quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



This is not a proposal for banning all lead ammunition, just for ammunition used in hunting; as you point out, a small percentage of all ammo used. This rule has been in effect in Scandinavian countries for a few years, perhaps one of the CM members from that area might chime in.

quote:



The problem is that if you hunt, you have to use the same ammo to sight in your weapon that you will use in the firld because of the ballistics.




< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 4/8/2012 1:27:17 PM >

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Edwynn)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/

quote:

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.

The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves.

During the Clinton administration, when the risks of lead ammunition were seriously debated, the EPA found no cause for concern. Research by William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, in a letter dated December 25, 1999, stated his findings: the claim that "lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error." Lead on the soil surface "does not break down. . . . [it] does not pose an environmental or human hazard. . . . In water lead acts much the same as in soil . . . ." The hazards don't exist for indoor shooting ranges any more than they do for outdoor ranges.

Eating food shot with lead ammunition isn't a problem. A 2008 study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted blood tests on 736 hunters, found that lead ammunition produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below CDC benchmark levels of concern, and posed no discernible risk to human health.

OK, I'm confused...
You are saying that a push to replace lead bullets with steel or copper bullets would stop you from using guns? Didn't we just talk about how the cost change of using copper wouldn't be that bad? Didn't someone point out that steel bullets are actually cheaper, though someone else pointed out they were less effective for game hunting?
Or are you completely ignoring all our points and just shouting your point from the rooftops trying to drown us out? If so, why? No one here has been saying "stop hunting," we are saying "Could you kindly change bullets?"
Refusing to even listen to that is going to just make folks think they can't work with you, which just leads folks who are against one tiny part of bullets to look for ways to go around you. One way to do so is to work with the folks who support gun control.
So are you trying to get the folks concerned about lead to help the folks who want gun control go after guns, or are you willing to acknowledge you seem to be creating a straw-man, and that isn't going to help your actual cause?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Okay then. How many lead bullets have you eaten?

I've eaten a HELL of a lot of game that was harvested with lead or lead core bullets.

Same here. Whenever you eat wild duck or pheasant, you will probably find shot in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what's all the bicthing about, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/

quote:

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.

The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves.

During the Clinton administration, when the risks of lead ammunition were seriously debated, the EPA found no cause for concern. Research by William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, in a letter dated December 25, 1999, stated his findings: the claim that "lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error." Lead on the soil surface "does not break down. . . . [it] does not pose an environmental or human hazard. . . . In water lead acts much the same as in soil . . . ." The hazards don't exist for indoor shooting ranges any more than they do for outdoor ranges.

Eating food shot with lead ammunition isn't a problem. A 2008 study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted blood tests on 736 hunters, found that lead ammunition produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below CDC benchmark levels of concern, and posed no discernible risk to human health.

OK, I'm confused...
You are saying that a push to replace lead bullets with steel or copper bullets would stop you from using guns? Didn't we just talk about how the cost change of using copper wouldn't be that bad? Didn't someone point out that steel bullets are actually cheaper, though someone else pointed out they were less effective for game hunting?
Or are you completely ignoring all our points and just shouting your point from the rooftops trying to drown us out? If so, why? No one here has been saying "stop hunting," we are saying "Could you kindly change bullets?"
Refusing to even listen to that is going to just make folks think they can't work with you, which just leads folks who are against one tiny part of bullets to look for ways to go around you. One way to do so is to work with the folks who support gun control.
So are you trying to get the folks concerned about lead to help the folks who want gun control go after guns, or are you willing to acknowledge you seem to be creating a straw-man, and that isn't going to help your actual cause?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
How the fuck can you sit there and claim copper cost slightly higher than lead?
Copper 3.7945 3.7834 3.7898
Lead .9045 .9026 .9290
http://www.metalprices.com/

The only straw man here is the nut job environmentalist trying to use "lead poisoning" as an excuse to get certain ammunition banned. Especially since it's been shown that their "math" is been quite faulty...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I know that. I was just wondering what the fuck the tirade of paranoid nonsense from Fox has to do with that...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what's all the bicthing about, then?

lead bullets in game animals. If the hunter doesn't track down his kill (far more common than non hunters think) or they gut the kill and leave lead fragments in the guts then birds of prey, which are very susceptible to heavy metal poisoning, eat the carcass/guts and get exposed to lead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what's all the bicthing about, then?

lead bullets in game animals. If the hunter doesn't track down his kill (far more common than non hunters think) or they gut the kill and leave lead fragments in the guts then birds of prey, which are very susceptible to heavy metal poisoning, eat the carcass/guts and get exposed to lead.

Tell me, Ken. Are you a hunter, I am. Not tracking down an animal is VERY rare.

As for lead bullets in gut piles, that is also rare. Typically, a bullet ends up embedded in the ground on the far side of the animal as thru penetration is typical on anything smaller than an elk, moose or bear.

Even in a worst case, a 180 Grain .30 cal bullet will have about a half ounce of lead in it. Now, remember, these people are claiming that 3000 tons of lead is left in animals to be scavenged every year. This means 8 oz/hunter.

This means that for the math to be correct, every hunter would have to leave 16 game animals lying on the ground every year based on 12 million hunters in the US.

Do the math and ask yourself "Does this pass the smell test?".

quote:


This means that for the math to be correct, every hunter would have to leave 16 game animals lying on the ground every year based on 12 million hunters in the US.
Do the math and ask yourself "Does this pass the smell test?".

quote:

Ste{e}l is out of the question. Not, it's not. In order to use steel, the projectiles would have to be coated with a thick jacket of softer metal such as copper or *Teflon* or the steel will destroy the barrel. That's already being done, full metal jacket. It doesn't matter what the coating is. Yes, it does matter, because the wrong coating can burn, gall, corrode, or be an environmental fuckup, but let's set that aside for now. Steel bullets are capable of penetrating armor and fortifications such as thick metals and brick walls. Obviously, more so than lead but less than tungsten or depleted uranium, in sabots, but that's military-grade stuff. The next thing we're gunna hear is cop killer ammo bla bla. Nonsense, steel bullets that mushroom and/or fragment on impact are already on the market.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

quote:


This means that for the math to be correct, every hunter would have to leave 16 game animals lying on the ground every year based on 12 million hunters in the US.
Do the math and ask yourself "Does this pass the smell test?".

Never seen the helicopter wild-pig shoot videos, with dozens of kills, have ya? ... And, okay, there ain't millions of hunters can afford that, but based on the stories I hear about hunting varmints, 16 per drunken hunter might be on the low side of average.

quote:

Ste{e}l is out of the question. Not, it's not. In order to use steel, the projectiles would have to be coated with a thick jacket of softer metal such as copper or *Teflon* or the steel will destroy the barrel. That's already being done, full metal jacket. It doesn't matter what the coating is. Yes, it does matter, because the wrong coating can burn, gall, corrode, or be an environmental fuckup, but let's set that aside for now. Steel bullets are capable of penetrating armor and fortifications such as thick metals and brick walls. Obviously, more so than lead but less than tungsten or depleted uranium, in sabots, but that's military-grade stuff. The next thing we're gunna hear is cop killer ammo bla bla. Nonsense, steel bullets that mushroom and/or fragment on impact are already on the market.

The cost of making steel bullets that are safer for the environment than lead bullets is pretty much a wash or slightly cheaper than lead. With the exception of ballistic impact range, all the other yammering gun-nutcase objections have already been addressed.

So, why do they keep ranting and raving? ... Does that have more to do with their trying to hyperbolate divisive 'issues' against anything thay can contrive as political-machination of their liberals-are-attacking-pseudocons paranoia rallying-cry?

... (Note, the comment above was addressed to certain political groups in general, and not to any particular poster(s), so if they choose to pretend to be offended, it's entirely in their minds that the shoe presented fit them.)
 
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what's all the bicthing about, then?

lead bullets in game animals. If the hunter doesn't track down his kill (far more common than non hunters think) or they gut the kill and leave lead fragments in the guts then birds of prey, which are very susceptible to heavy metal poisoning, eat the carcass/guts and get exposed to lead.

Tell me, Ken. Are you a hunter, I am. Not tracking down an animal is VERY rare.

As for lead bullets in gut piles, that is also rare. Typically, a bullet ends up embedded in the ground on the far side of the animal as thru penetration is typical on anything smaller than an elk, moose or bear.

Even in a worst case, a 180 Grain .30 cal bullet will have about a half ounce of lead in it. Now, remember, these people are claiming that 3000 tons of lead is left in animals to be scavenged every year. This means 8 oz/hunter.

This means that for the math to be correct, every hunter would have to leave 16 game animals lying on the ground every year based on 12 million hunters in the US.

Do the math and ask yourself "Does this pass the smell test?".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what's all the bicthing about, then?

lead bullets in game animals. If the hunter doesn't track down his kill (far more common than non hunters think) or they gut the kill and leave lead fragments in the guts then birds of prey, which are very susceptible to heavy metal poisoning, eat the carcass/guts and get exposed to lead.

Tell me, Ken. Are you a hunter, I am. Not tracking down an animal is VERY rare.

As for lead bullets in gut piles, that is also rare. Typically, a bullet ends up embedded in the ground on the far side of the animal as thru penetration is typical on anything smaller than an elk, moose or bear.

Even in a worst case, a 180 Grain .30 cal bullet will have about a half ounce of lead in it. Now, remember, these people are claiming that 3000 tons of lead is left in animals to be scavenged every year. This means 8 oz/hunter.

This means that for the math to be correct, every hunter would have to leave 16 game animals lying on the ground every year based on 12 million hunters in the US.

Do the math and ask yourself "Does this pass the smell test?".

Yes, Im a hunter and no, no amount of bullshit will work on me. Most hunters should not have licenses. Most hunters don't even attempt to track wounded prey if it doesn't fall down dead when they shoot it. Personally I've taken at least 5 bucks with other hunters rounds still in the animal. I've also found numerous carcasses with obvious buller wounds and that excludes the ones where the hunter took only the head or rack as a trophy.

You also fail to take into account the amount of ammo some of these idiots spray off into the countryside which never hits anything. Those rounds also contribute lead into the environment. 3000 tons for the entire 50 states from all kinds of hunting (deer, elk, bear, turkey, varmint etc.) strikes me as not an unusually large amount.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
"The ammo that is fired," I'll buy but the article specified ammo that was in gut piles and animals that weren't tracked. That still comes to a half pound of lead/hunter/year IN AN ABANDONED ANIMAL.
It's way too high. I'm voting for sensationalistic reporting that targets people who don't know any better and don't want to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Still waiting for you to answer any of the objections that have been raised to you lumping together all environmentalists into an evil antieverything massive, while we're talkiing about strawmen, sweetie.