Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[dnno1]

and rightly there should be measures put in place... and notices for those who want to live on the other side of the shooting range, have them sign a waiver, having them acknowledge that even though there are measures being put in place, you still live in front of a shooting range, and no matter how many measures are put up, there is always a possibility that one could receive collateral damage from a stray bullet.

Murphy's Law - "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives - "Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment."

No, the range should have insurance for property damage or reinforce their facility so that no stray bullets get out. That is preposterous to just say that accidents happen and that someone should waive their right to live peaceably in their home just because someone wants to make money.

 

[Super Kal]

And how, exactly, are you going to make sure that there will never, ever be a stray bullet?

 

[dnno1]

And how, exactly, are you going to make sure that there will never, ever be a stray bullet?

Well if this is Texas, they should be complying with the NRA Range Manual per the state health and safety code. The NRA recommends that the range should have 45-90° steel with pre-stresed hollow core concrete exit angle baffles, and that the design should be such that if someone pointed a firearm up and fired vertically, it should never leave the range. If there were still an incident such as the one that occurred in Nevada, TX, then insurance should cover any damage or loss. The Texas Health and Safety Code requires an outdoor gun range owner to carry at least a half million dollars in insurance coverage for bodily injuries or death as well as for property damage.

 

[Destructus86]

The way I see it...in politics they over-simplify the issue in order to make it easier to appear like they are really making big changes to solve the problem. This then sets peoples minds at ease and allows them to stay in office.

It's not about solving the problem really...it's about sweeping it under the rug so we don't have to look at it and can sit back and feel comfortable in ignorance.

 

[Hotwire]

And how, exactly, are you going to make sure that there will never, ever be a stray bullet?

The range is inside a couple boxes. Each one made of inch thick steel on all six sides. That should do the trick. You could also have all indoor ranges built underground with a steel roof.

Here's another one, make the range owner and their family live in a home adjoining the range. I'd bet they wouldn't have such a non chelant attitude then.

 

[Super Kal]

Well if this is Texas, they should be complying with the NRA Range Manual per the state health and safety code. The NRA recommends that the range should have 45-90° steel with pre-stresed hollow core concrete exit angle baffles, and that the design should be such that if someone pointed a firearm up and fired vertically, it should never leave the range. If there were still an incident such as the one that occurred in Nevada, TX, then insurance should cover any damage or loss. The Texas Health and Safety Code requires an outdoor gun range owner to carry at least a half million dollars in insurance coverage for bodily injuries or death as well as for property damage.

great precautions, and i fully agree with all of them- but that still doesn't guarantee 100% that nothing will happen...

and that was the point i was trying to make. you can put up as many precautions/safety measures/etc as you can, but you simply cant promise 100% protection 100% of the time. there's always risk involved when it comes to any weapon

you can minimalize it almost to nill, but you cannot get it down to zero. the only way to minimalize it to zero (at least when it comes to that family) is not live near one.

 

[dnno1]

great precautions, and i fully agree with all of them- but that still doesn't guarantee 100% that nothing will happen...

and that was the point i was trying to make. you can put up as many precautions/safety measures/etc as you can, but you simply cant promise 100% protection 100% of the time. there's always risk involved when it comes to any weapon

you can minimalize it almost to nill, but you cannot get it down to zero. the only way to minimalize it to zero (at least when it comes to that family) is not live near one.

The point here is that we don't want to dismiss this as if nothing happened and that it is excusable because the range was "within regulations". Somebody's property was damaged through no fault of their own and a child was endangered. Even if it was an accident, someone must be accountable and assurances must be made that it does not happen again. If it means that the owner of the range has to reinforce his facility or move his business, then so be it, but we do not want this to be just swept under a rug nor to have someone use the Second Amendment as an excuse to be negligent.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think the NRA should move to get rid of LaPierre. He's not doing his organization any favors right now. Every time he opens his mouth these days he's been making that organization seem more and more like the KKK. I realize that's hyperbolic, and they are not, but he displays such a distinct lack of empathy and sympathy for victims of gun violence. Also, his mantra of "more guns, more guns, more guns will solve all our problems" really makes him look like a huge a**hole. That's the last thing you need to be saying in the wake of shootings.

In addition, I think the way he carries on only strengthens the anti-gun crowd. They need someone who can be a little more sober-minded when speaking to the press. Ironically LaPierre provides his opposition with a lot of ammo, pun intended.

 

[dnno1]

I think the NRA should move to get rid of LaPierre. He's not doing his organization any favors right now. Every time he opens his mouth these days he's been making that organization seem more and more like the KKK. I realize that's hyperbolic, and they are not, but he displays such a distinct lack of empathy and sympathy for victims of gun violence. Also, his mantra of "more guns, more guns, more guns will solve all our problems" really makes him look like a huge a**hole. That's the last thing you need to be saying in the wake of shootings.

It's not LaPiere. He is just a mouth for the gun industry and it is that industry that needs to be separated from the NRA.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's not LaPiere. He is just a mouth for the gun industry and it is that industry that needs to be separated from the NRA.

From an organizational standpoint he's clearly ill-equipped to handle the fallout of these events. No, I'm not saying I like the NRA much either, but if I had the power to get rid of him I would. The manner in which he responds to things only makes his organization look crazy by association.

 

[dnno1]

From an organizational standpoint he's clearly ill-equipped to handle the fallout of these events. No, I'm not saying I like the NRA much either, but if I had the power to get rid of him I would. The manner in which he responds to things only makes his organization look crazy by association.

You remove LaPiere and the gun lobby will put someone else like him in his place. You separate the NRA from the gun lobby (and I mean the manufacturers of firearms -- not gun owners), and you have solved more than half the problem.

 

[Hotwire]

great precautions, and i fully agree with all of them- but that still doesn't guarantee 100% that nothing will happen...

and that was the point i was trying to make. you can put up as many precautions/safety measures/etc as you can, but you simply cant promise 100% protection 100% of the time. there's always risk involved when it comes to any weapon

you can minimalize it almost to nill, but you cannot get it down to zero. the only way to minimalize it to zero (at least when it comes to that family) is not live near one.

Or perhaps, not allow them to be built within a certain distance of a residential neighborhood. Or, as I suggested, build indoor ranges in basements with steel and concrete ceilings.

 

[Fading]

Or perhaps, not allow them to be built within a certain distance of a residential neighborhood. Or, as I suggested, build indoor ranges in basements with steel and concrete ceilings.

Yeah, I don't understand why it's even a debate. You can be arrested, or fined for being too noisy, or keeping a poorly kept lawn. Why a business wouldn't be responsible when bullets used for fun, or training leave their property, and hit neighboring homes. Why should a mother living on her property be forced to sign a waver because she wakes up with bullet holes in her house near where her children play. It's the responsibility of the business to take precautions for any actions that can pose potential harm to the public that originates from their establishment. It's not the responsibility of the public to wave their rights, and just accept potential deadly threats to their family because a business decided to open in a populated area.



Different note, but the Newtown father being briefly heckled while giving testimony made me think some people need to grow up on this issue. I think the media is over blowing the story, as usual. However that doesn't make it ok to shout, "second amendment", and "shall not be infringed!", at a father who just lost his 6 yr old boy giving testimony. It's not the loud, obnoxious heckling the news portrayed it as (as it was only for a few seconds), but it was in poor taste.

 

[Kelly]

great precautions, and i fully agree with all of them- but that still doesn't guarantee 100% that nothing will happen...

and that was the point i was trying to make. you can put up as many precautions/safety measures/etc as you can, but you simply cant promise 100% protection 100% of the time. there's always risk involved when it comes to any weapon

you can minimalize it almost to nill, but you cannot get it down to zero. the only way to minimalize it to zero (at least when it comes to that family) is not live near one.

That is BS....if there are people like the woman I described who's car and house is getting hit by stray bullets.....SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MOVE, the owner needs to get his **** together with his business and make sure that does not happen....and if he doesn't, he gets the hell sued out of him. I don't believe she sued this particular gentlemen...he was lucky.

 

[Super Kal]

That is BS....if there are people like the woman I described who's car and house is getting hit by stray bullets.....SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MOVE, the owner needs to get his **** together with his business and make sure that does not happen....and if he doesn't, he gets the hell sued out of him. I don't believe she sued this particular gentlemen...he was lucky.

i didn't say that she "had" to... geeze, calm down. that's only one suggestion. of course she could of sued, and yes, the owner needs to get his crap together. that goes without saying.

 

[Hotwire]

i didn't say that she "had" to... geeze, calm down. that's only one suggestion. of course she could of sued, and yes, the owner needs to get his crap together. that goes without saying.

No, it's not even an option. This isn't like living next to an airport or a golf course. This is a case of a stray bullet possibly killing someone. It is 100% the owner's responsibility and no one else's to ensure the safety of those who live near his range. If he can't guarantee that no stray bullets will ever escape his range, he doesn't get to have his business. There's an indoor range near an office I work at, somehow, no stray bullets have ever escaped. So, it can be done.

 

[dnno1]

i didn't say that she "had" to... geeze, calm down. that's only one suggestion. of course she could of sued, and yes, the owner needs to get his crap together. that goes without saying.

and rightly there should be measures put in place... and notices for those who want to live on the other side of the shooting range, have them sign a waiver, having them acknowledge that even though there are measures being put in place, you still live in front of a shooting range, and no matter how many measures are put up, there is always a possibility that one could receive collateral damage from a stray bullet.

Murphy's Law - "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives - "Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment."

That isn't even plausible deniability. You said that.

 

[dnno1]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...and-declare-day-gun-appreciation-day/dkpN94dC

 

[Kable24]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...and-declare-day-gun-appreciation-day/dkpN94dC

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...and-declare-day-gun-appreciation-day/dkpN94dC

Maybe we should declare a Nuclear Weapon Appreciation Day as well. Without them we wouldn't even have nuclear power; so we should be appreciative. Screw what that Japanese man thinks.

 

[Kable24]

Maybe we should declare a Nuclear Weapon Appreciation Day as well. Without them we wouldn't even have nuclear power; so we should be appreciative. Screw what that Japanese man thinks.

http://youtu.be/E2tLVPVS0Bc

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm gonna go with no. Nobody gets nuclear anything.

 

[dnno1]

This is very tragic:

Chicago Teen Who Performed At Inaugural Events Fatally Shot
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html

 

[dnno1]

There is a Senate hearing on gun control going on now. You can watch it on C-SPAN.

 

[Hotwire]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...and-declare-day-gun-appreciation-day/dkpN94dC

Nothing says, "What gun violence problem?", quite like a national holiday celebrating guns.