Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. You started this thread to talk about the threat posed to the environment by lead ammunition used by hunters. Then when you're confronted with the evidence of how your position holds no water, you're suddenly performing an about face and going off on contamination at shooting ranges and lead exposure to children?
Originally Posted by Galileo
How exactly do you make a jump from hunters, to shooting ranges and children being exposed to lead? I'm not seeing the logical progression here. Is there a post or something you left out and forgot to include? Is this one of those environmental extremist rants about how all lead is bad and should be done away with?
How are children "gun industry's prime target" exactly? The laws on the federal and state level don't allow children to buy guns. In some states it's not even legal for children to handle the guns of their parents unless they first obtain a permit, which can't be issued until the minimum age of 18.
"Tragically, children—the gun industry’s prime target—are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead...
Is there any evidence to back up this statement you're supporting? Maybe some source material released by an official firearms company directing their marking department to ramp up the sales release material to make them kid friendly and inspire children to become first time gun owners? Is there a memo or something we can see that would prove the existence of this notion?
I don't agree. I believe exposure to cigarette smoke and exhaust fumes put children more at risk than occasional encounters with minute traces of lead. And children are exposed to these carcinogenic-laced fumes almost every single day of their lives, at school and otherwise. The drive to school, to home, to the grocery store, to the pharmacy, to Wal-Mart, etc.
"Parents often put their own children at risk, because they do not know that their visits to the local range can result in lead poisoning of the kids at home....
I really don't believe that position. For starters this whole study you're presenting, in itself presents absolutely no scientific evidence to support itself as factual. We have a group of environmentalists -not the type of people who really rely on science or facts to begin with- claiming that lead is bad, but they don't go any further in depth than that. They're making wild accusations but they have no evidence of what they say.
"Besides poisoning kids and others, shooting ranges are wrecking the environment at a prodigious pace:..."
And while we're on the topic of the lack of validity this group has, let's look at some of the other nonsense they're claiming:
"Choked by stagnant markets and growing social disapproval, the gun industry has made increasing the number of shooting ranges the keystone of its survival strategy."
Stagnant markets and social disapproval. I'm not seeing it. The number of people buying guns and taking part in the shooting sports is higher now than they ever have been. The number of background checks alone in the time leading up to Obama becoming president is proof of that.
"No children should be allowed at shooting ranges, nor should they
participate in or be exposed to ammunition reloading, since there is no
“safe” level of lead exposure for children."
That's pretty extreme for a solution isn't it? No children allowed at shooting ranges? As in ever? What age qualifies as a child's age in a case like this? And does this include outdoor ranges with high levels of ventilation? Do we really need to believe that the possibility of lead exposure is so great that children need to basically be sealed away in plastic bubbles because it's for their own good? Lead is in the air no matter where you go, just as in everything else. There's no way to get away from it.
Edited to add: And what about the exposure to lead children get from their parents? Anytime an adult goes to the range or reloads ammunition, according to your cited source, they'd come home with lead particles all over them. Should children have no exposure to their parents if they take part in the shooting sports? Should we have Child Social Services come in and take away the children of shooting parents and place them with non-shooting parents, because the exposure to minute traces of lead from shooting ranges and ammunition reloading is that much of a health hazard?
"Congress should forbid use of federal dollars for any range that permits use of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or machine guns."
What exactly does this have to do with lead exposure and contamination issues? Especially when you look back on the original topic of this thread, which was contamination of the environment by hunters? If somebody wants to fire a specific amount of ammunition at any given time then they're going to do it, be it from an "assault weapon" or a bolt action rifle. I myself have been known to fire off a hundred or more rounds from a lever action rifle or a single action revolver. Give me a good day and I'll burn through an entire brick (500+ rounds) of plain lead rounds and not give a second thought about it.
Was this "no non-hunting guns" thing thrown in there just because? Or is this an anti-gun group that's paired itself with environmental extremists?
"The Violence Policy Center..."
Oh so now we get down to the gist of the matter. The Violence Policy Center. We all know how neutral and professional they are. Not at all. Now everything makes sense. From the statement that children should never be allowed on shooting ranges or to handle ammunition, to the banning of use of so called "assault weapons" at shooting ranges.
You almost had us up until that last little bit. And then we realized that you're cited source is just an extremist group that has made no attempt to ever hide the fact that it wants to do away with everything related to guns. And then when we saw that the Violence Policy Center was involved that all fell apart and we saw through your weak disguise.