If there is a question about the contents of the waiver, then perhaps a waiver signed by someone else around the same period will answer any questions.
Blown away by the wind? The range being in Arizona, I fully expected them to claim that the forms were stolen by an illegal immigrant who sneaked over the border for free health care and ISIS indoctrination.
“Sole reason, gun owners, c. 1970, outside of LE?” 10%
“Big reason, gunnuts, c. 2014, outside of LE?” 100%+
Apparently safety glasses weren’t enough for that 7 year old child, who was struck in the chest.
Claims about responsible gun ownership crack me up. It seems to me that responsible people shoot bullets into things like sandbags, not hard objects that can fling the firepower right back at them. Remember folks, gun owners have no interest in a scientific investigation of gun safety, backed by data collection and reporting requirements.
But… but… but… FOUR RULES!!!
Well I disavow actual knowledge, but it’s really not that hard. A range that lets 9 year olds gun down their employees with Uzis and lets releases blow away in the wind is a range that doesn’t have proper procedures in place. And once you admit that reality, the possibility that the waivers in fact were never signed becomes something to consider. Civil liability represents a motive for false claims that the forms were whisked away by mother nature.
The guy who should have ensured the papers were signed is somewhat beyond the arm of the law, no? And the parents were present, so it’s not like the girl may have showed up without a permission slip.
And note that I’m not saying it can’t be a case of shredding evidence, I’m contesting the “It’s obviously a case of shredding evidence, and you’re an idiot for suggesting the papers were really lost by accident”-claim.
So you think that 100% of people who own guns for self defense are only concerned about other people with guns?
Is this because, without guns, no one is willing to attack another person and hence all violent crime is solved, or because every single person who owns a gun is such a ninja badass that they’re impervious to attack from people who are stronger than them, people who have the element of surprise, multiple attackers, people with melee weapons, etc.?
Right, because with 80 million people in the US owning guns, and many other people having access to guns, a single freak story here and there prove that there’s no responsible gun ownership.
A single freak accident here and there… yeah, that’s all we see. Single freak accidents.
Well not single, of course. About 600 a year, although some not insignificant fraction of those are of the “he was cleaning his gun when it went off” suicide masking sort. But 600 a year when half the country of 320 million people has access to guns is a fairly small number. About half a percent of accidental deaths. Trending down despite greater gun ownership.
Now you’re changing the discussion to deaths?
http://teespring.com/patriotgunprayer
From the gun nuts in my Facebook feed. This is their mentality.
Not civil law, no. And permission is an entirely different concept than an agreement not to sue, etc. IANAL, and I’d have to review their standard paperwork to evaluate what they might want to elide.
Ok, but papers blowing in the wind sounds like an odd coincidence.
Among 2014 gunnuts outside of LE, concerns about others with guns is a big reason.
I can’t speculate regarding the ravings of lunatics. I’m not familiar with the Timecube theory either.
Responsible gun owners would support empirical and neuro-typical investigation into best gun safety practices as well as pro-consumer investigation into safer firearm design.
Surely that’s just meant to be a joke…right? Right? 
This is just stupid. Do you think a 5 foot, 100 pound woman who owns and trains with her gun is thinking “I could easily beat up a rapist twice my size, but I need to have a gun in case I get attacked by another person with a gun”?
And that anyone who owns guns feels that they’re impervious to physical attack from those who are bigger than them, better fighters than them, get the drop on them (all of which is obviously very likely in evaluating a criminal threat), those who have non-gun weapons, etc? That the only reason they want a gun for self defense is purely because they fear other attackers with guns? 100%+ is what you said.
No, that’s just idiotic. That’s not “regarding the ravings of lunatics” - and to be clear, you feel that anyone who owns a gun for self defense is a lunatic, from old vets with a garand in their closet to women who live in bad neighborhoods, to, well, tens of millions of people in all sorts of circumstances. A reasonable person would feel that a tool that’s at hand, that’s very threatning and potentially lethal, that they’ve trained to use, is useful in any sort of self defense scenario, not just those against people with guns.
The sole reason the straw man of “I need guns to protect myself against people with guns” exists is that you can say “HERP DERP IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL THERE’D BE NO ONE WITH GUNS FOR YOU TO WORRY ABOUT! HOW STUPID!” as if all threats would suddenly dissapear and we’d live in a world without violence.
A certain subsection of our great nation’s paranoid lunatics obsess over ninja badasses, attacks from mixed martial artists who are stronger than them, pirates with the element of surprise, multiple attackers, people with melee weapons and other overheated hyperventilated ravings. Normal people just get on with their life; smart people apply sober minded risk assessment. Example: as a general guideline it’s better not to hand machine guns to nine year olds or pink rifles to toddlers.
Gunnuts believe that if facing a stronger enemy without their bangstick, their only recourse would be to curl up into the fetal position and wish they had their gun. Normal people disagree. Fact is most Americans don’t own guns and those that do suffer higher gun deaths than the remainder. Sure, firearms can be useful tools in the proper hands and with the proper mindset. But given their documented bizarre beliefs about black helicopters and US history it’s difficult to believe that the typical gunnut should be trusted with a dull butter knife, never mind an arsenal of ordnance.
When the official position of the NRA, as stated by the organization’s executive VP, is “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” we’re not talking about a strawman. You live on the Moon or something? “I need guns to protect myself against people with guns” is actually only moderately gun-nutty. “I need guns to overthrow the government if it infringes my freedom (by trying to take away my guns)” is a sign that you’re dealing with someone further along the path to bullet nirvana.
Oh for fucks sake, do you guys even think before you post? “Bad guy with a gun” is within the spectrum of threats you might want to prepare yourself to defend against. But that does not mean it’s the primary or sole reason, nor that banning guns would preclude a scenario in which a bad guy had a gun, nor does it preclude many more situations in which someone can have a physical advantage of you if you were intent on harming you in which they did not have a gun.
I’m specifically addressing the retarded straw man “you only want a gun to protect yourself against other people with guns, therefore, if you allowed us to take guns from everyone, you’d have nothing to protect yourself from.” Your point doesn’t support a position that contradicts mine or supports this notion.
(Emphasis added.)
You keep using that phrase.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Before you forget about this, rather than there being the single freak accident once in a while, there were 17,462 nonfatal firearm injuries in 2012.
That doesn’t even include the times where there are no injuries, like when some gun nut drops his gun in church and it discharges without hitting someone. Or where someone experiences the “home invasion” of a random bullet being fired into their home (without hitting someone).
GunFail blog at Daily Kos has collected news stories of these sorts of things - about 50 per week every week.
Sorry, Beef, I didn’t realize that you were only addressing that minuscule point. Who holds that position and how do you know why they hold it? If you asked him, I’ll accept your testimony on this trivial bullshit.
Arguing against the position “I need guns to protect myself from people with guns” is a straw position. No one who wants to keep guns for self defense feels that their only potential threat is another person with a gun.