This is an issue that doesn't get too much publicity, but the council will re-visit it at a future meeting.
The issue is whether or not to allow these guns to be used other than on private property.
In the Explorer article, two points of view are presented.
Mary Snider thinks it's a "healthy activity."
Bill Garner believes it is dangerous and could lead to even more dangerous pellet or B-B guns.
We agree with Bill. If parents want their kids using these "toys," let it be on their own property. Don't infringe on others and after someone gets hit in the eye, find that the town is liable.
This is just another example of THIS council perhaps thinking they're smarter than the previous council that passed this ordinance.
Read The Explorer article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/09/08/news/doc4c86c6193e2a3244248931.txt
11 comments:
Art, please be sure to quote or paraphrase people correctly. Nowhere in the article did Bill Garner say he "believes it is dangerous." The article states "Councilman Bill Garner was cautious about the proposed change, saying it could impact the use of other more dangerous weapons like pellet or B.B. guns." "Cautious" is not the same as "dangerous."
I do NOT believe "This is just another example of THIS council perhaps thinking they're smarter than the previous council that passed this ordinance." I do believe this is an example of this council listening to the community, examining the concern, and making a smart decision to reexamine the ordinance. (Reexamine does not mean to repeal the ordinance...But maybe this ordinance should be repealed or rewritten!)
By the way, the vote to reexamine this ordinance was unanimous, which means Garner also voted to take a look at this law. Does this mean Garner thinks he is "smarter than the previous council" of which he was a part?
As always, I believe it's important to find out the facts, ask those who know, talk to the police department, etc., rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions.
I loved the gentleman who spoke at the May Council meeting who suggested that golfers be restricted, since their balls damage property. (My paraphrase of his words.)
JayD--- Be sure to read what I wrote. You'll notice I quoted Snider by using "quotes" around her "healthy activity" words.
I did NOT quote Bill or paraphrase Bill. I spoke to Bill and he agrees that this "healthy activity" can be dangerous.
I also determined that this issue is a major concern to the neighbors that have been witness to the use of these pneumatic projectiles.
Perhaps you should check with me BEFORE you comment erroneously.
And for your information, it was Bill Garner who was/is concerned enough about this "healthy activity" to bring it up.
And one last thing:
It was THIS council that saw fit to "deep six" the police management study. God forbid they'd find out we have too many cops with too little to do!
Art, I absolutely did read what you wrote...Maybe the way you wrote it was unclear. You wrote, "In the Explorer article, two points of view are presented." So as the reader, I expected you to state two points of view...You did quote Councilmember Snider, using quotation marks. Then you comment on Bill Garner's feelings regarding the airsoft guns. You did not write that you spoke with Garner. Your comment regarding Garner's stand on airsoft guns seemed to imply that this is what you found in the article.
Perhaps, you should check with me BEFORE you comment erroneously regarding my comments. (See, again this is where this blog becomes disrespectful. I did NOT comment erroneously. I wrote based on my interpretation of what you printed. Nothing about my comments were erroneous.)
I'm not going to discuss the OVPD on this thread, since I know it would not be part of the rules, specifically Rule #2, "Stay on topic." But let me just say that you continue to be angry about this council. Are you angry with Garner that he voted to take another look at the airsoft gun ordinance? Why are you only angry with the new council members? Remember, this was a unanimous vote.
Art, I read the ordinance as it's written and it seems to make sense. If you want to do something (or allow your children to do something) that can potentially injure someone, keep it on your own property.
There is a good article here about Airsoft guns:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/308040116/Airsoft-guns-rising-in-popularity-raise-safety-concerns
Also, there are some pretty graphic videos and photos of injuries, especially to teeth! Good for dentists' bottom line; bad news for parents and children.
I hope that the council will vote in the interest of public safety, and not for the interests of a small group.
There are plenty more healthy activities out there.
Thanks "Mom." For those readers that don't wish to link to the article you referenced, here are the first two paragraphs.
I think, it says enough so this council will not go out of its way to look for trouble.
"Airsoft guns, those realistic-looking guns that fire plastic BBs at speeds up to 400 feet per second, are causing an increasing number of eye injuries, chipped teeth and other injuries as they grow in popularity with young adults, according to health and other officials."
"They are truly weapons and cause serious injury” if proper safety precautions are not taken, said Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the national Consumer Product Safety Commission."
I hope the blog readers have an understanding of the censorship that exists on this forum. The motto of the "LOVE" blog is: "Giving you, the Oro Valley resident, an opportunity to discuss what we can do to "LET ORO VALLEY EXCEL". I guess this does not refer to all Oro Valley residents, only those who generally agree with Art or those who do not point out inconsistencies in his comments.
Yesterday, I wrote a response to you Art, but it's not the first time you have seen fit not to print it. Your choice...but at the same time, it's important for people to understand the slanted nature of the blog. Readers should wonder how many comments do not get posted.
Jay-- You may well have written a response, but I can assure you I never saw your response, and certainly did not delete your response.
As you know, it was primarily cox (OVOT) that led us to go to monitored comments. We did it once, rescinded it, and went back to it because he would not abide by our simple rule that we enunciated quite clearly.
As blogmasters, Zeeman & I decide what is appropriate, and what is not.
You should be well aware your comments are almost always posted, although it it quite rare that we agree with anything you have to say.
If we wanted to censure you, you can be sure this last comment would have not been posted.
As to how many comments are deleted, now that cox is gone, I believe the answer was "one" in the last two months.
Whatever became of our old friend OVOT?
Has he retired from the blog o sphere?
I miss his wacky comments.
NW
As long as you asked, inasmuch as we will not post any personal attack comments, cox obviously has nothing to say.
Art, you complain about the OVPD and I say THANK YOU: http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/09/09/news/doc4c8924c38702b893205359.txt
By the way...On more than one occasion (including just recently), you have not posted one of my comments.
Your comment, "...we will not post any personal attack comments..." made me laugh.
I miss OVOT's comments...The blog needs some diversity.
Hello all,
I must say, as a "veteran" of use of airsoft guns, that I agree with both sides. Yes, this is a healthy activity, as it involves a ton of running, and usually, since this is Arizona, a ton of perspiration. I was in great shape when I played airsoft competitively. However, I also know that safety is a major issue. I have been shot in the eye before, and I must say, it is not a good feeling. It is the kids who run around shooting eachother without protection who get injured. Living in a well-populated area, I haven't been hindered with kids playing in my yard, but I can't speak for everyone. Competitive play has much more organization than regular play in the back yard. I know, from experience, that groups who support competitive play, such as Disruptive Paintball, and Tucson Airsoft Coalition have very strict rules regarding safety. Perhaps education for the kids may be the best thing.
Post a Comment