Safety Glasses while cleaning guns

[bvet4dog]

boys and girls... hold your horses before this thread goes down hill even further. most people that i know in maine doesn't wear safety glasses beside being on the range, when they do because of the rules. There are 3 gun ranges that i attended recently within last few months. I didnt wear any safety glasses and there was tons of folks shooting also didnt have any on beside a few did have it on. Other than that few other ranges around here requires them to be put on.

If you have correct ammo then there shouldn't be any problems. only stupidity, foolishness will get you in trouble. Just like that motorcylce example that he pointed out. There's many stupid motorcyclist, when they do wheelies and shit... they are asking for trouble. However if they stayed on 2 wheels and drive safe, then no problem right? Same thing goes for firearms, if you know what you're doing then it's all good and there wont be any "exploding" pieces going into your eyes.

 

[dwarven1]

Because this thread is already off of the rails, let me ask this: Why do any of you care what "bvet4dog" does?

Hey, if he wants to shoot without glasses, that's fine - I just think he's an idiot for doing so. And he won't be doing it where I'm responsible (and yes, being an RSO or an instructor does make me responsible for safety at any shoot where I'm working) for reasons that have already be articulated here.

If you have correct ammo then there shouldn't be any problems. only stupidity, foolishness will get you in trouble. Just like that motorcylce example that he pointed out. There's many stupid motorcyclist, when they do wheelies and shit... they are asking for trouble. However if they stayed on 2 wheels and drive safe, then no problem right? Same thing goes for firearms, if you know what you're doing then it's all good and there wont be any "exploding" pieces going into your eyes.

And here we go with the egregious stupidity... AND HE KEEPS REPEATING IT!!!

if you know what you're doing then it's all good and there wont be any "exploding" pieces going into your eyes.

This is dead wrong. You can use all the correct ammo you want, and NONE of it will protect you from flying splinters of lead if you hit a rock or a steel target just the right way. I have BEEN hit by lead bouncing back, and if I'd gotten hit in an unprotected eye by it, I'd have lost the eye.

If you have a desire to sacrifice your eye for the knowledge that you're being stupid to shoot without eye protection, fine. Go ahead. But please stop trying to pretend that it's a safe practice and stop trying to convince us that it is, "Odim"!!


Since Odin actually gained knowledge in exchange for his eye, and this guy shows no sign of it, I think that when he does lose an eye, he should be called Odim; that's not a misspelling.

 

[economist]

And here we go with the egregious stupidity... AND HE KEEPS REPEATING IT!!!

Agreed.

 

[bvet4dog]

i'm trying to convince you? or claiming that it's the safest thing to do? you sir are wrong and stupid for making assumptions.

Sure they can come back from hitting rocks and what not. You missed the point what i'm saying. "if you know what you're doing, then it's all good"... Maybe this will help you're little brain. being sure where you're hitting and what's behind the target, you can determine if anything will come back to you or not. Thus shooting at 2x4's in a sand pit or on a hay field or on a fixed range.... you'll be fine unless you want to be a dumb ass and shot at rocks with out common sense. For instance, you'd be a dumb ass for driving a sport bike into sand at high speed and expect that you wont fish tail. get my drift? thanks.

 

[dwarven1]

i'm trying to convince you? or claiming that it's the safest thing to do? you sir are wrong and stupid for making assumptions.

Sure they can come back from hitting rocks and what not. You missed the point what i'm saying. "if you know what you're doing, then it's all good"... Maybe this will help you're little brain. being sure where you're hitting and what's behind the target, you can determine if anything will come back to you or not. Thus shooting at 2x4's in a sand pit or on a hay field or on a fixed range.... you'll be fine unless you want to be a dumb ass and shot at rocks with out common sense.

And you have X-ray vision so that you can ensure that there are NO rocks where you're shooting? There are no nails in those 2x4s holding them together? All your shooting partners are as gifted and prescient as you are, and will avoid hitting anything that could make a ricochet?

Tell me, are you SURE that every one of your guns is in perfect condition? No wear and tear on them? You're positive that EVERY round of ammo you shoot is OK? No reloads, I'm sure... and of course, factory ammo is all perfect, right? Willing to bet your eye on it? I'm not.

 

[Scrivener]

Save your internet breath and just file this twit under "TSTL."

He may not (yet) be blind, but he is certainly deaf to reason. Just ignore the irredeemably ignorant.

 

[bvet4dog]

lol you are something. I reload my ammo majority of the time, oh that reminds me i need new dies and more primer. Thank you for the reminder. Other than that, i buy ammo off my grandfather who owns his shop. I lost count how many times i've bought ammo from my grand pop, not single bullet had any fault.

anyways, lol i wished i could have x ray vision. Of course there is staples holding papers on the 2x4's, also we have very large and we have large area to shoot at. Our shooting spot is behind my buddy's house where he has alot of different portions of sand pits along with hay fields. We shoot at mostly sand or clean fill dirt next to our hay field. We are very positive that there's no rocks since we actually build it ourselves.

No, not all of my guns are in perfect condition i admit. one of my sks is all rusted up from one of my cousin who abused it. I just got it a month before i got my m&p. Other than that, my collections are in good standing and thank you.

oh and thanks for the negative rep. I do appreciate the rep's you guys are giving me, just because you're all mad and uptight on this subject. quite funny.

 

[dwarven1]

I give up. He reloads AND uses someone else's reloads and he thinks that there's no possible chance for a kaboom.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine

I'm out of here. I have better things to do than argue with a ... and a stupid one, at that.

 

[Dench]

oh and thanks for the negative rep. I do appreciate the rep's you guys are giving me, just because you're all mad and uptight on this subject. quite funny.

which is funny, because when some of the people that are posting in this thread get neg rep, they also publicly complain about it.

 

[bvet4dog]

i didnt complain... lol just giving my thanks. learn to read.

dwarven, yet you still make assumptions. I didnt say that there's no possible chance.... lol you're a comedian. What i actually ment to say is that i do trust my grand pop. ever since i was a kid i was in his shop and i actually lived right next door. I started to do some reloading process when i was 13 years old and of course my grand pop would leave me in the shop to run it along with reloading jobs. yet we havnt found any defects in our rounds other than some idiot tried to put different round in his .357 magnum.... boy i still have pictures of it in my drawers.

 

[Beansie_Time]

other than some idiot tried to put different round in his .357 magnum.... boy i still have pictures of it in my drawers.

So isn't it possible that you could be at the range shooting without eye protection and something like this could happen to someone nearby again? Its not just your targets, guns, and ammo that you have to trust but everyone shooting around you. If the guy next to you has a kaboom, and you're not wearing eye protection, you are going to have major troubles.
If you don't want to wear eye protection it's your choice. I'm just trying to tell you why you should think about doing it. Judging by your previous responses you probably won't take my advice, but once again your choice to make, and your choice to pay the consequences if there is an accident.

 

[FhvnLT4A]

Hey all.. lets leave the no glasses guys to their right to lose their sight...... Its very simple.. you have 1 pair of eyes.... screw em up, theres no such thing as a vision transplant.... if you choose to take the chance that nothing will ever fly arround at a range, I would like to invite you to stand next to my AR with a Miculek compensator for a few minutes )

 

[M1911]

You had a nice, intelligent response going until this last sentence. Those who compromise and bend to social pressure, who take a pragmatic course in fear, and who justify their actions not with ideas but in deference to a "system" imposed by others deserve the world they create.

Here's the real world: most gun clubs have limited financial resources. We don't take unnecessary risks. We can't afford to.

Sorry that you don't like reality. Feel free to crawl back into your utopian dreams.

 

[M1911]

It doesn't take a kaboom to get hit in the eye. If you've been on a range long enough, you'll get hot brass down your shirt from your neighbor's semiautomatic. Imagine that hot brass hitting an unprotected eye.

 

[bishop375]

You had a nice, intelligent response going until this last sentence. Those who compromise and bend to social pressure, who take a pragmatic course in fear, and who justify their actions not with ideas but in deference to a "system" imposed by others deserve the world they create.

So does this mean you're fine with paying all of their insurance premiums for them, in order to allow their clientele to not follow the safety requirements? That's awfully generous of you.

 

[economist]

Here's the real world: most gun clubs have limited financial resources. We don't take unnecessary risks. We can't afford to.

Sorry that you don't like reality. Feel free to crawl back into your utopian dreams.

Why are using such a nasty tone? Why would I "crawl back" to anything? What are you so angry about?

So does this mean you're fine with paying all of their insurance premiums for them, in order to allow their clientele to not follow the safety requirements? That's awfully generous of you.

I made no representation that implies a liability for the risk of others. In fact, I was explicit to the contrary.


Given the tone of these responses, I should just give up. I know I won't convince either of you of anything. But perhaps you will be willing to answer a few questions so that you can strengthen your points further. You can then insult me one more time for not thinking "in the real world" and for having "utopian dreams" (my utopia, apparently, is embarrassingly limited). As noted earlier, I always wear eye protection when shooting.

How do either of you know that requiring safety glasses affects risk to a club or its insurance cost? Can you quantify this risk? Can you compare the level of risk to all other risks you face? Do you have quoted insurance premiums for various scenarios? If reducing risk and saving money on insurance and potential liability is so important, have you really considered all risks? Have you sought insurance premium quotes for these risks as well? Why not require all shooters to wear vests, or full face guards, or ear protection with a DB rating exceeding some specified level (as opposed to just any plugs or muffs), or leather jackets and pants, or kevlar, or shooting gloves, etc.

Why is it that all of the risks that come with running a gun club are just exactly balanced when people are required to wear safety glasses, yet risks are unacceptable and insurance costs will rise excessively when this requirement is relaxed?

 

[M1911]

Why are using such a nasty tone? Why would I "crawl back" to anything? What are you so angry about?

Try re-reading your post. Specifically, consider about what you were thinking when you wrote this particular line:

And if you can, can you differentiate this view from any arbitrary desire to control someone else's life when their actions have no direct effect on your life or property?

Your intention here was to insult me, and, in fact, you succeeded. Save your pop psychology for someone else, please.

I have no "arbitrary desire to control someone else's life." I have a desire to ensure safety on our gun club's ranges. As the elected Chief Range Safety Officer of my club, that is part of my duties, as stipulated by our club bylaws.

I made no representation that implies a liability for the risk of others. In fact, I was explicit to the contrary.

The reality is that someone shooting without shooting glasses increases the risk to others. You fail to acknowledge that point. It isn't just about the shooter, it is also about the other people on the line and the club's neighbors. You can "represent" all you want to the contrary, but it doesn't change that fact.

How do either of you know that requiring safety glasses affects risk to a club or its insurance cost? Can you quantify this risk? Can you compare the level of risk to all other risks you face? Do you have quoted insurance premiums for various scenarios? If reducing risk and saving money on insurance and potential liability is so important, have you really considered all risks? Have you sought insurance premium quotes for these risks as well?

From a basic legal standpoint, as officers of the club we are expected to take reasonable precautions, ones that a "reasonable man" would take, to protect our members, guests, and neighbors. It turns out that there are gun safety rules that can be considered to be industry standards: http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

One of those rules reads as follows:

Wear eye and ear protection as appropriate.
Guns are loud and the noise can cause hearing damage. They can also emit debris and hot gas that could cause eye injury. For these reasons, shooting glasses and hearing protectors should be worn by shooters and spectators.

If we did not do that, we would expose our club and ourselves to added legal risk, and for no reason at all. Might we be able to get insurance to cover us even if we didn't have that rule? Perhaps. I'll let you contact Lloyd's of London for a quote. But even if we did get insurance for it, suppose the club was sued. Yes, the insurance would cover the legal cost of the defense and (hopefully) the entire judgment as well. But anyone who has been through legal proceedings can tell you that there are very real costs (financial and emotional) as well for being involved in a legal suit. You just don't want to be there if you can avoid it.

More importantly, suppose such an incident took place, where a shooter was hit in the eye by flying brass, then had an ND and injured someone else on the range. Wouldn't you feel bad, knowing that a simple rule requiring eye protection would have prevented that from occurring?

Why would we NOT want to have a rule requiring eye protection? Eye protection increases safety for the shooter, other people on the line, our neighbors, and also reduces our liability all at the same time. And it isn't exactly a major sacrifice to have to wear some eye protection.

Why not require all shooters to wear vests, or full face guards, or ear protection with a DB rating exceeding some specified level (as opposed to just any plugs or muffs), or leather jackets and pants, or kevlar, or shooting gloves, etc.

None of those are industry standard safety precautions, and you know it. You are just putting up a straw-man argument so you can knock it down. From a legal perspective, if we live up to the industry standard, we are taking reasonable precautions. There is no need for us to take extraordinary precautions.

Why is it that all of the risks that come with running a gun club are just exactly balanced when people are required to wear safety glasses,

Another strawman. Who ever said that requiring safety glasses "balances all risks that come with running a gun club?" I sure didn't. Nor did I imply it.

 

[M1911]

which is funny, because when some of the people that are posting in this thread get neg rep, they also publicly complain about it.

I haven't given anyone a neg rep point in several months. But I'll give you a shout-out for the negative rep point you gave me for this thread. Apparently you feel it is OK for people to insult me, but not for me to respond in kind. Ok. Whatever floats your boat. Feel free to give me more negative rep points whenever you feel like it, but I won't respond in kind. I will, however, post about them whenever you do.

Oh, and one last thing, if I may. I'm not your buddy.

 

[Dench]

I haven't given anyone a neg rep point in several months. But I'll give you a shout-out for the negative rep point you gave me for this thread. Apparently you feel it is OK for people to insult me, but not for me to respond in kind. Ok. Whatever floats your boat. Feel free to give me more negative rep points whenever you feel like it, but I won't respond in kind. I will, however, post about them whenever you do.

Oh, and one last thing, if I may. I'm not your buddy.

oh shut it m1911.
if you dont understand why i gave you the neg rep then do yourself the favor and put me on ignore.
waa-waaa-waa.

 

[M1911]

What's the matter, Dench? Don't you want to discuss it here? I'm happy to discuss openly the tone and content of my posts. And I didn't even call you names, as you did in your neg rep point comment.

 

[economist]

Try re-reading your post. Specifically, consider about what you were thinking when you wrote this particular line:

And if you can, can you differentiate this view from any arbitrary desire to control someone else's life when their actions have no direct effect on your life or property?

Your intention here was to insult me, and, in fact, you succeeded. Save your pop psychology for someone else, please.

How do you know my intention? The world is full of people who want to control the lives of others for any number of reasons (drug laws, vice laws in general, stupid gun laws, etc). I don't see how it is an insult to ask whether you are in that group. I didn't say you were in that group.

In any event, I asked a very clear question and in your first post in reply you provided a nicely written clear answer. You are the range safety officer at a club and the club requires safety glasses. That is a good reason for you to enforce that rule. Understood. I am done here.

 

[Dench]

What's the matter, Dench? Don't you want to discuss it here? I'm happy to discuss openly the tone and content of my posts. And I didn't even call you names, as you did in your neg rep point comment.

we can discuss anything youd like. i dont enjoy interacting with you on NES. from what ive seen from you its your way or no way, with a extremly condesending attitude in your posts.

the reputation system is there for a reason. if you cant handle the negative criticism and the generally asinine and stupid remarks i leave with them then im sorry. theres no point to the system if its just for positive remarks only.

 

[Blitz1]

Just to get this back on topic, IMO it isn't very bright to be on a firing line without eye protection. I wear my regular glasses but am looking for something more protective that I can wear over them.

I saw someone there with safety glasses over his prescription glasses. If you are reading this could you post up? I'm interested in were I could get some.

Never really thought about it when cleaning though, it makes sense.

 

[Beansie_Time]

Home Depot sells safety glasses that will fit over prescription eyeglasses for < $5.

 

[Blitz1]

Home Depot sells safety glasses that will fit over prescription eyeglasses for < $5.

Cool, thanks!!

 

[bvet4dog]

wow... you guys are unreal. Why keep fighting when you know it's not going anywhere? Just accept the fact that every one is different and they are entitled to their own thoughts. Good for you, enforce the rules all you want in your stupid range. I probably wont be in your range anyways due to the fact i'm a regular to numerous of ranges.

Look, not every one wears safety glasses... big f***ing whoopie dee fricken doo deal. Do you even wear seat belt while you drive your car? I doubt and please dont lie. just drop the subject before you make a fool out of yourself even worst.

m1911, take a break. sit down and take a breather, your attitude isnt very nice and you're not cool. and dench has a point there. Like i stated earlier, you take things way too serious on the internet.... yet you cant accept others thoughts/actions. sucks to be you.

 

[Dench]

m1911, take a break. sit down and take a breather, your attitude isnt very nice and you're not cool. and dench has a point there. Like i stated earlier, you take things way too serious on the internet.... yet you cant accept others thoughts/actions. sucks to be you.

hey! wait a second here! i wasnt defending you in anyway at all, the hole you dug for your self was to deep for this guy to rescue you from. i was giving m1911 a hard time because of his attitude toward economist.

also, bvet4dog, i think you should read this thread http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=604416#post604416 and see what these people are trying to say.
the 1st 3 years i was in the army we didnt use any glasses at all, but around 2006ish, we all were issued nice oakleys. id rather wear the glasses that cost a few bucks then get one of my eyes blown out because of some accident that is uncontrollable.

 

[bvet4dog]

hey! wait a second here! i wasnt defending you in anyway at all, the hole you dug for your self was to deep for this guy to rescue you from. i was giving m1911 a hard time because of his attitude toward economist.

also, bvet4dog, i think you should read this thread http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=604416#post604416 and see what these people are trying to say.
the 1st 3 years i was in the army we didnt use any glasses at all, but around 2006ish, we all were issued nice oakleys. id rather wear the glasses that cost a few bucks then get one of my eyes blown out because of some accident that is uncontrollable.

did i say thanks for defending me? I never considered you for defending me and never thought any one here would. I dont care if i dug a hole for all you guys care about. All i really said that i dont wear safety glasses at my buddies and my ranges that i normally go to. Yet, i get all of this crap from those grumpy folks (shame on them for taking internet too seriously). I mean i rarely will see people wearing safety glasses, however it's very normal to see every one wearing ear plugs.

Other than that, if you said that i dug a hole due to my languages skills, well i got news for every one. English isnt my first language, so bear with that please.

btw reading up that thread now. thanks

 

[Blitz1]

wow... you guys are unreal. Why keep fighting when you know it's not going anywhere? Just accept the fact that every one is different and they are entitled to their own thoughts. Good for you, enforce the rules all you want in your stupid range. I probably wont be in your range anyways due to the fact i'm a regular to numerous of ranges.

Look, not every one wears safety glasses... big f***ing whoopie dee fricken doo deal. Do you even wear seat belt while you drive your car? I doubt and please dont lie. just drop the subject before you make a fool out of yourself even worst.

m1911, take a break. sit down and take a breather, your attitude isnt very nice and you're not cool. and dench has a point there. Like i stated earlier, you take things way too serious on the internet.... yet you cant accept others thoughts/actions. sucks to be you.

If you want to be another Hellen Keller then fine.

Don't come here and start spewing idocy and bad advice.

 

[Dench]

Other than that, if you said that i dug a hole due to my languages skills, well i got news for every one. English isnt my first language, so bear with that please.

your talking to the worse grammar user in NES's history. its really rare for me to bash people for that jazz.

other than that, you sir are ridiculous.