NRA Launches Pro-Lead Website 780
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."
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
oh motherjoans (Score:2, Insightful)
Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Bullets but not wheel weights?: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF NRA? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The local range paid expenses with salaged lead (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Decontamination (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the danger would come in the form of dust created from impact, which a properly designed range would mitigate, but over time it still contaminates the site, since you can't reasonably get every single bit without a lot of processing and the danger levels of dust are remarkably low. Generally though the sites are fairly safe as long as they are kept dust free.
Our zeitgeist (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:Yes, and? (Score:2, Insightful)
you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership
Dead wrong. 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.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and you don'e want to eat it, or breath it in.
But, that does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with a large piece of meat coming in contact with lead for a short while.
Hell, the medical community puts mercury into injections, and expect you to inject it directly into your blood steam.
Re:Yes, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Decontamination (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize how much shooting and lack of cleaning it would take to reach that point?
Animal crap has a much bigger impact to our water supplies than this.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, the medical community puts mercury into injections, and expect you to inject it directly into your blood steam.
There's no solid evidence of health risks from thiomersal. The ethylmercury it breaks down into is as different from methylmercury in its effects on the body as ethyl alcohol is from methyl alcohol. It doesn't bioaccumulate, leaving the body in about 14-18 days.
But, that does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with a large piece of meat coming in contact with lead for a short while.
Lead, on the other hand, bioaccumlates quite well. You don't want to eat much in the way of small game shot with lead. There is no safe level of lead exposure and most of it will get sacked away in your bones to be slowly released over years. (Children and pregnant women get much higher doses in the soft tissues due to the way their bones undergo remodeling.)
Small game animals killed with shot tend to have many small fragments of lead in their tissues. [plosone.org] The UK's Food Standards Agency advises against eating meat killed with lead shot [food.gov.uk]. Eating less than half a pound of small game would increase your lead exposure by eightfold above average, and about half a pound of deer shot with led would double it. We're talking a teensy 8 oz steak here.
With the introduction of softer, heavier alloys for non-toxic shot, there is no legitimate reason to be using lead shot other than bull-headed stubbornness or an utter disregard for anything other than your own pleasure. It's you and your family that you're poisoning after all.
Re:Decontamination (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
LOL. I can't believe they trotted out that piece of shit again.
Here's a chart for you: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/This-Internet-Explorer-vs-Murder-Rate-Chart-Is-About-to-Go-Viral.png [softpedia-static.com]
Re:non sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
but so has gun ownership [nytimes.com].
Has it? As a percentage of households, yes. However, you need to account for population growth over the same time period. If you do you'll see the number (not percentage) of households with firearms has stayed fairly steady over the decades.
Without taking a position on the issue of guns vs. crime itself, comparing rates is exactly what should be done statistically.
i.e. the "rate" (fraction) of gun ownership (number of guns per household) should be compared with the crime rate (e.g. murders per 10,000 people per year.)
However, it may be debatable whether the appropriate number for guns is guns/household or percentage of people who own guns.
(The mean and median number of people per household is probably changing.)
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:4, Insightful)
and about half a pound of deer shot with led would double it. We're talking a teensy 8 oz steak here.
Ok, deer are normally killed with a *bullet* - not shot. A single projectile passing into the vitals. At least half the time the bullet passes through the other side. When it doesn't the bullet is either lodged under the skin or is in the chest cavity. The meat in the general area is often discarded anyways due to ballistic shock (ie, it turns to a bloody mush).
Bottom line, contact between the deer and the bullet is brief (often fractions of a second) and localized.
Re:Barnes bullets must love this (Score:4, Insightful)
*Winner of the "funniest concept of the day" award.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, considering the ATF - in its infinite malice - has banned solid copper and brass hunting projectiles as "armor piercing" even though they work EXTREMELY well as hunting bullets, that leaves us with nothing but options that are less effective and vastly less humane.
The attack on lead ammo is about gun control, not lead abatement. Period. Which is why the EPA's jurisdiction was explicitly drawn up short of regulating ammunition.
Re:Our zeitgeist (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:4, Insightful)
O RLY?
http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm [vpc.org]
Funny how they protect the gun manufacturers from gun owners:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/nraindus.htm [vpc.org]
It's the biggest gun manufacturers' industry group because it uses unwitting gun owners as puppets to do all the work.
Re:The Romans found out about lead (Score:4, Insightful)
That shield law protected manufacturers from being sued when their weapons were used in a crime. That seems quite reasonable to me, guns are doing exactly what guns are supposed to do.
If I were to hit someone over the head with my Swingline stapler would Swingline be considered at fault?
Also... Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)