Disturbing use of paintball guns

[shartley]

Originally posted by ogre55
This is unfortunate. Apparently the national press has picked it up. The story ran briefly on CNN this morning. Not original reporting mind you, as they used the footage from the local Vegas stary, but nation wide nonetheless.

However, there is a silver lining to this cloud. The disdain of the CNN reporter (talking head) was apparent. Further, the next sequence in the program was apparently the national weather and the weather man chimed in on the story, stating that A) He plays paintball, B) He wheres many layers of clothing to protect himself when playing and C) the lack of face protection was not simply painful, but DANGEROUS.

Ogre

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by shartley

Only time will tell. When it's morons doing stupid stuff without anyone getting hurt, that's one thing. Once a girl loses an eye (or God forbid something worse, like reproductive ability, or who knows what else) then it's an entirly different game.

Plus, it's still very early in the news cycle. If this stays in the news (which I doubt it will, the story really doesn't seem to have legs) then the anti people will come out.

Gee, I can hardly wait to see feminists AND antigun folks on a program both crying about this. Its enough to drive a man to drink....

....liquid C4.

[Albinonewt]

By the way, especially if after someone gets hurt they decide to sue the paintball gun company. Remember, in suits like that the goal isn't to win the suit, it's to make enough noise to scare legislators into regulating our fair sport...

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Only time will tell. When it's morons doing stupid stuff without anyone getting hurt, that's one thing. Once a girl loses an eye (or God forbid something worse, like reproductive ability, or who knows what else) then it's an entirly different game.

Plus, it's still very early in the news cycle. If this stays in the news (which I doubt it will, the story really doesn't seem to have legs) then the anti people will come out.

Gee, I can hardly wait to see feminists AND antigun folks on a program both crying about this. Its enough to drive a man to drink....

....liquid C4.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
By the way, especially if after someone gets hurt they decide to sue the paintball gun company. Remember, in suits like that the goal isn't to win the suit, it's to make enough noise to scare legislators into regulating our fair sport...

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by shartley


You're forgetting a terrific example of how meaningless following the rules are in suits like that. DO you remember a few years ago (it happened near me so I do) when a guy bought shotgun shells, stored the improperly, filled them improperly, and then blew his hand off when he used them in his improperly maintained shotgun? He sued the poweder manufacturer, gun manufacturer, and the shell manufacturer, and WON!

Point is, just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it won't work. Guys like you and me don't sue for this sort of thing, because we know better. The argument is always that these people don't understand the rules, therefor the manufacturer needs to make sure that rule breakers don't get hurt. It asinine, but it's the way it works.



Well, Above I mention why I think it could go far, but more importantly it doesn't have to. All they have to do is get legislators worried and then we are in trouble. Never underestimate the willingness of state and federal legislators to interfere in something they don't understand for "our own good"

Plus, sooner or later one of the girls will HAVE to get hurt. You just can't do that forever without someone getting hurt at some point. From a strict sense of probability it'll have to happen sometime or another.

And I know you're not losing sleep over it. In my humble opinion I think you think about things in a very short sighted manner. There's nothing wrong with it, but I feel its important to think about things in terms of long term affect and probabilities, not simply that because paintball didn't get indicted this morning then everything is ok.

[sbpyro]

Just some idiots not knowing what they can do to other ppl.

Unfortunately this does affect paintball. I'm just basing this from my experience with a paintball club at university (which shall not be named) we had created a video of rec paintball at a field (Friendly Fire) several years back and mixed in some music. After our first showing of the video (as promo for the club's upcoming trip), we were told that our video was promoting violence (go figure). The video had be review and was eventually deemed acceptable. The club draws a lot of heat from some of the other student groups because of "promoting violence and war". I'm sure if those groups got a hold of this debacle of company's video it would be the end of the club.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

And I know you're not losing sleep over it. In my humble opinion I think you think about things in a very short sighted manner. There's nothing wrong with it, but I feel its important to think about things in terms of long term affect and probabilities, not simply that because paintball didn't get indicted this morning then everything is ok.

[Albinonewt]

The difference between the way we look at things basically boils down to one thing. You appear to be willing to play the percentages while I plan based on the consequences of being wrong, not the likelyhood.

In both this and our previous arguement you base all of your assumptions and course of planning around what is likely. In the paintball nexk scenario your course of action was based on the fact that it was substantially more likely to survive the attack then to not survive, and you're right. There is a much better chance of suriving then not (I would say at least 100:1, if not more). And in this case you're take is on the assumption that there is a greater chance of nobody getting hurt, sueing, alerting legislators, and something happening to the sport then of that happening (I think you're right about that, but that the disparity isn't as large as the first scenario). However, the problem with that line of thinking is although you will be right more often then wrong, when you're wrong you're WRONG

I however, plan based on the consequences of what happens when unprepared for the reasonable worest case. In this case the reasonable worest case is likely something along the lines of a large cash settlement by a paintball marker manufacturer and possibly a legislated restriction on paintball gun sales (not the end of the sport or anything, simply an annoyance). As such, I like to anticipate the worest and hope for the best. You appear to anticipate the best. I think it's dangerous to do that, and that's were we differ.

I might be wrong a lot, but when I'm wrong all I did was overplan. When I'm right, I averted a disaster.

[Albinonewt]

Anyways, If I were AGD (or any other paintball manufactuer) I might want to draft a formal letter to the legislators, or possible Attorney General, of Nevada and make my objection known to this unsafe use of my product (or product related to my own). I would state very plainly that that is not what the markers are intended for and that is not the sport of paintball. This puts you firmly on record and clearly states your posistion prior to anything happening at that place that could be a headache in the future.

As for media, I don't really think I would bother. Until something bad happens (or until someone takes this up as a cause, which isn't likely until there's an injury) there's just nothing there that will make national news again.

And then I would sit back and wait for some moron to get hurt, then watch the fireworks.

[ogre55]

Shartley mentioned context and I think it would be helpful to all if we viewed the context in which this activity is being marketed. The context of this is that it is a hook to a brothel. I know it has been mentioned before on this thread, but it seems that the argument currently going in is ignoring this.

Albinonewt, you seem to be taking for more than it is. This is NOT paintball, but rather prostitution. It seems that this place is located in a county in the state of Nevada where prostitution is legal (it is actually not legal in Las Vegas proper). It seems that the proprietors (or pimps) of this particular brothel have added a rather demented twist to an already questionable line of endeavor. But the endeavor has nothing to do with paintball.

Shartley, as you may recall, I am a bit more alarmist than you when it comes to the possible dangers that can stem from these types of stunts, but I agree with you on this one. It is so far out there, that I don't think this will effect the sport in the short, or long term.

Ogre

[Albinonewt]

Orge:

You seem to be missing my points though.

First, that I know they are playing traditional paintball, or frnakly anything that even resembles it. I am fully aware, but it doesn't matter.

Second, I don't think the real danger is to the sport of paintball as much as it is to the people that produce paintball markers. They're the ones that will have to defend themselves against (baseless and insane) allegations when something happens. The sport of paintball may bu "put on trial", but more likely it will just be the paintball markers and their manufacturers that have to deal with it.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
I would state very plainly that that is not what the markers are intended for and that is not the sport of paintball.

I just though I'd repost this, and give Ogre another chance to tell me I don't understand that they aren't playing the sport of paintball.

[Albinonewt]

I thought of a pretty good example that illustrates my point pretty well.

I'm sure you all remember a few years ago when the Columbine shooting happened (and actually whenever kids kill kids with guns in the midwest area) that there was a lot of talk about the "gun culture" and of the dangers of hunters owning guns. The new stories never really attacked the sport of hunting, but it sure did go after the fact that it was because of hunting that they had the guns and knew how to use them, and that there should be more resprections on acquiring huntering guns, because they weren't safe.

Now, there is no way to argue that those kids were practicing the sport of hunting when they killed classmates, yet the sport of hunting (to a lesser extent) and the "culture" of hunting did. This despite the fact none of the kids were actually hunters. IT doesn't matter if you're practicing the sport when something tragic (or in the case of the "Bambis" laughably stupid and kind of tragic) happens.

That's what I'm anticipating. That and really nothing else.

[Spaceman613]

makes ya wonder if the hookers make the guys use condoms?

Afterall, thats what they are.