Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem of lead bullets causing lead poisoning in our environment has been an issue for a long time... not just recently. Lead poisoning as a result of lead bullets is a problem out here. Off the top of my head, I remember reading of Condors that have died from lead poisoning.
I don't want to take away your bullets. But the lead ones are poisoning parts of our environment and causing harm to wildlife... and before someone else says bullets are intended to harm a hunting prey.... They poison animals not meant to be targets at the time the bullets were shot causing what I guess you could call collateral damage.
The lead poisoning of Condors and Eagles was attributed to lead shot used in waterfowl hunting. Lead shot has not been allowed for waterfowl hunting for more than 20 years now and the populations have rebounded to the extent that the Bald Eagle is now a common sight where none have been seen for more than 50 years. They are no longer endangered. As for the condors of California, this appears to be correctable if hunters would not leave gut piles laying about. I suspect as significantly more damage to condors has been done through the poisoning of rodents and condors eating that carion than lead from shot alone.
There are not "billions" of lead projectiles lying about in the wilderness doing harms as a previous poster suggested (without any support of statement).
I suspect few people understand that handgun and rifle rounds and the lead projectiles from them, in an unconcentrated environment (i.e., not a shooting range) pose little risk to the environment.
I suspect few people on this forum understand it is the spraul from the lead projectile, and not the intact projectile that degrades and causes any impact on the environment.
I suspect few people really take a hard look at the activities they do every day and will admit that the storm water run-off from their city streets, yards and golf-courses pose a greater risk to our water supply than do the remaining lead projectiles from some handgun and rifle rounds.
Nope, huge FAIL by Shirley Jackson, the EPA, and posters on this forum in arguing their point against lead bullets. This is nothing more than another backdoor restriction on gun owners. Period.
Ninth amendment states that all bill of rights are not an exhaustive list of rights, and the basis of our government is that our rights are granted by our creator, not by our government. Restriction of private property, especially one as benign as lead is illegal and no one in their right mind would obey such a law.
Restriction of private property, insofar as legislating which ingredients may not be used in the manufacture of certain products, is not illegal.
Restriction of private property, insofar as legislating which ingredients may not be used in the manufacture of certain products, is not illegal.
This may be true with explosives and other volatile chemicals. Restrictions of an inert and stable element such as Pb would be illegal and like I said, no one in their right mind would obey a law that prohibited the private manufacturing of bullets made with it.
If you hunt waterfowl, you are already using stainless steel shot. The reason being, we don't want to poison the water with lead shot. but banning lead slugs is going a bit to the extreme.
how many bullets lying around in the wilderness will it take to pollute ground water??? it's called accumulation..
when will we wake up and look to the future, ohh wait 10 years is a long time now.. one must look further down the toxic road for future generations. 50 years?? 100?? years 200 years???
give me a break.!! whats the big deal in using another safer metal for freekin bullets
Part of the big deal is people who obviously have no knowledge of what restrictions they are arguing be imposed upon others because it has little impact upon them. Please explain to us your background in regard to the studies of bullets, velocity, penetration, expandability as well as your studies into the evolution of shooting ranges in efforts to limit their impact on the environment.
First problem is that you equivocate the problems associated with lead shot and falsely assume that it applies equally to handgun and rifle rounds. It does not. They are completely different animals. The link you provided goes back to 2005 and looks at a shotgun range next to a waterfowl preserve. Again, a completely different animal than hunting rounds for large game. Significant improvements are being made nationwide to shooting ranges to reduce the environmental impact. You have to understand that some of these ranges will never be "safe" by today's environmental standards just as many commercial business sites or landfills will never be "safe" moving forward.
Please define "safer". "Safer" to what, to whom? The dependable expandability of lead combined with penetration has been long studied. For large game hunting on a limited budget there is no more reliable of a round. A round that expands too early and does not penetrate well is not "safe" for the animal being hunted and increases the likelihood that it will run off injured.
By eliminating the lead round most sport shooting will be either eliminated or greatly restricted to only those who can afford the ammunition. Thus such EPA regulations will actually impact those who have to carefully allocate their funds to acquire ammunition. Law Enforcement and the military have already been hugely impacted by the rise in cost and limited supply of ammunition. Just one unintended consequence is to supply those men and women in uniform a substandard round with penetration factor that can be unsafe in urban or other congested setting settings, killing innocent people, and limiting training and firearm proficency due to expense.
You've probably not shopped for handgun or rifle rounds by the case or pallet and compared the price per round difference between "ball" ammunition from copper, have you? If you had and if you were a person of the gun, you might actually have an understanding of the subject you attempt to argue. Obviously, this is not the case.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 08-27-2010 at 08:05 AM..
This may be true with explosives and other volatile chemicals. Restrictions of an inert and stable element such as Pb would be illegal and like I said, no one in their right mind would obey a law that prohibited the private manufacturing of bullets made with it.
Lead is toxic. Do you not believe the government has a right to regulate toxic substances?
Also, do you think the ban on mercury for most products should be repealled?
I mean we could make a whole list of "inert and stable" elements that have side effects if you want.
Related to the post, being lead has a subsitute, albit more expensive, I see no problem in this decision. So you may pay a few more cents for bullets, big deal.
Lead is toxic. Do you not believe the government has a right to regulate toxic substances?
Not the federal government, but local municipalities can definitely do so. For waterways that span multiple states, as another poster mentioned, dumping lead by the boatload into streams can be regulated. I just don't see a lot of people shooting the water.
Quote:
Also, do you think the ban on mercury for most products should be repealled?
If someone is malicious and dumps a ton of bullets or dumps mercury into water, yes.
Quote:
I mean we could make a whole list of "inert and stable" elements that have side effects if you want.
Sure can.
Quote:
Related to the post, being lead has a subsitute, albit more expensive, I see no problem in this decision. So you may pay a few more cents for bullets, big deal.
If it is truly a few cents more, then states and municipalities can ban these products if they wish. Not interested in obeying uniform federal laws on the matter unless it involves waterways that span multiple states.
Well Summers, The "promote general welfare" clause in the Constitution would have me disagree with regulating toxic substances, but that is the intent of the Founders to disagree over responsibility(since none of them agreed either and argued just as much as we do now).
Does the Feds over regulate, yeah at times. Do they have the power to regulate? Yes.
You are more then happy to argue for a return to the Articles of Confederation if you truly want the states to be in charge though.
Besides, Americans are so short sighted they don't understand long term effects. It is the reason why the military has been transitioning from "cheaper" ammunitions as they aren't so cheap in the long run.
Price of lead vs. non-lead ammo - - totally irrelevant to topic.
Whether or not people would obey laws banning lead bullets - - totally irrelevant to topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
