MNGunTalk.com

Lumpy wrote:

Markemp wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lead-gasoline-blunted-iq-half-us-population-study-rcna19028

But wait, it's ok because it's only half of the country. And this is probably wrong, because people weren't drinking gasoline, right? It has to be swallowed to have a negative effect?
Yah, lead isn't so bad.

In the case of leaded gasoline, people were breathing in volatilized lead from auto exhaust. There's been concern about the possible exposure of scavengers and predators eating game and carcasses with lead shot, but for humans the lead exposure from lead shot hovers somewhere around zero.

Lead shot isn’t the only source of lead on the range if you read either of those articles. It’s the lead dust and other volatized lead that lands on all the surfaces that can be inhaled or swallowed if you are eating, drinking or smoking (or vaping as is trendy) on the range. Good luck keeping teenagers from eating skittles out there.

Y’all keep talking about the lead shot as if the argument is “well, this one source of the lead isn’t being eaten, so therefore there isn’t a problem from every other source of lead on the range.” You do realize that that isn’t the case, right?

This forums love affair with consuming lead is just amazing. I guess if the cost is just a handful of IQ points, it’s not worth regulating? Maybe it’s because unlike lead in gas, the only victims are those who are knowingly going out there and participating in the sport?

You obviously have never been to a trap range before. If you had you would realize how stupid your comments sound. There is no more lead exposure risk shooting at a trap range than riding in aTesla. But you don’t care because one fits your narrative and the other doesn’t.

You are missing a few points.

For a regulation to do what it is supposed to do, it needs to address the actual cause of the problem.

In toxicology it becomes an analysis of cost and benefit.

The contention is that by eliminating lead shot we will reduce lead poisoning.

First, we have shown that lead shot is not a significant source of lead exposure- the folks exposed to lead shot are relatively small compared to the whole population.

That lead shot exposure does not result in lead level elevation.

That lead environmental contamination is neither mobile nor permanent from shooting lead shot.

Human lead level increases generally come from industrial exposure and pica.

Therefore your proposed regulation has minimal to no effect on public health.

Given that environmental lead contamination is not really associated with metallic lead, your argument on environmental grounds is a bit off. Shooting ranges mine the lead for reuse economically.

The evidence is there that the lead shot ban in waterfowl hunting has not resulted in a rebound in duck numbers or decrease in lead levels.

So the proof so far is any increase in lead regulation relating to projectile use is not going to result in any measurable decrease in health or improvement in outcomes for wildlife.

The massive decrease in use of lead antiknock compounds (they still use it in high grade aviation fuel) has been successful in reducing human exposure along with stopping lead paint use.

Doing occupational med assessments generally shows industrial exposure is related to eating around its use. (This is why all indoor ranges ban food/drink on the shooting areas…) and is more priming compound exposure than projectile related.

So benefit is minuscule.

Cost is quite expensive. Your cost to prevent one case of lead poisoning with your new rules is probably on the order of over $1 billion per case if not way higher.

So the only way it makes sense is if the safety of participants is not the real goal of the regulation. From the cost per prevention, it is much more likely it’s not intended to reduce lead exposure, but reduce shooting.

Ask what happened to small game hunting in CA with the lead ban and .22 rimfire use? The tin bullets they replaced rimfire bullets with are neither accurate nor very effective. Small game hunting is a shadow of itself there.

As to human iron exposure and its effects- it’s commonly seen in hemocromatosis. Multi organ failure, including liver, kidney, and heart damage.

The human cause by exposure is Bantu disease- caused by fermenting beer in iron barrels. It’s not common here because we don’t tend to ferment in iron pots.

BTW, severe iron overload is treated the same way significant lead poisoning is treated- iv chelation therapy.

Why are we all not agreeing with your idea?

Well, we are not all dumb or dumbed down by lead exposure.

It will disproportionately impact people who shoot recreationally.

It also impacts freedom when you start regulating with no actual impact likely. What will you regulate next to rid us of lead poisoning, especially if reducing lead poisoning isn’t what your regulations do? If all that is required is to get the majority to say, “why do I care, it won’t affect me?” Then it’s not an ethical thing to do.

crbutler wrote:Well, we are not all dumb or dumbed down by lead exposure.

Is that a fact?

Markemp wrote:

crbutler wrote:Well, we are not all dumb or dumbed down by lead exposure.

Is that a fact?

Yes, it is.

crbutler---thank you for your posts.

daleamn wrote:crbutler---thank you for your posts.

+1

And thank you Marky for revealing more of your ignorance

If they really want to reduce/ stop lead poisoning, ban lead ammunition inside, the 494/694 loop.

daleamn wrote:crbutler---thank you for your posts.

This

crbutler wrote:For a regulation to do what it is supposed to do, it needs to address the actual cause of the problem.

The actual problem is that gun ownership encourages an attitude of self-reliance and independence. People who raise their children to lack proper subservience to their betters.

And the more we make owning guns more expensive or more difficult, the more will give up on owning guns as too much of a bother.

So banning lead shot directly addresses the actual problem.

Is this one still active?

Sorcerer wrote:If they really want to reduce/ stop lead poisoning, ban lead ammunition inside, the 494/694 loop.

Make no mistake. This is exactly what the left is trying to do for all of us. We used to hear from our friendly neighborhood fuds, head in the sand friends, and literally every democrat, "no, they just want to ban some guns". Well. here we are and the MN gov is quite literally trying to ban almost every gun we own.

Now it's ammo, "no, they just want to ban some ammo".

I hope you see where this goes next

atomic41 wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:If they really want to reduce/ stop lead poisoning, ban lead ammunition inside, the 494/694 loop.

Make no mistake. This is exactly what the left is trying to do for all of us. We used to hear from our friendly neighborhood fuds, head in the sand friends, and literally every democrat, "no, they just want to ban some guns". Well. here we are and the MN gov is quite literally trying to ban almost every gun we own.

Now it's ammo, "no, they just want to ban some ammo".

I hope you see where this goes next

I think you may have missed the point of my sarcasm.

Holland&Holland wrote:Is this one still active?

The bill? Yes - it's active until the session ends in May when they adjourn sine die.

This bill hasn't had a hearing and deadline was yesterday, it doesn't have leadership support.