The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 11, 2010, 07:59 AM   #51
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
So if they actually banned lead, what is there? Bismuth? Steel? Some strange alloy I don't know about?
See post #23 in this thread. Copper is already widely used both for plating and for making bullets, but obviously is not as heavy as lead. There's hardly anything with an acceptably low melting point and low cost like lead, especially if you want to cast your own. Maybe zinc, but it's lighter than copper.
spacecoast is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 08:54 AM   #52
seed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
Thanks. Sadly I actually did read that post a while ago and forgot where it was...I've been following multiple threads on multiple board on this subject, lost track and was too lazy to find it. However, I don't think it mentioned bismuth...Why not?...It seems like a viable candidate -- at least for practice ammo.
seed is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 10:36 AM   #53
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
Copper, like any metal in high doses can be dangerous. I believe that copper will kill sheep.

Growing up, there was a neighbor nobody liked and some of the guys in the neighborhood put copper nails in all his trees. They slowly died.

Also, copper is expensive. What would pure copper bullets do to prices?


The new light bulbs (CFL) are getting better, but they do not give off nearly as much heat as the incandescent bulbs do. Here at the farm, we use 60 - 100 watt bulbs for heaters for the baby poultry.

There are pluses and minuses to everything. Do the cost outweigh the benefits? I guess that depends on whose pocket you are taking the money from.

If it looks like the lead ban will pass, then I will do the same thing I am doing with incandescent light bulbs and stock up. (I expect it [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] will really take effect in 2020, but it may be harder to find the bulbs I need starting in 2012.)

I am still very convinced that it is an environmental group that is behind this. I wrote to one news organization and asked where the "Millions of animals..." stats came from and have received no reply.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 12:43 PM   #54
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Bismuth about 17 dollars a pound and lead about 2 dollars a pound - so how much can you afford to shoot?
mack59 is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 02:21 PM   #55
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Metallic lead, even if ingested, needs to be reduced to nearly a powder to be any type of hazard.

You simply cannot absorb significant metallic lead in you GI tract.

If you swallowed a piece of shot, or a small lead fragment from a bullet, it is going to pass right on through.

Organic lead containing chemicals ARE a hazard.
The lead in lead paint is lead acetate, also known as 'sugar of lead.'
It is soluble and easily absorbed.

Birds use a gizzard to grind the food they eat, and if lead shot ends up there it will be ground fine enough to allow absorption.

We have already banned lead shot in many places for hunting birds.

Bullets are routinely left in shooting victims, with no long term effect from any lead.
The only thing in our body that can significantly dissolve lead is the synovial fluid in joints.

A bullet will be removed during surgery if the doctors come across it, but they do not normally want to increase damage just to find it.

Last edited by brickeyee; August 14, 2010 at 01:51 PM.
brickeyee is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 03:14 PM   #56
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
From what I have read what brickeyee posted is accurate. I also found some information here: http://skinnymoose.com/help4hunters/...-the-hungry-2/

The second article documents that hunters actually have lower than average lead levels than the average of non-hunters - which refutes critics claims - and the study referenced was done by the CDC so it was demonstrably not done by a pro-gun organization.
mack59 is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 05:49 PM   #57
seed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
I know this is going to sound crazy, but what about lead reclaimation at shooting ranges? Believe it or not, I actually read that at present levels of use, we will run out of lead in 40+ years and even as fast as 18 years when present growth trends are taken into consideration. True or false, it does bring up another problem if lead is not banned. Anyway, if there was some way to safely reclaim some of the lead in ranges (perhaps it would help if they were designed with this in mind), it could possibly lead to a way to kill two birds with one stone: end the waste of a useful material as well as to stop the endless accumulation of a toxic substance at these ranges. It may also help to curb the enthusiasm to ban all uses of lead ammo...at least for some. The alcohol industry used a pre-emptive strategy to prevent an avalanche of legislation against their industry by taking steps to help prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. Whether or not what they did actually helped do this is another matter, but it did go far make them look responsible.

Of course lead reclaimation leads to whole bunch of problems that would be encountered...the immediate one being cost which would undoubtedly be passed to the shooters. But it could be somewhat offset with preventing an even worse scenario, such as a ban on some types of shooting lead or perhaps an increase in the cost of lead should it become somewhat rare. Just an idea. Please don't slaughter me if you think it is stupid.
seed is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 06:27 PM   #58
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,663
A CAS shooter who was involved with a shooting range expansion told me they had to file a lead reclaimation plan with the EPA.
I know we at least used to be able to purchase reclaimed lead shot for reloading.There are machines that harvest it.
HiBC is offline  
Old August 12, 2010, 08:12 PM   #59
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Much of the lead used/produced each year is recycled.

Interesting stats on wildlife populations - the following have all increased in populations - most more than double - some ten times or more in the last fifty years.

18,000 wolves

1 to 10 million coyotes

30 million deer

600,000 black bears

32,500 brown bears

30,000 mountain lions

42 million ducks

255,000 moose

1,000,000 elk

70,000 bald eagles

5 million alligators

530.000 bison (500,000 privately owned and 30,000 in conservation herds)

Over 1 million caribou

40,000 to 100,000 mountain goats

19,000 big horn sheep

10 to 15 million beavers


Across North America, the number of turkey vultures roughly doubled between 1980 and 2000, while black vulture populations increased more than fourfold, according to federal officials.

Turkey vultures - 1,300,000

Black vultures - 250,000

Red Tailed Hawk 2,000,000

Peregrine Falcon - 300,000

Wild Turkey - 1,200,000


Interesting that vultures and bald eagles - which should be the most effected by lead in game animals - as they consume carrion - seem to be rapidly increasing in numbers.
mack59 is offline  
Old August 12, 2010, 10:40 PM   #60
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Another Case

I was talking about this subjuect with several guys at work. One of the guys has a half dozen #6 lead pellets in his back that he aquired from a careless hunter. They have been there for many years. Yet, as I was talking to him, he seemed to be alive.
roy reali is offline  
Old August 25, 2010, 03:44 PM   #61
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,685
UPDATE:

The EPA is considering the petition mentioned by BillCA and has opened the issue for public comment. NSSF has an excellent website that links you to both good information on the issue, the petition by anti-hunting/anti-gun groups, and a link where you can register your comment with the EPA.

http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-consider...ke-action-now/

Please take a moment to help make sure that this poorly thought out petition does not result in EPA overstepping its regulatory bounds and creating a mess for all of us.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 25, 2010, 07:53 PM   #62
gglass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 543
EPA Considers Banning Ammunition - Act Now!!!

Here we go again. If you can't take the guns... Take the ammo!

http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-consider...ke-action-now/

Contact your state's representative now! This ban could be considered on Nov. 1st 2010, the day before the midterm elections.
__________________
"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco."
gglass is online now  
Old August 26, 2010, 10:53 AM   #63
paull
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston
Posts: 157
Quote:
Birds use a gizzard to grind the food they eat, and if lead shot ends up there it will be ground fine enough to allow absorption.
Ask the hunting-raptor expert how well the gizzards in his flock of meat/carrion eaters grind up lead...

This is just more politically motivated "science", used to create a conclusion that meets a preconceived idea.:barf:
...and it is all too common nowadays.

I would like to see the "millions of animals" killed by lead poisoning, and not the high-velocity type.

I may get spanked for saying this but, I make it a point to increase my EPA footprint whenever I hear about stuff like this.
Used motor oil is as good as round-up, and a mattress fits in the fire pit, go figure...
paull is offline  
Old August 26, 2010, 02:32 PM   #64
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,798
Can we please gather up the chorus and sing Here we go again.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old August 26, 2010, 03:30 PM   #65
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
Quote:
I may get spanked for saying this but, I make it a point to increase my EPA footprint whenever I hear about stuff like this.
And I would say that if you knew enough science to make an educated deduction of what constitutes "politically motivated science" as you put it, you'd know that the phrase "EPA footprint" has absolutely no meaning.

And here I always heard that hunters are supposed to be big on taking care of nature, so that they can pass it on to their kids. I guess that's gone out the window in favor of "let's just do whatever we don't think has any consequences right now, just because it might **** off some hippies."
ADB is offline  
Old August 26, 2010, 03:47 PM   #66
paull
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston
Posts: 157
Quote:
And I would say that if you knew enough science to make an educated deduction of what constitutes "politically motivated science" as you put it, you'd know that the phrase "EPA footprint" has absolutely no meaning.
"EPA footprint" is a play on words. If I am the only one finds meaning in the phrase, then obviously I have created my own language.


Quote:
And here I always heard that hunters are supposed to be big on taking care of nature, so that they can pass it on to their kids. I guess that's gone out the window in favor of "let's just do whatever we don't think has any consequences right now, just because it might **** off some hippies."
I have heard the same thing about hunters...
I am not a hunter, though, so I guess that was directed elsewhere...

It has been my experience that you tree-huggers have a rather broadened view of your impact on the universe.

Quote:
"let's just do whatever we don't think has any consequences right now, just because it might **** off some hippies."


LOL, and I thought I created a new language...
That is beautiful.

Good luck with your planet.

p
paull is offline  
Old August 26, 2010, 05:25 PM   #67
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
And here I always heard that hunters are supposed to be big on taking care of nature, so that they can pass it on to their kids. I guess that's gone out the window in favor of "let's just do whatever we don't think has any consequences right now, just because it might **** off some hippies."
Hunters and are far and away the biggest contributors to wildlife programs through license fees and outright donations and hunting groups. Think its different, think again..

Michigan once funded a bird watching stamp that bird watchers could voluntairly buy in order to support avian research ect... Guess what, Michigan couldnt even sell enough birdwatching stamps to pay for the printing of the stamp.... So whos really for nature...

Forgive me facts are so non PC nowdays...

Facts warning, beware of link below.
http://www.cva.com/huntfacts.php#hunt-2
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; August 26, 2010 at 05:40 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 09:43 AM   #68
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,685
Not just hunters contribute either - target and competitive shooters pay tons of money into the wildlife conservation funds via the 11% tax on firearms and ammunition. I don't do much hunting these days; but last time I bought ammo it was 4,000 rounds of centerfire ammunition in a single purchase. 11% x 4,000 rounds is not a small chunk of change.

Of course, if ammunition costs triple or double because I have to buy non-lead ammo, I probably won't be spending near as much time shooting. It seems to me that a ban on lead ammo is more likely to harm wildlife by drastically lowering the funds collected for wildlife conservation through the firearms excise tax.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 10:13 AM   #69
Sgt.Saputo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2010
Posts: 201
Quote:
Here we go again. If you can't take the guns... Take the ammo!
Indeed. And if you can't get rid of the ammo all together, make it to expensive to shoot.
__________________
"Keep the Vaseline off the guns, and keep the guns out of the oven." -Bill DeShivs

"Stock padding? Mosin not cater to girly men. Mosin tough like hammer, take abuse, keep fighting. Defend homeland!!!" -spetznaz1337
Sgt.Saputo is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 10:38 AM   #70
Stiofan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 691
If anyone wants to see how they will end up banning lead bullets, simply do a google search for the terms "condor lead".

Coming to a state near you.
Stiofan is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 12:17 PM   #71
TexasFats
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
For those who claim that lead is killing "millions" of animals, could you please provide some references to refereed, scholarly publications? I am not impressed by some report from some organization with an agenda.

Secondly, it is sad that some uprincipled individuals, supported by the gullible and well-intentioned have chosen to use this issue as a means of back-door gun control. I guarantee, if the give on this, then next it will be copper poisoning that will be the problem. Also, have you priced lead-free ammo lately? Much of it costs much more, according to Midway's and Graf's catalogs, than lead ammunition.

Finally, they are still finding mostly intact lead bullets on Revolutionary War battlefields. Those bullets have been in the ground about 230 years of so, and still retain much of their original mass. I think that much of what we are hearing about the problems of lead amounts to nothing more than propaganda and MSM sensationalizing. If I am wrong, show me some articles in refereed, academic journals that don't have a dog in this fight. Again, "scientific" reports published by organizations with an agenda don't count, since they may have begun their "research" with a conclusion that was predetermined before they even began to collect data.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 02:01 PM   #72
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Go to the EPA website and submit your opinion on this proposal - the more opinions they get the better - here is what I sent them:

The proposed ban on lead ammunition is extreme and would result in no proven benefit while severely impacting the shooting sports and hunting communities. The negative impact on those communities would in turn significantly impact the funding of wildlife conservation efforts through the Pittman-Robertson Act and over the 10,000 clubs and organizations such as NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, shooters, and fishermen that fund nearly 75% of the annual income for all 50 state conservation agencies.

It is primarily from that funding and from the volunteer efforts of individuals in those communities that wildlife populations have made such dramatic resurgences in the last fifty years - the following have all increased in populations - most more than double - some ten times or more in the last fifty years -
18,000 wolves, 1 to 10 million coyotes, 30 million deer, 600,000 black bears, 32,500 brown bears, 30,000 mountain lions, 42 million ducks, 255,000 moose, 1,000,000 elk, 70,000 bald eagles, 5 million alligators, 530.000 bison (500,000 privately owned and 30,000 in conservation herds), over 1 million caribou, 40,000 to 100,000 mountain goats, 19,000 big horn sheep, 10 to 15 million beavers, the number of turkey vultures roughly doubled between 1980 and 2000, while black vulture populations increased more than fourfold. -Turkey vultures - 1,300,000 and Black vultures - 250,000, Red Tailed Hawks 2,000,000, Peregrine Falcons - 300,000, and the Wild Turkey - 1,200,000.

These continuing increases in wildlife populations have occurred despite allegations that the use of lead in ammunition poses a significant threat to them. Additionally the CDC’s (Center for Disease Control) own study http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ND_report.pdf demonstrated that use of lead ammunition does not pose any significant health risk to hunters or those who consume game harvested with lead ammunition. Wildlife populations are demonstrably more impacted by roads, vehicles, and wind farms.

Additionally, there is no economically viable substitute for lead in ammunition - lead prices have increased to about two dollars a pound - but the most viable substitute - bismuth is seventeen dollars a pound and is not available commercially in the quantities that would be needed to substitute for lead. Practically speaking a ban on lead ammunition would effectively be an economic ban on many of the shooting sports, which would have the consequence of pricing many individuals out of them and thus result in a major loss of funding for wildlife preservation, ultimately to the detriment of the wildlife populations that this proposed rule is supposed to protect.

This proposed rule would destroy the reloading of ammunition - destroy the ability of those who hunt with traditional muzzle loaders to do so, as traditional muzzle loaders require the use of soft lead balls, and will create a political and legal firestorm.

Whether or not this proposal is even legal is questionable given that ammunition and fishing lures are taxed under - 26 U.S.C. § 4181 - and thus are covered by - statutory enactment, 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(v) - which would exempt them from 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(2)(A)(i).

In summary, adoption of this proposal would violate federal statute, would negatively impact wildlife populations by de-funding through the loss of tax revenue and donations to private sportsman’s wildlife preservation organizations those programs that have contributed to the dramatic increases in wildlife populations in recent decades, and would do nothing to materially protect the health of hunters, fishermen, sportsmen, consumers of harvested wildlife, or wildlife populations.

This proposal is merely an attempt by the opponents of hunting, fishing, and sport shooting to ban those activities through the backdoor by attempting to use the EPA to enact their agenda. I would urge the EPA based on the facts of the matter to deny enactment of this proposal.
mack59 is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 03:17 PM   #73
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,861
If we ban lead, does that mean we can start using depleated uranium???
Skans is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 07:41 PM   #74
Stiofan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 691
The EPA has folded.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6CrPQD9HS2SI80
Stiofan is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 07:54 PM   #75
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Not completely.

Today, August 27, 2010, the EPA denied (part of) the petition by the CBD to ban lead in ammunition. You can read the response of the EPA here.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that they are still considering a ban on lead sinkers.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14265 seconds with 7 queries