Serious Question

man i wouldnt go the the range without em. your eyes are your life! some people complain about sweat and others complain about not being to see as clearly but the special ops guys wouldnt go out into the feild without em. lenH
 
Shot with a guy in Seattle who lost his right eye when a primer blew and sprayed primer cup and whatever else into his eye. He had to shoot left handed after that, and if he saw anyone shooting without eye protection was on them faster than lightning and like ugly on an ape. Some didn't appreciate his lecture, but he'd just point to his right eye.

No reason rational or otherwise to shoot without eye protection IMHO.
 
That's one of the prime reasons I dumped my contact lenses & went back to corrective glasses. That and the fact that it's a lot more comfortable in dust & wind.
 
I have

worn glasses since I was 11, I am 42 now. I wonder how people can do the many things they do without glasses of some sort to protect there eyes.

Safety seeing eye glasses are on my face every day from the time I wake up till I go to bed. If you have ever shot a pistol without glasses it will not be long B4 you put some on. Every now and then you still get it behind the glasses.

I can not understand how people who push bush like we do here Whitetail hunting can do so without glasses. When it is -10 celcius and you get a branch across your snout or your face that whacks you in the face you sure wish you had more.

Safety glasses should be MANDATORY just like bolts out of the gun until the command insert bolts.


Calvin
 
Hogwash

Before you know it the "personal choice safety police" are going to legislate kevlar vests for tournament shooting. Why not ban shooting all together because of the miniscule inherent dangers.

Shooting glasses are like the personal choice to ride a motorcycle and/or wear a helmet, its a personal choice and risk that every individual should make for themselves after calculating the cost/benefits.

Yes, I wear shooting safety glasses, ride a motorcyle, and use a helmet, but I still live in a country that somewhat charishes personal freedoms, although they are dissappearing more as time passes, and I am going to be last person to hoist my own personal practices on others, when those personal choices only affect the individual making them.

No "personal choice safety policeman" here.....................Don
 
I think everybody is entitled to be just as stupid as they want to be. This is why I am against helmet laws for bikers. It's natures way of separating the wise from the stupid. Let nature take care of the problem. Why make a law against nature? Laws like that only promote a bad gene pool.
 
Great response Don!!!!

I agree that glasses are the smart thing to do but I certainly get tired of others making all of my lifes decisions for me. Why don't we give each other a little credit. What possible harm will it do others if someone chooses not to protect themselves?
 
Big Al said:
I think everybody is entitled to be just as stupid as they want to be. This is why I am against helmet laws for bikers. It's natures way of separating the wise from the stupid. Let nature take care of the problem. Why make a law against nature? Laws like that only promote a bad gene pool.
Click to expand...
The only problem with this solution occurs when, as is the case now, the law doesn't hold the person responsible for their actions & lets them scattergun sue the a** off the bike manufacturer, the safety helmet association, the municipality of XYZ & their parents, wherever they may be. Oh, and you, because you suggested individual freedom of choice.
 
Big Al said:
I think everybody is entitled to be just as stupid as they want to be. This is why I am against helmet laws for bikers. It's natures way of separating the wise from the stupid. Let nature take care of the problem. Why make a law against nature? Laws like that only promote a bad gene pool.
Click to expand...

The one that really amazes me are the "Lumberjack" competitions and the axe chopping relays, where the competitors stand atop a 2-3 foot long log in their "tennis shoes", whacking out a notch, inches away from the "tennis shoes", until the log breaks in half....................now, to me that is dangerous, on the boarder of insanety/stupidity. Gives new meaning to nicknames like "stumpy" or "shoeless joe".

You wouldnt catch me doing that unless I had steel toe boots, heck entire steel boots, and then I would still manage to hack myself somewhere where I shouldnt.....................Don
 
Our local range has a policy requiring all persons in the areas where firearms are discharged, whether they are shooting or not, to wear eye and ear protection. It is nice that this helps to protect those at firing lines, but the underlying reason is to protect the range from liability.

Years ago, when I was one of those that would have been sued if the range was sued, having to argue with shooters who were violating a posted rule, that they agreed to follow, and having the same sort of situation come up when they were told to stay behind the red line and not handle firearms during a cease fire, created an impression that was not favorable about those who carry on about there being too many rules. Invariably these fellows had had nothing to do with building, running, or taking responsibility for the range. Having rules is easy; getting people to step up and uniformly enforce them is the real problem. Run a large and busy range for a while...be personally responsible for what goes on there, then come back and we'll talk.
 
Last edited:
Big Al said:
I think everybody is entitled to be just as stupid as they want to be. This is why I am against helmet laws for bikers. It's natures way of separating the wise from the stupid. Let nature take care of the problem. Why make a law against nature? Laws like that only promote a bad gene pool.
Click to expand...

Problem with this scenario is when a head trauma case doesn't die it ends up costing us all more for medical care to take care of the person.
 
To minimize liability for small clubs or organizations, I can see no
real arguement. That said, I have had a difficult time getting
prescription shooting glasses. I talked to the folks at De Cot in
arizonia, and they said send us your prescription. Great I thought.
My optomotrist, said come on in I explained what I wanted. The
prescripyion was on its way to arizonia. They couldn't use the prescript.
it was in a language uncommon to them. After another visit to another
DR, I finally asked, Do you people have an issue with shooters?
I cannot see thru my scope with my current glasses, so I shoot without. I have had eye injuries before and admit a real possibility.
The option is always open to have the shooter sign a waiver. I
really don't like mandatory rules, do you?
 
The only problem about making eye and ear protection mandatory is the club is now liable for accidents if they do not enforce the rule. This is what we were told a few years back by the club lawyer "if we require it we MUST enforce it" if we don't we are at fault if something happens. The phrase we were told to use was, eye protection is strongly recomended.
 
It is just plain stupid not to wear ear and eye protection, just the same with seat belts and motorcycle helmets ... a small inconvenience.

The real losers are the young beginning shooters who may think, I don't need to... when the inconvenience is such a small sacrifice for a huge gain ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top