GhostRider66
Member
Last weekend, I decided to try a new range in the area and took the long drive out. I was initially impressed with the range as it was very, very neat, clean and well organized and despite the steep $15\person range fee.
Upon arriving at the pistol range, I noticed some signs stating "No speed shooting" in large bold letters. There were three of us shooting in three seperate stalls and after about 15 minutes or so the range master guy comes walking over from the rifle range. He stopped us and gave us a short but rather curt lecture about 'speed shooting' saying that a) the three second rule means just that, b) their insurance didn't allow for any deviation from this rule and c) recently a boy had been killed because of 'speed shooting' over in Dallas.
Mind you, I had been shooting quickly (approximately one shot per second for one magazine) but hardly as fast as what I have seen and would consider 'speed shooting'. In any case, I really couldn't argue with points a and b above (their range, their rules) but point c really bugged me. I can't really imagine a scenario where anyone could be killed and the culprit would be deemed to be the 'speed shooting' providing all of the other basic rules were followed. My point being, all things being equal, somebody must've really screwed up badly in some way but to blame it on 'speed shooting' seems a bit rediculous. Am I way off base here?
Upon arriving at the pistol range, I noticed some signs stating "No speed shooting" in large bold letters. There were three of us shooting in three seperate stalls and after about 15 minutes or so the range master guy comes walking over from the rifle range. He stopped us and gave us a short but rather curt lecture about 'speed shooting' saying that a) the three second rule means just that, b) their insurance didn't allow for any deviation from this rule and c) recently a boy had been killed because of 'speed shooting' over in Dallas.
Mind you, I had been shooting quickly (approximately one shot per second for one magazine) but hardly as fast as what I have seen and would consider 'speed shooting'. In any case, I really couldn't argue with points a and b above (their range, their rules) but point c really bugged me. I can't really imagine a scenario where anyone could be killed and the culprit would be deemed to be the 'speed shooting' providing all of the other basic rules were followed. My point being, all things being equal, somebody must've really screwed up badly in some way but to blame it on 'speed shooting' seems a bit rediculous. Am I way off base here?