” and shoot without hearing protection and possibly suffer permanent hearing loss? We don’t think so…

You have the “free choice” to walk in front of a speeding train, to stick your hand in a burning flame, or to jump off a cliff. That doesn’t mean that any of those things make sense. In this situation, it’s better to protect yourself. So put those safety glasses on whenever you use a firearm.

By: Fred Bohl

Fred Bohl — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:01:19 +0000

First – it is hard enough for those of us with vision problems to get corrective glasses that are useable for shooting much less that are also effective “safety” glasses.

Second – if your goal is to have maximum mandatory safety for all competitors then you need to have identical rifles and factory ammo (no jammed or hot loads).

Third – if your goal is liability protection for the match promoter and/or hosting range then don’t have matches.

Last – every new rule is an infringement on personal freedom. Shooting involves some free choice and the attendent risk. In many contries the answer to gun safety is to outlaw guns.

By: HPMike800

HPMike800 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:28:32 +0000

I agree completely. Smallbore “shooting glasses” are not adequate for centerfire firearms either. Even a small amount of eye damage in one eye can cost you your driver’s licence for the rest of your life.
Mike