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.
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
Actually many range mine the lead out of their backstops for resale back to either home bullet casters or commercial casting outfits.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
I own a small range, and that's precisely what we do - we gather the shot bullets and remelt them for casting (helps if you designed the backstops to make that easier). Saves a ton of money. Ditto, we collect all the brass from dumb shooters who leave it there - even more savings. The green aspect rides along for free - we just want our expensive metals back, it's like a super high grade mine with a heck of a lot less mess made to the envirornment in the process - at very low cost to us. I see a comment about Barnes below - no, we get them too. They float on the melt (along with the cupro-nickel normal jackets), and we sell the copper back to the refiners.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
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
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.
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?
There's some controversy about that at a popular San Francisco shooting range:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/24/sf-faces-10-million-toxic-waste-problem-at-lake-merced-gun-club/
The city is trying to shut down the gun club (which would leave the city on the hook for the cleanup). The gun club (which has already switched away from lead shot) wants to stay around and pay for the cleanup themselves, though maybe not on the terms the city wants.
Other lakes in SF that did not have shooting ranges are also contaminated with lead (mainly from street runoff when lead gas was legal), so it's not clear how much contamination at the gun club's lake is due to the gun club itself and how much from other sources, but the city is apparently blaming the gun club for all of the contamination in their lake.
$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....)
A large part of the ammunition fired at ranges is low velocity lead. Prevents lots of barrel wear. Also less painful. Shoot 100 rounds of jacketed .357 magnum and your hand/wrist is hurting. Shoot 100 rounds of lead .38 special and your good to shoot another 100. You'll also save a few bucks in the process.
It's still a non-issue environmentally.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.
No, it's really not a good correlation. There are a lot of very vocal anti-gubmint gun owners, who make the rest of them look kind of loony. The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center. NPR listening, democrat voting, pro-choice, not interested in NASCAR or truck pulls, do not believe Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, are not members of the Klan, have mufflers on their motorcycles...
Most gun owners don't get into the public debate. For one, the anti-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them. Secondly, the vocal part of the pro-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them.
Gun ownership isn't as much as a Right vs Left thing, but more towards where people live. Urban vs Rural. Also Urban vs Rural is tied to the Right vs Left thing.
Democrats in more Rural areas tend to have High NRA ratings, Republicans form Urban areas tend to have lower ones.
However most Republicans come from Rural Areas and Democrats come from Urban areas.
If you live in an Urban Area, You need and see government assistance every day. Sewer/Water, Garbage Pickup, Police/Fire that less then a few minutes away... You really don't need a Gun if you live in Urban area, it really would just get you into more trouble then it will help you, if you are in danger you call the police and they can get there fast enough to help.
If you live in an Rural Area. Most of the government assistance goes to farmers, but You need to have your own wells, you need to buy from a private garbage company or drop your stuff off at the dump, Volunteer Fire, that could add 30 minutes to respond. Police that is disperse and could take a while to respond too. Having a gun, is more of a useful tool, and chances are you are not getting into trouble with it.
I live in a Rural Area and I do not own a gun. However many of my neighbors do, and it really doesn't bother me, I am fully comfortable going up to them with a riffle in their hands and talking to them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This, a thousand times this. When I'm around the loud anti-gubmint gun owners, I have exactly the same visceral "please, please just shut the fuck up, you're making the majority of us look bad" feeling I get as when I'm listening to some idiot go on and on about how he likes big tits and only women with big tits, and anybody who doesn't like big tits is stupid and women who don't have big tits aren't worth knowing...
It really only takes a few very loud idiots to create a stereotype.
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
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!
That would depend on whether Dianne Feinstein thinks it's scary-looking or not. Never mind the statistics on how many gang drive-by shootings are comitted with assault muzzle-loaders*, it's all about the perception and fear-hype rookie reporters for the local 6-o'clock news can work up.
*Winner of the "funniest concept of the day" award.
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
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").
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").
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!
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)
But lead is bad. Surely even a slashdot conservative can recognize that.
Except that (to a slashdot conservative) guns are good, and anything that goes against guns in any way, shape, or form must be discredited. If Microsoft announced tomorrow that Windows 8 came with a free AR16 and a box of ammo there would be a front page story touting how undeniably stable, awesome, secure, awesome, and better-than-everything-else-ever it is. Hell all congress and hollywood had to do to make SOPA popular here was include guns in it - if there had been a measure written in to the bill that made every empty video rental store into a Sunday gun show it would have been the most popular bill ever.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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
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.