Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Stop Lead Poisoning - The NRA's Against It

Summit County Citizens Voice

Even though there are plenty of modern, less toxic alternatives available, the National Rifle Association doesn’t want the EPA to address lead hunting ammunition with new regulations.

The gun rights group earlier this month filed legal motions to try and block the EPA from protecting wildlife and people from the effects of poisonous lead hunting ammunition left the wild.

Paranoid as always, the group sees any attempt to regulate anything to do with hunting as an attack on its misguided interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

By now, it’s clear that lead shot is not a good thing for the environment. Nearly 500 scientific papers have documented the dangers to wildlife from this kind of lead exposure.

A recent study by University of Santa Cruz California researchers showed that lead is the leading cause of mortality in endangered California condors. Many of the birds that have been released into the wild have been recaptured and treated for lead poisoning.
Wouldn't moving away from lead be the right thing to do? It seems to me the NRA and its supporters are not interested in that at all. They have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that in any way might limit their "freedom" to do what they want.

Aren't there some pro-gun folks who are also environmentally conscious?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Lead is cheap. This really is a move from your side to made ammunition so expensive that gun owners won't be able to afford it or won't be able to afford to practice.

    Something tells me that California condors aren't going to be affected by rounds that I shoot in Arkansas, anyway.

    1. Those are weak justifications, Greg.

      Lead is poison. It should be removed from our environment as much as possible. There's no hidden agenda in that.

    2. Elemental lead is not a problem in most cases. The lead that used to be in gasoline was a problem because it was in a form that could be absorbed easily.

      Lead is ideal for bullets. It's a commonly available metal. It's soft enough to grip the rifling in a barrel and to expand in a target. (Copper is also used in jacketed bullets for the same reason--for the jacket, not the main body of the bullet.) It's the densest of the common metals. That gives the round better penetration and a truer trajectory.

      What you're demanding is a bullet that will be more expensive and less functional. Now why would you do that?

    3. "Now why would you do that?" For the reason I said. Your claim that "Elemental lead is not a problem in most cases," is not sufficient to persuade.

    4. And your assertion that you care only about the environment and not about making ammunition so expensive that many can't afford to practice regularly or even buy it is also not sufficient to persuade.

  2. This issue is already being dealt with. In most states, waterfowl hunters (who's shotguns spread many small pellets through the water, thus having the greatest risk) are already required to use lead-free shot. In many places, this is being expanded to other forms of hunting. (e.g. doves)

    >Aren't there some pro-gun folks who are
    >also environmentally conscious?

    In most states, the majority of conservation money comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.