Eye and ear protection "recommended"

[akv3g4n]

I went to the local state gun range a week ago to take some friends shooting for the first time. All went well and they both really enjoyed themselves.

During our range session, there was a father and son on the pistol range and neither were wearing any eye or ear protection. The father was firing center fire handguns and the son (10-12) was shooting a rimfire rifle. Mind you, most everyone around both father and son are firing center fire weapons...everyone else wearing the proper protection.

A few minutes after I notice this, the RO comes down the line and I breathe a sigh of relief that he's going to tell the father that they need to put on some eye/ear protection. Well, he just smiles and walks past without a word.

Dumbfounded, I take a look at the range rule sheet that was just provided to my friends (standard for all new shooters) and the last one of the rules states that eye and ear protection is "strongly recommended". Crazy.

Are you guys aware of any other public ranges without mandatory eye/ear protection?

Aside from just wanting to make sure that everyone stays safe at the range, this bothers me because it opens an opportunity for someone to get injured at the range (especially a minor) and provide an anti an arguing point to hassle the range or state on keeping a great shooting area open.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Well if it's that important an issue to you, why didn't you go over and discreetly mention to Dad it was a good idea? Maybe even offer a spare set for use? I have 3 or 4 sets of cheap safety glasses and earplugs in my range bag and I've offered them many times in these situations.


It was only about 15 years ago that even the military got serious about eye pro. Before then, we didn't even consider it.


Some people are just ignorant of the danger and when done tactfully, can be used as an opportunity to educate and erase that ignorance.

 

[jcwit]

Recommended? Of course.

We recommend that one does not smoke, and that in the end is much worse.

 

[hso]

Are you guys aware of any other public ranges without mandatory eye/ear protection?

No and there shouldn't be any that don't make it a requirement to use the facilities.

 

[akv3g4n]

Well if it's that important an issue to you, why didn't you go over and discreetly mention to Dad it was a good idea? Maybe even offer a spare set for use? I have 3 or 4 sets of cheap safety glasses and earplugs in my range bag and I've offered them many times in these situations

That's a fair point. I've never brought spare eye and ear protection before but I will now. I was a little less ambitious because I had some new shooters with me and wanted to make sure that they left with a good impression but next time I'm a least going to have some to offer. If they say no, I'll leave it at that.

 

[buck460XVR]

Like BullfrogKen I always have extra safety glasses and ear plugs in my range bag, not only for others but in case I forget my own(it has happened). I have borrowed out the glasses and given disposable earplugs to quite a few folks over the years, mostly to new shooters and others that may have unintentionally left theirs at home. Many times the "dad" was taught to shoot from his dad and they never used plugs or eye protection. Again, not a common practice by those that hunt or those that shoot only occasionally even just a few years ago. Most times they don't realize that even a .22 can hurt your ears, nor that just a few shots from the ol' deer rifle can do permanent damage. Most times a friendly offer to share along with a genuine concern for the welfare of the youth is happily accepted. I generally say something along the lines of "if you forgot your ear/eye protection I have some spares" as opposed to "where the 'ell is your protection!".

As for the lack of range rules for ear and eye protection.......I dunno. It may be the range itself hasn't reviewed their rules or the paper they're written on for a long time.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I approach this with the same mindset buck460XVR does.


Home Depot or Lowe's sells bulk foamy ears and $5.00 eyes. I have enough for me + 3 in my range bag, just in case someone forgets theirs at home.

 

[newfalguy101]

Actually, I have yet to be on a range that does REQUIRE Eyes and Ears.

All of them strongly suggest

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Just start by asking them if they would like to borrow some hearing protection. Pretty non threatening...if they are dumb enough to get offended, let them have no ears to hear.

 

[Armored farmer]

I always have new foam plugs to share.
shooting w/o ear protection is a big factor in developing a *flinch*

Having had emergency eye surgery 31 yrs ago, I can assure you that safety glasses are much less bothersome than an eyepatch and excruciating pain.

 

[ahtoxa]

The ranges around me state that eye and ear protection is mandatory on their range.

If someone wants to not use them on a range where it is optional - it is their choice. Much like other things we willingly do in life, which physically hurt us - like smoking.

 

[twofifty]

Eye protection could add to everyone's safety when, for instance, a pierced primer sends gases or fragments into the shooter's face.

The less severe the shooter's injuries, the less likely it is that the firing line will be swept and an errant round fired. A shooter with eye injuries would be disoriented, in severe pain, and up goes the hazard to others.

 

[herrwalther]

I have been to some ranges where eye/ear protection is part of the range rental and needed to access the range. I have also been on the receiving end of "put on your (ear/eye) protection!" When I am wearing them, they just can't be seen. My prescription everyday eye wear uses the same polycarbonate lenses that most eye protection does and meets ANSI specifications. My ear protection is clear Surefire ear buds that are difficult to see if they aren't looking in my ear. I usually bring about 5 pair of hearing protection for visitors/observers etc.

 

[LiveLife]

FYI, in a snap, you could use 9mm FMJ as ear plugs if you don't have any (make sure you clean the tip well before insertion).

It sure beats nothing in your ears.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I would offer a couple spare sets as a friendly gesture.

Over time, even rimfire can cause hearing damage, more so indoors. And a hot fleck of particulate in the eye is no joy...heck, a fleck that isn't hot is no joy either.

And when they left, I'd politely tell them to keep them for their next visit when they offer them back. Said with a smile and a word of encouragement to see them again and you'll likely give them a good impression.

 

[Hacker15E]

Aside from just wanting to make sure that everyone stays safe at the range, this bothers me because it opens an opportunity for someone to get injured at the range (especially a minor) and provide an anti an arguing point to hassle the range or state on keeping a great shooting area open.

With personal liberty comes personal risk.

 

[akv3g4n]

With personal liberty comes personal risk.

I totally agree. I am in no way in favor of a state law mandating eye and ear protection being required when shooting. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves as long as their actions will only harm them.

I am in favor of having basic safety rules enforced at state run public ranges to make sure that they stay open and available to the public. Reoccurring preventable injuries jeopardize that.

 

[Galactic Marine]

When I was a kid I asked my dad several times for ear plugs. He pshawed it and said the ringing would go away. Guess what, it hasn't. I have hearing loss and tinnitus in both ears but the right one is worse, maybe because we shot rifles and shotguns and my right cheek was on the stock and closest to the gun. Now if I lay on the couch to listen to the radio I can lay on my right side and hear OK or lay on my left side and prop my head up to hear better.

I would have offered ear plugs but then left it at that but I'm really bitter about my own hearing loss when I know it could have been prevented. As an adult I always use ear plugs when shooting or using power tools and sometimes double up with ear muffs as well.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I always have to put extra plugs in my range bag, because I'm usually giving out at least a set every trip. Only met one completely deaf guy, that signed at me. I put up my hand, nodded my head and smiled, and he laughed. Some people are genuinely shocked at the noise level, as they have been shooting .22s all their life, without protection, but this is the first time at a public range where big-boomers are common. Actually, it was like that for me, my first range trip a hundred years ago. Probably just another trip that cose me a lot of my hearing. Doubling up is now mandatory for me, no matter the rules.

 

[Ed Ames]

I am in favor of having basic safety rules enforced at state run public ranges to make sure that they stay open and available to the public. Reoccurring preventable injuries jeopardize that.

Which is worse, from a lawsuit perspective:

1) The range makes it clear that hearing damage is possible when shooting and suggests hearing protection. A shooter chooses not to use any. A year later shooter's hearing is "bad". Shooter sues the range. I would think they must demonstrate that the damage came from that range, AND it was the range's responsibility to limit that damage by compelling hearing protection use.

2) The range has a rule about hearing protection (vs. an informative statement). A shooter chooses not to wear any. A range officer misses the lack of hearing protection (which could be little flesh-colored in-ear foam pads). A year later the shooter's hearing is "bad". Shooter sues the range. I would think that demonstrating that they were not wearing hearing protection (e.g. a photo showing the shooter firing a gun without hearing protection) would be enough to demonstrate that the range failed to uphold the responsibiltiy they acknowledged when they made a rule.

It seems as though giving shooters information to make a decision, and asking them to make their own choice, would expose the range to less risk of being shut down by a lawsuit. I'm not sure about that but it seems plausible. What do you think?

 

[Agsalaska]

My ears are so sensitive I can barely fire a 22lr rifle without protection. Anything louder, inlcuding a 22 pistol, requires ears for me.

I always wear eyes after a Ruger MarkII sent some powder back and burned me. It didnt get in my eye, but it could have. Screw that. I like to see.



As for the OP, I think I have seen it required. Or maybe I havent paid attention because everyone always wears them anyway. But now I am going to check next time I go.

 

[Delford]

Wearing ear protection came to me as a habit right after my brother in-law fired his 30-06 at the shop door with me standing next to him. After I got my CCP I got into shooting and have been gifted with foam and muff ear protection and I freely share the foam plugs to anyone who might need them. I shoot outdoors and before we fire we always ask if we all have our ear protection. I once fired my .45 without protection just to see what it would be like one day when I was in the woods without my shooting bag. After one round I put a .45 in each ear to finish the magazine. The pain was like someone stuck my eardrum with a knife. :-(
My eye protection is automatic as, like herrwalther, my lenses are pricey poly carbonate.

 

[akv3g4n]

It seems as though giving shooters information to make a decision, and asking them to make their own choice, would expose the range to less risk of being shut down by a lawsuit. I'm not sure about that but it seems plausible. What do you think?

Speaking purely as a layman, I would think that a lawyer for the state (range) would have a better argument against the plaintiff saying that the range required the proper eye and ear protection but the participant knowingly neglected to wear any. I don't even think that the RO would be liable for not asking him to put any on.

You're given a sheet of paper during orientation (first time at the range) and a run down of the rules. If you're given oral and written instructions on the range rules and neglect to follow them, I think I'd be a tough case to try to claim damages.

 

[buck460XVR]

Most folks my age grew up riding a bicycle and never owned a bike helmet. Today we would not allow our grandkids outta the driveway without one. My old man went thru WWII, hunted all his life, shot trap for 40 years and never owned a pair of muffs, disposable ear plugs or safety glasses. Today, I never leave the house without spares. 30 years ago, if you put a pair of muffs on when shooting trap, folks chuckled about it. Now if you don't, folks laugh and call you dumb-azz. I still see folks my age at the range during their once a year sight-in before deer season, without ear and eye protection. When offered, they claim "nah", they're only gonna shoot "a coupla rounds". This is right after they say "huh...what did you ask?"

 

[Ed Ames]

Speaking purely as a layman...

I have no idea what a jury would decide in that case.

Relating it to someting far more likely to cause hearing damage: Apple has a max volume slider in their iPods (or did, I don't know if they still make those things). That slider controls just how loud 100% on the normal volume control is. If you turn the max volume up high enough, the iPod will display a warning that prolonged exposure to loud music will damage hearing. It does not, however, prevent turning the max volume up.

That seems to be the situation at the range you described. They give you the information. They let you make your own decision.

Apple put that control in their iPods after getting sued by people who blamed their hearing damage on listening to iPods at excessive volume. I imagine a lawyer was involved. If the lawyer thought enforcing a rule (vs. giving information) was beneficial to avoiding liability, I'm sure the slider would have been set at 80% and hidden from the user interface.