Eating our own
Posted by: SayUncleThis weekend, I was out driving around and I decided to stop by Gunny’s Indoor Shooting Range. It’s not open yet but there was plenty of activity with them finishing the place up and stuff. They gave me a tour of the facility and their range. They’ll have (IIRC) eight pistol lanes and four lanes rated for rifles up to 30-06. And they explained to me how the fancy ventilation system works. Seems breathing lead is bad for you and they have put in all kinds of filters and stuff for that. They told me the total cost of just the range was about half a million. Also, if you join now before they open, you get a membership at $80 off the regular price. Membership includes range time, one handgun carry permit class, and your first firearm purchase at cost. They were all super nice, friendly, and helpful. I mean, the guy stopped what he was doing and gave me a tour and I just walked in from the street.
But this ain’t a post about that. It’s a post about this: A man who I assume was The Gunny was talking to another guy, who we will refer to as SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED happened to stop by that day to and got a tour. I’m not sure how the conversation got to that point but I heard The Gunny say something like Well, you can’t really carry a loaded weapon through the store to the range. The Gunny explained that that was a condition of his insurance policy. Well, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED got all SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED on The Gunny saying he thought it was ridiculous and he’d never be back and he would never patronize the store. Would you rather the guy not open up his shop? I’m pretty certain the rules for insurance are probably consistent at various ranges.
So, hats off to assholes like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED for getting all GOA on a shop-owner over something he can’t control. Thank you for making this guy’s life hard. And thank you for ruining what was probably an otherwise fulfilling afternoon for the guy. I mean, it’s not like you can’t take your frustration out on the insurance folks be sending them a letter. It’s much better to attack a guy who happens to be on the same side of the gun issue as you. I mean, that makes sense, making life hard on people with like interests. I mean, Hell, if a gun range has rules about gun handling, it’s like the gun controllers have won!
Asshat.
Site Stuff
April 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
I don’t agree with why SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED had an issue with the policy there. However, I do have an issue with that same policy at most gun stores and ranges. It’s not that they put up signs saying things like “All firearms must be unloaded with their actions open” that bothers me. It’s that they put up those signs, and then don’t make any attempt at giving you a safe way to do so.
It’s not that hard to put a clearing barrel by the door. Hell, there’s even a company now that makes a pad you can mount on a table that will absorb and spread the impact of a bullet if you slip while clearing your carry piece.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
I saw something similar at a suburban shop in IL. A SNBI freaked and stormed out because the shop owner noted he had to sign his FOID card for it to be valid.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Whiskey Tango Fox, over.
A CLEARING BARREL? How hard is it to clear a weapon without a discharge? Last I checked, “at the ground” was always a safe direction for muzzles. Completely besides which, most shooting ranges in my area are to be found “within city limits”, which means if you clear into a barrel, you’ll be getting some new jewellery and making some new friends.
Seriously though, it’s not that difficult. You and I both have cleared pistols and rifles, what, hundreds of times? Thousands? without a single ND. You get up to the door, pull, release, rack/catch, and walk in having just VERY obviously cleared your carry piece. So you have to set down your range bag on the front step to do it . . . so? Would you rather the place couldn’t operate a range at all because the proprietor couldn’t get insurance for you to carry cocked/locked inside? Sure the insurance rules might be dum, that’s not the point.
I’m willing to bet that the majority of the people who go shooting take an unloaded weapon from the closet, and load it once they get to their station at the range. Then they unload it when they’re done. That, combined with the political realities of the day, make SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED types into too-far goers.
Now, if I had a wife just a little more tolerant, you’d find a sign on my front door welcoming persons of good will bearing arms, concealed or open. And if we had land enough to shoot on, I’d let you walk thru the house to the range loaded for bear if you wanted. Till that day, we need to flex our rights and educate the public *gently* so we don’t end up scaring the white people.
eh?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
This is becoming a major problem in the shooting arena I believe. See the four rules aren’t good enough anymore, and due to the fad of safety and lack of responsibility, our culture is increasing looking towards rules to simultaneously make us safer while reducing personal responsibility. Some rules I have been subjected to arguably make the situation infinitesimally safer, but completely remove the self discipline behind the four rules. It’s the attitude of ‘rules make us safer’ that is wrong. Only personal responsibility makes us safer. Guns are beginning to be treated like the liberals see them in practice- must have range flag, bag the rifle as soon as possible, HAMMER DOWN!1!11!!!!!
The rifle is more dangerous in that condition with an incompetent operator than it is in condition one with a rifleman.
While I don’t agree with getting all huffy about it, I believe my position is correct and we should take a firmer stance and at least explain why we disagree.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Sure but if you take it out on the shop-owner, it’s pointless. He’s bound by his insurance policy.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Both of the indoor ranges here in the Tampa Bay area that I frequent have the same policy for the same reason. Every employee at both stores carry openly in the store and train regularly. I’m not worried that the one time I have to disarm to go to the range, I’ll find myself defenseless… there are a dozen well-trained dudes with .45s, most of whom can knock a flea off a dog’s arse at 25 yards. I’m more worried about places that NOBODY is armed.
Regardless, I’d rather have a range to go to than not have a range. Or have a range that doesn’t cost $50 a sitting because of some (more) outrageous insurance policy.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
My club has the same policy. When I go to shoot the Glock there, I just carry something else. The Glock goes in unloaded and cased. No gun shop or club worth it’s salt is going to complain about a firearm that you keep concealed.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
“A CLEARING BARREL? How hard is it to clear a weapon without a discharge?”
And yet it is still safer to just not handle your carry gun at all until you get into the range. If someone is going to post an inane policy, even one mandated by their insurance, they need to be willing to take responsibility if something happens if I try to abide by that policy in a crowded store.
At least when I clear a weapon at home, or at the firing line, I don’t have idiots bumping into me to get around me.
So WTF yourself there Dave.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
I’d rather have one than not — a flat surface like tile floor or concrete just asks for ricochets or a messy cleanup. There should never be an accidental discharge. That said, you’re still an idiot if you ignore the other rules, and safer directions are always better options when the cost is nearly nil.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
Sorry, I’m going to side with Mr. GOA here although I would have been politer about it.
None of the ranges I go to have any such requirement. If it were a legal issue, I would mark it down to differences in local ordinance, but I’m stumped as to why insurance requirements would be different for his business and not any of the ranges I shoot at.
While I won’t patronize any business that prohibits CCW, I have no problem with cold ranges. But, I think it’s the height of idiocy to have people stop at the outside door to a business, draw a loaded firearm in front of God and soccermom driving by, clear that firearm (appearing to charge it to someone who’s only seen guns on TV) and then enter the store. I’d hate to be a 911 operator there.
Alternatively, I could try and be more discreet by clearing - I really can’t bring myself to call it “make safe” in this scenario - in my car, in the dark maybe even, in cramped conditions.
Or, here’s an idea; I could don hearing protection, enter a special purpose room with a device at one end specifically designed to catch bullets and ballistic shields to either side of me and clear my weapon there!
Now, none of us are ever going to have an ND of course, but what about BillyBob who can’t keep his booger hook off the bang switch? Would you rather him fumbling his weapon A. In his car, B. at the door to the store you’re about to leave, or C. On a firing range?
And, God forbid if your or my super duper customized wunderblaster should suffer a mechanical failure and have an old fashioned AD? Do you want to do it A. In your car, B… well, you know where I’m going with this.
Maybe it’s because I have the luxury of not having silly requirements like that locally, but I’d be hard pressed to pay… well however much it is, the discount is about 4x the standard range membership fee around here. And yes, sometimes you do have to put your foot down about minor inconveniences in order to avoid dying from a thousand cuts.
Joe
April 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
I was just filling-out my Gun Club’s yearly renewal and noticed that one of my Gun cards in the wallet was a SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED card, and it says “Life Member” — and I don’t even remember the kiss or the night we spent together to make THAT happen - I feel so dirty and shallow now.
I could cut it into pieces and return it by mail, but I’m sure they’d just keep sending me their constant, pleading, LOVE letters and ma$h note$ that I’ve been ignoring…
April 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
So you’d prefer not to have the range open at all?
Because those are the choices for the Range Owner: Open with silly rules or not open at all.
Don’t like it. Fine. Find out the name of the insurance company and refuse to do business with them, not the Range.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
No, there is another choice.
Mr. Shall Not Be Infringed can take his hard earned savings, round up some other financing, and then put all his assets on the line by OPENING UP HIS OWN RANGE WITHOUT INSURANCE coverage.
But I suspect Mr. Shall not Be Ifringed would never be able to do that, because to have reached that point in life he’d need to be able to judge reality from teh fantasy world of the internet and the GOA.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
BTW,
who is David and why should I vote for him?
April 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
My local range has a similar rule. I started a thread some time ago on The Gun Thing forum about this. Of all the replies, I don’t recall insurance coming up in them. But in reality what it boils down to is this-His house, His rules. Don’t like it? Go elsewhere. After I started that thread, I noticed a sign at Gander Mountain that stated concealed weapons carried by permit holders were exempt. I wonder if gun shops, and gun shops that also have ranges constitute different circumstances? IIRC, the NRA range has no such requirement.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Countertop,
Well, I *did* say the range owner and not Mr. SNBI
April 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I don’t know who he is, countertop, but I’m not voting for him.
Last I checked, “at the ground” was always a safe direction for muzzles.
The funny part is we used to use this question as a trick question in our safety class. We would try to get people to think about all the situations where pointing toward the ground was not safe.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Am I late to this thought, or should SNBI be pronounced “Snobby”?
April 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
heh. and thus a blog meme was born.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Here in Missouri you’ll find similar ‘must be open and unloaded’ signs but pretty much all of them note that concealed weapons are exempt.
Don’t know if it’s insurance related or not - every gun store has at least one (usually patched) hole from where ‘Bubba’ brought in his ‘unloaded’ gun. Standard policy at more than one store I go to is “you show us yours and we’ll show you ours - and we know ours are loaded.” Just sort of a way to encourage safe and responsible handling.
When I go to the range (any of the ranges I go to) I’m generally not shooting my carry piece. The guns I’m going to shoot are cased and unloaded. If I do decide to shoot my carry piece it doesn’t clear leather until I’m on the range and will be secured one way or another before I leave the range.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Shalle Notte Byee Ynfrinnged??
Perhaps One such sshould observe the Tragedye of the Commones as maniffest in “Shall Notte Byee Impolite” - as such Polittenesse is a Public Virtue amongge whyche itss purposses is as a Salve and Balm to soothe the hostile Abrasion of truly Minor Inconvieniences that otherwyse would be as so many True Thousands of Cuttes to the Libertye which such a same Person so fervently yet with Horribly Bad Breath admires… /18Century accent
April 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
None of the ranges I go to have any such requirement. If it were a legal issue, I would mark it down to differences in local ordinance, but I’m stumped as to why insurance requirements would be different for his business and not any of the ranges I shoot at.
You can get insurance for anything, it’s just a matter of how much you want to pay. This guy is just starting out, so he’s going to want his overhead to be as low as he can get it. This is not an uncommon restriction, and maybe once the guy gets his shop going, he’ll be able to afford a better policy that would allow shooting your carry gun.
The guy also doesn’t say he prohibits concealed carry, just that you can’t shoot your carry gun at the range. I doubt he’s going to be checking too hard for your carry piece, and won’t say anything if you accidentally flashed it.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I interpreted that as a complete prohibition of CCW, but I realize it could go either way.
As to the cost of insurance… Ranges in my area - same as KCSteve there - run $20 a year for membership and $9-10 a day to shoot. I’m inferring just from the new member discount that the range fees here are going to be significantly higher than that.
I wish the guy the best of luck. I won’t go there, but that’s moot as I don’t live in the same city. If I didn’t have a selection of ranges to choose from here and was subject to the same policies, I’d probably have to suck it up and deal with it - at least for the winter months. But if one of the local ranges here tried it, they’d be out of business lickety split.
Joe
April 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Sure but if you take it out on the shop-owner, it’s pointless. He’s bound by his insurance policy.”
And what if he was bound by nothing but his own preferences, or even prejudices?
Look: this whole issue is a big part of why I have never affirmed the right to own/carry guns on a premise of the Second Amendment or the right of self-defense, but on the principled right of private property. It’’s because only a proper integration of that general principle can be rightly understood, and it extends to the right of people in their own homes and businesses dictating others’ behavior in these places.
Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights. Period. A person who walks into someone else’s place and asserts The Right That Shall Not Be Infringed is a fucking idiot, and he is in no way on my side of this mess. My answer to him is: if you don’t like it, then haul your narrow ass out of my place before this gets ugly.
Now, you might not like that, but freedom, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t mean that anyone has to like you. They only have to leave you alone.
And people who cannot or do not think in terms of principles can be just as dangerous as anyone else on the scene. They’re just making it up as they go along, and there is no telling what someone like that is going to do next.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
His property, do what he says. That’s why i’m not real keen on the NRA’s various ‘guns at work’ bills.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I think you understand me completely, sir.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Obviously inside the workplace is my employers’ property, but has it ever been settled whether the interior of my car, while parked at work, is my property or my employers’ property? Isn’t that the crux of the ‘guns at work’ issue in most cases?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Billy Beck and Say Uncle;
Circular argument. If the store is open to the public, than why should the store owner be able to infringe the customer’s rights?
As to “guns at work”. I agree that an employer can set rules for in the workplace, but the car belongs to the employee.
A balance between one right and the other must be found. It is EASY to say do not shop there or do not work here. When the only pharmacy in the county says no guns and your child is sick, what do you do (drive or submit)? When the boss says no guns, the mortgage is due, the credit cards are due, the doctor says you child needs this operation, you wife wants implants, and you work at the only place in town that can pay you what you need; what do you do (quit or submit)?
There are no easy, pat solutions that will please everyone.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Sure but if you take it out on the shop-owner, it’s pointless. He’s bound by his insurance policy.
No, he is not. There are other insurers, they probably have higher premiums for what they perceive as heightened risk. There is also the possibility of “self-insurance” and it is not that onerous in most states.
Hell, if you’re self insured in Texas the Insurance Commission will protect you from a court order to pay, even if a court found you liable. Trust me on that.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Your property rights end at the soles of my shoes.
I have no intention of violating your rights and I expect the same from you.
Why do so many people who claim to be pro proerty rights not get this?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“If the store is open to the public,…”
That is solely upon the owner’s discretion.
Example: I’ve always maintained that the notorious asshole Lester Maddox had every right to stand at the door of his restaurant and bar entry to black people with his ridiculous axe-handle.
“Ownership” necessarily implies the right of disposition: if a person cannot dispose of what he is said to own, then there is no referent for the concept, “own”. This logic is well-known in everyday practice of the sort implied in the quote above. Every store is going to have its own rules about the limits of “open to the public”: almost none of them are going to allow you and your goats fucking in the aisles. The number of proscriptions that business owners place on customers’ behaviors must be nearly infinite even though most of them aren’t written anywhere. Well, this one is, and it is morally valid on the same principle of private property by which you get to call the plays around your place, which is why you should understand this issue.
In a free polity, a business is no more “open to the public” than your own house is, and for all the same reasons.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
So (I ask respectfully), do you not believe a store owner ought not be able to enforce a “shoes/shirt” policy in his establishment?
April 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I live in Sonoma County CA and there are NO public Ranges in my county.NONE.There was an indoor Range until last year,but the owners were bad businessmen,and rude enough that I drove 10 extra miles each way to buy my Ammo and cleaning supplies.My nearest Range is in Marin County,outdoors in a cow pasture,It is not listed in the phone book because the owner got tired of death threats…all our local media are owned by conglomerates and the Anti-gun propaganda is ceaseless.Be glad you have a safe and legal place to shoot.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 am
John: blockquote>There are no easy, pat solutions that will please everyone.True, so–in particular–stop expecting the one easy, pat solution you want.
Look, “the Law” is just something some folks wrote down, and it only properly serves as a factor in risk assessment; it’s not a guide to what’s right and what’s wrong.
This is about *right* and *wrong*, not about law.
Ergo: My place, my rules.
I know you mean well, but that’s an entirely wrong way of looking at it. Billy put it well above: “Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights. Period. Rights, properly understood, have their own proper boundaries as a part of what they are; they are separate entities and they don’t require “balancing” because they don’t conflict.
Hint: the opposite of right is wrong and *that’s* where you find any conflict.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 am
Should have been…
“John:
True, so–in particular–stop expecting the one easy, pat solution you want.”
My bad tag-fu. I am ashamed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
SA, can you name an insurer that will cover the same store without imposing this requirement? Or do you just assume that for every insurable risk, there’s an insurer waiting in the wings to insure it? It might work that way in a deregulated environment, but it doesn’t work that way in the ultra-regulated environment we have. My guess is that there aren’t all that many insurers willing to cover shooting ranges under any circumstances.
As to self-insurance, I’m not sure why you think the Texas AG will help anyone in Tennessee, or protect anyone (insured or not) from having to pay judgments against him, but that’s neither here nor there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
You assume we live in a “free” polity. We USED to live in one.
Mr. Beck, you said “Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights.” You then proceed to say that you can violate other folks rights simply because you own a business. Which one is it?
My house is not open to the public and no reasonable person would say it was nor doubt my right to say who may or may not enter into it. My fenced yard is also not open to the public and if I lock the gates is almost as inviolate as my house. My unfenced yard, woods, and fields are open to the public (different States, different rules) unless I fence them in and put up signs restricting access.
If I open a business that caters to the general public( e.g.: retail ), than it is reasonable to expect the general public to have access to that business. No shirt, no shoes, no business is public health law. Rules set by the legislature are beyond our control, unless your last name is Naifeh. The assumption that you are in control is naive. You must follow THE RULES, whither set by your insurance provider or the legislature if you plan to remain in business.
If you set your own rules, they must be declared openly. But those rules can not violate my rights (as you say yourself). Enumerated Rights, such as the 2A, outweigh common law rights, such as you setting the rules in a business.
Mr. Good, I am aware that neither just because it is legal does not mean it is right nor just because it is illegal does not make it wrong. Roe-v-Wade and sharia are examples.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Look People, this isn’t about rights, it’s about what is right. There can be no dispute about property rights, and there is no good argument to force a change in rules based on the 2nd. That is the slippery slope we have fallen down in regards to other ‘rights.’
Of course whenever there is talk about rules, Americans always focus on I ‘have the right to do this and no one can say shit’ and it goes on back and forth about that - which isn’t the issue at all. That argument is so childish! It’s about what is the correct and better course of action. Anyone has a right to be an anti-social prick - but what good does that do anyone?
If I were in this situation, this wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me, although I wouldn’t be happy about it, and I would speak my mind, respectfully as a gentleman, to the management and if enough people did the same in sure he’d change the policy. The insurance reason seems like a cop-out because the guy might not be as comfortable with guns or as educated about guns as could be. Kind of like that NRA asshole who says that all guns should be banned at all schools. What a fucker - thanks for throwing us under the bus.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
I am David. You should vote for me because I’d mop up the floor with all the other jokers running for the office of (fill in the blank). If you knew me, you’d like me. If I were running for (fill in the blank) office, you would vote for me. Unless you vote against “conservatives” generally, then you would stay home in disgust at the candidates on both sides of the ballot. Again.
The ground is safe if you are not a dumbass*. If you are a dumbass, a clearing barrel is not safe. If you put a clearing barrel outside your shop, inside city limits, you are inviting people to discharge their weapons outside a shooting range, not in self-defense, inside city limits. This is not something people are supposed to do, in most cities I know of. Sure, they are not supposed to fire into it, they are supposed to point at it while clearing the weapon. You can cound on the fingers of one foot how many days would pass between people firing into the barrel to clear their weapons, regardless of how many DO NOT SHOOT INTO THE BARREL signs you post.
You have a right to be armed. You are a member of both the public and the militia. Fine.
I have a right to exclude from my premises anybody I like (at least in Texas, we can refuse service and have folks arrested for trespass) regardless of whether or not I serve the general public. I have a right to not have bubba walking around with a loaded Bryco in his hand, waiting for a true AD due to crappy weaponry. I have a right to not have some idiot, gun-neophyte, or g4ngst3r waving a loaded weapon around my shop.
I also have a right to require the honest, good people of the world to render their weapons 100% safe before entering my shop. It’s MY place you WANT to come into. You don’t have an absolute right to do whatever you want wherever you want. You don’t have a right to infringe on my right to property because you WANT to come into my store.
The good people of the world can choose not to frequent my shop. I can choose to not let them in. If you want a place where you can have people walking around armed, this is America and you can make your own next door to mine.
Is it really so hard to clear your carry weapon’s chamber in your car? Are you truly concerned that you will be assaulted outside the gun shop? If so, leave the magazine in and lock the slide back. You can then use one hand to release the slide and chamber another round if you need to. You could also push the mag release button and drop the magazine with one hand right before you *voluntarily* go to have your rights infringed by the store owner.
As for the people who will have a ND while they are clearing a weapon prior to entering the store: the guards on saws and railroad crossing guard arms don’t protect them from themselves, either.
*you are a dumbass if you clear your weapon while pointing it at concrete or stone, where a ricochet or shrapnel could injure other people or their property. Think, point yourself away from other people and their things.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Actually, John, my point is that “rights” are not synonymous with “legal permissions”.
Your insistence on the primacy of “enumerated rights” over what you think I might be taking/accepting from common law (which is just a differing verbally or socially enumerated codification, actually) is missing the mark; enumerated “rights” may be legally primary, but they are not so morally.
Simply put: when we are talking *ethics*, “right and wrong” trumps “legal and illegal”.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
So. When are you setting up the metal detectors? Strip searching your customers?
I wish you joy in your bankruptcy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“You then proceed to say that you can violate other folks rights simply because you own a business.”
Bullshit. I didn’t say anything in the world like that (hint: you couldn’t quote it if your ass depended on it), and I am not responsible for your inability to grasp the bi-lateral nature of rights.
You’re dismissed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“So. When are you setting up the metal detectors? Strip searching your customers?
I wish you joy in your bankruptcy.”
I’ll take my chances, and it’s none of your goddamned business.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Now we’re getting silly. Metal detectors in a gun shop? Come now if we are going to disagree, let’s at least not be completely ridiculous.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Indeed.
Happy april fools day.
I had fun did you?
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
WTF? Did you both completely ignore my comment because you love bickering over the internet more than being constructive?
I guess I answered my own question…
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
HardCorps,
What, the comment about throwing us under the bus? Yes, that was very constructive. Thanks for answering your question for us.
The insurance reason is a very good one IMO, and would have more to do with the actuaries than the shop owner. If you can’t get insurance to let random members of the general public walk into your store waving around loaded high power evil black plastic-metal-detector-defeating HIGH POWER armor piercing automatic assault SNIPER guns, it doesn’t matter how comfortable you are with the Good Guys coming in safely cocked & locked.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 am
I’ve been to at least 5 different commercial ranges in Ohio and Michigan and dozens of gun stores, none have a rule like that. That would lead me to believe that if Gunny really wanted, he could find an insurer that would not require this restriction. He’s got the right to have whatever rules he wants, I’ll take it into account when I shop. If there’s somewhere with rules I like better, they are likely to get my business. I also think it is beneficial to the business owner to politely let him know why–I’ll try not to be an ass about it, but if he doesn’t know, he can’t even try to fix it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Actually an actuary wouldn’t make up that rule because there isn’t enough data to form any sort of pricing model - but that’s beside the point. I highly doubt an insurer that insures private ranges would impose a litany of rules the insured would have to follow because P+C insurers don’t want to come between customers and businesses and they bend over backward to accommodate most operations.
But you ignored my point which was that we can come to an agreement about what should happen, and work towards that goal with a win-win attitude while respecting everyones rights. (i.e. the premise of libertarianism)
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Sevesteen, it’s totally neato that you haven’t encountered the same rule in Ohio or Michigan, but why do you assume that the same holds for Tennessee? Last time I checked, they were all individual states.
HardCorps, you’re looking at the question exactly backwards. If adequate data existed to determine the risks associated with not having this rule, insurers would either dump the rule outright or offer an alternative policy that costs a little more. From an insurer’s standpoint, there are no “bad” risks, only inappropriately priced ones. If they don’t have the right data, they won’t be able to price the risk appropriately, and will thus be loath to insure it at all. [Even if they do have the appropriate data, that doesn't always guarantee that they'll be able to get the right rate approved by regulators, but that's another thread.]
April 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
That’s actually incorrect about bad risks. Rates don’t contemplate factors like litigation environment or non-fortuitous losses. Sure, in my neck of the woods we have no problem giving wind coverage, but in the south, insurers are canceling policies. That’s why there isn’t flood insurance available for the first $1,000,000 and why the government offers the NFIP. If there is too much risk of loss, it stops being insurance and becomes a transfer program.
I agree with your premise that since there isn’t enough data, there isn’t a basis for a rule to be created in the first place. That’s the point here, that I highly doubt that an insurer would be really enforcing a rule such as this, and at most it would be a suggestion. The rule really doesn’t limit the exposures at hand here because there are still members of the public with loaded firearms, except they are ok in this area but not in the other? I’m sure the operator could implement a don’t ask don’t tell policy also, or tell his agent that my customers don’t like this rule and tell the underwriter to drop it or start shopping for another company.
The main point of this thread it to voice your viewpoint, respectfully and ask for change and try to change people’s minds for the better.