Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Lead Bullets Are Harmful to the Environment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,530

    Lead Bullets Are Harmful to the Environment

    "Unfortunately, there is vocal opposition to any ammunition regulation from groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see the campaign as an attack on hunting rights, and fear that the cost of non-lead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.

    "But this campaign has nothing to do with revoking hunting rights; if it did, I would not be involved. It’s an issue of using non-toxic materials. Was the removal of lead paint from children’s toys a plot to do away with toys? Did the switch to unleaded gas hide an ulterior motive of removing vehicles from our roads?

    "And although copper bullets can be more expensive than lead ones, the cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting, which includes gear, optics, food, gas and licenses."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16prieto.html

    Once again, the NRA defends irresponsibility.
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    238
    I'm new here and all. But I do know a thing or two about this issue. I'm a hunter and I've been following it closely in other avenues. I unfortunately can't post any links yet due to my new membership status though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    "Unfortunately, there is vocal opposition to any ammunition regulation from groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see the campaign as an attack on hunting rights, and fear that the cost of non-lead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.
    This is very true. There are very few non-lead alternatives that can replicate the superior ballistics performances that lead offers. And the few that can replicate the same performance in a lab settings, can neither do it in a reliable and readily repeatable manner, nor can they be trusted to perform properly when out in the field.

    Even if they could, these materials are in no way comparable to the price of lead. As it is now good quality hunting ammunition can cost at the very least $1 a round. Add in new and foreign materials and the average sportsmen might be looking at a cost increase to $5 a round or more, which would effectively turn hunting into a privilege that only the richest could afford.

    And then you have to take into consideration what it would cost the factories to offer non-lead alternatives. The machines they have for making lead ammunition can't just be used to make bullets out of other materials, they're not set up for them. Tensile strengths and chemical properties aren't comparable or interchangeable with each other.

    "But this campaign has nothing to do with revoking hunting rights; if it did, I would not be involved. It’s an issue of using non-toxic materials. Was the removal of lead paint from children’s toys a plot to do away with toys? Did the switch to unleaded gas hide an ulterior motive of removing vehicles from our roads?
    There's a slight difference though. Lead paint on children's toys could be licked off and ingested by toddlers who constantly put things in their mouths. Leaded gas exhaust fumes can easily be breathed in by anybody. But the lead used in bullets is neither breathed nor chewed. This isn't a proper or valid comparison to be making.

    "And although copper bullets can be more expensive than lead ones, the cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting, which includes gear, optics, food, gas and licenses."
    That's not a justifiable excuse to simply be calling for a ban on lead. The price increase is a small fraction? That's a small comfort. What exactly do you project the increase to be? Can you say with any certainty that we're talking about an increase in terms of cents rather than dollars per round?

    Where is the evidence that non-lead rounds can perform in a manner either comparable or superior to lead rounds in terms of performance, ballistics and function? Non-lead rounds very well could ruin a number of firearms that they're used in; that's why non-lead shot can't be used in older model shotguns when hunting waterfowl. If theses non-lead rounds irreversibly damage the rifle bores on older weapons there could be major lawsuits at be had because the matter wasn't properly researched.

    Furthermore, are you aware that a solid copper bullet could be considered armor-piercing in nature by the ATF due to the fact that it doesn't deform the same way lead does? Wouldn't that easily lead to a de-facto ban on the civilian possession of so-called "armor piercing ammunition"?

    And what about ammunition that's not used for hunting but instead personal defense? Should we also ban the use of lead for defensive ammunition because a mugger might suffer from lead poisoning in the course of a robbery attempt?

    Once again, the NRA defends irresponsibility.
    You're claiming the NRA is defending irresponsibility, when the evidence for supporting a lead ammunition ban is without scientific backing and instead relies on emotional rhetoric from people who haven't studied out the issue? The claim that all lead is bad isn't scientific, nor is it accurate. Lead is natural and found everywhere. We as humans even have minute traces of lead in our blood regardless of our exposure to it; it's part of our chemical makeup. There's no such thing as "lead free" material, not even in solid brass or copper. The notion of a 100 percent pure metal that's free of any and all contaminants is a thing of fantasy, not reality. Even the gold in Fort Knox has minute traces of lead in it.

    Go to a sporting goods store, any sporting goods store, and look at the rifle cleaning kits. The ones that're made of brass have a disclaimer stating that the product contains lead and isn't eligible for sale in California.

    So who's more irresponsible? The hunting and sporting community that won't give into emotional nonsense without scientific standing or backing...or the people that're operating on the basis of "all lead is bad, ban it now" who have no evidence to support their argument in an educated debate?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,931
    Pietro..welcome I can see you seem to know what you talk about.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7
    I don't think Galileo is going to like a common sense response like that. Makes him have to think.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    Welcome Pietro.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro View Post
    Add in new and foreign materials and the average sportsmen might be looking at a cost increase to $5 a round or more, which would effectively turn hunting into a privilege that only the richest could afford.
    THhhat what they after. Make everything just as expensive as possible.

    [Sarchasm on]But let me get this straight. You hunters and shooters want to deposit lead outside where it is found in nature in humongous quantities? Does that make sense to your minds? I say lets collect all of the lead from the outdoors, and put it where it belongs! [/sarchasm]
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    I live in a rural area not far from a Remington Arms ammunition Factory, Pretty much all 4000 people in my community work at this plant. If they were to pass some bogus Law banning the use of Lead The plant would be forced to shut down due to increased cost of re-equipping the factory to produce non-lead ammo, and the cost of Copper or some other Metals...I think we have more things to worry over personally. I can die from eating a hamburger made from tainted beef quicker than I could die of lead poisoning caused by a deer steak, I'll take my chances with lead.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    I live in a rural area not far from a Remington Arms ammunition Factory, Pretty much all 4000 people in my community work at this plant. If they were to pass some bogus Law banning the use of Lead The plant would be forced to shut down due to increased cost of re-equipping the factory to produce non-lead ammo, and the cost of Copper or some other Metals...I think we have more things to worry over personally. I can die from eating a hamburger made from tainted beef quicker than I could die of lead poisoning caused by a deer steak, I'll take my chances with lead.
    Hey X-Wing,how many people can YOU name that died of lead poisoning from a
    deer steak?right off I can't at all...good point you make.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    "Unfortunately, there is vocal opposition to any ammunition regulation from groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see the campaign as an attack on hunting rights, and fear that the cost of non-lead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.

    "And although copper bullets can be more expensive than lead ones, the cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting, which includes gear, optics, food, gas and licenses."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16prieto.html
    Ammunition is already over regulated by the government. There are regulations restricting the kinds of material that can be used in pistol ammo that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the prejudice of anti-gun people. Take a look at the hysteria over the so-called cop killer bullets which have never been used to kill a police officer wearing a bullet resistant vest. The media does not care that those bullets were designed and intended for use by the police in the USA. The industry does a good job of regulating itself.

    The article you link to does not bother to cite any peer reviewed studies and expects us to take his/her word for it that lead is dangerous to wildlife. The author is a fool if he thinks that burying "gut piles" does anything to deter them being scavenged by other animals. Or does he take the time to use a backhoe and bury them six feet down or in a hole lined with concrete? I doubt it.

    It seems you do not shoot very much if your ammo budget is a small fraction of the cost of guns, optics and other accessories. I shoot thousands of rounds a year, nearly all of it reloads, a great majority of it is lead that does back into the ground; where it came from. I do not care to spend more than I already do unless I have a good reason to change.

    I reload, tumble clean brass and cast my own bullets; all of which results in the release of lead into the air. Despite this exposure, my organ and blood lead levels are well under OSHA permissible levels. The human body is a wonderful thing; it can protect itself from all kinds of environmental hazards

    How about some real data if you want people to take you seriously.

    Ranb

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,530
    What about shooting ranges and the secondary lead poisoning of children?

    "Tragically, children—the gun industry’s prime target—are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead...

    "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....

    "Besides poisoning kids and others, shooting ranges are wrecking the environment at a prodigious pace:..."
    Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges: Poisonous Pastime | Environmental Working Group
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    "Tragically, children—the gun industry’s prime target—are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead...
    "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....."
    Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges: Poisonous Pastime | Environmental Working GroupDisturbing....
    Drilling for Natural Gas contaminates water that effects Children in an even worse way but they don't go after Natural Gas do they?.. I've been eating Wild Game my entire life, as do my Children and the last check up I had didn't reveal any abnormal amounts of lead in my blood. I'm not saying that lead poisoning don't happen, but using it as another way to try and regulate ammunition is just Lame.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    What about shooting ranges and the secondary lead poisoning of children?
    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?

    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?

    "Tragically, children—the gun industry’s prime target—are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead...
    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.

    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?

    "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 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.

    "Besides poisoning kids and others, shooting ranges are wrecking the environment at a prodigious pace:..."
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Pietro; 12-20-2010 at 08:57 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    Science Daily Virginia Tech Professors Study Effects On Environment Of Lead From Bullets
    ScienceDaily (Mar. 28, 2000) — BLACKSBURG, March 24 — Two studies done at Virginia Tech showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    "Unfortunately, there is vocal opposition to any ammunition regulation from groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see the campaign as an attack on hunting rights, and fear that the cost of non-lead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.

    "But this campaign has nothing to do with revoking hunting rights; if it did, I would not be involved. It’s an issue of using non-toxic materials. Was the removal of lead paint from children’s toys a plot to do away with toys? Did the switch to unleaded gas hide an ulterior motive of removing vehicles from our roads?

    "And although copper bullets can be more expensive than lead ones, the cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting, which includes gear, optics, food, gas and licenses."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16prieto.html

    Once again, the NRA defends irresponsibility.
    Lead is dangerous to the environment huh? that is your topic!
    1)lead is in the environment
    2)lead comes from the environment just like your groceries do.
    3) putting lead back where it came from does zilch

    Science and Facts Escape Attorney General's Anti-Lead Ammunition Report

    Science and Facts Escape Attorney General's Anti-Lead Ammunition Report



    MONTPELIER, Vt., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A report released
    earlier today by Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell (entitled "Get
    the Lead Out of Vermont") attacking traditional firearms ammunition has
    been met with objection and firm resistance by experts in environmental
    management as well as the country's most significant and respected
    ammunition, firearms, hunting and shooting organizations. Experts from the
    Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), the
    organization founded in 1926 at the behest of the federal government and
    charged with establishing and publishing industry standards for safety,
    interchangeability, reliability and quality of ammunition, have been the
    most vocal in pointing out the myriad errors, omissions, misquotes and
    disinformation in Sorrell's opinion.
    The most outrageous and inaccurate claim mentioned in this report, and
    what some consider to be proof that the attorney general never did his
    homework on the issue, is language stating that lead in ammunition is
    absorbed by the skin and therefore not safe to handle. This allegation is
    unfounded and is serving to bolster claims by opposition groups that
    General Sorrell's report is nothing more than a scare tactic from a
    politician beholden to anti-gun and anti-hunting interests.


    Then you get on a rant about lead paint on childrens' toys trying to compare bullets to toys Paint is made from lead SALT compound, bullets are not!
    It turns out that the signed affidavit by the Environmental Quality officer stating that he had taken the water sample was a lie. Arwady never got to use his expert toxicology witness that metallic bullet never, ever leaches. It is not soluble. Only lead salts (such as found in lead paints) are dangerous.

    News Releases
    NSSF continues to stress the following in the debate over traditional ammunition:

    There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
    Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
    A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
    A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.
    Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    What about shooting ranges and the secondary lead poisoning of children?

    "Tragically, children—the gun industry’s prime target—are most vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead...

    "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....

    "Besides poisoning kids and others, shooting ranges are wrecking the environment at a prodigious pace:..."
    Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges: Poisonous Pastime | Environmental Working Group
    PERFECT POST FOR YOU!!! NOT ONE WORD OF TRUTH IN IT

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,366
    I bet none of you gun grabber anti Constitutionalist know of any person SHOT with a lead bullet that had adverse affects from lead poisoning.

    There are quite a few who lived to a ripe old age with the lead bullet still in them. Now if what you claim had an iota of truth to it, which it doesn't, every one ever shot with a lead bullet would die of "lead poisoning".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •