Precision Gun Range neighbors think they are in the line of fire

[churchmouse]

I could make a pretty good argument for strict liability for damage caused by bullets that leave a range. That means no proof of negligence is necessary.

While there is always the possibility that a bullet could leave a range (anything is possible), the homeowners should not have to accept that as the norm. If these bullets are from the range, the range either needs to fix it or shut down.

Agreed

 

[bb37]

You would appear to assume that rounds are going to escape from time to time.

Yes, I assume that rounds might escape even the best designed and best operated shooting range from time to time. Stuff happens. As a result of that assumption, I would probably not build a house near an existing shooting range. A question that I asked earlier and haven't seen answered is which came first? The houses or the range?

I would assume that a range operated for commercial purposes would have taken proper precautions to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

I agree that that's a valid assumption to make. Still, stuff happens.

While there is always the possibility that a bullet could leave a range (anything is possible), the homeowners should not have to accept that as the norm.

In a case like this, how do you define "the norm"? Is the norm equivalent to "never"? Or, is the norm equivalent to some number of rounds per month or per year? It's stating the obvious, but it only takes one round to have lethal effect.

If these bullets are from the range, the range either needs to fix it or shut down.

Per the referenced news story, the range doesn't believe the rounds came from their range. Nonetheless, they have shut down the range pending an investigation.

 

[HoughMade]

Never as in a bullet should never leave the range. If one does and it causes damage, the range should be liable regardless of why the bullet left the range or who built what first.

Bullets leaving the range and encroaching on someone's property are a violation of the homeowners' property rights. The range does not own these homes and has no right to allow this even if they were there first. If that's the position the range wants to take, they had better buy up all of the real estate beyond the berm for the maximum range (not effective range) for the longest travelling round they allow.

If you want to talk about maybe the homeowners shouldn't have built there or should have taken the range into account, fine, that is a way the issue could have been avoided, but that does not make them the least bit at fault. The analogy is not to the noise of an airport, it's to an airplane crashing into the house...the risk of which, the homeowners did not assume when living on a flight path.

 

[Dewidmt]

So by that reasoning...the airport is liable for the plane falling out of the sky? Hmmm...makes me wonder why there aren't a lot fewer airports after all the lawsuits.

The person firing the bullet is liable. Not the range that was there before the house was built. But today's society thinks other than me, to be sure. We live in a world with NO personal responsibility for one's actions anymore.

Indiucky, if I go outside and walk 10 minutes North, I'd be hip deep in the Muscatatuck. I have never heard of the coonhunters ghost. Perhaps a link to the story? Or PM me with the info? Sounds fascinating and I've always enjoyed the supernatural.

 

[indiucky]

Indiucky, if I go outside and walk 10 minutes North, I'd be hip deep in the Muscatatuck. I have never heard of the coonhunters ghost. Perhaps a link to the story? Or PM me with the info? Sounds fascinating and I've always enjoyed the supernatural.

I posted the incident on INGO here a couple of years ago when an INGOer was collecting such stories for a magazine article..Every year since my buddy and I repeat the story back to each other so we stay true to how it happened....I'll find the link...

Post 6...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...87915-looking-paranormal-hunting-stories.html

 

[Cameramonkey]

So by that reasoning...the airport is liable for the plane falling out of the sky? Hmmm...makes me wonder why there aren't a lot fewer airports after all the lawsuits.

The person firing the bullet is liable. Not the range that was there before the house was built. But today's society thinks other than me, to be sure. We live in a world with NO personal responsibility for one's actions anymore.

Indiucky, if I go outside and walk 10 minutes North, I'd be hip deep in the Muscatatuck. I have never heard of the coonhunters ghost. Perhaps a link to the story? Or PM me with the info? Sounds fascinating and I've always enjoyed the supernatural.

no but the airline is. And if the airport built a crap airport with a substandard runway at the absolute minimum size that contributed to the takeoff/landing accident, you bet they get sued.

And are are you trying to say that ALL stray bullets are the result of mechanical failures and never on bad shooters?

If the facility is substandard for proper safety, I could see them being liable if a reasonable jury thinks the berm wasn't adequate.

 

[HoughMade]

The range is in charge of safety...at the range. Hard concept. I know.

 

[bb37]

If you want to talk about maybe the homeowners shouldn't have built there or should have taken the range into account, fine, that is a way the issue could have been avoided, but that does not make them the least bit at fault.

I agree that rounds should not be leaving the range. In this case, was the range first or the houses first? I haven't seen an answer to that yet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gosh, it's just sooo nice to be insulted multiple times by the great and all powerful Kirk Freeman. Also insinuating that I'm part of a Muslim brotherhood. Sounds as if someone is just as opinionated as I but can get by with it as long as they have thousands of posts!

I am greatly humbled by your obvious expert analysis of all things gun related Kirk! You are a legend in your own mind!

1. Get off your high horse, no one is insulting you or anyone else.

2. Inshallah means "if God wills". It is used by Arabic speaking peoples of many religions (Muslim, Christian, etc.) as "not giving a solid f**k about where my bullets go".

There is too much Inshallah in the gun culture, e.g. "I don't care" will destroy your rights as you either control your bullets or someone else will.

If you object to Arabic, you can use the Spanish "ojala" (roughly "hopefully") which is derived from Inshallah from the Umayyad conquest.

I use Inshallah as it is an excellent word to convey "I don't give a flying flip about what happens" that is difficult to encapsulate in English in a single word.

I find Arabic fascinating. We have Arabic speakers here at INGO. You can ask them about Inshallah. This word is not exclusive to the "Muslim Brotherhood" or any other group.

3. If not wanting to see the innocent hurt is opinionated, then I am opinionated.

4, I am no expert but I know the duty is on the range to fix their problem. Fix the problem or don't shoot.

EDIT: I know I **** off the snowflakes who don't like being told that they are or could be unsafe. Too bad. Guns drill holes in flesh and blood and you don't get to take bullets back because you are really, really sorry. We need to acknowledge that we (me included) can do a better job of safety and resolve to do better.

 

[bb37]

I posted the incident on INGO here a couple of years ago when an INGOer was collecting such stories for a magazine article..Every year since my buddy and I repeat the story back to each other so we stay true to how it happened....I'll find the link...

I Googled "muscatatuck coonhunters ghost" and found this: Ghost Stories: Two Tales of Haunted Hoosier Hunting

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"stop the Inshallah Derphad of the gun culture". With this comment, he paints all of us in a negative light. And no, I have no dog in the PGR fight.

But I assume (maybe incorrectly) that neither Kirk nor Cameramonkey have any financial interest in PGR either, yet their comments hold greater sway than mine?

No, I am painting the derp of the gun culture in a negative light. Sloppy, unsafe gun handling impacts us all, on the range and off. And all of us see plenty.

I get to object to the stupidity of people handling deadly weapons. If we as a culture do not control our own, someone else will control us.

We, as a collective, a culture, better start caring about what happens when we shoot or there will be no shooting.

"I don't care" is the response of a 14 year old boy, not a responsible gun owner. So, let's stop it, and fix it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I agree that rounds should not be leaving the range. In this case, was the range first or the houses first? I haven't seen an answer to that yet.

Irrelevant. Rounds appear to be leaving thier allowed AO, therefore it doesn't matter.

 

[churchmouse]

Again....how are they getting over the berm. There has to be a problem with the shooters at the line. What are these people shooting at.

 

[target64]

Clay pigeons

 

[churchmouse]

Clay pigeons

Yowza

 

[BGDave]

Clay pigeons

Actually laughed out loud. Scared the cat.

 

[rugertoter]

Agree to disagree. When shooting we are responsible for knowing what is beyond the target. If circumstances change (IE someone builds a house), we have to change. Someone built a house on dirt they owned. I dont see them as being a moron, or in the wrong.

Hypothetically, if I'm hunting the edge of my property, and a deer walks out between me and the neighbors, but the farmer happens to be working his field, can I say "that idiot shouldnt be in his field, I'm shooting anyways?" NO, I have to wait on the deer to move, or wait until next time.

Noise is a different than safety. I had a neighbor who complained about my shooting, and the noise. I told him he should move to town.

Guess eventually, we will run out of room and all the ranges will close?

 

[CHCRandy]

How high would you have to aim to get a bullet to hit a house at 1100 yards? I guessed about 40-50 feet above the target.......any ideas?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How high would you have to aim to get a bullet to hit a house at 1100 yards? I guessed about 40-50 feet above the target.......any ideas?

Depending on angle 2, maybe 3 degrees.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/02/5-degrees-of-doom-the-danger-of-over-shooting-the-berm/

Over-Shooting the Berm ? When a Mere 5 Degrees Can Be Deadly « Daily Bulletin

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Again....how are they getting over the berm. There has to be a problem with the shooters at the line. What are these people shooting at.

The target, but their rifles are not zero'd, they are John Wayning the shot, they are tongue waggers, inter alia.

Depending on the angle of the shot, degree of deviation, BC, etc it does not have to be off by much.