NRA wants ban on lead ammunition repealed-intended prevent poisoning

>>120182
Because this whole "lead shot poisons animals" thing is based upon samples taken at fixed shooting ranges where lead shot can accumulate for years in the same exact spot, not the thousands of miles of land where hunting occurs.
Also non-lead shot is more expensive, and in some cases can be harmful to the gun in the long run. (Shooting steel bullets will most definitely erode all of the rifling out of your barrel, for example.)

>>120183
If you want sources for all this or want more info, hit up /k/ and between all the "shall not be infringed" you should be able to find a kind anon who will verify this.

Lead has been used for shooting ever since we graduated from basic tubes loaded with gunpowder and rocks, several centuries in fact.

Personally I think this lead ban legislation was only introduced and passed as a "See, we're fighting the NRA!" measure by senators to show their liberal constituencies that they're doing -something- during a time where normal gun-control legislation is, let's just say, "unlikely".

>>120183
Steel bullets? What the fuck are you talking about? Bullets are copper jacketed.

Oh yes, hundreds of thousands of shotgun barrels are worn out every year using steel shot. *rolls eyes*

Sounds to me like you've been eating too much lead infused water fowl. So i'm going to play Devil's advocate & ask for legit sources to your claim about "studies" of lead samples taken from fixed shooting ranges because I think you're full of shit.

>>120182
The ban it self was meant to decrease the ammount of gun owners...
It's like this in Europe as well.

>>120183
>steel-jacketed bullets will erode barrels!

Old wive's tale that was disproved a long time ago. I'd link the study in question, but the reply system won't let me for some reason.

And concerning lead shot, there are a LOT of examples of lead shot poisoning people who accidentally ingest it or had it lodged in their joints, to the point that you could argue that anti-lead laws are more for the protection of hunters than their quarry.

>>120203
This. They can't restrict the guns themselves so they'll make it a bigger hassle, more expensive, little by little until it's too much of a bother.

Lead leeches out in water, birds can accidentally ingest the pellets, and prey species can cause it to biomagnify up the food chain. This is a stupid reversal and Zinke doesn't know what he's doing. The ban has nothing to do with restricting hunting or sticking it to the NRA and everything to do with protecting wildlife.

https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

Also, where are these trail closures at and where have people lost access?

>>120331
Also, here's an article on how people who eat wild game have 50% more lead in them. If you're a hunter, why would you knowingly poison yourself?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/#

>>120204
paste the study but write the link like

www.twitch.
com/blahblahblah

alder ohme spaß alder
ich hab nicht die alde geschrieben. obwohl sie da. fühlt schlecht man

amk wieso hab ich sie nicht angesprochen

fühlt joscher amk

was denn los.mit euch loide

>>120182
OP, THE NRA DOES NOT GIVE ONE SHIT

They fought to let retards buy guns again too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/house-republicans-move-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html

>>120193
You are snobby af

>>120495
>lol your rights should be taken away without due process

We've been over this. Courts determine whether a person is a threat enough to warrant taking away their civil rights.

>>120502
Rights are what we fight for.

NRA is fighting for dumb shit and for retards to have guns. Theyre fanatics.

>>120503
NRA is fighting the good fight.

How can you not see this

>>120204
Pretty sure steel bullets still rek barrels

>>120503
>Rights are what we fight for.

You don't get to wave a magic wand and become the defender of all rights. You have to defend ALL those civil rights, even that annoying little one that says it is an inalienable right to defend ones' home and property with firearms.

The NRA is the largest 2nd Amendment lobby not only because gun manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping it alive but also because they receive a METRIC FUCKTON of donations from regular citizens.

Not everyone agrees with you. Deal with it.

>>120182
my dad once got lead poisoning from eating pheasant, honestly using lead bullets is just dumb if there are alternatives, especially when shooting for meat

but gun nuts are dumb streaming muh rights even when this has nothing to do with banning guns

>>120183
Actually most useful metals that are less expensive are banned because of "armor piercing" ammo laws, iron cores are illegal because of it. Even though law enforcement wears armor that can't stop rifle rounds regardless of barrel length.

>>120193
Never hear of a bimetal jacket? Yes steel jacketed bullets do exist, but are given a copper wash to prevent wear on the barrel since copper is much softer than mild steel.

>>120503
>They're fanatics.
They're en established majority defending a constitutionally enumerated right.

You're the fanatic, and your numbers lessen every year. Have fun!

>>120182

> The rule, put into place during the final days of the Obama administration, was cast as an attempt to prevent the lead poisoning of animals on all lands overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Which in fact is a load of bullshit, as the regulation was implemented by Obama and the rest of the anti-gun Democrats specifically to make ammo cost more and make hunting and shooting on public lands more difficult.

Like all anti-gun fundie initiatives, “gun control” has nothing to do with safety and is all about ultimately banning all civilian gun ownership.

There will never be a point where the anti-gun kooks will say; “that’s enough gun control.”

>>120604
So you don't care about dead kids getting mass murdered in kindergarten?

>>120606
> So you don't care about dead kids getting mass murdered in kindergarten?

No, I do not. There are too many people on the planet anyways and as modern medicine has essentially eliminated natural selection, we need a way to thin the herd. The quick and smart kindergartners will survive and live to breed a healthier humanity.

>>120606
No and neither do leftists.

>>120607
The answer to that is birth control, sex education, and mandatory castration of all men without at least a STEM P.H.D.

>>120550
I don't understand those kinds of regulations (and large magazines, fully automatic) these are things people can modify themselves with basic machinist skills.

>>120606
Do you?

We say "Hire jobless veterans to defend schools."
You say "THE NRA WANTS TO PUT PTSD-AFFECTED KILLERS IN CHARGE OF YOUR CHILDREN

We say "Enforce existing laws and increase penalties for firearm theft and illegal firearm transfers."
You say "THE NRA WANTS TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT SELECTIVELY TARGETS INNER CITY MINORITIES"

It's never a compromise and to you people, there's only one solution: Shit all over people who -aren't- the problem. Even Australia, who had a firearm culture just like ours before you fuckers got in charge admits that a century of firearm proliferation and iffy border control isn't working to combat all their firearm-related crime.
They even just announced Firearm Amnesty Buyback #423424, expecting criminals to hand in their guns out of the kindness of their hearts for a couple Fosters coupons and a fifty.

>>120506
Mild steel is still about 1/4 hardness of a tool steel barrel. Heat and chemical wear is far worse than mechanical wear from the bullet.

>>120710
Just glad to know I can remake primers with a box of matches, cast bullets from pennies, and make powder from fertilizer.... Ban those fuckers.

>>120710
You should have seen a committee hearing in California when they were trying to ban 80% lowers, the law was so shittily written that a guy slammed a plain metal block on the table saying "You are literally trying to ban this." And he was technically right.
These people don't know shit about firearms at all, and they're only going hard in the paint after them because their rabid constituencies want to "FIGHT THE EBIL NRA", so they throw darts at a aftermarket catalog and start writing laws.
"Muzzle brake? What's that? Looks evil. It's an AW feature now."
"Oh, get that pistol grip thingy too, seems scary."
"That rifle looks like something from one of those Brady commercials! Get that one too!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

>>120604
Except it's about the environment and not about "muh guns!"

Hunters sure like to pretend that they care about the environment as long as it doesn't mildly inconvience them

>>120604
>Which in fact is a load of bullshit, as the regulation was implemented by Obama and the rest of the anti-gun Democrats specifically to make ammo cost more and make hunting and shooting on public lands more difficult.

I see you like to believe whatever you want as long as it conforms to your view of the world

>>120182
They literally want to eat lead? How ironic.

>>120856
>Except it's about the environment and not about "muh guns!"

Lead shot has been illegal for waterfowl hunting for decades now.

Deer don't eat fucking bullets.

This "environmental issue" simply isn't an issue, it's all about ultimately banning all guns.

>Australia who had a firearm culture like ours
We have never had a firearm culture like America. People here never religiously owned guns for self defense. Its rare to meet people living in a city who own firearms, and the majority of city people who do, own them because they enjoy firing off a few rounds at a shooting range on the weekend. A friend of mine who's a cop in the city was telling me that people who keep guns in their house are far more likely to be broken into and robbed. Generally by junkies that are being paid by bikies (organised crime) to source stolen guns.

>Australia admits that a century of firearm proliferation and iffy border control isn't working to combat all their firearm-related crime.
Of course gun buybacks and tighter firearm control will not reduce the firearm-related crime to 0. However the 1996 gun buyback scheme resulted in 700,000 guns getting handed in. As a result firearm-related crime did drop sharply. Whether or not it affected the total crime rate is somewhat up for debate. But people here now dont fear being the victims of gun violence, it's never even a thought in the back of your mind because it's so uncommon amongst the non-organised crime population.

>>121555
Meant for
>>120813

>>121531

>leaving lead lying around in the environment isn't an issue

>>121567
Where do you think lead comes from?

No, really, I'm genuinely curious.

>>121555
[citation needed]

>>121610
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/fact-check-gun-homicides-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880

>>121572
look, another psed who makes a platitude that actually relies on a pretending to understand how nuclear physics works, because he understands basic geography. "lmao chernobyl cucks where do you think uranium comes from"

>>121567
>lead lying around

Go find a bullet laying around and then show me a deer or rabbit or other critter that's going to eat it.

All the bullets fired throughout America in all it's history are still a microscopically minuscule amount of lead.

>>120332
They are stupid and backwards

>>121784
They won't eat it, they'll drink it, and if you want Bugs bunny stew or Bambi steaks, you'll be eating lead. Think Flint Michigan.

>>122626
If you drink tap water you are already drinking similar amounts of lead.

>>121784
>Go find a bullet laying around and then show me a deer or rabbit or other critter that's going to eat it.
Okay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_lead_poisoning

https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

>All the bullets fired throughout America in all it's history are still a microscopically minuscule amount of lead.
Citation needed.

>>122640
My tap water doesn't even compare to the bio-accumulation of lead in wildlife. What are you even talking about? I don't live in Flint Michigan, I brought that up to illustrate how it gets into the wildlife. As if game killed with lead shot could even compete with 4ppb, don't even try game that had time to drink any amount of lead water.

>>120669
well there went all the dem base in the inner cities huh?

>>122640
That claim is so far off the mark I'm tempted to believe that's the case for you. Invest in a better water filter and try again when you're thinking clearer.

>>122649
>>Go find a bullet laying around and then show me a deer or rabbit or other critter that's going to eat it.
>Okay

Sorry, a discussion doesn't work that way, you can't just shit out a link and say "go do the leg work for me!"

>>All the bullets fired throughout America in all it's history are still a microscopically minuscule amount of lead.
>Citation needed.

Common fucking sense.

>>120182
Think about the children

>>122951

Neither article is overly long (unless you want to read every source), did you want him to copy/paste the article in the thread for you?

Here's a relevant snippet:

>Lead, one of the leading causes of toxicity in waterfowl, has been known to cause die-offs of wild bird populations.[2] When hunters use lead shot, waterfowl such as ducks and other species (swan especially) can ingest the spent pellets later and be poisoned ; predators that eat these birds are also at risk.[3] Lead shot-related waterfowl poisonings were first documented in the US in the 1880s.[4] By 1919, the spent lead pellets from waterfowl hunting was positively identified as the source of waterfowl deaths.[5] Lead shot has been banned for hunting waterfowl in several countries,[4] including the US in 1991 and 1997 in Canada.[6] Other threats to wildlife include lead paint, sediment from lead mines and smelters, and lead weights from fishing lines.[6] Lead in some fishing gear has been banned in several countries.[4]

>The critically endangered California condor has also been affected by lead poisoning. As scavengers, condors eat carcasses of game that have been shot but not retrieved, and with them the fragments from lead bullets; this increases their lead levels.[7] Among condors around the Grand Canyon, lead poisoning due to eating lead shot is the most frequently diagnosed cause of death.[7] In an effort to protect this species, in areas designated as the California condor's range the use of projectiles containing lead has been banned to hunt deer, wild pig, elk, pronghorn antelope, coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife.[8] Also, conservation programs exist which routinely capture condors, check their blood lead levels, and treat cases of poisoning.[7]

>>122986
> did you want him to copy/paste the article in the thread for you?

If you’re going to post a link, you have to include a quote, this has been the standard since the oldy timey days of Usenet.

It’s not the reader’s job to wander thru websites trying to make your argument for you.

> Here's a relevant snippet:

In the first place, we’re talking about California, which is populated by tree-hugging morons and secondly, there are hardly any condors around, (and not because they eat tons of lead) so the sample size is tiny and because they’re scavengers, they have a much greater chance of consuming some lead shot, all of which skews the statistics, that are then blown way out of proportion by animal rights kooks and anti-gun fundies, who want to ban any and all hunting regardless of the method.

And as I mentioned up-thread, lead shot has been banned for waterfowl hunting for 25 years now, (federally, individual states had been banning it before that) which was the only real danger to wildlife, as ducks and geese will feed off the bottom of ponds (eating the lead shot as gastroliths) where lead shot from waterfowl hunters would accumulate.

The claim that all kinda animals are dying off in droves from eating lead bullets is nothing but back-door gun ban bullshit from the anti-gun and anti-hunting jihadists.

>>122951
>Common fucking sense.

haha that's your argument?

>microscopically minuscule amount of lead.

Well not literally of course, because a bullet isn't microscopic. Sorry that's just common sense!

>>122995
>It’s not the reader’s job to wander thru websites trying to make your argument for you.

No, it's your job to educate yourself on a topic before you go talking about it, retard. He gave you that chance but you couldn't be bothered.

>>122995
>which is populated by tree-hugging morons

not an argument

>so the sample size is tiny

Irrelevant

>they have a much greater chance of consuming some lead shot, all of which skews the statistics

Irrelevant, that particular argument isn't about any statistical analysis. You're just grasping at straws and it's pretty embarrassing. Death from lead poisoning is the most frequent cause of death in that population. That's a fact. Condors are not waterfowl.

This disproves your assertion that

>has been banned for waterfowl hunting....which was the only real danger to wildlife

>The claim that all kinda animals are dying off in droves from eating lead bullets

That's not the claim being made, the claim being made is that using lead shot can have unexpected, detrimental effects on the environment which could also affect us.

>nothing but back-door gun ban bullshit from the anti-gun and anti-hunting jihadists.

Again, not an argument. That's like saying banning leaded fuel was because of anti-car and anti-driving jihadists. You have no reason to claim this other than an emotional investment in the gun control debate.

>>123018
>
> > nothing but back-door gun ban bullshit from the anti-gun and anti-hunting jihadists.
>
> Again, not an argument. That's like saying banning leaded fuel was because of anti-car and anti-driving jihadists.

Not at all, leaded gasoline was a valid and wide spread problem.

That a handful of condors have higher then normal amounts of lead in them, doesn’t mean that all wildlife everywhere is in danger and we need to jump up and ban all guns.

You’re being played.

>>123013
>>It’s not the reader’s job to wander thru websites trying to make your argument for you.
>No, it's your job to educate yourself on a topic before you go talking about it, retard.

Not it isn't at all, is this your first time on the Internet?

if you provide a link, then it's YOUR responsibility to show why that link supports your argument with selected quotations from that link.

You don't get to just shit out a link to who the fuck knows what and say; "I'm right and you'll just have to figure it out yourself!"

>>123023
>doesn’t mean that all wildlife everywhere is in danger and we need to jump up and ban all guns.

And where is anyone making an argument to ban all guns? The original regulation was ammunition only, and only ammunition used to hunt on federal land to boot (so range and private property ammo is unaffected). That's a very narrow band of firearms related material, and one of the cheaper components of gun ownership that even has an alternative replacement (unleaded ammunition, namely copper) so you can still go hunting. Admittedly ammo is a recurring cost, so it does add up over time, but again this is ammo for hunting, and how many boxes do you plan on going through when you're actually out in the woods?

Couple that with the study on consumption of lead via wild game [>>120332] and I think you have a good argument for using unleaded ammo for hunting, even if it wasn't regulated.

>>123040
> And where is anyone making an argument to ban all guns?

It’s always been the fundamental goal of anti-gun fundies, who are using this study to try and implement an back-door ammo ban, effectively banning civilian gun ownership.

Today its banning lead ammo from federal lands.
Tomorrow is banning lead from state lands.
The day after its banning lead from all gun ranges.

“But hay, we’re not looking to ban guns, you guys can still use alternative ammo. The fact that it costs 9000% more then lead and makes gun ownership wholly impossible for all but the elite, has nothing to do with it!”

There is no point where the anti-gun nuts will ever say; "that's enough gun control."

> I think you have a good argument for using unleaded ammo for hunting, even if it wasn't regulated.

Even if the conclusions of the study are valid, (and they’re not) that’s the price we pay to preserve our inalienable human right to self-defense.

>>120550
This.

Took long enough for someone who isn't a fucking know it all retard to point that out. Lead bullets pierce vests.

>>123043

So by your logic, we should remove the ban on leaded shot for waterfowl, repeal the NFA, FOPA, and all other regulations on firearms because they are part of a slippery slope to destroy gun rights in America? While there are definitely some people out there who have this unrealistic dream of a magical land without guns, surely there are far more people who believe in some limitations to firearms (background checks, leaded shot) to promote both personal and environmental safety without going bananas and getting rid of them entirely. It is possible to give them an inch without letting them take it a mile, and part of that is to make sure there is sound evidence backing whatever claim is being made and doing a cost-benefit analysis to see if that sacrifice is worth the gain. Obviously people will have differences of opinion of what is an acceptable margin, but to just dismiss everything out of hand because you think any limitation will lead to a full ban is just ridiculous.

This is why the slippery slope is considered a fallacy, it ignores any middle ground solution (not just "dead center" solutions, but also ones weighed in varying degrees of favor of gun rights but with some concessions to control, and vice versa) and assumes that there is only a binary solution with zero possibility for compromise or for the needle to stop at some point between 0 and 100%. Gun rights in America survived the NFA, in fact the firearms community has thrived in the post-NFA environment, in fact it's stronger now than it's been in the past century. It survived FOPA and got larger, it then got through the waterfowl ban and is still the one of the largest lobbies in American politics. The slope has far too much traction for the ball much further, hell the ball has rolled uphill with the Clinton AWB expiration.

>>123023
>That a handful of condors have higher then normal amounts of lead in them, doesn’t mean that all wildlife everywhere is in danger and we need to jump up and ban all guns.

Like I just tried to make clear to you

>That's not the claim being made

Learn to read, you absolute imbecile

>>123024
>Not it isn't at all, is this your first time on the Internet?

You think its ok to be a dumbass just because you're on the internet? Fuck off cunt

>>123051
>This is why the slippery slope is considered a fallacy

There is nothing slippery about it, all gun control legislation always leads to more gun control legislation.

For anti-gun fundies, there is no such as as enough gun control.

>>123157

>There is nothing slippery about it
>all gun control legislation always leads to more gun control legislation.

I hope you realize that you're defeating your own argument. If it's not slippery, then why does gun legislation always lead to more gun legislation?

Ignoring arguing over that technicality and going after the real meat, "gun control leads to more gun control" isn't even proven in history, given the incredibly slow movement (and reverse movement) of gun control legislation on the national level:
>1934 - NFA
>1968, Gun Control Act of
>1986 - FOPA
>1991 - Ban on leaded waterfowl shot
>1994 - AWB
>2004 - AWB expires

There is literally a generational gap between the first two items, and it has been a generation since the last gun control measure passed (and over a decade since it expired). This is hardly a trend that suggests an inevitable push towards more and more gun control. Also (and crazy enough) the Gun Control Act of 1968 and FOPA had the support of the NRA, so even the leading lobbyist for gun rights disagrees with your assessment that giving the anti-gun groups a bullet will inevitably lead to giving them all the guns.

Furthermore, each of these major pieces of legislation followed either an assassination attempt (both successful and unsuccessful) or a crime wave, which further suggests there isn't a steady push but a general reactionary measure in the face of tragedy. To quote the NRA on the 1968 Gun Control Act:
>We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument [mail-order guns] which killed the president of the United States.
Going on that, it isn't a series of pinpricks that reduce gun rights, but a national tragedy that strikes at the heart of all Americans. And if you're afraid that some new tragedy will occur that will take away gun rights, keep in mind that crime rates continue to be low and no legislation has gotten traction despite multiple mass shootings.

>>123083
Retarded