Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


koolaid
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:24 pm

Re: Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

#16

Post by koolaid »

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Your attitude isn't appreciated.

The source you cite doesn't support your claims. Look at pages 16 - 17 where it recommends the use of ear muffs, or even ear plugs, in indoor shooting ranges. See also page 15 and the discussion of the danger of noise levels in the 138 to 140db, not the 82db range you experience with electric ear muffs. Noise measurement in db levels is not linear; it's logarithmic so the difference between 82db and 138db isn't a difference of 168%, it far far greater.

Show me the medical proof of that a person wearing electronic ear muffs can suffer permanent hearing loss from a 10 minute exposure to gunfire in an indoor shooting range. That's what it will take for the plaintiff to win this case. Your 37 year old paper doesn't support your argument.

Chas.
If you look at my original post you will see that I said hearing damage was possible in ten minutes if she had her muffs seated incorrectly, which is quite possible if she was wearing badly fitting shooting glasses, has long hair, or any number of other reasons.

I don't support this lawsuit in any way, and I was never making the argument you are implying I was making.

In regards to hearing loss at indoor shooting ranges while correctly wearing electronic muffs, it is still a real problem, though probably not in a ten minute time span. Noise levels from firing at ranges can hit 140db. The best electronic muffs will provide ~29db of noise reduction. Most are less than that. That leaves you well over the 85db recommended level. Hearing loss is cumulative, and over 85db, the louder it is, the less time it takes.

edit: sorry for being snippy earlier.
01/02/2010 - Plastic

yerasimos
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:02 pm

Re: Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

#17

Post by yerasimos »

MoJo wrote:
RPB wrote:Foam earplugs are cheap.
And used properly, extremely effective.
:iagree:

As I see it, muffs alone give a false sense of protection, as they might not fit the user properly, as koolaid alluded to. I believe The Arms Room is doing the right thing, for protecting both their business and their customers, by mandating the foam earplugs, and I believe other shooting facilities would be wise to do the same.

One thing I have observed in instructional settings (I am not an instructor) is people are quick to remove earmuffs to listen to the instructor or while reloading magazines or while otherwise not shooting, but may not always be mindful enough to put them back on when shooting resumes (or an instructor/range officer may forget to call out for eye and ear protection). I specifically recall one instance where an inexperienced shooter standing next to me on a shooting line forgot her earmuffs after reloading magazines, then panicked at the blast when shooting restarted and ran away from the line to retrieve the earmuffs. I am unsure whether this individual had the presence of mind to reholster her loaded handgun before running off, but I tend to assume the negative on this.

I use both foam earplugs and electronic muffs while shooting, and these do not come off until the shooting is over or I have left the range; the same goes for my googles and ballcap. Sometimes I experience slight discomfort with the earplugs, depending on brand, but I am willing to tolerate it to better protect my hearing and overall sense of comfort.
User avatar

mjoplin
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

#18

Post by mjoplin »

Not withstanding that 37 years ago, "smart" headsets didn't exist that are powered by a digital signal processor (or dedicated noise processor circuit) that can turn on protection against loud sounds, reacting in thousandth's of a second... The only thing the volume control does on the units is help to facilitate normal conversation in between "booms"
NRA Life Member
I'm environmentally conscious, I only use recycled ammo courtesy of my Dillon 550
This message was created using only recycled electrons
User avatar

x007x
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:58 pm
Location: Houston-Tx

Re: Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

#19

Post by x007x »

The Arms Rooms is still going strong IMO. People would mis handle the electric earmuffs, so they eneded up coming apart. Also, IMO if you shoot and it sounds really funny, or wrong to you; Go tell them and work it out instead of running to a lawyer.
-CHL-
-NRA-

OrangeAnimal
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Lawsuit takes aim at The Arms Room

#20

Post by OrangeAnimal »

I can say that if you are on the rifle side of the range there you should double the protection. Not saying its going to ruin your hearing if you don't but its a good idea. I had a guy two booths down with some are variant I am going to assume it was a. 308 it was loud! I have fired many rifles and handguns there and this thing was attrocious his brass would fly across and hit the way about 8 feet up it. I think he needs adjustable gas piston on that thing lol.

Otherwise I love going there the people for the most part are friendly its clean and well maintained. Sux I am moving I will miss going there. Hopefully in 4 years when the wife's tour in new Orleans is over it will still be as nice.

Sueing over stuff like this is just as bad as going to McDonald's then spilling coffee on yourself expecting not to get burned. That case still is the benchmark for all cases similar in nature it disgusts me.
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”