Fatal Incident at CA USPSA Match

[drgrant]

I know where your going with that.
I'd stay off any road that had cars going in opposite directions in the same lane though

Lol so you trust that the paint on the road will keep cars in the correct lane?

I think the point he's trying to make is that driving is 1000x the level of chaotic danger that shooting is, and he'd be right.

-Mike

 

[Dadstoys]

I like that electronic scoring set up.

 

[atmay]

Lol so you trust that the paint on the road will keep cars in the correct lane?

I think the point he's trying to make is that driving is 1000x the level of chaotic danger that shooting is, and he'd be right.

-Mike

Motor vehicle accidents account for approximately 25% of accidental deaths in the US. Firearms related accidental deaths account for about 1% of the total. And that includes all accidental/negligent firearms-related deaths.

I don't think the data is quite their to calculate just how much more likely you are to die in a fiery car crash than from a stray bullet at your neighborhood range, but it's at least 25X.

Everyone is uppity about this range design, but we all get in our death machines every day to go to work, or to get the French toast supplies before the snow hits, without even thinking twice.

 

[peterthefish]

Motor vehicle accidents account for approximately 25% of accidental deaths in the US. Firearms related accidental deaths account for about 1% of the total. And that includes all accidental/negligent firearms-related deaths.

I don't think the data is quite their to calculate just how much more likely you are to die in a fiery car crash than from a stray bullet at your neighborhood range, but it's at least 25X.

Yeah, it doesn't really work that way. If we had equal exposure to range time as we did to drive time (driver or passenger) than yes, driving would be 25X more dangerous.

However, I would guess the average American spends more than 25 hours in a car for every hour they spend handling firearms. Unfortunately, with exposure units being so dissimilar, and relative comparison is extremely difficult.

And that's before we control for factors within our control, like the fact that removing suicides removes a lot of firearm death frequency, and buckling up and driving sober removes a lot of the risk of a fatality while driving.

At least 25X more dangerous to drive than shoot? Not even remotely possible to make a statement like that, but I doubt it.

 

[KBCraig]

The layout isn't the problem, it's the poor excuses for berms -- and then they tried to compensate for not having enough berm, by building plywood fences on top.

I guarantee you that if not for those fences, there would be nothing for the bullet to "ricochet down" from.

 

[KBCraig]

NBS blows chunks though, but sometimes there is no safe alternative.

-Mike

When shooting rifles from a bench, there is no reason other than money to not use a NBS design.

You obviously can't have one over an action course.

 

[jasons]

That is the future for ranges in developed areas.

As for being downrange a few hundred yards from a hot firing line, why would anyone?

Know your target and what is beyond for me means no one in front of my muzzle. YMMV

Granted I am an old fart but I would never utilize a facility which was arranged as that one.

Every highpower range in the country (with the exception of electronic ranges which are a relatively new thing) have people downrange pulling targets. Billions of rounds have been fired safely on such ranges. There's nothing wrong with being down range behind a properly designed berm.

 

[atmay]

Yeah, it doesn't really work that way. If we had equal exposure to range time as we did to drive time (driver or passenger) than yes, driving would be 25X more dangerous.

However, I would guess the average American spends more than 25 hours in a car for every hour they spend handling firearms. Unfortunately, with exposure units being so dissimilar, and relative comparison is extremely difficult.

And that's before we control for factors within our control, like the fact that removing suicides removes a lot of firearm death frequency, and buckling up and driving sober removes a lot of the risk of a fatality while driving.

At least 25X more dangerous to drive than shoot? Not even remotely possible to make a statement like that, but I doubt it.

Did I say it was 25X more dangerous?

Let me answer that - no. No I did not.

What I said was "you're at least 25X more likely to die in a fiery car crash than from a stray bullet at your friendly neighborhood range".


My point is- we spend a LOT of time in our cars, and no one bats a goddamn eye at the risk. One guys number gets called this once, and all of a sudden, what's ordinarily a perfectly safe range design is the work of Beelzebub himself.

Should this range consider raising their berms? Probably, if they don't get put out of business by this tragic freak accident. But is the design so inherently bad as 3/4 of NES seems to think? No.

 

[In God We Trust]

ugh. horrible design and so tragic. seems like one row should be facing the opposite direction.
I remember being down range at Marine Corps boot camp and being on target detail- having all those bullets whizzing a few feet overhead while we all sat behind the berm waiting to swap out the shooters target- was a vivid and surreal experience.

I remember that from Benning. I knew the shots were going over head, but I didn't know what the "Crack" noise was. I thought it was the rounds striking the paper or something.

I live withing ear shot of my range and before I go, I will drink a coffee or spend a couple minutes outside first. If I hear a lot of shooting, I will go another day. I prefer to be alone on the range. No FUDDS, no retards.

 

[peterthefish]

Did I say it was 25X more dangerous?

Let me answer that - no. No I did not.

What I said was "you're at least 25X more likely to die in a fiery car crash than from a stray bullet at your friendly neighborhood range".


My point is- we spend a LOT of time in our cars, and no one bats a goddamn eye at the risk. One guys number gets called this once, and all of a sudden, what's ordinarily a perfectly safe range design is the work of Beelzebub himself.

Should this range consider raising their berms? Probably, if they don't get put out of business by this tragic freak accident. But is the design so inherently bad as 3/4 of NES seems to think? No.

You're still wrong. The average American may be 25X more likely to die in their car, but for a firearm owner that statistic doesn't apply.

 

[bigblue]

So glad we can have an actuarial argument on a gun forum. What's next?

 

[Admin]

So glad we can have an actuarial argument on a gun forum. What's next?

MY OPINION IS THE RIGHT OPINION DAMN IT!

 

[bigblue]

MY OPINION IS THE RIGHT OPINION DAMN IT!

Truest statement of the day. rofl

 

[jasons]

If you are referring to something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAnq2uMbFbE

I can see your point. But the incident occurred in a pay for play for profit range which from the various posting in the thread had issues with ricochets and shooters unable to keep their rounds on the berm. It also seems from reading the thread the range widely lacked supervision and was very busy. The very fact they constructed the wooden barriers on top of the berms is clear evidence the range owners were aware of the dangers.

I have spent most of my life in places where there were wide open areas with good backstops and no other people. The small amount of indoor range time I have enjoyed were either at sanctioned matches with RSO's or there was no one else on the range.

It is my choice is to avoid crowds and circumstances where something i don't wish to shoot is in front of my muzzle. YMMV and probably does. Is it possible we can both be right?

I was responding to your question:

As for being downrange a few hundred yards from a hot firing line, why would anyone?

Again, there's nothing wrong with being down range behind a properly designed berm.

 

[Admin]

Again, there's nothing wrong with being down range behind a properly designed berm.

Nope. Plenty of clubs have people on the other side of berms, and I'm not talking highpower pits either. Pelham has their club house behind one berm.

 

[Malodave]

Our Trap Range shoots over the Action Pistol and 600yd Target area, But they
are never used at the same time.

Malodave

 

[atmay]

You're still wrong. The average American may be 25X more likely to die in their car, but for a firearm owner that statistic doesn't apply.

Fair enough. I reconducted my research, and it looks like your average gun owner is only TEN times more likely to die in a car crash than by being shot accidentally. My apologies.

ETA: this includes ALL accidental shooting deaths (abt 600 a year on avg). Everything I can find shows that incidents occurring at the range are somewhere in the single digits to low double digits per year.

So glad we can have an actuarial argument on a gun forum. What's next?

We always complain about anti-gun arguments being rooted in emotion, rather than facts.

The argument is both relevant, and based in facts rather than "OmG that range is like, so unsafe!!! I can't believe ppl are oK with being behind a berm when other people are shooooting!!!!!!1!"

 

[bigblue]

Our Trap Range shoots over the Action Pistol and 600yd Target area, But they
are never used at the same time.

Malodave

Our skeet range shoots towards the rifle range and from position 2 I can hit almost any rifle position with #9 shot in the fall with my Browning. Unnerving at best, paint scratching on cars at worst.

 

[Dadstoys]

My point being that having done some construction over the years it would have been entirely possible to build that set up on the same amount of space with the pits 180 degrees from each other and it wouldn't have been any more costly either.
It was a design choice.
Not a good one IMHO.

 

[bigblue]

I think the berm size was the poor design choice not necessarily the direction. They have to face somewhere.

Well that and the idiots popping rounds off over the berm.

 

[KBCraig]

But the incident occurred in a pay for play for profit range which from the various posting in the thread had issues with ricochets and shooters unable to keep their rounds on the berm.

So, just like an NES car shoot?

 

[DPR]

My point being that having done some construction over the years it would have been entirely possible to build that set up on the same amount of space with the pits 180 degrees from each other and it wouldn't have been any more costly either.
It was a design choice.
Not a good one IMHO.

Having them set 180 would not have prevented a bullet leaving the pit and striking somebody.

 

[Nick Fury]

No construction or physics degree is needed to realize the wood barrier on top of an already high enough berm is there for blocking splatter and/or kicked up debis. its not for slowing down shots that dont hit the berm first... lol

 

[bigblue]

No construction or physics degree is needed to realize the wood barrier on top of an already high enough berm is there for blocking splatter and/or kicked up debis. its not for slowing down shots that dont hit the berm first... lol

Clearly it required a degree in common sense as the Cali gun threads indicate that rounds regularly impacted the raised portion of the berm.

If you construct a berm with a vertical expansion, someone WILL hit it. It's like constructing a blue sky system and not expecting idiots to shoot it or putting a range in a basement and not expecting idiots to shoot the ceiling.

People are ****ing stupid. In fact, the large percentage of the population is ****ing stupid just from a statistical standpoint.

Thus, you need to construct a range to account for imbeciles with guns because they will test your design. They just will.

 

[Dadstoys]

Clearly it required a degree in common sense as the Cali gun threads indicate that rounds regularly impacted the raised portion of the berm.

If you construct a berm with a vertical expansion, someone WILL hit it. It's like constructing a blue sky system and not expecting idiots to shoot it or putting a range in a basement and not expecting idiots to shoot the ceiling.

People are ****ing stupid. In fact, the large percentage of the population is ****ing stupid just from a statistical standpoint.

Thus, you need to construct a range to account for imbeciles with guns because they will test your design. They just will.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that you have to plan things around the lowest common denominator.

 

[DPR]

Clearly it required a degree in common sense as the Cali gun threads indicate that rounds regularly impacted the raised portion of the berm.

If you construct a berm with a vertical expansion, someone WILL hit it. It's like constructing a blue sky system and not expecting idiots to shoot it or putting a range in a basement and not expecting idiots to shoot the ceiling.

People are ****ing stupid. In fact, the large percentage of the population is ****ing stupid just from a statistical standpoint.

Thus, you need to construct a range to account for imbeciles with guns because they will test your design. They just will.

Youtube search some of the videos people take of themselves at that range. All kinds of stupid.