lead bullets article/ Good news

[pilkguns]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nder-fire/

[Misny]

Thanks for the article. I sent the link to my U.S. Congressman. I hope others will as well.

[RandomShotz]

I would not get too excited about the "article". It is merely an opinion piece, not a news article and it appeared in the Washington Times which has a definite right-wing bias that compares well to that of Fox News.

The piece presents no science to counter the positions of the EPA and the others, instead offering only non sequiturs and misrepresentation. Larry Keane, who is a VP with ISSF but does not seem to have any scientific credentials, said this: “Lead is in the periodical table. There is no more lead in the environment than there was 100 years ago." True enough, but that does not actually say anything about the question at hand. We could say the same thing about plutonium - does that mean it is safe to shoot plutonium pellets around?

The other critic quoted is "Don Saba, a research scientist and National Rifle Association board member". I can find no original research published by Dr. Saba, nor could I find any research or academic organization with which he is associated. In fact, the only association I can find for him is the NRA. This is reminiscent of researchers in the employ of tobacco companies who long maintained that there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer or the scientists who received grants from Exxon-Mobil and could not find any evidence of global warming.

And his criticism is specious - he claims that "elemental lead" does not dissolve in water nor is it readily taken up by plants or animals. However, the water encountered in nature is not just water - there are ions dissolved in it which can affect pH and reactivity. Lead is not inert, as Dr. Saba asserts - it is capable of reacting with oxygen or with dissolved ions in the right conditions.

Please understand - I am not a professional environmentalist, I don't have any expertise regarding environmental lead and I honestly do not know if lead used in hunting and sporting arms has any environmental effects. Frankly, my modestly informed opinion is that, aside from the deposits concentrated in the berms of shooting ranges, lead from guns is not an environmental problem and the proper management of the berms will prevent problems there as well.

However, I do know propaganda when I see it and if the defenders of lead ammunition are depending on the kind of stuff presented in this editorial to protect their position, then they are clinging to a slender reed indeed.

Roger

[visitor]

From the "article," not really the right word for a pure opinion piece:

“There is a tremendous toxicity difference between the highly inert metallic lead used in ammunition and the highly toxic lead compounds used in legacy leaded paints.”

Yes, until the metallic lead oxidizes in contact with water and/or other soil chemicals and becomes as absorbable and toxic as lead paint.

Then there is the obvious political part:

Should President Obama win in November, it’s a certainty he’ll try once again to ban lead ammunition.

The only certainty you might want to wager more than a nickel on is the extreme anti-Obama bias of the writer and the Washington Times. Just like the bull surrounding the U.N. Draft Treaty on Small Arms which will do NOTHING to our 2nd Amendment rights but is a handy excuse for the NRA and others to send out scare letters demanding ever more money to fight the "threat."

[Quest1]

From the "article," not really the right word for a pure opinion piece:

The only certainty you might want to wager more than a nickel on is the extreme anti-Obama bias of the writer and the Washington Times. Just like the bull surrounding the U.N. Draft Treaty on Small Arms which will do NOTHING to our 2nd Amendment rights but is a handy excuse for the NRA and others to send out scare letters demanding ever more money to fight the "threat."

I am intrigued as why you think the proposed treaty won't have any affect on the Second Amendment Rights in this country. I can see that the treaty may not have any immediate or direct affect. However, if the treaty was approved and signed by the Presidency and ratified by the Senate, which is currently controlled by the Democrats then there is a possibility that it could become law. I realize currently there probably isn't the two thirds majority in the Senate to make this treaty law, but that could change sometime down the road. This treaty has been reintroduced year after year in the UN in one form or another and all it would take is the perfect timing for the right election to make this treaty law. If your thinking the treaty even if adopted would have no impact on US gun ownership then you haven't read the treaty.

I haven't seen anything lately that demonstrates this Administration is worried about the Constitution. The liberals see the Constitution as a living document, which means for them that the document can be changed with the times and not to what the founding fathers intended. Therefore the document can be changed to whatever the current political correctness of the times. These aren't my words these are the words coming out of liberals in the congress and from the testimony from the liberals on the Supreme Court.

[RandomShotz]

I am hesitant to reply to "Guest" since I don't want to get involved in the kind of political discussions that mar other shooting forums, but here goes.

The proposal before the UN dealt only with international transactions. The UN has no jurisdiction within the US or any other sovereign country.

So why do they oppose the treaty? What follows is my opinion. The NRA opposed the treaty because it would interfere with the profits of its major commercial supporters. The fact that the NRA used misinformation to incite its membership to a near frenzy is of a piece with its propaganda campaign against the opponents of lead bullets. The NRA's principal interest is the money flowing through it and it's lobbying arm, the ILA.

Of course, it is just an opinion. However, while I do not have any smoking e-mails, I find it very difficult to interpret the actions of the NRA in any other way. First, the fact that they use propaganda, misinformation and fear to support its positions suggests that thy do not have truth on their side. Second, I believe they are hurting their membership growth by its radical legislative positions stopping any and all gun-related laws. I have spoken with many people at Bud's Gun Shop/range which I use several times a week, and I always approach the idea of limits on gun availability very carefully. Without exception, the people I have spoken with do not seem afraid of the inevitable "slippery slope" that is at the heart of the NRA's anti-legislative arguments and are in favor of measures that will not interfere with legitimate gun ownership. By "measures" I mean a minimal training course for firearm purchase, i.e., safe handling, legal use, etc. Also, some sort of regulation on personal transactions - already any transaction that involves shipping a gun requires that the gun be shipped to an FFL holder and the transaction recorded.

Bud's is of the newer generation of gun shops - it is well it and open, there are women on the sales staff and among the customers and there are no political posters on the walls. This is a sharp contrast to most of the shops in this town which are dark, testosterone-soaked and very uncomfortable for anyone with an Obama bumper sticker. Another contrast is that Bud's parking lot is large and often full. I'm sure the NRA is aware of the changing demographic of gun owners and that their extreme right-wing attitude is alienating people. IMHO, the only reason that the NRA has not adjusted its positions to accommodate the changing attitudes towards guns in America is that they don't really care about membership as long as there are enough hard-core members to scare legislators and keep them from interfering with the profits of their commercial supporters.

IMHO, of course.

In the interest of not heading down a political thread which is unfortunately likely to become heated and fruitless, I will not reply further to this thread. However, I might reply to civil PM's.

Roger

[oldcaster]

There is more lead out of the ground right now than was in because of shooters since we all have bullet on our shelf. That in itself is a good deal. Please liberals do not eat bullets whether they are lead or not. -- Bill --

[Pat McCoy]

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

[randy1952]

Your opinion reflects your lack of knowledge on how the NRA is able to legally operate. The NRA was split into to different organizations a few decades ago. One is the Institute for Legal Action, which does all the political action and operates entirely on donations from individual members and some from the sporting industry. Know as far as huge donations from the gun companies these donations are typically very small maybe in the typical five figure range. You would understand that if you knew that most of these gun companies are just small businesses and they don't have the budgets of corporations such as Ford or Apple. I don't know if companies like Remington, Winchester, or Browning donate much of anything as many of them are making their guns outside of this country, which could be affected by the small arms treaty.

The older NRA non-profit organization which is very closely watched by the IRS for any violations. I don't think you'll find many non-profits with an IRS office inside their own headquarters, which was done during the Clinton Administration. The NRA had to give them a space inside their own headquarters. This is unlike the Brady group, which was caught red handed receiving money illegally and didn't even get their hand slapped. The other thing is to many people see the NRA as this huge organization. Well it dosen't employ that many people considering all the things they have been asked to do and the vast majority don't get paid all the well. The organization is only able to operate from it's vast network of volunteers, which is the true meaning of a grass root organization.

You seriously under estimate the capacity of our government's ability to abuse it's authority. I am not a believer in the Black Helicopter Group, but I have worked with a number of government agencies and for them the more regulations they get to accumulate the more power and money they get. This is the very thing your accusing the NRA of doing except the government is using your tax dollars to do it. After a time and the agency has grown, it is more about money and power and very little to do with making things better. It is only matter of time after pushing the limits that they will start abusing those laws and regulations. It's just a shame that many people in this country chose to largely ignore those abuses and chose believe in the Shangri-La approach in that more laws and regulations will make things better. Fast and Furious was instituted by our government in hopes getting more gun laws and regulations.

I have a friend who worked in the Justice Department and there were days he couldn't tell the difference between the attitudes of the agency and the bad guys. I also remember him telling me he was reading an issue of Guns and Ammo on his lunch break and an employee came up to him that he shouldn't be reading such things. He quickly reminded that as far as he knew that the First Amendment still applied.

I am hesitant to reply to "Guest" since I don't want to get involved in the kind of political discussions that mar other shooting forums, but here goes.

The proposal before the UN dealt only with international transactions. The UN has no jurisdiction within the US or any other sovereign country.

So why do they oppose the treaty? What follows is my opinion. The NRA opposed the treaty because it would interfere with the profits of its major commercial supporters. The fact that the NRA used misinformation to incite its membership to a near frenzy is of a piece with its propaganda campaign against the opponents of lead bullets. The NRA's principal interest is the money flowing through it and it's lobbying arm, the ILA.

Of course, it is just an opinion. However, while I do not have any smoking e-mails, I find it very difficult to interpret the actions of the NRA in any other way. First, the fact that they use propaganda, misinformation and fear to support its positions suggests that thy do not have truth on their side. Second, I believe they are hurting their membership growth by its radical legislative positions stopping any and all gun-related laws. I have spoken with many people at Bud's Gun Shop/range which I use several times a week, and I always approach the idea of limits on gun availability very carefully. Without exception, the people I have spoken with do not seem afraid of the inevitable "slippery slope" that is at the heart of the NRA's anti-legislative arguments and are in favor of measures that will not interfere with legitimate gun ownership. By "measures" I mean a minimal training course for firearm purchase, i.e., safe handling, legal use, etc. Also, some sort of regulation on personal transactions - already any transaction that involves shipping a gun requires that the gun be shipped to an FFL holder and the transaction recorded.

Bud's is of the newer generation of gun shops - it is well it and open, there are women on the sales staff and among the customers and there are no political posters on the walls. This is a sharp contrast to most of the shops in this town which are dark, testosterone-soaked and very uncomfortable for anyone with an Obama bumper sticker. Another contrast is that Bud's parking lot is large and often full. I'm sure the NRA is aware of the changing demographic of gun owners and that their extreme right-wing attitude is alienating people. IMHO, the only reason that the NRA has not adjusted its positions to accommodate the changing attitudes towards guns in America is that they don't really care about membership as long as there are enough hard-core members to scare legislators and keep them from interfering with the profits of their commercial supporters.

IMHO, of course.

In the interest of not heading down a political thread which is unfortunately likely to become heated and fruitless, I will not reply further to this thread. However, I might reply to civil PM's.

Roger

[Misny]

I am hesitant to reply to "Guest" since I don't want to get involved in the kind of political discussions that mar other shooting forums, but here goes.

The proposal before the UN dealt only with international transactions. The UN has no jurisdiction within the US or any other sovereign country.

So why do they oppose the treaty? What follows is my opinion. The NRA opposed the treaty because it would interfere with the profits of its major commercial supporters. The fact that the NRA used misinformation to incite its membership to a near frenzy is of a piece with its propaganda campaign against the opponents of lead bullets. The NRA's principal interest is the money flowing through it and it's lobbying arm, the ILA.

Of course, it is just an opinion. However, while I do not have any smoking e-mails, I find it very difficult to interpret the actions of the NRA in any other way. First, the fact that they use propaganda, misinformation and fear to support its positions suggests that thy do not have truth on their side. Second, I believe they are hurting their membership growth by its radical legislative positions stopping any and all gun-related laws. I have spoken with many people at Bud's Gun Shop/range which I use several times a week, and I always approach the idea of limits on gun availability very carefully. Without exception, the people I have spoken with do not seem afraid of the inevitable "slippery slope" that is at the heart of the NRA's anti-legislative arguments and are in favor of measures that will not interfere with legitimate gun ownership. By "measures" I mean a minimal training course for firearm purchase, i.e., safe handling, legal use, etc. Also, some sort of regulation on personal transactions - already any transaction that involves shipping a gun requires that the gun be shipped to an FFL holder and the transaction recorded.

Bud's is of the newer generation of gun shops - it is well it and open, there are women on the sales staff and among the customers and there are no political posters on the walls. This is a sharp contrast to most of the shops in this town which are dark, testosterone-soaked and very uncomfortable for anyone with an Obama bumper sticker. Another contrast is that Bud's parking lot is large and often full. I'm sure the NRA is aware of the changing demographic of gun owners and that their extreme right-wing attitude is alienating people. IMHO, the only reason that the NRA has not adjusted its positions to accommodate the changing attitudes towards guns in America is that they don't really care about membership as long as there are enough hard-core members to scare legislators and keep them from interfering with the profits of their commercial supporters.

IMHO, of course.

In the interest of not heading down a political thread which is unfortunately likely to become heated and fruitless, I will not reply further to this thread. However, I might reply to civil PM's.

Roger

As to the question of lead, I saw no evidence presented by you that suggests that it is a threat to public health. I thought gun accidents had been on the decline in the United States over the decades. Why would you want the government to mandate training, when it seems as if there is no growing problem? You apparently also don't believe that there are United Nations troops occupying foreign countries at this time. I suppose that you don't think that police and troops confiscated firearms from law abiding residents of New Orleans. You apparently believe that the government should oversee the transfer of private property. There are already a lot of laws on the books that prohibit sales to certain persons. I have been around a lot of the "new" gun culture and don't see these views expressed by the majority. The newer generation, like the older generation of firearms owners, enjoys the free expression of the second amendment. IMHO, they don't want to be saddled with feel good laws that only burden the honest law abiding citizens.

[oldcaster]

Right on Misny. it is always divide and conquer, trying to turn people who have the same dog in the fight against each other. -- Bill --

[Sparks]

As to the question of lead, I saw no evidence presented by you that suggests that it is a threat to public health.

We know lead isn't a good thing to ingest:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/leadpoisoning.html

The fear is that if you have a high concentration of lead (say, in a backstop), then the normal rainfall will leach high concentrations of lead out of that spot and into the water table, leading to heath concerns for the general population.

It's a pain in the arse, but it's not bunkum. In Europe, we just deal with it - you put down polyethelene liner under the berm and that's all it takes.

You apparently also don't believe that there are United Nations troops occupying foreign countries at this time.

Occupying?
I know of a few countries that have peacekeeping forces but I didn't know the UN had invaded anywhere of late. Where were you thinking of?

I suppose that you don't think that police and troops confiscated firearms from law abiding residents of New Orleans.

Wasn't that judged to be illegal in a large case later?
And if so, am I the only one that thinks you're comparing an international treaty and a common street crime as if they were the same thing in a legal sense (as opposed to melodramatic imagery)?

Honestly, every time I read this line of argument, I'm puzzled because speaking as someone who doesn't live in the US, we don't care about your guns at all. We look at the tragedies that occur on an all-too-frequent basis in your country (and elsewhere) and we feel pained by them on a basic human level but I've yet to even hear someone suggest that it's something for the UN to sort out. You're pretty much on your own with fixing that social ill, even if you have our best wishes. But wanting to confiscate your guns or rewrite your laws? Please. We've got lives to live and shit to be getting on with.

[oldcaster]

The idea that no one cares about the people in the U.S. being fond of our guns is hogwash. You can write what you want on a post but history and speeches made in recent times say otherwise. I was in Australia immediately after guns were taken from law abiding citizens and it was crime run amuck. It was just like here where the majority didn't want their guns taken away but were forced to do so. The UN most definitely made a move with the idea of taking guns away from the rank and file in America and it quickly failed.
Everywhere we have lead in the ground, because that is where we mined it from to begin with. If it didn't ruin our water supply when it was in the ground, it isn't going to harm it when we put it back.
I have been to 35 countries in my life time and the one thing that I see nearly everywhere is the envious feelings that people and you also have toward America. How about just getting along with the substance you said you need to get along with because we don't need any of it here.

[Richard H]

Oldcaster, actually elemental lead is rarely found in nature. Lead is usually in an ore most commonly copper but also with zinc and silver. It's usually found in deep hard rock mines which is very different than lead found laying on or close to the surface. That said I do remember reading at east one paper that tested ground water run-off from surface lead deposits and if I remember correctly it was negligible to non existent.

Lead use has also been expanding as the world develops, there are some that predict there is less than 50 years left of lead. Of course with recycling that can be expanded. So hold on to that lead it maybe worth much more in the future.

[oldcaster]

Lead ore in Missouri at the St. Joseph mines in Bonne Terre was mined all from open cuts or what is called surface shallow shafts. Initially in wet weather the mine couldn't even be worked because the cuts were too full of water and in winter the sleet and ice interfered with work.

Separation of the rock from the lead was done by a process called “jigging.” The jigging machine, used at that time was a long heavy pole lying across a large log or wooden horse with a water-washed sieve filled with crushed ore. Constant short, sharp motions by a man on the end of this pole would move the material in the sieve up and down in the water. The heavy particles of lead would sink to the bottom while the lighter particles of stone would remain at the top. This was lead mixed with just stone and was part of the bank and bottom of the riverway. If stone mixed with lead is normal in nature, it is no different than if it is in a berm, unless a person wants to use this as a way to denigrate shooting and or make hay for political gains or posturing. No lead mines exist in America anymore and the last American lead mine was in Peru. Workers there, not following rules caused trouble and it is shut down also. As far as I know, only China mines lead in any quantity. Come to think of it, China now does a lot of what we used to do in America.

[Richard H]

Really?

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ ... 2-lead.pdf

[oldcaster]

Global mine production of lead was expected to increase by 9% in 2011 from that in 2010, to 4.52 million tons, mainly owing to production increases in China, India, and Mexico, offsetting declines in other regions. China was expected to account for nearly one-half of global lead mine production."

This is taken from the web site you posted, so I was wrong in that America still mines some lead but was correct in all else I posted except that Peru is open again and will be until a time limit on whether some concessions are met. What's with the REALLY. The point of these things being written are that it is not dangerous to be shooting lead projectiles into an earthen berm because lead exists in its raw form in nature and causes no problems.

[Richard H]

"Really", was questioning your expertise that you seemed to be espousing when a simple search yield info from the US Geological Survey, that showed that you didn't have much of a clue what your were talking about with regards to mining or production, so why the hell should anyone take your word on the rest of your post.

You seemed to be too busy picking fights, my original post that you seemed to be arguing with also stated that I had seen studies that had shown little to no effect with regards to ground water contamination from lead. Instead you had to point out that some how I was wrong by stating the lead is rarely found in its pure elemental form and is usually found within other ores, by pointing out one mine in Missouri (which makes it rare).

[oldcaster]

Change your name to Canadian crybaby because it would fit better. If the pure lead in Missouri causes no problem, then it won't anywhere else either. If you doubt my statements, just google a few of my words and you will see where I got it from. No more arguments from me as I am going back to talking about guns and shooting which this Forum is all about.----- Finished ........but I know you will have to have the last word.

[Misny]

As to the question of lead, I saw no evidence presented by you that suggests that it is a threat to public health.

We know lead isn't a good thing to ingest:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/leadpoisoning.html

The fear is that if you have a high concentration of lead (say, in a backstop), then the normal rainfall will leach high concentrations of lead out of that spot and into the water table, leading to heath concerns for the general population.

It's a pain in the arse, but it's not bunkum. In Europe, we just deal with it - you put down polyethelene liner under the berm and that's all it takes.

You apparently also don't believe that there are United Nations troops occupying foreign countries at this time.

Occupying?
I know of a few countries that have peacekeeping forces but I didn't know the UN had invaded anywhere of late. Where were you thinking of?

I suppose that you don't think that police and troops confiscated firearms from law abiding residents of New Orleans.

Wasn't that judged to be illegal in a large case later?
And if so, am I the only one that thinks you're comparing an international treaty and a common street crime as if they were the same thing in a legal sense (as opposed to melodramatic imagery)?

Honestly, every time I read this line of argument, I'm puzzled because speaking as someone who doesn't live in the US, we don't care about your guns at all. We look at the tragedies that occur on an all-too-frequent basis in your country (and elsewhere) and we feel pained by them on a basic human level but I've yet to even hear someone suggest that it's something for the UN to sort out. You're pretty much on your own with fixing that social ill, even if you have our best wishes. But wanting to confiscate your guns or rewrite your laws? Please. We've got lives to live and shit to be getting on with.

No offense intended, but my response was intended to address gun owners in the United States. I have read many views by European gun owners and they apparently differ substantially from those of American gun owners who cherish our constitution. Like I said, I'm not bashing your form of government or views. I recognize that lead can be a problem, but I
don't think banning lead ammunition is the solution. As a free citizen, I feel as though, all to often, governments will use a hammer to kill a fly, when a fly swatter would serve the purpose.