How close to criminal negligence are we

[REDRT]

That's a cheap and pathetic excuse to avoid responsibility.

People want cheap infant formula. Does that mean that those is China who sold counterfeit formula that killed babies aren't responsible? After all they only "gave the product the consumers wanted".

And if you look past your Liberal hatred, even gun companies need to be put on some kind of leash if they won't regulate themselves.

Some cases may be overboard, but doesn't even a gun company cross the line when their advertising underlines that their grips don't keep fingerprints or if they sell unusually high numbers of weapons to questionable individuals near jurisdictions with restrictions (or close to a border)?

I've also had the "comapnies only give consumers what they want" argument in antoehr thread that got erased. While partially true, companies create the image and spend fortunes on advertising. Or do you believe the cigarette manufacturers crap that advertising is only for market share and not to create demand?

Grips that don't leave prints? Kind of over board right there. LOL
Most of are Gun manufactuers have been building firearms for over a centry. There products have aided in our independance, protecting are soil at home and abroad, put food on the table and countless other good things. A portain of the money that is collected in taxes aid in protecting our natural resources. These people have done nothing to you or I to warrent such hate to bring down the whole show. The people that use such a tool in criminal ways are to blame.
Getting back to paintball we need to find a way to not step on everybodies toes. What if your underestimating the safety gear? What if safety gear took the next big leap? Maybe we be better off instead if trying to eliminate something, try and get something better on the safety end to guard against potential mishaps the haven't happened yet.

[Lohman446]

Getting back to paintball we need to find a way to not step on everybodies toes. What if your underestimating the safety gear? What if safety gear took the next big leap? Maybe we be better off instead if trying to eliminate something, try and get something better on the safety end to guard against potential mishaps the haven't happened yet.

My point at this point our apathy to either better control or better safety leaves us in an area that I beleive is negligent - I beleive that something must be done - better safety gear may be the answer. But if it is then I would like to see the ATSM update there standards, so that we are in compliance with there suggestions and not left without a defense should it ever come to a case in criminal court.

[REDRT]

So if we were to follow your logic, someone has to die first before it justifies taking action?

Apparently, after reading enough of the responses to your post that regardless of how reasonable and logical the argument against your position, you just will not waver. I'm already am at a loss for words. Good luck and godspeed.

I don't have pointed ears and my name isn't Spock. I'm unwavering because we don't have a problem as of yet. The potential of a problem is possable I agree. Your ideas of solving said problem is unsettling. There is other ways than taking away stuff. Limiting what we can and can't have. The shackles of society.

[Lohman446]

I don't have pointed ears and my name isn't Spock. I'm unwavering because we don't have a problem as of yet. The potential of a problem is possable I agree. Your ideas of solving said problem is unsettling. There is other ways than taking away stuff. Limiting what we can and can't have. The shackles of society.

I have not heard a lot of ideas on fixing them - I have heard a lot of comments about either updating ATSM standards OR complying with them. Self-policing of oursevles in some effective way - so that we are not on the wrong side of negligence.

[manike]

The ASTM is updating standards, and often the ASTM standards still hold up to developments in equipment. Sometimes they do not, and in such cases are being updated.

[PBX Ronin 23]

I don't have pointed ears and my name isn't Spock. I'm unwavering because we don't have a problem as of yet. The potential of a problem is possable I agree. Your ideas of solving said problem is unsettling. There is other ways than taking away stuff. Limiting what we can and can't have. The shackles of society.

To comply with the findings of an independent body that sets minimum safety standards is unsettling to you?

Which one do you think is more unsettling, the industry voluntarily complying to ASTM standards or falling within the province of the ATF (or some other governmental agency). It shouldn't be so bad picking up a case of paint, getting a fill and buying a new gun once they start federally mandating licenses to acquire these things..right?

[AGD]

Changing ASTM Rules

We were warned early on by people outside our industry that using the ASTM to created certain types of industry regulations was not a good idea. That's because once voted on, ASTM rules are very hard to change because they are based on safety.

It was recomended that we have an industry association publish guidelines so they could be updated and changed regularly. This makes a lot of sense but of course there have been many attempts to bring an association together but they all failed. I will leave it to your imagination to figure out why.

In order to logically change an ASTM rule you would have to show substantial changes in the safety margins in order to open up previously voted on rules. If the velocity had gone down, the distances gotten larger or the rate of fire dropped, then it could be reasonable to change old rules. If whole head protection was mandated or padding required this would also help.

As you can see none of the above have changed and in fact most have gotten worse. I highly doubt any lawyer would advise you that its ok to relax the rules at this point.

AGD

[SlartyBartFast]

Your ideas of solving said problem is unsettling. There is other ways than taking away stuff. Limiting what we can and can't have. The shackles of society.

Which ideas are unsettling?

I'm afraid you come across as some gun nut who doesn't listen to a word anyone says and only equates every comment about control or making people responsible as the beginning of the "slippery slope" to taking your beloved guns away.

A the idea of "the shackles of society" are those rules that keep everybody free of the tyranny of the few rich and powerful or the tyranny of the majority.

The "shackle" of infringing on your right to use your land as you see fit by forbidding you from opening a toxic waste dump protects the freedom of your neighbours to use their land as they see fit.

Or, I suppose that you think the "shackle" of speed limits should be removed? That drivers should be able to do 100mph in front of your home or your children's school?

What I fund unsettling is your apparent attitude that although you see the possibility of disaster you couldn't care less whether some teenager gets his head blown of by a wrongly filled tank or other mishap outside their control.

So, you believe in and support training. How do you think such training should be made mandatory? What punishment/penalty is ther for not taking the training?

[Lohman446]

I have posted the earlier Michigan law for you all to see that defines a paintball marker as a firearm. Now I started this thread on a probably basis - this is also from the Friearms Laws of Michigan - Statutes book

Chapter XLV

750.329 Death: firearm pointed unitentionally, but without malice.
Sec 329. Death from wound, etc. from firearm pointed intentionally, but without malice - any person who shall wound, maim, or injure any other person by the discharge of any firearm, pointed or aimed, intentionally but without malice, at any such person, shall, if death ensue from such wounding, maiming, or injury, be deemed guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

With that known, in the State of Michigan, with those two legal definitions - if someone is killed in a paintball tragedy, it sems someone is going to jail.

PS... I will start another thread later on the laws that I can see pertaining to MI as I get more time to look through this book.

Now... say there is a minor that does this - or someone else prohibitied from owning a firearm. Whoever he got the marker from, and likely the ammunition for that marker are going to have serious issues.

[REDRT]

I have not heard a lot of ideas on fixing them - I have heard a lot of comments about either updating ATSM standards OR complying with them. Self-policing of oursevles in some effective way - so that we are not on the wrong side of negligence.

That is a major problem. No one is fixing anything. I don't know all about these rules and governing bodies. I only know with out a doubt of what I like and am willing to protect it. BPS caps might not be a bad idea. Just the argument of where they should be is the thing. Ramping, bouncing, full auto is the biggest debate. Everyone seems to have an opinion, but no athority. I personally don't see anything wrong with them, but there has to be some set guildlines in using them. That is where it starts. Finally enforcement of what ever rule is set forth. I'm no one special. Just a guy that is for not jumping backwords. Also I'm not stupid in beleiving there isn't dangers in the horizon. Looking for a solution to retain and contain the sport is need to protect it from itself, but without the draw backs of ending the advancement.

[REDRT]

I have posted the earlier Michigan law for you all to see that defines a paintball marker as a firearm. Now I started this thread on a probably basis - this is also from the Friearms Laws of Michigan - Statutes book

Chapter XLV

750.329 Death: firearm pointed unitentionally, but without malice.
Sec 329. Death from wound, etc. from firearm pointed intentionally, but without malice - any person who shall wound, maim, or injure any other person by the discharge of any firearm, pointed or aimed, intentionally but without malice, at any such person, shall, if death ensue from such wounding, maiming, or injury, be deemed guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

With that known, in the State of Michigan, with those two legal definitions - if someone is killed in a paintball tragedy, it sems someone is going to jail.

PS... I will start another thread later on the laws that I can see pertaining to MI as I get more time to look through this book.

Now... say there is a minor that does this - or someone else prohibitied from owning a firearm. Whoever he got the marker from, and likely the ammunition for that marker are going to have serious issues.

You do that. I'll see what Wisconsin reads

[hitech]

They took everything he had and threw him in jail. This was because he knowingly violated industry standards that jeopardized the lives of his employees.

Like I said in the other thread, willful disregard can be considered intent. Individual players are probably okay, as they can't disregard what they don't know. However, manufacturers do know. And they could be charged criminally. Like I suggested in the other thread, I'll bet they expect the corporation to "protect" them. Declare bankruptcy and move on. Tom's story shows that it doesn't always happen that way...

[hitech]

...The death wasn't caused by playing paintball or the impacts. It could have happened at any time, apparently even if he had swung his head in reply to someone calling his name.

There was NO sign of a head injury caused by the paintball impacts.

This time. However, it does illustrate the point. What if he hadn't been previously diagnosed with a problem? What if the aneurysm was close to the surface? What if he had been hit 10 times with a ramping marker?

That might be a lot of what ifs, but it isn't far fetched. If someone is seriously injured or killed and a non-ASTM marker was involved it may not matter whether it caused the injury or not.

[hitech]

Ok wise guys. Yet another example. Speed limit interstate is 65/75 depending on the location. Most every car out there can do 100. Most sports cars can do 140+ There is many more killed or hurt every day driving than most likely in the lifetime of paintball. So by targeting paintball do you want to limit cars to? You're talking about criminal negligence. So to infer what you are saying is that the automaker are even bigger offenders.

If there was an ASTM standard that stated a car must not be capable of exceeding 75 mph you can bet the manufactures would be held criminally liable. Possibly even personally so.

[REDRT]

You guys floor me. I think of you all as brain matter floating in a liquid filled glass dome with mechanical arms typing away.