09-16-2017, 08:52 AM
stanc Wrote:I fully agree. And those are good arguments, unlike the "reducing noise pollution" silliness.
.
You'd be surprised.
The Swiss are right into reducing noise pollution at their ranges, building sound-proof buildings and blinker-walls forward of the firing line to reduce noise pollution in a country with limited level ground.
Their resurgent use in the UK has been largely due to the growing population encroaching on rural areas and the need to reduce noise pollution.
In Australia, a guy called Andrew Stucken (a lawyer) purchased a house near the Lyndhurst Rifle Range in 2014. It wasn't until he moved in that he realised on the weekends there was a lot of noise coming over his fence. He petitioned the NSW Police Commissioner to enforce compulsory suppressors for all shooters using the range. An interesting situation in a country where only approved and disciplined bodies can use suppressors. Unsurprisingly the shooters themselves resisted and even stopped him when he tried to join their club in an attempt to change it from within. As a lawyer he did get some purchase in the appeal system until finally the then Police Commissioner vetoed his initiative.
For a short while a notable Australian anti-gun lobbyist, John Crook was on record as being pro-suppressor, to reduce the 'shocking' sound produced by rifle ranges in built-up areas. He was against their use in rural areas however as he felt people in the vicinity needed to know if there was a shooter nearby. His gun lobby subsequently talked him out of it however believing any promotion of suppressor use encouraged the use of guns. They are now anti-suppressor/anti-gun in all scenarios.