Gun Range Sued
- Thread starter gunuser
- Start date
I disagree. It's one thing to get our feathers ruffled over real problems, like unemployment or the cancellation of Manimal.
But life's too short to lapse into outrage over something like this. If the range were turning away people based on gender, race, or some other factor, that would be one thing. They're not. They're simply offering a small monetary incentive to one group in order to attract business.
What actually would upset me would be a court finding for the plaintiff.
ScottRiqui
New member
I was going to give you a hard time, but I have to admit that I'm still upset that ABC canceled "Home Front", and that's been almost 20 years ago.
NJgunowner
New member
Let me flip it around on you again.
If they offered "White Guy Wednesday" would that be ok? Every wednesday the white guys get free range time... you know because they don't have enough white guys going to their range. How do you not think that wouldn't be brought to court as discrimination? But hey, we weren't turning the black guys away, we just required them to pay!
Any time you give one class of people, whether by race or gender, special privileges or pricing, it's discrimination. IE wrong. You know, 60 years ago black people weren't refused the right to ride the bus in the south, they just had to sit in the back, so no big deal right? (and yes I went there. It's fairly extreme example but it gets the point across. You can call it anything you like but it is what it is)
NJGunowner said:
I think part of the frustration with a plaintiff pressing for apppication of a rule in this instance is that discrimination is not categorically wrong. We discriminate accordong to SAT scores is college selection, and reputation in deciding where to send children to school. Appropriate discrimination is a necessary part of ordinary life, and we only sense the propriety of intervention by the courts where there is an injustice resulting from the discrimination.
It's tough to put one's finger on the malignant result in a business using incentives to involve women in a hobby to which they might otherwise not be drawn.
NJgunowner
New member
Then you haven't really thought it through. Again I propose, consider what would happen if a business that attracts say 90% black or hispanic people offered discounts to white people to get their business. The backlash would be massive.
It only goes to show how conditioned we've become to look the other way when certain types of discrimination happen to one segment of the population, while crying bloody tears when the exact same thing happens to a different segment. We should be equally upset, not picking and choosing.
SAT scores is a bad example. If you want into the best colleges apply yourself and study to get the scores you need, or the scholarships. You can't however choose the sex you were born with or the color of your skin.
doingMach1
Inactive
Lol! "White Guy Wednesday"! That would definitely cause a stir!
Personally I understand the issue and see the point, but I think this guy is just being a whiney baby! I think it would be great to get more females to go shooting.
The real problem is that the only solution will be that they get rid of the ladies night at the range and us 'men' will still have to pay...but now we don't encourage the women to go. The range is not going to say "hey, you're right...everyone is free on Tuesday now!"
So either way it's a losing situation for us....so that guy suing? He needs to shut up and go to another range!
Personally I understand the issue and see the point, but I think this guy is just being a whiney baby! I think it would be great to get more females to go shooting.
The real problem is that the only solution will be that they get rid of the ladies night at the range and us 'men' will still have to pay...but now we don't encourage the women to go. The range is not going to say "hey, you're right...everyone is free on Tuesday now!"
So either way it's a losing situation for us....so that guy suing? He needs to shut up and go to another range!
NJgunowner
New member
I don't disagree that the lawsuit probably doomed to failure. It's just the culture we have in this country right now. Much like how men get screwed in divorce courts and child custody.
ScottRiqui
New member
Good point - it's one thing to complain because you're actually being discriminated *against*, and another thing entirely when you're just butthurt because you can't stand to see someone else get an occasional "good deal".
I think I know which camp the plaintiff falls into, since even if the range discontinues "Ladies' Night" entirely, it's not going to change his price by a single penny.
NJgunowner said:
If you've thought it through to your own satisfaction, what do you think is the malignant result in a business using incentives to involve women in a hobby to which they might otherwise not be drawn?
NJgunowner said:
Let's think this one through. If a significant component of your intelligence is inherited, it doesn't matter that you would prefer to get a very high score. You will lack the ability.
The point it goes to is that we consider reasonable discrimination, judgments made with reference to traits that matter, entirely acceptable. That may shed light on the issue of why we consider some specific sorts of discrimination unacceptable, but that doesn't appear to be the direct issue involved in this case.
Heck, every day is "White Guy Wednesday" at gun ranges
It could be argued that a policy giving a discount to ladies on one day encourages diversity. Perhaps that's the central question here: where is the line between the two incentive and discrimination?
I can see both sides of this, but the plaintiff is going to have a hard time showing damages, and the plain fact is, many businesses offer "ladies night" types of incentives.
NJgunowner
New member
True, this has nothing to do with an individuals ability... only their gender. I've noticed that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON here has responded to my inquiry as to what would happen if the situation was reversed.
Like I said, our whole lives we've been conditioned to accept certain forms of discrimination. Instead of everyone going along with it, maybe it's time to look at the situation logically instead of going with the status quo.
That's funny, my range never gives me free time. Maybe I'm missing it?
And ya, this guys lawsuit is destined for failure. But it doesn't change that for a country that espouses equality we still offer segments of the population preferential treatment. Doesn't matter what your reasons are, it's the results that matter.
Last edited:
ScottRiqui
New member
I would have no problem with a "White Guy Wednesday", especially if:
a) attracting more white customers would align the racial makeup of his clientele more closely with the racial makeup of his community, and
b) there are sufficient resources such that none of the regular customers are being turned away in order to make room for the "White Guys".
a) attracting more white customers would align the racial makeup of his clientele more closely with the racial makeup of his community, and
b) there are sufficient resources such that none of the regular customers are being turned away in order to make room for the "White Guys".
NJgunowner
New member
I didn't ask what you thought of it, I asked what would happen.
I'll answer for you, you'd have Al Sharpton and every politician and "rights" group lined up in droves to sue you. You'd be lucky not to have the local or state try and shut you down.
I'll answer for you, you'd have Al Sharpton and every politician and "rights" group lined up in droves to sue you. You'd be lucky not to have the local or state try and shut you down.
NJgunowner said:
Rather than suppose that no one else has thought this through, you might examine the differences between a "Ladies night" and a "Whites Only" policy.
My policy preference is that owners be free to set admission criteria, but that isn't public policy. Law and public policy on this point often rest on terms of addressing a prior injustice, and are considered remedial.
What injustice is perpetrated by "Ladies night" that should have a remedy in the law? Or as I asked above,
ScottRiqui
New member
Well of course Sharpton and the rest of the "professional victims" would pitch a fit - I thought that was so obvious that it didn't even warrant discussion. So what's your point?
Considering the trivial crap that sets them off, I'm certainly not going to let their reactions guide my decisions.
sigcurious
New member
What if you just called ladies night white guy weds? Free box o' ammo for the ladies on white guy weds!
Seriously though, I think Tom has pointed out a critical part of this type of thing. There's a difference between discrimination and incentive.
To frame it in NJgunowners terms, though, what if a small business owner send out coupon mailers by zipcode. But only sends them out to a neighboring zipcode with a different racial demographic, in order to attract new and more diverse clients? Is that incentive or discrimination? What about if the small business owner sends coupon mailers to as many nearby zipcodes as they financially can, but not to all the zipcodes that could easily access the business, is that discrimination? What if all those zipcodes nearby are the same racial demographic, and those left out are statistically different? Discrimination?
I think the nuances of this type of situation are too many to lay it out in black and white. Some people will inevitably see discrimination everywhere, that does not make it so, and conversely some people will see non-discrimination everywhere. But in the end I think for a majority, it may be like pornography vs art, you might not be able to define it, but you just know when you've seen it.
Personally I do not think this is a discriminatory practice, where it's range time or cheap beer.
Seriously though, I think Tom has pointed out a critical part of this type of thing. There's a difference between discrimination and incentive.
To frame it in NJgunowners terms, though, what if a small business owner send out coupon mailers by zipcode. But only sends them out to a neighboring zipcode with a different racial demographic, in order to attract new and more diverse clients? Is that incentive or discrimination? What about if the small business owner sends coupon mailers to as many nearby zipcodes as they financially can, but not to all the zipcodes that could easily access the business, is that discrimination? What if all those zipcodes nearby are the same racial demographic, and those left out are statistically different? Discrimination?
I think the nuances of this type of situation are too many to lay it out in black and white. Some people will inevitably see discrimination everywhere, that does not make it so, and conversely some people will see non-discrimination everywhere. But in the end I think for a majority, it may be like pornography vs art, you might not be able to define it, but you just know when you've seen it.
Personally I do not think this is a discriminatory practice, where it's range time or cheap beer.
NJgunowner
New member
Really? This is the best you got?
Let's see, you're a girl so you don't have to pay. Oh wait you're guy give me money.
Reverse it and see what happens. The same people who thinks it's ok to give discounts/free stuff to women would be crying about discrimination.
The simple test is if the situation were reversed, how would people react. If it isn't all right for one group, how on earth can you defend it as being right for another?
If a business is offering incentives to one segment of the population over another intentionally, that's discrimination. Quite frankly, money is money and it's all green. Why should any business owner care what percentage of the population is buying their stuff as long as the money is good? If I'm selling a product, I don't give a damn that out of 1000 items they had 25% of this that or the other... I just want the business. If I want to grow it to 2000 items, why would I care what race or gender bought them?
Either way I'm done with this thread. I'll continue to believe we were all created equal and should be treated as such, you guys can continue to believe it's ok to incentivize one part of the population over another.
Last edited:
NJgunowner said:
I am not sure how "This is the best you got?" is responsive. It is a question raised by your prior writing.
NJgunowner said:
So the malignant result you imgaine is that guys have to pay for range time? Don't they have to anyway?
NJgunowner said:
That test is simple, but not probative. Reacting unreasonably because others react unreasonably isn't an excellent guide to wise policy.
NJgunowner said:
I wouldn't assume that it is right for another. That is why I noted it may shed light on why some discrimination is viewed as reasonable while other sorts aren't.
When I was a lad, afternoon admission to a film was $2 and I was $1. I suppose this was discriminatory and set back the cause of senior equality, but I see no harm to be remedied in it.