View Single Post
  #25  
Old 02-09-2021, 10:20 AM
ceresco ceresco is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,993
Default

I am firmly in the camp that allows individuals to do as they choose. The only principle that the eye (ear) protection issue brings up is "public burden" ie: the public should not be burdened by an individual's irresponsible act. This is real in the area of seat belts and motorcycle helmets due to the astronomical costs associated with brain and spinal injuries. It is not real in the area of statistically insignificant eye injuries possibly occurring at CMP events. I suspect this is the same old "our lawyers said" argument which seems to affect many of the things we do. I do wonder what would happen if, as the targets come up at CP, everyone held their classes up and no one fired a shot..... Good Shooting. ... BTW--if this rule change is "good", just what has been so "bad" for the last hundred years?? Must be we are "woke" now....
Reply With Quote