Printable View
Hunting issues aside, I think, at the very least, suppressors should be allowed for target shooting both on a certified range and at home on private property.
Baffles and over hanging roofs which are present at gun clubs reflect the report back at the shooter. Perhaps a suppressor might lessen the risk of hearing damage and quieter shots can only help with the neighbours. As far as private land, again, quieter shooting can only help with keeping the peace with the neighbours.
Here's a bombshell....a gunshot can damage the hearing of a child in the womb. Noise trauma can also have adverse effects on a fetus.
The use of a suppressor would eliminate this risk. Just sayin'...
A bit of fear mongering :rolleyes:?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
The biggest market would be people who want to save their ears.
Absolutely. My wife did not shoot during her pregnancy. Also the inherent risk of lead during development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
We already have equipment to save our ears..and few guys wear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
How in heck would one verify that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigy
Have you ever had your head under water? How much 'above water' noise do you hear?
How is an unborn child different?
Problem is for most (me included) by the time you realise you should have, it's too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
People do wear ear protection on the range ... and still suffer hearing loss.
Few guys wear protection when hunting, but then again I never remember hearing the shot that was a confirmed kill..:)Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Reading "Predator Extreme " magazine, there are more varmint hunters using suppressors in the U.S. in the last year or two.
Every month there are articles about hunters using them and also a few adds from suppressor manufactures.
But not in Canada , where only the bad guys will use them according to our "law makers and enforcers ".