Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are they supposed to do? Don't they have a tongue in their head?
Good Lord, when I was in college in the 80s and worked as a server I had no problem speaking up if something was not right on the job, didn't get fired.
Yes, you can open your mouth if you think there is too much of a risk. Or you tell the idiot parents your child is too small or won't be able to handle this weapon. Sorry I'm not comfortable having your little girl who weighs 60 pounds handle a machine gun.
You get fired. You call the local TV station and get a lawyer. You will probably be better off financially for it.
That beats being dead.
Your mindset is the reason we have the term "sheeple" now.
As I said, the logical time to question the policy would have been when they were hired. (Maybe you misunderstood my post?) I doubt there's an 8 or 9-year-old anywhere who could handle a machine gun. It should have been obvious the theme park was courting disaster. For all we know, maybe a couple of employees here and there did express doubts to management, but were told the policy would stand. Then it's their choice to take/keep the job or walk. The reason there need to be regulators involved is precisely because some people are sheeple. Look who didn't speak up, and ended up dead.
Who would insure the business if it didn't have standard range policies in place?
What you're not understanding is that there's an inherent conflict between the policy set by the business owner, and these range policies you're talking about. (Which may or may not have been in place at that business.) The range policies say the employees are to question (or refuse) cases in which small kids want to shoot the weapons. But the owner had decided he doesn't want to turn away a certain segment of potential clientele. Are staff supposed to approach management about every 8, 9 and 10-year old that enters the park? That would impede the commerce the park owner had set out to engage in. He had decided it was ok for little kids to fire uzis. If employees questioned every case of little kids firing uzis, the owner would have said it was ok, because he'd already pre-determined it was ok. If his employees were routinely turning away the youngest customers, they would have been in conflict with his business policies. It's not a case of one little girl, it's all 8 and 9 year-olds.
And what about the ticket vendor at the park entrance--wouldn't s/he bear responsibility as well? Or is their job just to sell tickets and take the money?
So now, you're saying the insurance company should be added to the list of people who share the blame. Shouldn't the insurance company have questioned the safety of allowing 8 year olds to fire machine guns? Isn't that an obvious liability?
Note the last two lines of rule #1: The Range Officer is in complete charge of his station in accordance with the rules and procedures as set forth by the Board of Directors and the Range Master. The Range Officer may order any shooter off the range for safety violations or conduct unacceptable (including language) to other users.
So what was her safety violation or misconduct? Again, you have not told me what he could have used to say she couldn't shoot since he could not use her age since his employer said her age is fine to shoot uzis. No one has yet answered my question about what was so different about this particular child versus all the other children her age and size who have been to this place that he could have used to decline just her, to single her out among all the children that go there.
What you're not understanding is that there's an inherent conflict between the policy set by the business owner, and these range policies you're talking about. (Which may or may not have been in place at that business.) The range policies say the employees are to question (or refuse) cases in which small kids want to shoot the weapons. But the owner had decided he doesn't want to turn away a certain segment of potential clientele. Are staff supposed to approach management about every 8, 9 and 10-year old that enters the park? That would impede the commerce the park owner had set out to engage in. He had decided it was ok for little kids to fire uzis. If employees questioned every case of little kids firing uzis, the owner would have said it was ok, because he'd already pre-determined it was ok. If his employees were routinely turning away the youngest customers, they would have been in conflict with his business policies. It's not a case of one little girl, it's all 8 and 9 year-olds.
And what about the ticket vendor at the park entrance--wouldn't s/he bear responsibility as well? Or is their job just to sell tickets and take the money?
So now, you're saying the insurance company should be added to the list of people who share the blame. Shouldn't the insurance company have questioned the safety of allowing 8 year olds to fire machine guns? Isn't that an obvious liability?
I understand the conflict you believe to be present.
Having had some range training, I know it doesn't exist.
The range master has absolute control of safety aspects. It doesn't, and can't work any other way. The man that died was not following proper safety protocols.
I am not saying the insurance company has any blame to share. I am saying the insurance company would not insure a range that doesn't follow the standard safety policies.
So what was her safety violation or misconduct? Again, you have not told me what he could have used to say she couldn't shoot since he could not use her age since his employer said her age is fine to shoot uzis.
Size.
Hair color.
Muscle mass.
Choice of clothing.
Inexperience as a shooter.
These and more could've been used by the rangemaster to stop the shoot. (Ok, the even numbered ones are in jest-tho the rangemaster can stop the shoot for ANY reason).
What was different about her from other kids her age? Possibly nothing. Fault probably lies with the rangemaster for how he handled himself while she was shooting, and allowing her to shoot without someone else experienced also holding the gun.
I wasn't trying to say the instructor's mistake was allowing her fire the weapon. No one knows if he even had the authority within the business operation to refuse to do that (probably didn't). My point was his failure was in the way he handled the child and the Uzi. I agree that the general policy they seemed to have had of letting small children fire this weapon was a bad one from the start.
This is what gets me. Many posters have said alllll the blame is either on the instructor or the parents, but at the same time they think the park was within it's rights to set whatever age they wanted to, and also that the state would be intruding on private business if they stepped in and said 8 is too young. It's like no one is allowed to mess with the gun business in any way, shape or form or they are intruding on the businesses rights, but the employee who needs a job and has to abide by the rules the park sets, he is dead AND it' s all his own fault. I just feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone right now.
I understand the conflict you believe to be present.
Having had some range training, I know it doesn't exist.
The range master has absolute control of safety aspects. It doesn't, and can't work any other way. The man that died was not following proper safety protocols.
I am not saying the insurance company has any blame to share. I am saying the insurance company would not insure a range that doesn't follow the standard safety policies.
Do standard ranges charge hundreds of dollars for admission?
These and more could've been used by the rangemaster to stop the shoot. (Ok, the even numbered ones are in jest-tho the rangemaster can stop the shoot for ANY reason).
What was different about her from other kids her age? Possibly nothing. Fault probably lies with the rangemaster for how he handled himself while she was shooting, and allowing her to shoot without someone else experienced also holding the gun.
She was not smaller or less experienced than the other children who have gone there, however. What exactly do YOU see about THIS child that separated her from all the other 8 year old little girls who are allowed to go shoot Uzis at this place?
All the rules at THIS particular place say is that you "must be 8 years old" and "8 to 17"years old must be accompanied by an adult. Did you even click on the link I gave, or are you still pretending this is like other shooting ranges?
I am talking about THIS girl at THIS park, and you keep trying to send me general shooting range rules that are vague and have nothing to do with the Bullets and Burgers experience.
Do standard ranges charge hundreds of dollars for admission?
What does that have to do with standard safety rules? Deviation in unrelated areas shows nothing.
That said-yes, many standard ranges cost hundreds and thousands of dollars to join.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
