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.
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.
Out of copper or brass. You can either cast or turn them.
I did just that a few years back. I would get nothing but letters spouting FUD about X,Y,Z. They would then of course ask for a donation to stop whatever big scary fear they just imagined.
Some gems:
1) Obama not trying to pass laws to take away our guns in his first term is PROOF he wants to take away our guns. So don't vote for Obama.
2) Obama is working with the UN to take away our guns all over the world.
I was willing to give them my money when I thought they were trying to encourage training, education, and firearm ownership. I also liked that they would be a voice in the process of government for the rights of gun owners. But they have moved beyond that and I can't say their goals align with my own goals. I just want to own my guns, shoot at ranges, and see the encouragement of proper education. I guess that's too much to ask.
Cost. Generally if you remove lead from bullets you see a price increase of nearly an order of magnitude. If you completely remove lead from ammo then you essentially drive the cost of target shooting up to a point where it can only be afforded by the rich.
Hunting wouldn't be much effected - neither would crime, as neither needs a significant volume of ammo, but target shooting would be a thing of the past. Passing laws with such consequences shouldn't be done just because it "might maybe sorta possibly help something somewhere". It needs to have very specific reasons based on scientific study. Not just of the "lead is bad, mmmkay" variety, but actually showing that the lead usage specifically in ammunition is reason for concern. So far, the data just doesn't show any major problem there.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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.
I don't think you know what an order of magnitude means. I am not paying $10 a shot for my Barnes bullets.
Target shooting will go on fine, it will just cost a very little bit more.
it would be considered a sociopath.
You realize threatening "Liberals" only goes to bolster their claims that guns will be misused and should be controlled.
$10 per shot? No, but for all my target shooting I shoot handloads. My .30-30 plinking loads I shoot with Missouri Bullet Company 165gr lead slugs. They run about $30 for 250. Thats 12 cents per bullet. Barnes bullets tend to run about $30 per 50 - about 60 cents per bullet. Not quite an order magnitude, but its still 5 times the cost.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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....)
http://www.seasonshot.com/
Technoli
Read the research. Lead usage in gasoline is correlated, with a scary amount of accuracy, to crime rates. There's a drop off in crime at a specific point about 20 years after the removal of lead from gasoline, the timing of which is consistently that same 20 years no matter when an area stopped using leaded gasoline. So it's not a strawman argument to say that lead poisoning leads to high crime rates -- it's peer reviewed science.
If you want an actual argument for lead in the form of bullets, then you should be talking about how the research is discussing what is essentially an aerosolized form of lead, rather than a chunk of metal. That's where there's room for debate with regards to bullets -- not in trying to vaguely disprove research you obviously didn't even read.
If they ban cryptography will you just comply? Spineless pussy!
The law is an ass, ignore it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually there is a demonstrated probable causal path: exposure to lead if the first 5 years of human brain development (and particularly in the first 2 years) is likely to cause faulty development of parts of the forebrain that control emotional outbursts. But hey, you keep on cleaning your gun on the kitchen table and bottle feeding your newborn after firing some bullets at the range. I'm sure you're right and there won't be any repercussions.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
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").
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!
Thousands of scientists: "Wildlife is dying due to poisoning from lead ammunition being accidentally ingested. Here is the evidence."
Yea, so, I checked out the links in TFS, and no where did I find any actual evidence that so much as indicated an environmental or health issue; heck, according to one of them:
To date, there are no reported human illnesses related to the consumption of wild game shot with lead ammunition.
So where is this evidence you claim they have, but didn't bother linking to?
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.
Yea, sure, why not? Next, they'll tell us that our old mechanical guns are dangerous and mandate that all future guns have to have one of those stupid bio-locks. But it only costs a little more, so suck it up.
Next year, they'll find some other reason to modify gun laws, but it only costs a little more, so you'll say "suck it up."
This practice will continue, until one day it turns out that the only people who can afford guns are the wealthy elite and their private armies, and we will have no means of defending ourselves against their tyranny.
Suck it up indeed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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
I don't rely on them, I have shot other ammo. I just prefer that stuff.
I was more taking a jab at shooting a 30-30 for fun.
Irresistible urge to rip on something someone else said?
looks at own previous comment
Yea, I get that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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").
I'm pretty sure that if a bullet is interacting with your brain, long term development is going to be low on the list of things you have to worry about.
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").
No, if the government passes unjust laws, you break the law. It's called civil disobedience and it's often quite effective.
Liberty in your lifetime
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!
We have some grade A paranoia going on here:
All one needs to say is "NRA" and it is immediately assumed that they are on the wrong side of the argument,
okey dokey.
"Against scientists and environmental organizations" as if they were one and the same!
No, hence the use of "and" in that sentance.
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.
Way more paranoia. If scientists in field X make a claim and you disbelieve it on general principle then that makes you a crank.
blah blah
Lead is toxic. This is well known to science. Believing otherwise isn't "crimethink" it is more plain stupid.
Lead has been removed from gasoline despite its useful properties because of the toxicity.
Likewise paint.
Likewise solder. It's really good stuff to have in there, but it is toxic and has been phased out of all but critical applications.
But now they want to phase it out of bullets and the cranks come out of the woodwork. You can still shoot people you know with other types of bullet.
"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
Yep and no one is trying to take it away. Just the lead bullets.
Yeah lead is useful. Yeah it's toxic. Yes it's being generally phased out because it's crappy stuff to have around. No reason gun owners should get super speshul treatment just because guns.
Use something else when you can. Use lead only if absolutely necessary, which it won't be because even tungsten (2x the density) s less toxic.
So have some cheap ass iron bullets for the range and some expensive tungsten ones for when your life is on the line. They'll be even better in case of your fantasy armed result since the increased sectional density for a given weight will increase the armour penetration substantially.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
1) There is no metal suitable for bullets other than lead - unless we want to shoot some other heavy metal. Pick.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"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
From your post, it sounds like there is already an alternative "green" ammunition because the military is using it and that it is recognized that lead can be a problem because of the regulations surrounding shooting ranges.
Pure lead does not dissolve in water, you are correct. However, in the presence of water, lead will readily form other compounds such as lead acetate or lead sulfate or lead phosphate. While those and most lead compounds do not dissolve in pure water (pH 7.0), lead compounds will readily dissolve and leach if the water is even a bit acidic. Since most rain and soil is acidic, pure lead bullets will readily convert to a lead compound which will readily dissolve and leach into the soil and the water table. Now the rate of dissolve may not be great, but over time, those lead bullets, will leach more and more lead into the environment. Maybe not in your lifetime, but in somebody's. There is a reason we don't use lead pipes any more and we don't drink wine (an acidic drink) out of lead tankards.
So, while this may be a push by anti-gun advocates, that does not change the chemistry involved with lead nor the biological impact. We've know about the dangers of lead for a very long time. It's been banned from water fowl hunting for decades because of its propensity to contaminate the water, fish and birds, along with anything that might consume them. If there are viable alternatives, then what difference does it make what one uses for a bullet? A 150 grain bullet of a particular shape is going to have the same flight characteristics whether it is made from lead or not. Steel shot is just as effective at killing waterfowl as lead shot, so it stands to reason that it would be just as effective as lead shot for other uses, too.
The ship builders said the scientists were wrong about asbestos. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tobacco industry said the scientists were wrong about smoking. History shows that the scientists were correct. The auto industry said the scientists were wrong about lead based fuels. History shows that the scientists were correct. History shows that the detergent companies said the scientists were wrong about phosphates and the environment. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tourist industry said the scientists were wrong about sun exposure. History shows that the scientists were correct.
Who knows, though, the scientists can't always be right, can they? Maybe the NRA has found the one thing the scientists are lying about. But then there is that darn chemistry stuff. You can't just get around it. Maybe the NRA is right and the scientists are lying, but then there would have to be an awfully big conspiracy, centuries in the planning to fake the results we know about the chemistry of lead compounds.
So, even if this is politically motivated, it doesn't change the science and until somebody can refute the science, it's a safer bet to bet on the scientists than the NRA.
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 they are on the wrong side of the argument, and the scientists here are wildlife biologists upon whose work the environmental groups are relying. Is it really at all controversial that lead is bad for you and for wildlife? Does an argument in the opposite direction even pass the sniff test? Are people that ignorant of the basics of ballistic forensics as to think no lead gets in their food when they shoot animals with it?
I think what perhaps is more scary is the fact that the NRA has come out with such a ridiculous stance, and people like yourself immediately flock to its defense. If you want to look at partisan blinders, look in the mirror. I mean look at your own ad hominem attack against Mother Jones as the source of the argument rather than considering it on it's merits. Do you not see that you are what you are accusing others of being?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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
Crap. I had been copying and pasting the mu symbol for micrograms in all of those figures, but they all got stripped and I missed it in preview. Slashcode is removing the HTML mu tag, too. Here's the corrected version with "u" in place of the mu symbol:
While no level of exposure to lead is "safe", NIOSH has a limit of 10 ug/dL for regular people, 5 ug/dL for children, and 30 ug/dL for workers occupationally exposed to lead. In adults, symptoms of blood poisoning become evident at 40 ug/dL.
40 ug/dL is not a lot. The average adult has 50 dL of blood, meaning 2,000 ug (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.
John
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
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.
And you sound like a cross between Yoda and a Google translation.
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