Slashdot Mirror
NRA Launches Pro-Lead Website
ideonexus writes "The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue that lead bullets are poisoning the environment and tainting game meat with a known neurotoxin. The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world."
The Romans found out about lead and its toxic effects. There's no point in using it where it isn't necessary.
After having been to some rifle ranges, one question that never seems to be answered is: after several decades of hard shooting, who gets the unenviable (and expensive!) job of decontaminating what is essentially a toxic waste dump?
NRA doing what right-wingers do best? -- liability-dumping and socializing losses?
Barnes Bullets surely is not going to be helping the NRA on this one.
I shoot those in all my rifles. They are really great and apparently I am being eco friendly.
The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world.
Yes, and??
Gasoline is something you are inhaling some fumes from, and around pretty often.
Lead on bullets, much less so - most people would at most go shooting one day a week, many much less often than that. And the bullets fired are fired into a range, so contamination is very limited compared to widespread use of gas and spillage at every station.
The amusing thing is that the increase of bullets (i.e. people owning guns) has also contributed to drops in crime rates...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The servers must've had some problems with the lead-free solder joints.
If you ban lead, then how am I supposed to manufacture my own ammunition?
I am a member of the NRA and still cannot wrap my head around why you would want to defend the use of lead ammo. There are numerous alternatives that mimic (and in some cases improve) the performance characteristics of lead ammo.
A political blogger on mother joans cites a weak science paper and comes to the solution for solving crime... cleaning up the environment, while ignoring all other factors.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
just make lead ammunition more expensive than standard ammunition and something else that is also lead-free even more expensive. ordinary people will take either the cheap ammunition or the "high quality" ammunition (naturally what's most expensive) and idiots will buy lead ammunition and poison themselves a little bit at a time.
everyone wins!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There are lines and there are fucking lines. The NRA stopped being a gun owner advocate group long ago and is now just a shill/thinktank/scaremonger for political conservative causes.
If you have two braincells to rub together you'll tear up your membership card and tell these dangerous idiots to suck on the business end of their beloved sacred boom sticks.
We use lead because it spreads out and has stopping power. Non-lead bullets tend to pass through their targets. Would this exempt law enforcement and military?
I lived in Missouri, MO, for a while and had noticed that the place is full of lead deposits. I think it's pretty common for the ground to contain large deposits of lead without harming the children. You need more than just lead in the ground to have a problem.
Lead when finely divided or in a form easily absorbed (like paint chips that get eaten) or in a place that can get heavily leached is a real problem.
Blocks of lead, like the wheel weights used to balance car tires aren't a big problem.
"The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world."
Based on this, then we can assume that if we get rid of led bullets then all of the hand gun violence in cities will just go away? This might be doubly true in all of those cities where guns have been banned.
A couple things stand out here.
1) There is no metal suitable for bullets other than lead - unless we want to shoot some other heavy metal. Pick.
2) If you're going to claim higher crime rates are related to lead poisoning, you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership (and in turn, shooting). There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I have to admit, I read the beginning of the segment - "The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue ... " to mean the NRA made a website that defended the ideal of them being able to use lead ammunition against (as in to shoot) the scientists and environmental organizations that argue with them.
I think I need more coffee today.
Decrease the levels of lead pollution, and people might become too smart to keep supporting the NRA. It's just self-preservation.
Please do pump-up summaries by including pseudoscientific commentary. Lead does not cause crime any more than global warming causes piracy.
In my experience, led is quite good a STOPPING crime!!!
As a god damn liberal, I say STFU. I am more worried about your stupidity leading most Americans being ok with banning guns than anything politicians can manage.
The suggestion to shoot people like you just did is what endangers our right to own firearms. Not my support of civil rights or food for the hungry.
"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations".
Ok, to be fair, I twisted the meaning a bit by cutting the quote a bit short.
Bullet lead is just an excuse. It's a miniscule fraction of the lead use out there.
it would be considered a sociopath.
I understand sometimes wanting to shoot people you disagree with, but isn't using lead ammunition against scientists going a bit overboard?
And it does.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Since I'm having a somewhat difficult time accessing their website at the moment, allow me to save you the time and summarize their argument.
Thousands of scientists: "Wildlife is dying due to poisoning from lead ammunition being accidentally ingested. Here is the evidence."
NRA: "NUH UH! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!"
I don't even see why this is something worth fighting for. I guess non-lead ammunition costs a bit more? Come on, suck it up guys.
"NSA Launches Pro-Leak Website"
I need to slow down and read the headlines a little more carefully.
Here we see the zeitgeist of 2013 in all its ugliness. All one needs to say is "NRA" and it is immediately assumed that they are on the wrong side of the argument, whatever it might be this time. "Against scientists and environmental organizations" as if they were one and the same! But let's remember, all good people think the same, and all good people agree that science always backs up environmentalism. To think otherwise is crimethink.
Let's not even pay attention to the non-sequitur argument of "the rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint". What the hell?!? That got nuttin' to do wit nuttin'. BUT - and here's the important part - it's against the NRA so therefore it's a valid argument. Start noticing these and you'll see them everywhere. After all, when you're arguing against Satan why does it matter if your arguments are illogical? You're arguing against blackest evil and so who cares? After all, it's not like one day the powers will be decide that you will occupy the hate-place and use the same flawed arguments against you. It could never happen, and in fact never happened in the 20th century.
And seriously...linking to Mother Jones? Puh-leez. It's an extremist website with an agenda, do you seriously think geeks with brains read that crap? This is the same magazine that wept at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The last, best hope for mankind. No really, go to a university library and read the back issues.
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell
"Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
-- Mao Tse-Tung
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yes - lead is bad for you when inhaled or injested.
Yes - it makes sense that reducing inhaled or injested lead might be correlated with good stuff.
Where, however, is the link between lead in the ground or animals and the general population being at risk?
Lead vapors hurt people. Lead particulate doesn't hurt anyone unless ingested. Short of farming on the local backstop or swallowing the bullets, I'm not worried about the lead going anywhere.
You realize threatening "Liberals" only goes to bolster their claims that guns will be misused and should be controlled.
Officer, at no time did I intend to lead-poison him when I shot him.
In the US maybe, but in the UK and Western Europe gun ownership hasn't shifted and crime has fallen just as much. As a matter of record, the world is NOT the USA, despite the impression that some Americans seem to have (as I found when spending some otherwise very happy times with you....)
Thing is, if it's in the ground and stable (i.e. the groundwater isn't contaminated), it probably contains little or no soluble oxides. Note that there are places where the groundwater is tainted by dangerous chemicals which are native. Groundwater isn't some magical source that only gets screwed up by human intervention. It's usually clean thanks to millions of years of water passage which actually does carry away all the soluble compounds, leaving only insoluble ones - hence why it's often considered clean, and is usually free of significant contamination.
In the case of spent ammunition, the lead becomes part of the shallow watershed effluent path. Any soluble lead compounds actually do enter the water stream, as opposed to lead which has been buried for millions of years and is bypassed or has been stripped already.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
http://www.seasonshot.com/
Technoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Please do complain about pseudoscientific commentary and then "cite" a Google search without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
Your mother would miss me.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And what are the blood lead levels in your employees?
Oh wait, let me guess: you''ve never offered to test it, as that would be far too close to Socialism (not to mention your liability).
Preventing tyranny is not a misuse of guns. It is their primary purpose.
Of course liberals don't 'get it'. Things will be different 'this time'...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The amount of lead you need to get into your body to get a negative effect is extremely small. The same applies to wildlife. The "dust" coming from firing bullets in the shooting range could very well be in significant amounts. Being on the range once a week and inhaling the air there for thirty minutes may just be more than enough for permanent damage to your health. This is not even about the environment, this is your personal health and safety as a shooter. I don't know the exact amounts we are talking about here, but you seem at least as uninformed about this as I am. It may be wise to actually check the data before proclaiming it's not a problem, like you do here.
What I do know, is that wildlife, the very game you are shooting and the animals that pray on them, actually do suffer from the lead that ends up in nature from hunting. Birth rate and deformed newborn animals are clearly influenced by the amount of lead entering the environment from hunting. There are plenty of studies that will support that.
I'd like to see studies that support the absolute link between the number of gun holders and the crime rate in an area. I've seen gun ownership numbers per country and there doesn't really seem to be a clear correlation between the two. Canada has way lower crime rate than the USA and has a similar gun ownership number. Several European countries have low crime rates and a low gun ownership percentage. I haven't seen one serious study so far that proves that more gun owners gets crime rates down, only correlation/causation statistically flawed comparisons.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations
That's pretty extreme, even by the NRA's standards.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
As much as I am in favour of eliminating environmental lead where possible, at least some research shows that firing range lead does not migrate into the surrounding environment or leach into ground water; it basically stays put. Containing and covering may be sufficient for rehabilitation purposes although leaving the lead in place may not be a good thing in the long run. You never know when there will be a price to be paid because of an unforeseen issue.
Like my mom told me: "Always wear clean underwear in case you die in an accident".
You might look at a report from 2004 from Virginia tech, although I don't know what bias the researchers brought to the study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005801.htm
Donald Rimstidt, a professor in the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, will report the conclusions of a five-year study at the 116th national meeting of the Geological Sciences of America in Denver Nov. 7-10. [2004] ...
"We were invited by the U.S. Forest Service to look at the shooting range in the National Forest near Blacksburg."
The researchers' survey found 11 metric tons of shot in the shotgun range and 12 metric tons of lead bullets in the rifle range. "These ranges are 10 years old. Most of the lead shot has accumulated on about four or five acres. Some shots have been into the woods, which cover hundreds of acres," Rimstidt said. ...
However some lead escapes, he said. "But we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that," Rimstidt said. "Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
Another finding is that there are large amounts of lead in the trees near the shooting range – but not in a large percentage of the trees, Rimstidt said. "If and when those trees are harvested, they would be contaminated with lead "
Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon was an investigator on the project until his death in 2003. "He found no evidence that birds were eating shot, but this portion of the research was not completed," Rimstidt said. "We are not saying that wildlife would not ingest lead, but it does not appear to be a problem on this range. Other shooting ranges may be different."
If a complete cleanup is required then it can be costly. A 15 hectare site near Edmonton cost about 6.5M CAD to fix up in 2006.
BTW: That range had been in use for over 20 years and there was no spread of contamination off of the site on the surface or into the ground/water table.
Just sayin'
This is just more regulation hidden as "think of the children" BS. It's a backdoor attempt to ban ammunition and raise prices as a form of gun control. I would suspect when you remove ranges (who recycle their lead) and the military the amount of lead introduced into the environment by shooting is fairly insignificant. I'd bet things like thrown wheel weights contribute more. Consider also that most ammunition is at least partially copper jacketed with a small exposed surface area. So if you can keep your kids from sifting through tons of soil and chewing on or smoking found bullets, I think they'll be just fine.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations
I guess that's one way to silence you opposition, but I don't think that's acceptable behavior myself, but what do you expect from a gun lobby?
it looks to me like these claims are just more of the same -- any stick with which to beat the Bill of Rights out of us will do. Facts don't even enter into it.
What does a light emitting diode do to a stoppa da crime?
Wait, to the scientists and environmentalists? Doesn't lead come from the "environment".
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Need proof? NSA, NRA, NEA and the... uh.. NBA.
Snoopers and snipers, flunkers and dunkers!
Phooey! Now get off my lawn!
Look at the research.
Lead poisoning caused violent behavior in adolescents. This is well established medical science.
NOW, extend that to lead poisoning the entire population. What do you expect to happen?
So crime has followed the use and disuse of lead in gasoline and paint. Has it followed the use of lead in bullets, which have been used almost exclusively in hand-held firearms since the 14th century?
I'm more concerned about the quick kind of lead poisoning, where some bad guy inserts it directly by use of a gunpowder propulsion method.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Lead being burned into the atmosphere everywhere has very little relationship to a few rounds of ammunition being fired at game. The objections to lead for hunting is motivated more by people who oppose hunting rather than concerns about lead in the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
"Lead exposure in children is also correlated with neuropsychiatric disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and antisocial behavior. Elevated lead levels in children are correlated with higher scores on aggression and delinquency measures. A correlation has also been found between prenatal and early childhood lead exposure and violent crime in adulthood."
Did you actually even try the search you suggested? Other than a link to the Skeptic blog discussing Mother Jones' story on Rick Nevin's paper (and finding it highly plausible if overstated), there's his paper itself, two Mother Jones articles on it and a host of "me too" repeating of what Mother Jones said including The Guardian and Forbes, and a couple of links from others who consider it plausible but far from proven.
Not one single link on the first page of the search you selected outright denies the connection -- just that it might not be responsible for 90% of the drop instead of some lesser value.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations" was what I read at first glance.
Why do gun nuts always advocate murder?
It's strange because most gun nuts are uneducated and highly religious, so you'd think they'd have a simple outlook on life that defaults to something peaceful, in accordance with the Bible.
But instead, gun nuts try to solve problems with murder or threats of murder like you'd expect from some inner-city gangbanger.
Why do you even believe in the Bible if you feel murder is the only solution to your problems? How can you call yourself a Christian when you make a public call to advocate murder?
Mood disorders, irritability, memory loss and a decline in mental functioning are all symptoms of lead poisoning. 'nuff said?
I can remember a time, back in the late 70s, when the NRA took out full-page ads in Field & Stream and Outdoor Life. I don't remember the exact wording, but they seemed like a reasonable organization and advocate for responsible gun ownership. These days, it seems like the NRA is just a mouthpiece for off-kilter political wack-jobs. I can scarcely glass over any of their "publications" without hearing Ted Nugent reading it in my mind.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Similar toxicity. Plentiful. Cheap, free even. And the government already endorses its entry into the body.
Correlation does not equal causation, but when you've already proven the causation, like lead poisoning causing brain damage, lowering intelligence and increasing the chance of someone committing a crime, and then also find a correlation, like the crime rates dropping in the decades following every ban of lead in consumer products and gasoline, it's then causation and correlation proving the point.
of exercising Second Amendment rights. Since they haven't been successful in banning guns outright they're proposing laws that make the use and ownership of firearms as expensive and burdensome as possible through things like proposed liability insurance, bullet taxes, restrictions on online ammunition sales, quantity restrictions, microstamping, and bans on lead in bullets. That forces the NRA to defend lead so as to help make it more obvious that the people wanting to ban it in bullets aren't actually concerned about the environment, they're really concerned about raising the cost of exercising Second Amendment rights.
Years ago I read a great story where a guy sued a group of hunters who had trespassed and target practiced on his land. His suit was to force them to clean up the lead. He was successful and over half of 9 hunters lost their houses paying for the clean-up.
Lead at an indoor shooting range is fine as it only affects those who chose to shoot there. But even at an outdoor range you are creating a superfund clean-up site. But in general hunting you are spraying a toxic material willy nilly which is just anti-social.
Interestingly, the majority of hits on your first google link including the first one claim the opposite of your position. You haven't been eating lead based paint chips, have you :-)
I can understand the reluctance to accept the evidence. After all, it gores more than one right wing ox and presents a case for a corporate liability so massive it could never be properly paid off (and worse, most of the money would be owed to poor people).
only criminals will get lead poisoning.
I've seen stuff that says that lead contamination from piping is a lot less than people think. Especially if it's 'just' the solder. Actually, the older the piping, the better, since lead, like copper, oxidizes into a hard coating, unlike iron with relatively flaky rust. Add things like calcium deposits on top, and the contamination goes down.
It's my understanding that there are still lead service lines around. Thing is, unlike household water pipes:
1. They're pretty much always cold (less uptake if cold).
2. Water generally doesn't sit in them (less uptake due to less contact with lead)
3. Larger diameter pipes (less surface area of lead per volume of water)
4. Generally older than heck (lots and lots of buildup keeping elemental lead out of contact).
I don't read AC A human right
... ...
launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations
They killed some scientists and environmental organizations, put up a website defending those killings and nobody is not arresting them yet?
Irony: An idiot calling others idiots. You realize we don't eat our ammo?
Actually, you do. You really, really do.
Now do you see why the NRA is attacking scientists? The facts just don't align with their policy goals, and if you can't get the facts on your side, you attack the people stating them. Same strategy for tobacco companies. Same for major carbon emitters. Etc.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Who hunts with lead and doesn't remove the bullet affected area?
Bullets do tremendous damage to the surrounding tissue. The larger the bullet, the more damage occurs.
Hunting hogs in Texas (not for sport, we eat them), the optimum place to hit a hog is behind the ear. This is the best location to get them as it drops the animal in its tracks and doesn't damage the meat. Anywhere else and you risk ricochet (they have tough skulls) or missing vitals. Typically, any shot in the general vicinity will drop the animal, but the further you wander toward the rear of the animal - the more meat is lost to bullet damage. When I say damage - I don't mean that it's just a little tore up (it is, a lot) - but the meat is bruised. If the bullet fragments - a trail of bruised meat leading to the fragment is easily followed. Nobody eats this damaged meat - it doesn't keep - and it's not appetizing.
Many who hunt birds like to use steel shot instead of lead shot. This is more of a convenience as it's easier to remove steel shot by using a rare-earth magnet than it is to remove lead shot by looking for it.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Slashdot ate the best link. Try this one instead. Good pictures of fragments in the meat.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Lead fragments found in randomly sampled packages of venison donated to food banks.
Turns out that slugs leave metal fragments too.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Why were they so high though? As others mentioned, scraping the first foot or so off the berm and for a range with as many rounds in it as a military range would get should produce enough recyclable material to pay for the scrape.
Or were they requiring stupidly high standards of 'clean up' that raises expenses an OOM or so?
I don't read AC A human right
Lets look at this in an honest way...
The recent attempts to make lead ammunition appear as an environmental hazard are clearly a part of the anti-gun lobby but the pro-gun lobby pretending that lead is completely safe is a bit off the mark as well.
Lead ammunition is not an environmental hazard when looked at per individual.
1. Lead is safe to handle
2. Lead shot remains in the very top layers of soil after fired. It does not break up and does not dissolve into the ground water.
3. Lead fired into an animal does not contaminate the meat and even if it did the bullet is usually in the vital organs, a part of the animal that's removed within minutes of it being shot. Even if it does end up in the muscle of the animal, that is thrown away. The ballistic shock ruins the meat.
Shooting ranges and military training sites are of some concern however. Large amounts of lead can build up in the backstops and surrounding areas.
1. Most ranges recycle their lead and brass. They even design backstops to help facilitate this now.
2. The military has already begun converting to "Green ammunition" because many of their exercises require live fire outside of a range and cleanup gets expensive when it involves an entire forest.
3. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to put into law what most ranges are already doing. i.e. Lead recycling, backstops designed not to let lead into the environment, insurance to cover any cleanup should there be contamination, etc... I suspect a shooting ranges insurance rates are already pretty high and the added expense would be negligible.
Why don't they just change their slogan to "NRA: On the wrong side of the argument every time"?
My country has no firearm ownership and crime rates are a tiny fraction of the US. So OBVIOUSLY other factors are at work. Flame on.
Before I get to the flaming, I have one question: Which country is 'yours'? Hard to verify information that you don't give. English usage is good and seems American. Canada?
I don't read AC A human right
In most states, game animals must be shot with an expanding bullet. Either soft point or hollow point. This is intended to increase the size of the wound channel and likelihood that the shot will be rapidly fatal.
In war, these bullets are banned by the Geneva convention. Wounds are hoped to be survivable by humans and the bullets are intended to poke a hole in enemy bodies that removes them from battle.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Murder is unjustified killing.
I'm advocating justified killing, should the need arise. It hasn't yet.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Apparently they've been consuming their "product".
This is a great example of what can go wrong with prepositions in English:
"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue that lead bullets are poisoning the environment and tainting game meat with a known neurotoxin"
The use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations is of course indefensible.
http://ricknevin.com/uploads/Lead_and_Crime_-_Why_This_Correlation_Does_Mean_Causation.pdf
It appears we took down the NRA site that his summary linked to. Apparently the slashdot conservatives wanted to get the talking points from it before the slashdot liberal pointed out that lead is bad?
(yes, I know I'll be down-modded for this. let me have it)
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Your single minded obsession with guns frightens me, and the idea that you can decide whether a man should live or die scares me even more. That's for God to decide, not you.
You are truly a terrible person.
I take it copper bullets are most expensive than lead bullets. Otherwise, I see no reason not to switch. I think the NRA is being stupid on this one.
Banning something in name of saving the environment is the latest tool to control society. If government can't muster the votes or political will to ban something outright, it can get an environmental agency such as the EPA to raise environmental standards governing such demonized activity to the point where it is no longer economically or technically viable to produce and is thus effectively banned.
Wrong. It has been published in many peer reviewed scientific periodicals. Try reading them someone instead of infantile pseudo-science webshites. Furthermore, it has been shown time and time again that crime reduction matches precisely where lead based fuels are banned. A few shots from retards firing firearms isn't going to make much difference, but hey, don't let experts in the field change your blinkered gun nut view of the world.
How about if they want to use lead, they have to police their ammo and collect up the spent bullets. Slap a deposit fee on each lead bullet and give it back when the lead is returned. Obviously it won't be as simple as that, but the old deposit system worked well for pop bottles. Bullets made out of lead are not protected by the 2nd amendment (otherwise waterfowl hunters could use lead shot). Simply put, if you want to put lead in the environment then you should have to clean up the environment just like any other toxic waste producer is forced to do.
Wow. You are one batshit crazy dude. The very fact that you think a time will come where people need to be killed simply because their political beliefs differ from yours shows that you belong in a mental institution. The fact that it is legal for YOU to own a firearm shows that we seriously need reform. You belong on a terrorist watchlist.
Lead is a dream when compared to DU. Just ask iraq:
http://www.theguardian.com/uranium/
"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations..."
Okay then, at least they didn't defend the use of water boarding on scientists. Oh wait, I totally parsed that wrong due to my inherent bias against anything coming from the NRA. So, I checked the link and saw that it goes to a site "huntfortruth.org" (so you can kill it). Dang! There goes that inbuilt sarcasm again.
Here's a report, republished from Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners Journal, Volume 31 Number 4, Fall 1999 written with assistance from a researcher a the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that details what a "green" bullet is: http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm
Their politics are fine. I could give a shit.
Attempting to impose tyranny will get them shot. It's about actions.
Those with attitudes like your are responsible for _all_ the government overreach in the 20th century. You own: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco and Hitler. Godwin has an exception for those actually advocating Fascism (like you).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Did you actually read any of the articles in the search you linked to? Most of them at least agree that it's plausible that lead contributed to 20th-century crime rates. The most negative thing any of the first five says is that it may not be the #1 factor and that more research is needed to confirm.
[snark]Any glance at some of the denizens of the NRA will demonstrate how lead has no effect whatsoever on cognitive development.[/snark]
Move along, nothing to see here,
-Z
Virginia recently noted a drop in crime rate, and an increase in gun ownership...
Obviously it's hard to isolate gun ownership as a factor. But it's pretty obvious if a household is armed it's less likely they will have crimes successfully committed against them while in the house.
Something else to consider is that a crime is still a crime for statistics, even if the criminal is scared away or shot... so that's something else to consider. Harder to find statistics on successful crimes instead of an overall number.
There are plenty of stories of armed homeowners stopping criminals. Each and every one of those would have been a successful crime otherwise, so it's pretty obvious gun ownership has a positive effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What about Lead Guitar?
You know: it was invented by Lead Zeppelin, on his first record. It may be a cause of the Earth's warming, but I'll never let them take it away! Thank GOD the NRA is here to help!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Misformatted the HTML, here's the Virginia story.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mod parent down--It offends all the sensitive souls around here!
How much meat have you eaten lately that was shot with a lead bullet?
Unless you actually shot the damn deer... more then likely you're eating beef that was shot with a STEEL bolt gun. Ah la Frendo...
So why do you care? Are you upset that hunters might be poisoning themselves with a TINY trace amounts of lead? Really? You want to have a national campaign about that?
With all the real problems this country has... the debt... the unemployment... the political grid lock... the geopolitical issues... the war... the oil... all of that. You want to get upset about lead in bullets?
Kill yourselves. Stop wasting oxygen and kill yourselves. No really. If you REALLY think this is what the nation should be focusing on at this point in history. Compost yourself. Do it for the environment.
Who gives a flying f' what hunters use so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. And no... the marginal amount of lead they shoot around has no detectable impact on anything. Scientifically. So it doesn't matter.
Next issue. Any point to the contrary either has to demonstrate why this registers above a .00001 on the give-o-f' meter or the automatic reply is "Shut up and no."
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For example, the NRA.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Please stand still while the Sentry Turret injects your body with high velocity deadly neurotoxin.
Did anyone bother to think about where the lead came from to begin with? It came from the ground, and it was originally uranium.
Iron won't work because it's not soft enough. The bullet has to deform to grip the rifling inside a barrel. Besides, the whole point of going to the target range is to become a better shooter. You can't do that when the bullets you're using differ significantly from the ones you hunt with. The ballistics properties change too much.
Steel shot has become more popular for duck hunting, though. Many states require it. The big drawback with steel when compared to lead is the significant drop in range due to faster loss of pellet speed. The normal advice is to bump up a pellet size or two. That works to some extent, but a hunter still risks creating cripples until a s/he learns the limits of shooting with steel.
Finding a replacement for bullet lead that is both (a) reasonably abundant and cheap, (b) has a reduced impact on the environment, and (c) conforms reasonably well to the performance characteristics of lead isn't easy. Hopefully we'll find a solution soon.
You think the police respond quickly if you live in a bad neighborhood? They'll show up an hour after you get shot and fill out some paperwork and then leave.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You conveniently left out that those 100 samples were ground meat. 59 had visible metal fragments using specialized equipment and those fragments were not confirmed to be metal. Only 15 blind samples were actually tested for lead content. One was sited as having a dosage. Another 5 were "image- guided biopsies" i.e. hand picked and looking for trouble, those had massive dosages that not even lead paint can compare to.
Unless the average North Dakota hunter uses a 10 lb cannon with grapeshot, this is junk science. Not surprising for a three page 'study'.
While no level of exposure to lead is "safe", NIOSH has a limit of 10 g/dL for regular people, 5 g/dL for children, and 30 g/dL for workers occupationally exposed to lead. In adults, symptoms of blood poisoning become evident at 40 g/dL.
40 g/dL is not a lot. The average adult has 50 dL of blood, meaning 2,000 g (two milligrams) is all it takes to reach the limit. According to wolfram alpha, that amount is the size of about three grains of sand.
2,000g = 2kg. I think you got your SI units off.
"The NRA is defending lead ammunition. This is scary because lead is a really dangerous thing that is associated with crime... when used in things other than ammunition."
Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872
Please do continue tilting at windmills.
"Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[11] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[3]
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities.[12] Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults. Ethylmercury is eliminated from the brain in about 14 days in infant monkeys. Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.[13] Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood–brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body.[14] Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[13] Though inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life in the brain, at least 120 days, it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.[13]"
Gun control laws have no relation to crimes committed using guns, but if enforced would prevent the 1-2 million crimes prevented by guns every year.
The gun control spirit is fairy tales and magic wands -- write a law banning guns and presto -- guns will vanish, criminals will learn the error of their ways, and all will be peach keen. Bloomberg banning 17 oz sodas is right on par.
Infuriate left and right
You ought to look up NRA finances sometime and educate yourself. The NRA gets its funds from members. Is that the best you can do -- stomp your feet and call 5 million of us sock puppets? Compare that to MAIG, Bloomberg's own sock puppet astroturf group of mayors, quite a few of whom have quit because they were enrolled without their knowledge or lied to as to its goals. There are also more MAIG mayors convicted of felonies than gun owners.
Infuriate left and right
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
That was the Slashdot footer quote earlier today. It would seem to apply to technology as complicated as a lead slug as well.
The purpose of this effort was to protect the industry against nuisance suits where a gun killed someone when it was fired by a criminal and functioned perfectly. In the end, this resulted in a ban on nuisance suits by the likes of the VPC that are designed to bankrupt companies for producing legal products that function exactly as advertised.
Suits against gun companies over harm due to actual product defect are exceedingly rare, if not non-existent.
The VPC lies. Always.
A slug is not a bullet..... As a shotgun is not a rifle.
Shut uppa wit tha shut uppa!
I'm a wine drinker and lead foil used to be used over the corks of wine bottles. This ended with California's Prop 65 since it set a threshold of "detectable" instead of what can cause harm for any chemical known to cause cancer or birth defects. Seems a few atoms of lead could transfer from the lead foil to the glass of the bottle and then be carried by the wine into the glass of the person drinking the wine. Since CA is a huge market for wine (not just a producer) lead foil went away and was replaced by either another metal (doesn't have the same feel) or plastic (seems like I'm opening a bottle of Ripple).
Keep this sort of absurd approach to things in mind when discussing issues such as this. Lots of substances are detectale at levels that don't cause harm. In spite of the logic in your discussion, chances are that a detectable amount of lead will remain and thus trigger hysteria.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
We're using LED street lights here in Silicon Valley. Better lighting in cities typically results in lower crime rates.
But I don't think it will alter our white collar crime rates.
This will have the Darwinian effect of culling the herd of people who believe there is little or no danger, and also weeding out people with uncritical thinking when it comes to gun policy. The second half of weeding out means you can be pro-gun but still have your head on right.
strawman. lead is toxic. that isn't the same as lead causing crime.
having a learning disability, like dyslexia is very common among convicted felons. But does that mean that dyslexics are prone to violent behavior?
Remember, the government doesn't like ANY bullets that aren't made out of lead (except for certain frangible rounds which are not good for hunting, just killing, because they powder).
It's not just the cost of other metals, some might even be cheaper. But it's a matter that lead is basically the 2nd softest metal, (after mercury) and the softest malleable metal. .GOV considers most any other metal to be armor penetrating.
So what's a .300 Winchester hunting rifle with a scope, when you replace the lead bullets with anything else, suddenly becomes a scoped sniper rifle with armor piercing bullets.
***
Can't win....
And for all you dumb fucks who say simply get rid of or ban guns.
Really, you've got the NSA reading these threads, and your email, and listening to your phone calls. You've got cameras on corners and police cruisers recording all your movements.
If there was ever a time we needed our guns, it sure looks like it could be soon. Forget an AWB, we need to be considering whether we should lift the 1986 ban on automatic weapons. :-P
Can I start a lobbyist group to defend the interests of criminals? Why does the NRA have to stand up for this when a NCA would be a more appropriate group.
We could then lobby to make news laws, just so we can break them.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There are plenty of stories of armed homeowners stopping criminals. Each and every one of those would have been a successful crime otherwise, so it's pretty obvious gun ownership has a positive effect.
I truly don't understand what the fuck is wrong with your logic. Break-ins of occupied houses are EXTREMELY rare. Anyone displaying some sort of presence in the house, armed or not, is going to chase away all but the extreme sociopath. You are a sad, sad person if you are actually afraid of that scenario.
There are also far more incidents of family members dying due to a gun in the house than there are of successful defenses. But those don't count as crimes, so they don't get counted by the gun-nut crowd.
How about some real numbers: The US has the 11th highest firearm DEATH rate of countries that care to look into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Twist the numbers around however you want, you're still scared of life. It would be funny to see what you'd do if the government actually did take away your guns... It'd be like a chicken with its head cut off!!!!
... I invite the NRA staff to stand in front of that wall and let me try shooting with lead for the first and last time in my life.
Hmm. I wonder if lead poisoning could explain the NRA steadfast insistence on thinking that they have a god given right to shoot weapons.
Their demanding to stick with lead shells, despite the demonstrated environmental harm that lead causes and the proof that copper jacketed bullets deliver superior stopping power at longer ranges seems a bit suspicious...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
While McDonalds claims that they have stopped adding ammonia to their meat in the US, it doesn't mean that other corporations have stopped. Pink slime is perfectly legal and even grocery stores pack their meat with it. Safeway no longer does this as of last year or the year before it, but the concept of adding Ammonia to meat is no different than adding lead. A lead bullet however is probably less poisonous than bleached burgers considering you don't eat the meat around the bullet. Sure, some lead could have gone through the bloodstream but eating game isn't exactly a daily thing for most hunters. I'd say most hunters hunt not for the taste of the meat but the satisfaction of eating what you kill as a part of survivalism. If more people killed their own meat, there would be a lot less waste. If we can't all hunt for our food, then there's an overpopulation problem.
The amusing thing is that the increase of bullets (i.e. people owning guns) has also contributed to drops in crime rates...
The NRA is all abut perpetuating the NRA.
If they really believed their own rhetorical spew, they would insist that the US adopt the Swiss method.
Every Swiss citizen serves two years in the militia, where they are educated and trained in the use of the weapon, keep their weapon when they leave, and have them in locked gun safes.
The NRA doesn't give a crap about you, just your dues.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
do they pay for you Viagra in exchange, of just leave you with the feeling that your little strapon somehow protects you from all of the funny lukin folks that scare you by simply existing.
Read the parent to which I was responding. Then contemplate analogies. You sound too quick to anger for the exercise to have any chance at enlightening you, but it will keep your fingers otherwise occupied for a few moments.
Infuriate left and right
There are plenty of stories of armed homeowners stopping criminals. Each and every one of those would have been a successful crime otherwise, so it's pretty obvious gun ownership has a positive effect.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". This simply can't be repeated often enough.
What the Romans found out about was lead acetate.
They discovered that lining their wine storage containers made bad or old wine turn sweet, rather than sour. This is because the acetic acid of the vinegar reacted with the metallic lead of the lining, becoming and extremely sweet - and extremely soluble, bioavailable, and toxic - compound (nicknamed "sugar of lead"). This, far more than the metallic lead in the pipes, is currently believed to be the main source of lead-related poisoning in the Romans (especially among the upper classes, who could afford the wines in the fancy containers).
The NRA's point is that metallic lead is enormously less of a toxicity issue than water-soluble lead compounds, and that anti-gunners and anti-hunters are (in its opinion) using "junk science" claims to push for yet another piece of legislation restricting guns, ammunition, and hunting.
The obvious counter would be to bring up NON-junk-science research establishing that metallic lead from shot actually is a significant problem and quantifying the problem. That only works, of course, if such non-junk-science results exist.
That doesn't say poisoning from lead shot is NOT a problem (or not a significant one). But given the number of scientists looking for such an effect, I'd consider a lack of such papers (if, indeed, there is such a lack) would be an indicator that toxicity from shot is so low as to be buried in the noise, rather than that nobody has gotten around to documenting it.
(Now its lack in the POLITICAL DEBATE, of course, could just be a matter of the anti-lead-shot faction going with the most lurid claims as a political tactic.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Steel is banned at many ranges because it can be more damaging to metallic target stands and steel targets.
It's also hell on barrels and chokes, especially in antique shotguns.
But for hunting it's a problem because it's less dense than lead (about 70%), causing it to decelerate more rapidly, reducing both accuracy and range. (At 40 yards #4 steel shot has about half the momentum of the same size lead that left the barrel at the same velocity.) Further, the lower density means you can't load as much mass into a shell of the same length while its higher strength means it doesn't deform and thus doesn't transfer as much momentum to the target. Both of these reduce the "stopping power" further.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
> the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations
There needs to be another way.
The reason some people don't want to give up lead in bullets is because it's easy to melt. I know people how make their own ammunition and using lead makes it easy for them to shape the bullets. I'm not defending it, in fact these idiots are poisoning themselves by handling the stuff on a consistent basis (in the long run a problem that solves itself).
Name two other groups that are as resistant to change, truth and scientific study then the NRA and the Vatican.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I have no idea why you think some guns are going to stop the US army rolling over you. Of course, if the army is on your side when the balloon finally goes up, then your guns are pointless. I guess if you counter with "but it'll give the police a reason to not mess with me!" then the answer is "no, it gives them more reason to get better guns and to really screw you over". Then, if you counter that the army was not on your side when the balloon went up, and you are going to use your guns afterwards to harass them, then I can point out that you won't last long, and that IEDs have been demonstrated to cause far more psychological and physical damage than firearms in Iraq and Afghanistan. But whatever. I guess you're beyond logic if you think the second amendment has any use in modern society beyond wildlife management.
Lead was once used to hold solder joints together, and it worked really well. Lead free solder does not handle thermal cycling nearly as well, it is more brittle, and takes much more care to apply correctly, and thus is usually not. Take the X-Box (red-ring-of-doom failure) for instance, a classic example if where not to use lead-free solder.
Naturally. What other kind of ammunition should one use against scientists and environmental groups?
The NRA should be forced to pick one loved one and offer it up as a sacrifice to be shot, mourned and buried. When it happens to you, it's policy, when it happens to me, it's a tragedy.
Just make sure they have to pick every single piece of it up.
And that goes for all the heavy metals, like tungsten.
I'm tired of the gun freaks passing true the cost of their destructive hobbies onto the public.
seems unfair to pick on just the gun owners while those that fish are busy tossing lead sinkers into streams and rivers
So on the one hand, the government stocks up on millions of rounds of lead, hollow point ammo... "For our Safety"... and on the other hand, they want to regulate lead bullets for the rest of us, sparking the ire of the NRA.
I can see the conspiracy theorists going bat shit crazy on this one. Guess I'll head over to ATS
Murphy was an optimist
The military does not want their bullets to expand on impact, since that would violate the Hague Convention. Frangibility is allowed, even desired. These materials look pretty good for that purpose.
Hunters want ammunition that will expand on impact with minimal fragmentation. In fact, some jurisdictions ban fully jacketed ammo for hunting. These materials do not look good for that purpose.
...ate lead paint chips as a kid. This Pro-Lead Bullets site just confirms it.
Preventing tyranny is not a misuse of guns. It is their primary purpose.
Of course liberals don't 'get it'. Things will be different 'this time'...
Oh Goody, the broad brush.
Let's take the test:
1. Lead is poisonous A. Yes, testing has proven that lead in it's many forms is poisonous B. No C. God Damn fuckning liberal scientists! D. God Damn Liberals! Fucking Liberals are wrong about everything! The NRA is Right about everything.
First it's taking the lead out of our bullets, next thing, the jack booted thugs will be taking our guns!
MOst very respectfully, you look incredibly foolish when you decide everyone that disagrees with you, and everything that does not fit into your world view is somehow "Liberal"
I support the ownership of guns
I am not a liberal
I own guns
Anyone found in my place at night will be found there in the morning
But I have a brain, and I use it, I'm starting to wonder if many NRA members are short on brainpower and long on emotion.
Lead is poisonous, it kills people, it has documented effects that are almost impossible to refute. There are other materials to make projectiles from. They might not be quite as "good" as lead. but tough shit.
So no! You can own all the guns you want. But the NRA is wrong on this one. Completely dead wrong.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"But whatever. I guess you're beyond logic if you think the second amendment has any use in modern society beyond wildlife management."
Shall we apply this to the first? The fourth? The eighth?
I'm pleased to know you're opinion in favor of overturning constitutional amendments is so easily obtained. Let's get rid of them all.
In Switzerland they're compulsory.
You aren't allowed to touch a weapon unsupervised before your basic training is completed.
In the 'States, if you've got enough money to buy weapon, regardless of how you got that money, you're now armed and dangerous (to yourself and to everyone around you.)
The NRA are a bunch of profiteers, nothing else...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations
Nice phrasing. :)
"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue that lead bullets are poisoning the environment and tainting game meat with a known neurotoxin."
But the lead sure is poisonous for the scientists and evironmental organisations agains whom the ammunition is used.
Blood tests for lead are very sensitive these days. People eating wild game do not seem to show elevated levels of lead.
There have sometimes been elevated levels of lead for people working in indoor ranges that had steel targets and no ventilation. But that is illegal in most states nowadays. The ranges I know have special ventilation and don't use steel targets.
Apparently, the metallic lead does not give off much from it's surface. But if it is exposed to very caustic materials, it can change so it is dangerous.
Before saying "use something else", check on the dangers of whatever the alternative is...
( Unless, of course, you just want to ban guns.)
trying to suggest that there is a link between lead and crime rates is absurd.
folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them.
...and it would be shameful to join them.
The "dust" coming from firing bullets in the shooting range could very well be in significant amounts.
Or not.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Eewwww.
~Gee... thanks.
The link in my sig gets about 50% positive, 50% negative comments. I think you're the first in a year to comment on it, and it's pretty traditional for me at the moment. The site itself hasn't been revised for years(and it's not mine).
Stepping back a moment, do you feel 'yucky' because of the site, or because the site made you realize that the information your opinions are based on aren't good sources?
What are the fallacies, strawman arguments, and ludicrous comparisons? Keep in mind that my thought processes are probably quite a bit different than yours, due to differences in life experiences, upbringing, and such.
"Proud Heritage of Gun Control"? Which page was that? Might be having a brain fart, but I'm not seeing it. Was it one of his posters?
I don't read AC A human right
Yay, Slashdot. This is why I so rarely post anymore.
First: Disagreement is not cause for a -1 Flamebait moderation.
Second: You have to actually read the articles I linked to, not just the summaries, to understand why "Lead does not cause crime" is a valid statement. It is awesome all the "did you even read the articles??" replies from the people who clearly didn't. So for those TLDR but posted anyway, here is what those articles point out:
Lead poisoning can delay brain development and can lead to violent and thus criminal behavior. But that does not mean that "Lead causes crime." A hockey puck to the head can kill you, but we don't say "Hockey pucks cause death." Current scientific evidence shows that lead has never been a significant factor in crime rates. It is just a correlation, and only for a few decades. Each of the linked articles, except for the Mother Jones article from the summary, point out that reducing lead levels in the environment did not decrease crime rates. There are also many more plausible explanations for crime rates.
The context of the article and discussion is reducing lead in bullets. The summary insinuates that lead in bullets is increasing crime. That is not true, plus it is not relevant to the discussion. Several other posters also pointed out that lead in bullets does not get into the environment significantly.
So yes, "Lead does not cause crime."
Since the Google search pointed to several scientific studies, there is no irony here. Plus, the point of showing the Google search was to demonstrate how obvious and prevalent such information is.
NOW, extend that to lead poisoning the entire population.
1) The entire population doesn't have lead poisoning.
2) The research showed that when lead poisoning rates decreased, crime didn't decrease.
I did. It sounds to me like you read summaries. But rather than reply here. look to my reply to the "group" (by replying to my own comment). In short: At best, the link is disproven. At worst: it is irrelevant to a discussion of lead in bullets.
...like the crime rates dropping in the decades following every ban of lead in consumer products and gasoline, it's then causation and correlation proving the point.
First of all, that's *exactly the flaw*. You can't prove anything via correlation. It's compelling, but it isn't proof. Furthermore, that isn't what they found! See the linked articles. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the individuals performing crimes had lead poisoning And there wasn't widespread lead poisoning to that degree. It just really didn't correlate.
You need to read more than the first paragraph of the first Google hit. The vast majority of them point out why there is no correlation at all. That's why I only bothered to link to the Google search. After seeing the results it becomes obvious that this is an alarmist thing. There is no widespread lead poisoning. And since the discussion is about bullets, it's irrelevant anyway!
My point is merely that such grand oversimplifications of an unrelated issue are just trolling in the summary. Lead bullets don't cause crime.
A few shots from retards firing firearms isn't going to make much difference
I'm glad we agree. The article summary was implying that bullets caused lead poisoning which caused crime.
Certainly it contributed. But it didn't cause it. Baseballs to the head contributed to 20th-centrury deaths. But we wouldn't say baseballs cause deaths. Don't lose site of the context: Lead bullets didn't cause an increase in crime rates. The article summary was implying that it did.
I read the entire article and it concluded that the idea had merit.
The connection between chronic lead exposure and neurological effects, including those that plausibly contribute to crime, is both plausible and reasonably supported by existing evidence. The magnitude of this effect is difficult to tease apart from the many variables that can potentially affect the crime rate. If we accept the 20% figure (crime that is lead related), which seems plausible, then this indicates a significant role for lead, but lead is certainly not the only important factor.
Also, because of the nature of this research there remains reasonable doubt about lead’s true role in the crime rate. This doubt, however, is not sufficient to argue that we should not pay attention to lead exposure or even take specific measures to limit it. The research is remarkably consistent in pointing to a real role for lead exposure. Multiple studies have also looked at the potential benefit of further reducing lead exposure (from soil and remaining lead pain, especially in window frames of old buildings). The research I can find all concludes that the benefit of lead reduction measures would be cost effective because of the potential benefits that would result.
I guess you were eating paint chips :-)
Bullets are not lead, they are a lead alloy many times harder than lead.
Brinell hardness number of lead is about 4. Hard cast bullets will have a Brinell hardness over 11 to about 30
I know many slashdotters would be astounded if the NRA site actually has hard facts in it
explains the NRA's average IQ
And Ted Nugent especially
So, ammunition doesn't kill people.
And guns don't kill people
And judging from the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, people don't kill people.
Hot damn, we're going to live forever!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
It is worth remembering that the NRA was founded to help Union soldiers improve their marksmanship. Their purpose had nothing to do with people shooting at scaring invaders who wanted to rob, rape and murder their families. What they call the "right" to bear arms is really the "right" of the gun makers to sell as many weapons to as many people as possible. If you feel that such a thing is in the public interest, I suppose that such is your "right." I however would claim that you are "wrong."
I agree that it must be the paint chips then. I'm just not sure which of us is affected. :-) The author of that article is trying to explain why the lead-crime relationship is pretty much bunk. The stuff you quoted even says that, in a more nuanced way.
NOTE: I found the article you referred to here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lead-and-crime/. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the article they used as a reference: http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/45/2/214.full.pdf Maybe I'll pay the $32 for it just so I can put this to bed.
If we accept the 20% figure (crime that is lead related), which seems plausible, then this indicates a significant role for lead, but lead is certainly not the only important factor.
Is that plausible? Why do we think that 20% of crime is related to lead? The commentator bases that figure on an article that he quotes as saying:
“as much as 20%” of crime is “lead related.”
Wait! So not 20%... less than 20%. Then he goes on to say in his comments section:
I don’t know how reliable the 20% figure is... taking all this at face value.
So does this idea really have merit? Well, lets read the entire article. It explains how at first, the lead-crime figure was 90% (Mother Jones article) then it was revised to 50% (after criticism)... then it was <20% (the linked PDF). So really... for real... what percentage of crime is caused by lead?
ANSWER: We don't know!
The sensationalistic article that Slashdot linked to is trying to say: poor people commit crimes... and poor people have less healthcare access... so they are more likely to have lead poisoning... so therefore, lead poisoning must be the cause of their crimes. By juxtaposing that with the statement that the NRA is pro-lead, the submitter is implying that the NRA is evil. That is hyperbole, and editorializing, and it shouldn't be in the Slashdot summary. Lead in bullets is not part of the discussion about crime.