Eye Protection At Nerf Wars?

You've got a point Khail. The whole paranoia here is because 'it shoots a projectile' which for some reason makes the public scared, They would be more scared if that 'something' will hurt them. Golf is a ball sport, whereas nerf guns is a 'shooting game'. Shooting makes the public feel anxious and shit. I have no idea why. If we have to wear facemasks because the guns we're shooting are that strong, what will the public feel?

The same argument was put up for Airsoft. Cars kill people? Why can't we ban cars? Simple - it's a part of living. Airsoft isnt' really a 'majority sport' and it also resembles a real fire arm that shoots plastic bbs at high velocity. That already gives the public the hibijibis. Should the public feel safe that we're shooting nerf guns with facemasks? Not really because they're not wearing any face protection. What if it damages my face? They will think.

Servulus said to do a survey, but the survey can go pear shape if one person goes and reports it to the news that 'kids have to wear masks' to play with nerf guns. Remember, it only takes ONE person to screw everything over for everybody. So just keep it as safety glasses only.

If you ever studied FTV and new media or have a glympse of what they do, the news can twist just about ANYTHING. You say something positive, and they'll cut a sentence from your little 'interview' and BAM make it sound negative. For the media, it's SO easy to do.

You can wear facemasks if it's a private indoor war, go crazy, no ones going to really bother you about it.

Precautionary - taken in advance to protect against possible danger or failure.

No matter what you do in life, there are always going to be associated risks. Precautions are always put in place in higher risk areas.
Let’s take the example of hockey. Hockey players don’t normally wear face masks, some feel the need to and so be it, but most don’t. This is because the ball isn’t intended to be hit at them, but to them. The goalie however, wears a face mask as the ball is intended to be hit at him and at the goals behind him.

In nerf we are aiming at each other, a very similar situation to a goalie in hockey. It is extremely reasonable for individual players to decide they would feel more comfortable behind a face mask. We are not aiming at spectators, and in a similar situation as hockey, the spectators do not feel the need for a face mask.
To suggest safety measures should be banned from nerf as they are “too daunting” or could have “negative affects though media” is completely imprudent and irresponsible.

I think I have said enough on this topic and am getting slightly irritated at the same response over and over. “Don’t wear them as spectators could be scared, call the police and you will get tasered to death.” Or “Don’t wear them as spectators don’t wear them” which is an extremely dismal attempt at logic. So because they are exposed to a slight risk, we should not protect our own faces? Is this some sort of grab at equality, as we should all be exposed to the same consequences? We are targets. . . .


Put aside your pathetic attempts to make the sport look like a godsend and think twice about what you are suggesting:

“If the public see what safety measures some of our members are undertaking, Nerf will be classed as dangerous and reckless. So let’s just ban these safety measures.”

“The public don’t have face masks, so why should we be wearing them?”

“We cant have the sport looking ominous so we will ban a precautionary safety measure”

Khail wrote:

SnowDragon wrote:The dart flies into traffic, smashes someone's window and they have a car crash and die, and it's your fault.

Maybe we should stop playing golf for the same reasons

Because people play golf in public parks. I mean seriously if you saw someone taking swings with a 9 iron near a kids jungle gym what would you think?

All specific sports have a designated playing area, nerf doesn't, we just hijack a public space and hell even recently kids climbing areas.

I don't know where this turned into 'don't wear facial masks' that was never the point I was raising, my point was that when people are worried for their own safety the guns are clearly OP.

If you think the darts will take out your teeth they are clearly OP.

If the darts leave physical welts they are clearly OP.

Saying 'no matter what you do there will be risks so its ok' wont save you from a lawsuit when some child who wants to play in the park looses an eye.

Honestly it doesn't matter if people wear masks or not, while it may look bad it certainly isn't hurting anyone. The issue is simply this, if masks come into play as something that people feel they need then the guns are too over powered for public play.

Khail wrote:Precautionary - taken in advance to protect against possible danger or failure.

No matter what you do in life, there are always going to be associated risks. Precautions are always put in place in higher risk areas.
Let’s take the example of hockey. Hockey players don’t normally wear face masks, some feel the need to and so be it, but most don’t. This is because the ball isn’t intended to be hit at them, but to them. The goalie however, wears a face mask as the ball is intended to be hit at him and at the goals behind him.

In nerf we are aiming at each other, a very similar situation to a goalie in hockey. It is extremely reasonable for individual players to decide they would feel more comfortable behind a face mask. We are not aiming at spectators, and in a similar situation as hockey, the spectators do not feel the need for a face mask.
To suggest safety measures should be banned from nerf as they are “too daunting” or could have “negative affects though media” is completely imprudent and irresponsible.

I think I have said enough on this topic and am getting slightly irritated at the same response over and over. “Don’t wear them as spectators could be scared, call the police and you will get tasered to death.” Or “Don’t wear them as spectators don’t wear them” which is an extremely dismal attempt at logic. So because they are exposed to a slight risk, we should not protect our own faces? Is this some sort of grab at equality, as we should all be exposed to the same consequences? We are targets. . . .


Put aside your pathetic attempts to make the sport look like a godsend and think twice about what you are suggesting:

“If the public see what safety measures some of our members are undertaking, Nerf will be classed as dangerous and reckless. So let’s just ban these safety measures.”

“The public don’t have face masks, so why should we be wearing them?”

“We cant have the sport looking ominous so we will ban a precautionary safety measure”

That's actually a few very good points you brought up there. I'm going to say this,I don't know about you or anyone else, but I don't aim for peoples heads, you aim for the bigest target area, which is the torso. The glasses are only a precaution for an event which should never happen.

Now I'm not arguing with you, I'm actually agreeing with you, you make a good point.

And really if the public feels threatened by the nerf guns, nothing is stiping them from just walking away. If a group of 5 year olds was playing with these guns, no one would give a rats ass, It's just because were 'young adults' and some of us, me included, like to wear tacticool gear and army webbing to carry their gear. So the public thinks were like obsessed with guns and killing and all of that stuff.

If you want a non daunting face mask, get an OBO Face Off. They're designed for field hockey and taking a fast moving hockey ball. Just get a brightly coulered one and use in conjention with goggles.


Biggles

Ah crap, forum stuffed up.

Khail wrote:

SnowDragon wrote:The dart flies into traffic, smashes someone's window and they have a car crash and die, and it's your fault.

Maybe we should stop playing golf for the same reasons

First of all, you're an idiot. Golf is played in a large dedicated area which has been set up for the express purpose of playing golf. Us nerfers, we just roll into a park and basically flip the bird to anyone else there while we play.

What makes this so much worse however, is that if we need to start wearing kevlar and facemasks just so we're safe from the projectiles we're firing, what about the other people who use the public park? Are you going to shell out the moolah to give them facemasks and eyewear just so they can use the same space as us when the lunatic start using stupidly powerful darts? How are you going to explain to them that they should be wearing these if they don't want to get hurt for simply being in the same AREA as us?

What are you going to say to the other people in the park when you demand that they wear face protection while we war? You see where I'm going with this? Do you see why your statement was the height of human stupidity now?

/rant

Your post is unnecessarily hostile and personally attacking someone is something I frown upon alot. Combined with your very opinionated post earlier, you're on thin ice. Calm down and present your arguments in a more civilised tone and everything will be fine.

By the way, I see plenty of people using footballs, cricket balls and frisbees which would cause similar or even more damage to others in public parks, so your argument doesn't work either. I've yet to receive a safety helmet from the local jocks while I walk a dog through a public park. Yes, yes, we're playing it safer because our sport is less socially acceptable but there's such a thing as too safe and it gets in the way of our fun.

If you feel so strongly about this, then you can simply refuse to attend any wars with such guns while advising us not to, but don't try to act like the governor of nerf with your absolute statements. Plenty of people in your state already own and are planning to use plugged guns so deal with it, or don't, it's your call.

The only gun that's banned from plugging is the Big Blast and the Titan because obviously their air chambers are ridiculously huge. Believe or not if you're good enough at quadding or singling a quadshot - with the right springs you'll be able to hit ranges of a big blast (assuming you're using light rounds).

I guess the issue isn't daunting - but a lot this opinionated. I for one don't want people using facemasks unless it's a war in Darra or indoor or private. I don't want a public perception of 'what is this going to knock out teeth' and all this nonsense. They see facemasks - they think dangerous. Why? Paintballers wear em so why are Nerfer's using them? Are they dangerous?

If you really want to protect your teeth, just wear a mouth guard or something. That's what some airsofters use. Also we're young adults like SwitchBlade says. If you see little kiddies wearing them, they'd think none the less. Unfortunately we're not all kiddies, we're young adults. Today's perception of young adults are fairly negative as poorly stereotyped in the media.

Back when I didn't think about it, I did wear facemasks at public areas, and fortunately enough they were more intrigue than scared. However, I'll bring the argument back at it again, it only takes one person to screw everything over. Just look how the media twists everything, if you don't see that, than you're just being a zombie of mainstream media.

Haha sounds like my FTV assignment back in high school.

I think it depends on the war, in very public areas with heaps of people walking past titans are a bad idea. If there aren't many people around sure use titans and facemasks. As for tactical gear It's useful and my opinion you look pretty silly with board-shorts and camo vest. Just don't go over-board with full camo gear + helmet because that does look bad to the public.

The Fairfield one should be fine. Although those who are bringing titans and stuff just make sure you bring another gun just in case there are to many people there... I think I'll update that in the thread.

I think it's very location specific. Organisers will have to decide on a case by case basis. If the park is too busy, then facemasks or no, it's a bad idea to use high powered guns anyway, that's just common sense. Lucky for us in SA, we've got quite a few places that are rather deserted that hardly anyone goes to. Worse case scenario, use an oval. Very big and spacious, and you can wear all the gear you want as people are used to seeing sports equipment on an oval and they know to stay away from sporting areas, so you won't have randoms walking through.

Just leave the decision to the organiser. You're just going to have to trust them enough to make the right call. I'm personally not allowing facemasks anywhere near glenunga for example, unless it's a 12 yr old or younger wearing one. However, in places like anstey hill or St.Kilda, wear whatever you want.

We're obviously going to differ from state to state in our judgement and we don't know what each others' play area is really like so it's impossible to just create a blanket rule of "No facemasks" or "Wear whatever you want". Simply ask whoever is in charge of organising what the appropriate attire will be and that's that. Above all, if you don't agree, simply don't come.

The act of influencing other people's wars has to stop and it's stopping right now. One more word from anyone telling anyone else how to play, and they're looking at "attitude adjustment corrections". You play your own way, and the rest of us will simply trust whoever is in charge to make the right call. After all, I don't think any war organisers on oznerf are mentally devoid of logic and common sense. We're not going to stop the village idiot from starting up his own nerf war where they all wear full camo and run around with needles in their stefans but we have nothing to do with those people anyway.

Feel free to add more to this topic but try to keep it to more of what you should do locally than try to influence others in their thinking.

good job this is a great list of information and it will ceratainly help in my crusade destroying my brother

Im pretty sure that Ski goggles would be ok to wear. I saw a video of a guy hitting a tree at a very wuick speed and his goggles were ok.

Certain ski goggles will not break, or motorbike goggles but the best way to test is get your goggles and shoot them point blank with your strongest nerf gun.

TheNed wrote:When selecting eye protection options, keep in mind this is a projectile sport.The testing has already been done for you by super trained lab Boffins, AS1337(Australian Standard) covers all face shields, glasses, goggles and the like. So when you go to purchase some form of eye saving device check for AS1337 compliance.

I've been looking around for glasses for me and my kiddies -- glasses that meet ANSI Z87.1 are also widely and cheaply available in Australia (we got $7 safety specs from the hardware section of Kmart a few weeks ago).

http://www.goggleoverstock.com/index.html

Link to the $15 flakjaks. I see you needed one?

About that helmet check out this link http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ARMY-TWO-HELMET-PAINTBALL-AIRSOFT-BB-GUN-MASK-Smiley-/320585659798?pt=AU_Video_Games_Merchandise&hash=item4aa464f596#ht_2295wt_1141 .

What would be the most comfortable piece of eye protection to wear with my specs?

Oh and under $100

Xoenz wrote:What would be the most comfortable piece of eye protection to wear with my specs?

Oh and under $100

Just get one of those safety goggles, not safety glasses. I got one for under $20 and it has plenty of room for my glasses.

Akimbo Assassin wrote:

Xoenz wrote:What would be the most comfortable piece of eye protection to wear with my specs?

Oh and under $100

Just get one of those safety goggles, not safety glasses. I got one for under $20 and it has plenty of room for my glasses.

Indeed, As a fellow 4eyed nerfer I use Protector brand safety goggles, $25 from bunnings, they meet ANS 1337 so they will work well.

Gooni>

Just a little info from the mining industry:

MSA are generally the preferred brand of safety glasses in most of the Bowen Basin sites.
The MSA Nullarbor's retail for approx. $12 at most safety stores. Available in clear, yellow, black and smoke tinted lens, and by far the most comfortable glasses I've ever worn. Unfortunately, you can't fit prescription glasses underneath.

As for face-masks, I still think it should be up to the individual, not the organisers. The organisers should be able to define a style of mask, but not ban them. In this day and age, it's really not a smart idea to tell someone they can't wear a certain type of Personal Protective Equipment. It's impossible to define a level of safety, as everyone is different. Personally, I'd confine masks to JT style paintball masks, if anyone really feels the need to wear one. As for public opinion, I have the luxury of not living in the city, so I have to deal with far less parasites and do-gooders!! But, at the end of the day, it's the organisers that put in the hard work, so ultimately they deserve the final say!!

One last quick note for those contemplating wearing mouth-guards - the protection they provide your teeth is minimal. The primary purpose of a mouth-guard is to prevent dislocating/breaking of the jaw.
Albeit they are fricking uncomfortable, and nobody can understand a word that you say!!

Yeah i got a whole bunch of MSA Glasses as my dad is a miner. And they work really well.

Plus Clunk07 i'm From emerald so yeah.

thatwestykid wrote:Yeah i got a whole bunch of MSA Glasses as my dad is a miner. And they work really well.

Plus Clunk07 i'm From emerald so yeah.

The MSA's are one of the few brands that manufacture medium to high impact safety glasses. What the AS stamp doesn't tell you is the impact rating. They only have to be a low-impact spec to get the AS rating. I've personally had some serious rocks hit me whilst working underground. Ended up with a number of stitches on my face, but it only cracked the lens of my MSA Nullarbor's. It certainly helps when you know people in the industry - definitely alot cheaper!!!

Also, just thought I'd throw in that the non-glass lens Oakley's can withstand a hell of alot of impact. I trust them with the protection of my vision everyday, and my occupation demands good quality PPE.

I don't suppose you know any Nerfer's in this area?? So far I've managed to locate 1 person....

Im sorry if this was mentioned earlier but I was rushed to post quickly. I've been playing with goggles that we use in the RFS would these actually be suitable do you think?

Nah sorry mate i don't know as i moved 6 years ago

Tell everyone to bring whatever loadout they want (as long as meets the ban requirements) and whatever eye protection they want. If there's like, no one (which there usually is at the places I play at) then hell, let it rip with the awesomely sadistic looking mask with and evil smile decal (which is what I have). then simply ask everyone to bring an extra primary and different face protection if people start showing up. Or if its one person just strolling through the park, stop the game till its clear.

BlitzkriegNerfTeam wrote:Tell everyone to bring whatever loadout they want (as long as meets the ban requirements) and whatever eye protection they want. If there's like, no one (which there usually is at the places I play at) then hell, let it rip with the awesomely sadistic looking mask with and evil smile decal (which is what I have). then simply ask everyone to bring an extra primary and different face protection if people start showing up. Or if its one person just strolling through the park, stop the game till its clear.

Specifically at my wars, I will be enforcing the list formulated in the OP, it's a widely accepted list of appropriate and inappropriate eye protection. Location is a big issue as bystanders could be harmed, luckily my location attracts no bystanders, but if anyone were to move into the area we're playing in, I would ask all players to cease fire and I would go and advise the bystanders of the situation, I wouldn't ask them to leave (OR stay) but simply advise we intend to play there and let them make their own mind up.

On the topic of threatening face masks and weapons (as I think you are inferring), both will be assessed on arrival for their level of threat, as any war organiser would, I would not want to spoil the fun and have a member of the public raise the alarm. That said, this last point doesn't quite belong in the Eye Protection Thread.

Synergie wrote:

BlitzkriegNerfTeam wrote:Tell everyone to bring whatever loadout they want (as long as meets the ban requirements) and whatever eye protection they want. If there's like, no one (which there usually is at the places I play at) then hell, let it rip with the awesomely sadistic looking mask with and evil smile decal (which is what I have). then simply ask everyone to bring an extra primary and different face protection if people start showing up. Or if its one person just strolling through the park, stop the game till its clear.

Specifically at my wars, I will be enforcing the list formulated in the OP, it's a widely accepted list of appropriate and inappropriate eye protection. Location is a big issue as bystanders could be harmed, luckily my location attracts no bystanders, but if anyone were to move into the area we're playing in, I would ask all players to cease fire and I would go and advise the bystanders of the situation, I wouldn't ask them to leave (OR stay) but simply advise we intend to play there and let them make their own mind up.

On the topic of threatening face masks and weapons (as I think you are inferring), both will be assessed on arrival for their level of threat, as any war organiser would, I would not want to spoil the fun and have a member of the public raise the alarm. That said, this last point doesn't quite belong in the Eye Protection Thread.

I couldn't think of a better place for your last point, than in this thread...

Something all organiser's will need to begin to think about, is limiting people to what form of PPE they're able to wear. Realistically, how much of a concern would a black face mask with goggles be to the public, in an environment where there's a heap of people, some dressed in fatigues, running around yelling and shooting each other with foam darts. I mean, really, wouldn't the safety of your participants be a higher priority than what the public thinks. I can guarantee you, you'll get more bad publicity from a badly injured player, than you ever will from a couple of whinging by-standers - City/country, makes no difference. Has anyone actually had someone from the public "raise the alarm", and had the police arrive? If so, what were the outcomes??

I'm with you 100% with assessing blaster's, but it's not really a "threat assessment", as opposed to how much it replicates an actual firearm. I can guarantee that one of my blaster's with a big skull painted on the side would appear more "threatening" than a simple black blaster - remembering once again that it is not illegal to have a full-black paint scheme, in the eyes of the law.

I know the city is full of wanker's/do-gooder's, but surely they can't all be congregating in the few places you guys choose to war...

Regarding prescriptions, I've taken an accidental point blank glue dome hit to the lens from a BBBB without any damage, and the lenses are a quite thick shatter resistant perspex, so why are prescriptions under a blanket statement as being ineffective? They should be approached the same way as ski goggles; I deliberately chose my specs for durability and a degree of protection so if yours are shit it shouldn't be my problem.

HOWEVER, if anyone wants to suggest something that is:
•Comfy
•Glasses compatible
•Fog resistant
•Cheap
•Readily available;
then I'm all ears.

mister_elliott wrote:Regarding prescriptions, I've taken an accidental point blank glue dome hit to the lens from a BBBB without any damage, and the lenses are a quite thick shatter resistant perspex, so why are prescriptions under a blanket statement as being ineffective? They should be approached the same way as ski goggles; I deliberately chose my specs for durability and a degree of protection so if yours are shit it shouldn't be my problem.

HOWEVER, if anyone wants to suggest something that is:
•Comfy
•Glasses compatible
•Fog resistant
•Cheap
•Readily available;
then I'm all ears.

Not all prescription glasses have hardened lens, same as only some glass-lensed sunglasses are impact resistant. Probably easier to do a blanket ban, than take the risk of someone losing an eye.

Take your pick:

http://www.safetyoptics.com/showProduct/X-Safe/Medium+Impact/311-OP-CL/ONSITE

http://www.fuglies.com.au/slipovers.html

http://www.safetysupplies.com.au/cat/index.cgi/shopfront/view_by_category?category_id=22798

http://www.esidirect.com.au/bolle-safety-spectacles-override-cover-p/6131478862.htm

Also, while it may be the individual's problem to some extent, duty of care and so on can become a rather large minefield for anyone organising a war. While it would take a real dickhead to sue an organiser, it could also just take one irate parent in the case of any under 18s.

@mister_elliot. Either way man, I'm not going to let you participate unless you have hardware goggles at least. Your prescriptions does not protection all areas of the eyes and I will deem them as not usable.

Today we tested a singled (and NOT plugged) Titan at one foot away from Safety glasses conforming to the AS1337 standard, they cracked on impact. Thoughts?

Don't play HvZ with singled titans.

But seriously, there isn't much else we can do, unless they have a Super1337 standard of glasses.

Sili tips would solve though, perhaps all states should move towards dart hire wars?

Unknown wrote:Don't play HvZ with singled titans.

But seriously, there isn't much else we can do, unless they have a Super1337 standard of glasses.

Sili tips would solve though, perhaps all states should move towards dart hire wars?

That was with cut-down heavy silicone tips used for dart hire.