Gun owners don’t have right to subject others to noise

Posted

When thinking about possible gun noise at Tarboo Ridge, the analogy of secondhand smoke came to me.

In the past, the smoker had the right to smoke and would submit others to their secondhand smoke. Now, the smoker still has the right to enjoy inhaling smoke, but is not allowed to subject others to their exhaled secondhand smoke.

I believe gun owners have a right to shoot their gun at a target at a gun range, but they do not have the right to subject anyone to their secondhand gunshot noise. And gunshot noise travels a lot further, can extend all day, and not only affects people around them but all other living things as well.

I know my cat is very traumatized by firework noise. And there are only two natural fears — the fear of falling and the fear of loud noises. Everything else is learned.

Loud noises are traumatic for all those who hear, including orcas, dolphins and whales, who become essentially blind at about 10 feet below the surface. Their primary sense is hearing, using sound and echolocation for every aspect of their life.

As I look at a potential military-style gun range at pristine Tarboo Ridge, I wonder what gives anyone the right to traumatize everything in their sound range with their secondhand gun noise?

Only indoor, completely sound-proofed shooting should be allowed. Save the outdoors for archery.

I visualize a time when all life will be protected from secondhand noise — guns, Growler planes, boat propellers, etc. — just as we are now protected from exhaled secondhand cigarette smoke.

Start now.

KATHLEEN WALDRON
Marrowstone Island