Range Rules

I was reading yet another thread about range rules and a thought came to me.

There are, of course some rules at a range that are pretty much non negotiable. One for instance, being hearing protection. Another one being eye-pro. Along with that some basic safe gun handling rules.

Now, we can pretty much agree that wearing some muffs while being around really, really loud noises is a darned good idea. In an environment where shrapnel happens, some eye-pro is pretty smart, too.
However, where most of this griping pops up is with different rules, such as well, baseball caps, turtlenecks, nomex shirts and the like.

I was wondering where there is a line (or rather where the gray area starts) on range safety rules.

For instance, eye-pro is easy to justify, as losing one's eyesight is rather bad, it's easily done at a range and eye-pro isn't usually "invasive" when ti comes to training. This is good safety, right?
But depending on the skill or the proponent, a pretty good argument can be made to never, ever allow any shoots timed less than six seconds apart. Ranges like that are disregarded by a fairly large chunk of the shooting community as practically worthless for self defense shooting, though.

So my question here is, what constitutes a "functional" (for lack of a better term) range rule, for example eye and ear-pro, and what makes a rule "frivolous", for example a cap and long sleeved turtleneck requirement.
Because while there does seem to be this notion that it is indeed *safer* to shoot with a ballcap, a turtleneck, eye and ear pro firing nothing other than .22s every ten seconds there is much more resistance there.

Where is the difference, really? Because I don't think the argument of "safety" can be made. If we were trying to truly be safe we'd be steering clear of firearms entirely and be using padded clubs instead.

Odd.

I've seen the wife shoot her .45, blink once, calmly reach into her cleavage and retrieve a hot piece of brass and toss it, then resume shooting.

I've been hit countless times, had it roll down the back of my shirt and somehow not managed shooting myself or anyone because of it.

Now, I know it's all personal experience, but for some reason I don't buy this myth of the wailing, screaming, lamenting and gun waving little lady who got burned by some brass. Just never seen it.

that's exactly my point, at which ... point, hurr hurr, does this descend into making range impractical for use?

Where is this point at which we, the shooters decide there's enough rules in place and we start rebelling in that "I'm never gonna come here again" sense.

Since all the arguments come from this nucleus of "safety" ... where do we draw the line?

That's my question. It's a philosophical one, I know, but the argument of ear muffs stems from the same argument of "gun control."
I think we, as a mildly virtual and incongruent community at some point have to decide, where we draw the "safety" line. at which point is "safety" no longer applicable? When we wear nomex shirts and cups? Or when we have to tie our horribad hippie long hair back because some RO says so?

Where is our "safety threshold" if you will?