downwardspiral 0 #51 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteThen you wouldn't have a range. A few months ago here in Huntington Beach a local killed himself at our range. He was a regular there with a membership. He rented a .357 and purchased 200 rounds of ammo. He fired every single round. The last one went in his head. Not quite what I said. It's one thing if someone takes themselves out, it's another if they take out others. I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. There is a point where fantasy must give way to reality. The reality is you can not stop this from happening no more than you can stop people from getting on the freeway going the wrong direction.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #52 April 9, 2009 QuoteTo use the skydiving example, I'd say this is like renting gear to someone that says they're a skydiver without checking a logbook and then saying the DZ is not responsible when that person goes in. Disagree. When someone goes to a mental hospital or is treated for severe depression or Whatever disorder they may have, the Doc doesn't say "Okay. Give me your logbook. Do you have a pen? I need to jot something down."=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #53 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen you wouldn't have a range. A few months ago here in Huntington Beach a local killed himself at our range. He was a regular there with a membership. He rented a .357 and purchased 200 rounds of ammo. He fired every single round. The last one went in his head. Not quite what I said. It's one thing if someone takes themselves out, it's another if they take out others. I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. There is a point where fantasy must give way to reality. The reality is you can not stop this from happening no more than you can stop people from getting on the freeway going the wrong direction. Just because people get on the highway going the wrong way from time to time doesn't mean we stop giving driving tests and issuing drivers' licenses. The absense of a perfect solution does not imply the absence of a good solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #54 April 9, 2009 your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #55 April 9, 2009 Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. How's this? If you can't legally own a handgun, you can't shoot at a range. No drop in customers unless you are pre checked. Come in, fill out a background check, we'll call you when you are approved. Will that completely eliminate the risk? Of course not. Would it have prevented this incident from happening the way it did? Most probably. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #56 April 9, 2009 Tom had two good suggestions - the rapid FBI background check or requiring a CCW permit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #57 April 9, 2009 >I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves >how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you >do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. Or have a range where it's not physically possible to shoot someone else when you are on the range itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #58 April 9, 2009 Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 April 9, 2009 Another shooting, another chorus of stupid suggestions. Rent only to CCW holders? Doesn't work in numerous states. Require a background check? Even more stupid. People, you want people to go to ranges to practice. Making that impossible will decrease public safety. And the value of the check is only as good as the data. If you require the California Handgun Safety Cert, that could be a 4.5 year old background check. Many ranges discourage suicides by only renting to those that bring another gun, or bring another person. That removes the bulk of potential situations. It's difficult to do much better. Whose fault is this? The family. They were in full knowledge of her history, and her son knew she was lying when she filled out the form asking about mental health history. He paid a high price for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 9, 2009 QuoteTom had two good suggestions - the rapid FBI background check or requiring a CCW permit. Neither suggestion was remotely good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #61 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteTom had two good suggestions - the rapid FBI background check or requiring a CCW permit. Neither suggestion was remotely good. That, of course, is just your opinion. Others disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #62 April 9, 2009 QuoteAnother shooting, another chorus of stupid suggestions. chorus of denials from the gun lobby. Fixed it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #63 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. You brought up licensing which doesn't exist in the firearm worldwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnother shooting, another chorus of stupid suggestions. chorus of denials from the gun lobby. Fixed it. Too bad you can't actually answer to the substance of my post. Typical for you, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #65 April 9, 2009 Do you propose these as laws or business practices? NICS currently cannot be used except to for the transfer of a firearm. Renting doesn't count. Right now it would be illegal for an FFL to try to use NICS for rentals. And they need the information on form 4473 anyway. A CCW permit may serve. But some take the place of a NICS background check for a transfer and some don't. So a CCW doesn't get you very far necessarily either. You can get a Florida license completely through the mail. And criminals brake the laws anyway. As business practices a CCW could be used but may defeat the purpose of the rental program in encouraging new shooters. The blame is the person, not the equipment or the process. There are lots of lethal things around, including the vehicle she drove there. But as a practice I wouldn't want to deal with this as a business owner. Of course I'd have trouble selling guns, legally, to some of the idiots I see in the local gun shop.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #66 April 9, 2009 >another chorus of stupid suggestions. >Many ranges discourage suicides by only renting to those that bring >another gun, or bring another person. Is this another in the chorus of stupid suggestions? I hope this serves as a wake-up call to gun ranges and that they start considering ways to avoid this in the future. The best possible answer is that they come up with means (via background checks, physical protection, whatever) by themselves, both to avoid more laws and to keep more people alive in ranges. So I hope people are thinking about what you refer to as "stupid suggestions" and find the ones that work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #67 April 9, 2009 Remember that I was talking about what I'd do if I owned a range. I'm not suggesting that we ought to make more laws. In fact, I'd hate to see more laws--and I think that reducing incidents like this will help avoid more pointless laws. QuoteRent only to CCW holders? Doesn't work in numerous states. Good reason to reform state CCW laws. QuoteRequire a background check? Even more stupid. People, you want people to go to ranges to practice. Making that impossible will decrease public safety. I've been through the FBI check probably a dozen times. It's never taken more than about 3 minutes. I've done this as late as 11pm Eastern, and on Sundays. How is waiting 3 minutes the first time you go the range (or even every time) going to make things impossible? QuoteAnd the value of the check is only as good as the data. If you require the California Handgun Safety Cert, that could be a 4.5 year old background check. I can't speak to CA rules, because the last time I had the California card was in the early 90's. But I'm pretty sure the FBI system updates data a lot more often than every few years. Remember, I'm suggesting things that could be done by range owners--not things that ought to be rammed down their throats by the government.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #68 April 9, 2009 QuoteJust because you can't "completely eliminate" all negative outcomes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate a negative outcome. I never said that you shouldn't try. I was just responding to your saying that you wouldn't have a range if you couldn't "completely eliminate" the chance of one person killing another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #69 April 9, 2009 >Do you propose these as laws or business practices? Best possible way is through a uniform adoption of best practices at gun ranges. New laws are sort of the worst possible way, and should be a last resort. >The blame is the person, not the equipment or the process. Of course. But there are mentally unstable people out there who are not responsible for their actions; that's an unfortunate fact of life. It is worthwhile thinking about how to avoid giving such people the opportunity to injure and kill others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #70 April 9, 2009 QuoteDo you propose these as laws or business practices? Business practices--not new laws. QuoteNICS currently cannot be used except to for the transfer of a firearm. Renting doesn't count. Which is why I put in the disclaimer in that suggestion about not knowing how the FBI would feel about using the system for rentals. QuoteAnd criminals brake the laws anyway. Sure, and there's not a whole lot you could do about that. But presumably, the real criminals would find other ways than going to a range to do this. I know I'd prefer the criminals not give Congress yet more excuses to regulate my rights.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #71 April 9, 2009 Quote>Do you propose these as laws or business practices? Best possible way is through a uniform adoption of best practices at gun ranges. In order for them to really be uniformly adopted, the laws about firearms would have to be uniform throughout the nation. A good example is the CCW issue--in some jurisdictions, it bypasses the background check, and in others it doesn't. With our current system, the best you could hope for is that range owners would adopt reasonable guidelines that took advantage of the available tools in their various jurisdictions.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #72 April 9, 2009 Quote>I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves >how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you >do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. Or have a range where it's not physically possible to shoot someone else when you are on the range itself. Or how about nerf bullets?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #73 April 9, 2009 QuoteQuote>I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves >how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you >do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. Or have a range where it's not physically possible to shoot someone else when you are on the range itself. Or how about nerf bullets? It'd be super hard (and very expensive) to construct a range where it's impossible to shoot another patron. I'm not sure if Bill had really though through the costs involved (I'm guessing not), because you'd essentially have to create individual ranges for each patron, fully separated from the other patrons, and then lock them in before handing their ammo in through a pass-through system. I think the nerf bullets are probably more practical.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #74 April 9, 2009 Quote Quote your analogy is really bad. So what do you suggest we do? I prefer an answer beyond "something" or "anything." thanks in advance. How's this? If you can't legally own a handgun, you can't shoot at a range. No drop in customers unless you are pre checked. Come in, fill out a background check, we'll call you when you are approved. Will that completely eliminate the risk? Of course not. Would it have prevented this incident from happening the way it did? Most probably. Unless of course she did the background check prior to actually being involuntarily commited. Shall we have to submit to background checks every year? That being said I think it's an excellent suggestion IF this were a rampant problem. As of right now it isn't.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #75 April 9, 2009 Quote Unless of course she did the background check prior to actually being involuntarily commited. Shall we have to submit to background checks every year? That being said I think it's an excellent suggestion IF this were a rampant problem. As of right now it isn't. So because it's not a rampant problem, it's best to do nothing? Do you regulate it to make it safer? No. As a business owner, do you look at ways of preventing something like this from happening again? Absolutely. Somewhere between the two extremes of "Ban guns" and "Do Nothing", there has to be something.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
