mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteskydiver, not someone who faked up a logbook.
But licensed skydivers is a USPA rule, not a law...so a non-USPA DZ could rent gear to a jumper that wasn't licensed. Again, correct me if i am mistaken.
If that doesn't work, then tweak the analogy to one of renting high-performance gear to a licensed jumper with 50 jumps. The guy legally can jump a high-performance canopy, right?
Edited to add: Hit post too quickly. My real interest is in seeing the perspective of why you think the range has NO responsability in this (legal responsability or ethical responsability).
Because, in both the examples you use, the DZ *did* have knowledge that the person wasn't qualified to jump, or to jump that HP canopy.
Unless there's new information that I'm unaware of in this case, there was no sign that the woman was mentally disturbed.
That is why I used the "licensed skydiver that rents a rig and no-pulls" - because the person *IS* qualified to use the equipment and the DZ doesn't *know* that the person is going to no-pull.
Does that make sense? I'm trying to be as clear as I can, and it makes sense to me, but I may not be expressing myself well.
So does the fact that someone can do something legally make them qualified to do it?
mnealtx 0
QuoteI never said licensed skydiver. There have been 1st jump student suicides. Walk in, sign your name, pay your money and use the situation and equipment to kill yourself.
Agreed.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
TomAiello 25
QuoteIf you can show me a law that requires a range owner to do the same background check that is required for purchase or that the woman was showing obvious signs of mental distress, then yes.
I don't want to show you such a law. I hope such a law never exists.
Law and responsibility are not the same thing.
I'm against most laws. We have loads of pointless, silly rules on our books.
The way to avoid silly rules is for people to show a bit of personal responsibility without being forced to by some bureaucrat from Washington.
QuoteThe FBI instant check system is fast enough that it could be used for rentals, but I'm not sure how the FBI would feel about adding the extra load to their system.
I don't think we need any new laws here, but if I owned a range, I'd make a requirement that you had to do one of the following to rent a gun:
Present a valid carry permit (I'd take a FOID or similar, although I'm generally against the state requirements for them)
Submit to an FBI instant check
Be known to the staff as a regular who had previously passed a check (many ranges essentially do this by requiring membership)
I'd just want to do that for my own peace of mind.
Again, I don't think we need a law to require anything like that.
IF you had a range, someone would commit suicide with one of your rentals regardless of the measures you took.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
pbwing 0
QuoteIF you had a range, someone would commit suicide with one of your rentals regardless of the measures you took.
That's probably true, but if I had a range and someone killed themselves, I'd feel responsible if I didn't do everything possible to prevent it.
And if I couldn't completely eliminate the chance of them taking someone else with them, I'd wouldn't have the range in the first place...
TomAiello 25
QuoteIF you had a range, someone would commit suicide with one of your rentals regardless of the measures you took.
Sure. And I'd still feel some responsibility if that happened.
Then 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.
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.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
Shotgun 1
QuoteAnd if I couldn't completely eliminate the chance of them taking someone else with them, I'd wouldn't have the range in the first place...
I don't think it is possible for a range to "completely eliminate the chance" of a customer killing another customer. And back to the dz analogy - the same could be said for a dz.
pbwing 0
QuoteThen 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.
mnealtx 0
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.
Then you still wouldn't have a range - you couldn't afford to keep the doors open with only one customer at a time.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
pbwing 0
Quote
Then you still wouldn't have a range - you couldn't afford to keep the doors open with only one customer at a time.
Then I guess the solution is do nothing. Kind of like the owner's reaction.
Quote"Sometimes, like what happens Sunday, you have no control," Anderson said. "There's nothing you can do to prevent it."
QuoteQuoteAnd if I couldn't completely eliminate the chance of them taking someone else with them, I'd wouldn't have the range in the first place...
I don't think it is possible for a range to "completely eliminate the chance" of a customer killing another customer. And back to the dz analogy - the same could be said for a dz.
Just because you can't "completely eliminate" all negative outcomes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate a negative outcome.
Throwing up your hands and claiming there's nothing to be done because perfection is not possible is just plain irresponsible.
If you can show me a law that requires a range owner to do the same background check that is required for purchase or that the woman was showing obvious signs of mental distress, then yes.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites