Haha, No disrepect sir. I suggest you reread my last post and point out any "Bashing" as I just don't see it. Emphasis and exclamation are easily misunderstood as brash.
Now,
I carefully quoted the section of your post that I was responding to, and that's the part where you distribute blame to anyone on the field just for being there. So before you think I'm misrepresenting you, you should figure out what I'm responding to.
The FPS limits will be raised to those who have taken the proper courses and have certification. This certification is (or at least should be) to minimize or even eliminate the chances of "accidents" as you like to call them. These aren't toys. If I shot my rifle at someone 75 feet away, and inbetween someone within 20 feet gets up, get's hit in the face, chips a tooth, not only would I feel (and be) responsible, I'd OFFER to pay the bill before it even came to a waiver or lawsuit. I CAN NOT say that for everyone on the field. I pulled the trigger, it's MY responsibilty to know what is down range, what the wind might do, ect. No one else knows when my trigger is going to be pulled but me, so I can't expect others to avoid, react, or respond to it. It was my decision and mine alone to send bbs down range, the burden falls on me for each .2g projectile that may cause damage. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE BLAME WOULD FALL ON ANYONE ELSE BUT ME. Negligent or not.
You seem to be looking at it like, "Fred shot his rifle at Jane" instead of just "Fred shot his rifle." Jane is redundant if Steve is dead. The intention doesn't change the result.
Replace "Airsoft" with "Real Steel"... Do you still believe in accidents?
Velocity Limit Changes
by Ninja2dan » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:01 am
I have to both agree and disagree with some of your comments in your most recent post.
In a case such as this, if the person who was 20ft away was concealed where you could not have possibley known they were there, and they jumped up AFTER your shot was made, then said injury would NOT have been due to negligence. Therefore, such an injury was caused by a "clean shoot" and not at fault of the shooter. This is an incident where nobody is at fault, and such an accident as I was describing. Should you HAVE to pay for the medical bill? NO. Is it the nice thing to do? YES.
I have been shot with a real-steel weapon, and have also recieved blast/shrapnel injuries from a 40mm HE grenade. One was accidental, the other was due to negligence. I have also been shooting real firearms since you were still in diapers (no disrespect), and I am clearly aware of liability issues and fault of injuries.
What I was trying to state is that some injuries on the field will occur that the shooter has 100% zero fault. Just because you fire the weapon doesn't mean you should be responsible for ALL injuries from your shots. Cobol had first brought up the idea of a sniper-specific waiver and stated that he fealt a sniper should be held responsible for EVERY SHOT he/she makes. I was simply stating that this isn't proper because there will be incidents where the shooter can't/shouldn't be held responsible.
Example: You are shooting your weapon at a target, within acceptable range and using proper aim. At this same time, behind a large bush is Billy. Billy decides he wants to remove his safety eyewear to rub his eyes. A BB fired from your weapon ricochets off a tree and BONG!...right into Billy's eyeball.
As the shooter, you didn't have any possible way to see Billy behind that bush. You were firing clean and properly and there was zero negligence on your part. Billy on the other hand had wrongfully removed his eye protection while in a hot zone on the field. By removing his eyewear in this circumstance, he become instantly liable for any and all eye injuries sustained from a projectile fired from another player (regardless if the shot was negligent or not). This is just one example of the type of incident that I was trying to point out in my posts.
You might want to reconsider your post there too. How about during the next AP event, when you come my way, myself and the other 10 people around me all decide we want to replace our safety goggles and use plastic-wrap covered lens frames instead? You start shooting at us from 50ft, not possibley knowing our eyewear is not safety rated. Three of us recieve permanent eye damage. Do you still feel that the blame should fall on you? Those who removed their rated safety eyewear would legally be at fault, and I'm sure you would not actually claim responsibility for such an accident.
My comments from the beginning were that I didn't agree with Cobol's statement to have seperate sniper-specific waivers or that snipers should be 100% liable for every single shot from their weapon. This issue has already been cleared up though because senior AP staff have already stated that no such additional waivers will ever be created, and that no changes will be made to the current waivers adding liability to snipers under such circumstances.
If someone shoots me in the face with a 650fps sniper rifle from 10ft away, sure as hell I'm going to sue them for any injuries recieved. You can also be sure that even if no injury is sustained from the shot, they will recieve one hell of a thump on the head from my boot. But if I get a BB lodged in my eardrum during a game and permanentaly lose hearing in that ear, I'm not going to sue the shooter unless that shot was due to negligence on their part. I will also not expect or demand that they pay for it if it wasn't their fault. Again, entering the field I understand some injuries can occur. As long as any injury is not at fault, I will pay my own medical bills. Be it from a BB welt or from being impaled on a log. I expect every other person in this community to behave the same way.
If I shot my rifle at someone 75 feet away, and inbetween someone within 20 feet gets up, get's hit in the face, chips a tooth, not only would I feel (and be) responsible, I'd OFFER to pay the bill before it even came to a waiver or lawsuit.
In a case such as this, if the person who was 20ft away was concealed where you could not have possibley known they were there, and they jumped up AFTER your shot was made, then said injury would NOT have been due to negligence. Therefore, such an injury was caused by a "clean shoot" and not at fault of the shooter. This is an incident where nobody is at fault, and such an accident as I was describing. Should you HAVE to pay for the medical bill? NO. Is it the nice thing to do? YES.
You seem to be looking at it like, "Fred shot his rifle at Jane" instead of just "Fred shot his rifle." Jane is redundant if Steve is dead. The intention doesn't change the result.
Replace "Airsoft" with "Real Steel"... Do you still believe in accidents?
I have been shot with a real-steel weapon, and have also recieved blast/shrapnel injuries from a 40mm HE grenade. One was accidental, the other was due to negligence. I have also been shooting real firearms since you were still in diapers (no disrespect), and I am clearly aware of liability issues and fault of injuries.
What I was trying to state is that some injuries on the field will occur that the shooter has 100% zero fault. Just because you fire the weapon doesn't mean you should be responsible for ALL injuries from your shots. Cobol had first brought up the idea of a sniper-specific waiver and stated that he fealt a sniper should be held responsible for EVERY SHOT he/she makes. I was simply stating that this isn't proper because there will be incidents where the shooter can't/shouldn't be held responsible.
Example: You are shooting your weapon at a target, within acceptable range and using proper aim. At this same time, behind a large bush is Billy. Billy decides he wants to remove his safety eyewear to rub his eyes. A BB fired from your weapon ricochets off a tree and BONG!...right into Billy's eyeball.
As the shooter, you didn't have any possible way to see Billy behind that bush. You were firing clean and properly and there was zero negligence on your part. Billy on the other hand had wrongfully removed his eye protection while in a hot zone on the field. By removing his eyewear in this circumstance, he become instantly liable for any and all eye injuries sustained from a projectile fired from another player (regardless if the shot was negligent or not). This is just one example of the type of incident that I was trying to point out in my posts.
It was my decision and mine alone to send bbs down range, the burden falls on me for each .2g projectile that may cause damage. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE BLAME WOULD FALL ON ANYONE ELSE BUT ME. Negligent or not.
You might want to reconsider your post there too. How about during the next AP event, when you come my way, myself and the other 10 people around me all decide we want to replace our safety goggles and use plastic-wrap covered lens frames instead? You start shooting at us from 50ft, not possibley knowing our eyewear is not safety rated. Three of us recieve permanent eye damage. Do you still feel that the blame should fall on you? Those who removed their rated safety eyewear would legally be at fault, and I'm sure you would not actually claim responsibility for such an accident.
My comments from the beginning were that I didn't agree with Cobol's statement to have seperate sniper-specific waivers or that snipers should be 100% liable for every single shot from their weapon. This issue has already been cleared up though because senior AP staff have already stated that no such additional waivers will ever be created, and that no changes will be made to the current waivers adding liability to snipers under such circumstances.
If someone shoots me in the face with a 650fps sniper rifle from 10ft away, sure as hell I'm going to sue them for any injuries recieved. You can also be sure that even if no injury is sustained from the shot, they will recieve one hell of a thump on the head from my boot. But if I get a BB lodged in my eardrum during a game and permanentaly lose hearing in that ear, I'm not going to sue the shooter unless that shot was due to negligence on their part. I will also not expect or demand that they pay for it if it wasn't their fault. Again, entering the field I understand some injuries can occur. As long as any injury is not at fault, I will pay my own medical bills. Be it from a BB welt or from being impaled on a log. I expect every other person in this community to behave the same way.
Infantry all the way!
-
Ninja2dan - Soldier
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 257
- Age: 46
- Images: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:29 pm
- Location: Klamath Falls, OR
by DMitri » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:27 am
Therefore, such an injury was caused by a "clean shoot" and not at fault of the shooter.
He pulled the trigger, he sent the bb. Again, intension doesn't change the result. Keep Reading.
Just because you fire the weapon doesn't mean you should be responsible for ALL injuries from your shots.
Completely 100% disagree. In some instances there will be some mutual blame, but never none. The example you gave would be one where there'd be mutual blame. Why? Because if I hit a tree that then caused the bb to ricochet that means I didn't hit my target.
With added FPS comes added responsibility. The shooters with these replicas need to be held accountbable for every shot they take. Their FPS is being increased for the purpose of accuracy it's the reason it's being allowed. If you can't be held accountable for your shots with a replica upgraded for the purpose of high-energy percision shooting, you have no business fielding that replica. Increased risk of causing injury requires increased accountability.
How about during the next AP event, when you come my way, myself and the other 10 people around me all decide we want to replace our safety goggles and use plastic-wrap covered lens frames instead?
I hope you realize how impracticle this scenerio is. Anything can be bent and distorted like this if you go out of your way to do so. Your other scenerio was pratical, this is just nonsense. Every other scenerio has happened many times before in the 5 years I've been playing, this hasn't happened once. How about we keep to scenerios where all basic rules not partaining to human-error or happenstance, such as engagement ranges, are being followed. Cause a case involving improper use of required saftey equipment by the plaintiff would no doubt be quickly thrown out in court.
NOTE: Just out of curiousity, if you agree with what I've been saying but don't want to voice out in public, PM me. I'm curious as to how many of us actually own up to our actions. I won't release names.
- DMitri
- Banned
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 8012
- Age: 40
- Images: 2
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
by Ninja2dan » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:15 am
For now I'll end my activity within this discussion, it seems to be going nowhere. I have made my point, and I'm sure it has been made clearly enough times for most to understand it as was meant.
For all so-called "Snipers" in this community:
Q: What is the maximum precision engagement range (able to hit a four-inch circular target) with an airsoft bolt-action spring rifle firing a high-precision match BB at maximum allowable Joules under the new rules?
Q: At this range, what is the minimum wind speed required to cause the impact point of the projectile to drift more than approximately four (4) inches?
Q: How many people within this community, under the results of the above questions, can still fire a BB from mentioned weapon and be able to keep their projectile on their target 100% of the time?
I can pretty much already tell you that the answer to the third question is ZERO. I don't care how good of a shot you are, 100% accuracy is not possible. This means that situations such as the one I mentioned regarding ricochet injuries CAN happen. This is not real-steel marksmanship, so real-steel levels of accuracy will not be possible here. Therefore 100% of all shots fired by airsoft snipers can't be held accountable in the same manner as real-steel either.
For all so-called "Snipers" in this community:
Q: What is the maximum precision engagement range (able to hit a four-inch circular target) with an airsoft bolt-action spring rifle firing a high-precision match BB at maximum allowable Joules under the new rules?
Q: At this range, what is the minimum wind speed required to cause the impact point of the projectile to drift more than approximately four (4) inches?
Q: How many people within this community, under the results of the above questions, can still fire a BB from mentioned weapon and be able to keep their projectile on their target 100% of the time?
I can pretty much already tell you that the answer to the third question is ZERO. I don't care how good of a shot you are, 100% accuracy is not possible. This means that situations such as the one I mentioned regarding ricochet injuries CAN happen. This is not real-steel marksmanship, so real-steel levels of accuracy will not be possible here. Therefore 100% of all shots fired by airsoft snipers can't be held accountable in the same manner as real-steel either.
Infantry all the way!
-
Ninja2dan - Soldier
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 257
- Age: 46
- Images: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:29 pm
- Location: Klamath Falls, OR
by DMitri » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:36 am
Ninja, please advise me if you're ever going to come to a game with a hot replica, I don't want to be anywhere near it. The fact that you'd take a shot with a high-powered rifle and not be confident that you won't cause an injury worries me greatly, and should be a note to take when considering you for any possible certification. You are a perfect example of why I'm so adamant about not accepting this rule.
- DMitri
- Banned
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 8012
- Age: 40
- Images: 2
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
by Ninja2dan » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:20 am
DMitri wrote:Ninja, please advise me if you're ever going to come to a game with a hot replica, I don't want to be anywhere near it.
I do in fact plan in the future to purchase and upgrade a sniper platform that meets all AP requirements, and attend all necessary certification courses deemed required by the AP staff.
I also plan to be responsible for my shots, but as I have said, if any shot deemed "clean" were to cause unforseen injury that is not my fault then I do not plan to be responsible for legal action of such injury. By this I mean that I will abide by all set rules and regulations, but if someone were to remove their eyewear (for example), and my shot happens to cause them injury, I do not in any way see anyone being able to legally place me at blame. Even if my shot was on target, it is possible that a deflecting shot can ricochet towards another player. And if said shot were to cause injury to said player due to their own negligence, then it would be their responsibility and not mine.
If I were to take a shot and the shot were to cause injury to someone who was abiding by all safety requirements, and the shot was not deemed negligent or to cause injury on purpose, then I feel it the right thing to do to offer assistance to said injured party in the form of medical treatment within reasonable limits. But I will not pony up cash from my pocket to every person who wants to be paid for pain received from a fair and clean shot.
If/when I do receive proper certification, as issued by AP staff, then it should be assumed that I have proven myself competent in the use of such weapons during field operations. If anyone doubts my abilities after such certification, then that should be taken up with the AP staff who issued the certification.
I do not intend to cause any injuries to anyone on or off the field, and should any injuries occur due to negligence or misconduct then I will be held liable. I know how to shoot a precision weapon and I understand the principles of accurate target engagement. If I were to miss an intended target and strike another player, it can be assured that the miss was not intentional or negligent, and I will claim responsibility for such shot up to a proper legal standpoint as mentioned above.
The fact that you'd take a shot with a high-powered rifle and not be confident that you won't cause an injury worries me greatly, and should be a note to take when considering you for any possible certification.
As I have said, I honestly doubt there is ANYONE else in this entire community who can say that they are 100% confident that 100% of their shots will be on target or not cause injury. And because of this fact, I don't see the need to make anyone 100% accountable for every shot they fire, regardless if an injury is due to negligence or not. If an injury is caused due to negligence on the part of the shooter, then legal action and/or medical reimbursement is valid. If an injury occurs that is NOT due to negligence or misconduct, then legal action is not valid and any medical reimbursement is between the shooter and shootee.
If anyone else disagrees with me on this, please say so and explain your reasoning for your opinion. In order to keep this topic free of posts, a new topic can be created for this purpose or comments can be contained via PM's.
And I especially want to hear if anyone else feels the same as Dmitri about not desiring me to operate on the same field as them in the Scout/Sniper role. After having done such in the real military, I am quite certain that I could handle the task under airsoft application.
Infantry all the way!
-
Ninja2dan - Soldier
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 257
- Age: 46
- Images: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:29 pm
- Location: Klamath Falls, OR
by DMitri » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:57 am
I honestly doubt there is ANYONE else in this entire community who can say that they are 100% confident that 100% of their shots will be on target or not cause injury.
Sure, but I'd be willing to bet most of them would own up to their actions and not try to cover their own a$$ as much as you. You seem to be very scarcely concerned with saftey. You're treating these replicas as toys with no consequences. When I asked you to replace Airsoft with Real Steel you should have known what I was getting at and that was that your opinion for both should be the same, you should be treating any airsoft replica as if it were the real thing, and weilding it accordingly. You statments have clearly shown that this is not the way you view airsoft replicas and that you have no business weilding one with increased power.
By this I mean that I will abide by all set rules and regulations, but if someone were to remove their eyewear (for example), and my shot happens to cause them injury, I do not in any way see anyone being able to legally place me at blame.
Great, another one that doesn't even know how to read yet can type.....
But I will not pony up cash from my pocket to every person who wants to be paid for pain received from a fair and clean shot.
I'm not talking about pain and suffering, I'm talking about medical expenses. People who get hit in the chest or head from a "clean shot" usually have medical expense of about 10 cents for a bandaid at most. I'm talking about chipped teeth and shot eyeballs things that would never be considered "Clean shots" by any intellegent or well-bred standard.
If an injury occurs that is NOT due to negligence or misconduct, then legal action is not valid and any medical reimbursement is between the shooter and shootee.
Again, only the shooter was the one who deemed it necessary to use a hot weapon, and only the shooter fire said weapon. It's the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that his projectiles don't cause damage.
You're using the notion that once the trigger is pulled all liability is fired away with it. That's utterly ludicrous.
Quote from page 2
The higher velocity for bolts is not for extra range. It is for more accurate (read safer) shooting.
Anyway it's 7am I'm going to bed.
- DMitri
- Banned
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 8012
- Age: 40
- Images: 2
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
by Seagreen » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:17 am
Why is the conversation even taking place?
If anyone has questions has serious questions about their safety or is willing to take legal action from taking an impact from a BB is just another slip and fall hustler at your local grocery store.
We participate in a game that involves projectiles striking a target, sometimes that target is you. There is an assumed risk involved, by entering the game you, the participant, have agreed to the guidelines set forth. If you do not wish to participate with the new guidelines being set forth, please DO NOT COME. IF YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THIS IS A GAME AND NO ONE IS OUT TO HURT ONE ANOTHER, WE DO NOT WANT YOU AT THE GAME.
This argument you guys are having has fully run its course. One side says: "450 is the same as 300. We are shooting at each other, and accidents happen" The other says: "phony pony Ill sue!". If you are not capable of controlling yourself on either side of that argument: STAY HOME.
You guys are arguing, and it started several pages ago. If you want to be civil and have a discussion without all the sarcasm and loophole bullshit statements fine, otherwise the thread is going to get dropped.
If anyone has questions has serious questions about their safety or is willing to take legal action from taking an impact from a BB is just another slip and fall hustler at your local grocery store.
We participate in a game that involves projectiles striking a target, sometimes that target is you. There is an assumed risk involved, by entering the game you, the participant, have agreed to the guidelines set forth. If you do not wish to participate with the new guidelines being set forth, please DO NOT COME. IF YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THIS IS A GAME AND NO ONE IS OUT TO HURT ONE ANOTHER, WE DO NOT WANT YOU AT THE GAME.
This argument you guys are having has fully run its course. One side says: "450 is the same as 300. We are shooting at each other, and accidents happen" The other says: "phony pony Ill sue!". If you are not capable of controlling yourself on either side of that argument: STAY HOME.
You guys are arguing, and it started several pages ago. If you want to be civil and have a discussion without all the sarcasm and loophole bullshit statements fine, otherwise the thread is going to get dropped.
"5 color Woodland....it's the new thing."
-
Seagreen - 1337
- Team: AIRSOC
- Posts: 4317
- Age: 50
- Images: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:05 pm
- Location: Portland Or
by DMitri » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:22 am
What the shazaam is the point of certifacation courses if it doesn't increase accountablitiy?
"Okay, now that you know how to use this replica safely, make sure you do so or else...... or else...... shit..... or else what?"
"Okay, now that you know how to use this replica safely, make sure you do so or else...... or else...... shit..... or else what?"
- DMitri
- Banned
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 8012
- Age: 40
- Images: 2
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
by KA-BAR » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:23 am
wow, ninja2dan, dont worry about it.... does anyone even listen to a doof like dimitri anymore...all his posts read to me are "wah wah wah wah wha wha!" BEN , when was the last time you actually played!!all you are is a post count to me...you mod super power tripper all i ever see you do is flame people....
I am not half as good as I want to be, but I am twice as good as you think I am.
-
KA-BAR - 1337
- Team: N/A
- Posts: 6502
- Age: 54
- Images: 3
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:41 am
- Location: portland oregon
by Seagreen » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:24 am
The reason for the cert course is to foster a higher level of safety. The accountability comes from the aspect of: you are dangerous, you lose your option to participate.
If something grossly negligent took place, it would be dealt with accordingly. Whether legal action was necessary or not would remain to be seen.
I knew you guys couldnt have a civil discussion on this matter. Take it to PM's. Im going to lock this thread until we can discuss velocity limits without screaming explictives ever other word.
If something grossly negligent took place, it would be dealt with accordingly. Whether legal action was necessary or not would remain to be seen.
I knew you guys couldnt have a civil discussion on this matter. Take it to PM's. Im going to lock this thread until we can discuss velocity limits without screaming explictives ever other word.
"5 color Woodland....it's the new thing."
-
Seagreen - 1337
- Team: AIRSOC
- Posts: 4317
- Age: 50
- Images: 6
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:05 pm
- Location: Portland Or
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
