Tweet
This might have been discussed before but I thought it might be worth discussing again...?
As you can see in Advanced Armament's web page showing the states that allow the use of silencers/suppressors only very few states including California does not allow the use of suppressing device.
This really surprise me because of the advantages it would give not only for the users but also for the the government and our natural habitat.
Okay, first let me admit I do not know the process but I will go with my minimal understanding.
The obvious advantage for the end users would be not having to wear ear protection. Less noise, less blast, less ear damage to the user as well as for the people around him/her.
For the government, my understanding is the states who allow its use collect some sort of a fee or tax. This tax of course provide some monetary funds to the state and or local government.
Finally, regarding our natural habitat us Californians are also known to be very protective of our natural surroundings and it's natural residence. Noise pollution is one of the things that disrupt nature, hence we have strict laws on keeping the noise coming from our cars and motorcycles.
Those of you who race or take driving/riding courses at Laguna Seca are required to use the noise limiting stock exhaust, else, you don't ride. This is done to prevent disturbing the animals living in the surroundings.
This, makes me wonder why we are not allowed to use suppressors to avoid disturbing the animals as well as the people living near and around our shooting range? Of course, the same apply for hunting.
In conclusion, I can see at least three advantages of having suppressors. Less hearing damage for the end user and other shooters in the area, additional funds for the government and less disruption to our natural habitat.
As you can see in Advanced Armament's web page showing the states that allow the use of silencers/suppressors only very few states including California does not allow the use of suppressing device.
This really surprise me because of the advantages it would give not only for the users but also for the the government and our natural habitat.
Okay, first let me admit I do not know the process but I will go with my minimal understanding.
The obvious advantage for the end users would be not having to wear ear protection. Less noise, less blast, less ear damage to the user as well as for the people around him/her.
For the government, my understanding is the states who allow its use collect some sort of a fee or tax. This tax of course provide some monetary funds to the state and or local government.
Finally, regarding our natural habitat us Californians are also known to be very protective of our natural surroundings and it's natural residence. Noise pollution is one of the things that disrupt nature, hence we have strict laws on keeping the noise coming from our cars and motorcycles.
Those of you who race or take driving/riding courses at Laguna Seca are required to use the noise limiting stock exhaust, else, you don't ride. This is done to prevent disturbing the animals living in the surroundings.
This, makes me wonder why we are not allowed to use suppressors to avoid disturbing the animals as well as the people living near and around our shooting range? Of course, the same apply for hunting.
In conclusion, I can see at least three advantages of having suppressors. Less hearing damage for the end user and other shooters in the area, additional funds for the government and less disruption to our natural habitat.
Comment