"To be happy in life, you must learn the difference between what you want, versus what you need."


One particular thing that's often brought up by those who support the Trap and Skeet range (and something we generally find amusing) is the familiar harangue: "If you lived next to an airport would you want that shut down too?"

The simple answer to that would be: "No".

The reason of course is obvious.

Unlike a shooting range, which only serves the desires of people who want to shoot, an airport serves the needs of millions of people - even those who do not fly. 
Airports move massive amounts of people but also move freight, medical supplies, mail and other things which benefits entire regions and is thus something that is quite necessary and something that cannot be moved just to satisfy a relatively small number of people who may object to the noise generated by such a facility.

But a shooting range is not a "need", it is a "want".

Only a small handful of a given population avail themselves of the services of a shooting range and such an activity is fully voluntary and is in no way "necessary". 

The desire for a shooting range cannot be conflated with the necessity of an airport and so the notion that others have to endure the negative presence of a shooting range because of some imagined and self-serving "need" for such a facility is ridiculous.  Millions if not billions of people in this world lead contented and productive lives having never so much as held a firearm much less patronized a shooting range and so the notion that a shooting range is somehow necessary is absurd.  Like any other recreational activity, shooting is something that someone may want to do but it is not something that people have to do and so such words as "necessary" cannot apply.

This is especially true of municipally-owned and operated shooting ranges.

Such facilities may be offered to a municipalities' constituency but cannot and should not be forced upon any portion of that constituency.  A municipality has an obligation to protect the quality of life of all of its constituents, not just those who desire to engage in shooting sports.  So a municipality cannot decide that some of its constituency are to be subjected to a substandard quality of life just so that those who shoot can have a place to do so. 

If a municipal shooting range can exist without adversely affecting the quality of life of other people, then by all means it should be offered to the public as a recreational option.
But if such a facility infringes upon other people's rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property then that facility becomes a nuisance and it is the responsibility of the municipality to address that issue and if necessary to close such a facility.

People need places to live more than they need places to play and the NEEDS of thousands of people in a community ought to trump the WANTS of a small group of people pursuing a hobby.