TexasCHLforum.com

http://galvestondailynews.com/blog.lass ... 8c2ef13ae0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" Buchan is accusing The Arms Room LLC of failing to assure Buchan sufficient hearing protection during here July 21 visit. Buchan was at the range trying to help an elderly woman buy a handgun for her own protection, according to the report.

An employee at the gun range handed Buchan headphones to cover her ears. According to the report, when Buchan got the the shooting gallery, she "could feel the vibration of each shot ringing through her ears more than the shot before."

According to the report, Buchan complained about the noise to The Arms Room gun attendant at the front counter and left about 10 minutes after entering the range. Buchan, according to the lawsuit, complained of ringing in her ears and sought medical treatment, to no avail. She asserts she has permanent hearing loss"

im sorry but although ive never had any voluntary help or tutorial on safety gear given at any range (seemed common sense ) , i cant help but to be sickened on the lack of responsibility on peoples part to take care of themselves. All you have to do is ask. These lawsuits ruin everything , i hope the arms room can handle this and continue business
also , correct me if im wrong , but i was under the impression that the controls on electronic ear muffs are for frequency , NOT volume ....i know even if my batteries die , i still have protection ..

...our indoor used to require us to watch a video on safety and ear and eye protection our first time there...maybe having folks sign a disclaimer/safety rules sheet would protect them against nonsense like this...

speedsix wrote:maybe having folks sign a disclaimer/safety rules sheet would protect them against nonsense like this.

The Arms Room used to (and probably still does) have them sign a hold harmless agreement prior to entering.
I wonder if this also discusses eyes and ears? I don't remember as the last time I signed one there, probably was over a year ago

They still have the hold harmless agreement.

rcasady wrote:http://galvestondailynews.com/blog.lass ... 8c2ef13ae0

also , correct me if im wrong , but i was under the impression that the controls on electronic ear muffs are for frequency , NOT volume ....i know even if my batteries die , i still have protection ..

I believe the circuitry cuts off the speakers at about 80 decibels and the earmuff provides protection. The speakers, which have volume controls, are for amplifying normal dB level "noise"; basically conversation, they do nothing to suppress noise that I know of. It's doubtful she has permanent hearing loss in 10 minutes exposure even with no protection unless she had a muzzle next to her ear which could physically damage the eardrum. Hearing loss is over a time weighted period and the celia recover after rest, unless they are continually or repeatedly stressed. Feeling vibration is different than hearing. There a myriad factors we don't know. Did she put them on correctly, what is her age, what hearing level did she have before, did she suffer from tinnitus already, what frequency range did she "lose", etc.? I wear ear plugs and electronic ear protection. I think the muffs are about 23 dB reduction and the earplugs about 28-30 but they don't add up to 52-53 dB reduction. It doesn't work that way. If I remember some of the safety stuff I once knew it's probably about 32-35 total reduction. Some IH guys will know.

It's a great indoor range and store. Shot my pistols there and bought two Remington 870 shotguns there as Christmas presents to myself and my US Army officer son. Drove the shotguns out to El Paso where he is stationed and we had a blast at the Ft. Bliss Rod & Gun club. The Arms Room is a really cool place!

well, i just went and shot there and they no longer offer free protection , now you have to buy the foam plugs or provide your own , and i believe they sell eye protection . like i said , these lawsuits just ruin everything . now you cant use the nice $200 + earphones for free .
so if your a new shooter or maybe forgot your gear or dont know the new rules your day at the range just cost you a few more dollars

I recall a few concerts, and a middle school sock hop where my ears rang afterwards.
I wonder how her prior hearing test results turned out, the one she had immediately prior to going shooting, for comparison to show proximate cause.
Wonder if her ipod/itunes/mp3 thingy is as loud as my nieces ...

Foam earplugs are cheap.

RPB wrote:Foam earplugs are cheap.

And used properly, extremely effective.

My electronic earmuffs amplify normal hearing,while suppressing gunshots,a cheaper set shuts off completely with each gun shot,while my Howard Leight set still allows me to hear normal conversation.if the batteries die then they just become like normal muffs that suppress all noise.
People will sue for all kinds of frivolous bull,usually a result of their own fault,but want to pass the blame on to someone or something else.I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere unless she can prove she has hearing loss backed up by auditory records from a hearing sapecialist

It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.

One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.

koolaid wrote:It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.

One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.

Since she is claiming damages of a medical nature, she'll have to get expert testimony (i.e. doctor) as to causation. With my background in medical malpractice defense, I'd love to take that "expert's" deposition!

Chas.

koolaid wrote:It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.

One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.

You're going to have to explain that one. Resonance may increase, but not volume.

puma guy wrote:

koolaid wrote:It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.

One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.

You're going to have to explain that one. Resonance may increase, but not volume.

I don't know why I need to explain it because I think it was fairly obvious what my meaning was. Shooting indoors increases your exposure to hearing damaging levels of sound, thus increasing the likelihood of hearing damage. The increased resonance is what causes this. Ear muffs alone do not provide enough protection from this exposure to prevent hearing damage.

If you want to be pedantic though, you can enjoy this exciting 1975 government paper on air quality and noise considerations for indoor shooting ranges, complete with exciting charts of sound pressure level decay.

koolaid wrote:

puma guy wrote:

koolaid wrote:It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.

One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.

You're going to have to explain that one. Resonance may increase, but not volume.

I don't know why I need to explain it because I think it was fairly obvious what my meaning was. Shooting indoors increases your exposure to hearing damaging levels of sound, thus increasing the likelihood of hearing damage. The increased resonance is what causes this. Ear muffs alone do not provide enough protection from this exposure to prevent hearing damage.

If you want to be pedantic though, you can enjoy this exciting 1975 government paper on air quality and noise considerations for indoor shooting ranges, complete with exciting charts of sound pressure level decay.

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.