6 ms·

This article is a bit misleading. Not all ranges are as badly handled as the one they mention, and many many people just shoot outside. In addition, the major

This article is a bit misleading. Not all ranges are as badly handled as the one they mention, and many many people just shoot outside. In addition, the major illustration is pretty much false. Almost all bullets are fully jacketed and not just partially as indicated. There isn't going to be lead from the bullet anywhere except at the backstop at the end of the range. There is a bit of lead in the primer (which weirdly the article fails to mention) but it isn't nearly as much. From the third article -"At a shooting club in Vancouver, Wash., 20 youngsters tested positive for lead overexposure. ‘We would get lead on our hands and eat finger food,’ one teenager recalls." Education is key here. I'm not trying to minimize potential risks, but they aren't nearly what this article is projecting. Yes, don't lick your fingers after shooting. At every range I've ever been to, food and drink are prohibited. Wash your hands people. also from the third article - "While lead poisoning among casual shooters is rare, the risk increases the more they shoot, particularly if it’s in poorly ventilated and maintained ranges." Happy to agree. only use well maintained and well ventilated ranges, or just shoot outside like most people. The risk is real, but it's really minimal with a little bit of common sense. Focus on educating people of the actual risks rather than scare mongering like this article.

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
Lead is just so awful - it lowers IQ of children by a very large amount, even in low doses. Why not just ban the stuff in bullets? I don't see the problem with outlawing it. These are clear, super negative externalities. Alternatives exists. Enforcing proper handling of lead bullets seems much more difficult than just banning them.
- clarky07 11y ago
  There is almost nothing that needs to be done to be safe. Wash your hands and clothes. Don't eat or drink while shooting. This just isn't that hard. There is a tiny contingent that needs to be more aware, and that is the business owners and employees. There's just no reason to massively increase the cost when very simple things like washing your hands fixes the tiny chance of an issue. Don't lick your fingers when they have lead on them. EDIT: Also the politics in this country disagree with your hypothesis. It would be so much harder to ban lead bullets than for people to wash their hands after they shoot.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
    I think we should be very conservative with toxins that lower intelligence. At the very least, children should not be allowed in indoor shooting ranges. Were I the Lee Kuan Yew of America, I would still ban lead bullets. Double the cost, seems like a good deal to me. Our capacity for free choice is implemented in our brains. Libertarians allowing this type of pollution seem pretty self-limiting. >It would be so much harder to ban lead bullets than for people to wash their hands after they shoot. Untrue, enforcing the washing of hands would be much harder than banning lead bullets. As there exists alternatives, most people would use them were lead bullets banned. Most people will not change their hand-washing habits. Banning bullets requires inspecting a few manufacturers. Enforcing washing of hands, basically impossible. Educating people to acquire more virtuous habits, ha - a blanket ban is a far easier to implement.
    - autokad 11y ago
      its pretty sad we live in a world where so many people like you wish to have overlords tell us what to do simply because some people have bad habits.
- Pinckney 11y ago
  Lead-free ammo is much more expensive, and gun regulation is a politically charged topic. Any attempt to ban lead ammunition will, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as an attempt to discourage recreational shooting by making ammunition less available. Much like California's handgun drop-safety requirement is currently perceived as an attempt to discourage handgun ownership, by making them less available, or Texas' recent abortion regulations are perceived as an attempt to make abortions less available. They're ostensibly regulations enacted for health and safety, but nobody affected by them believes that story.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fallinghawks 11y ago
    One of the other arguments is that, because lead is denser, lead ammo flies straighter for a longer distance than non lead alloys. I wish shooters took that as a challenge rather than a limitation.
    - mgarfias 11y ago
      Name an inexpensive easy to acquire and work metal that would be a good substitute? Should we use gold? How about depleted uranium? Tungsten maybe, but it is spendy and shatters on impact.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > Why not just ban the stuff in bullets? That would be incredibly regressive since the alternatives are all very expensive. It's also unnecessary because, as mentioned before, safe handling is far easier to achieve than a politically unpopular ban. You also don't really need to "enforce" safe handling beyond air scrubbing systems at indoor ranges. There are also cases, such as blackpowder shooting and antique firearms, where non-lead projectiles may not be feasible. If I have an oddball caliber antique weapon I can still use it by casting my own lead bullets even if nobody makes commercial ammunition.
autokad 11y ago
agree on all points. Even if lead isn't in the mix, its incredibly stupid to lick your fingers after firing a weapon. you get covered with ridiculous amounts of gun powder residue, oils, and god knows what else. its also worth noting that copper isn't exactly healthy in your body either. One last thing, the map is almost comical. The 'red' on half of those states is due to the fact that those states don't have many in door shooting ranges. I'm pretty sure Montana has like.... ZERO.
cplease 11y ago
Your entire post is minimizing potential risks.

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago

Lead is just so awful - it lowers IQ of children by a very large amount, even in low doses. Why not just ban the stuff in bullets? I don't see the problem with outlawing it. These are clear, super negative externalities. Alternatives exists. Enforcing proper handling of lead bullets seems much more difficult than just banning them.

clarky07 11y ago
There is almost nothing that needs to be done to be safe. Wash your hands and clothes. Don't eat or drink while shooting. This just isn't that hard. There is a tiny contingent that needs to be more aware, and that is the business owners and employees. There's just no reason to massively increase the cost when very simple things like washing your hands fixes the tiny chance of an issue. Don't lick your fingers when they have lead on them. EDIT: Also the politics in this country disagree with your hypothesis. It would be so much harder to ban lead bullets than for people to wash their hands after they shoot.
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  I think we should be very conservative with toxins that lower intelligence. At the very least, children should not be allowed in indoor shooting ranges. Were I the Lee Kuan Yew of America, I would still ban lead bullets. Double the cost, seems like a good deal to me. Our capacity for free choice is implemented in our brains. Libertarians allowing this type of pollution seem pretty self-limiting. >It would be so much harder to ban lead bullets than for people to wash their hands after they shoot. Untrue, enforcing the washing of hands would be much harder than banning lead bullets. As there exists alternatives, most people would use them were lead bullets banned. Most people will not change their hand-washing habits. Banning bullets requires inspecting a few manufacturers. Enforcing washing of hands, basically impossible. Educating people to acquire more virtuous habits, ha - a blanket ban is a far easier to implement.
  - autokad 11y ago
    its pretty sad we live in a world where so many people like you wish to have overlords tell us what to do simply because some people have bad habits.
Pinckney 11y ago
Lead-free ammo is much more expensive, and gun regulation is a politically charged topic. Any attempt to ban lead ammunition will, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as an attempt to discourage recreational shooting by making ammunition less available. Much like California's handgun drop-safety requirement is currently perceived as an attempt to discourage handgun ownership, by making them less available, or Texas' recent abortion regulations are perceived as an attempt to make abortions less available. They're ostensibly regulations enacted for health and safety, but nobody affected by them believes that story.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fallinghawks 11y ago
  One of the other arguments is that, because lead is denser, lead ammo flies straighter for a longer distance than non lead alloys. I wish shooters took that as a challenge rather than a limitation.
  - mgarfias 11y ago
    Name an inexpensive easy to acquire and work metal that would be a good substitute? Should we use gold? How about depleted uranium? Tungsten maybe, but it is spendy and shatters on impact.
joshuapants 11y ago
> Why not just ban the stuff in bullets? That would be incredibly regressive since the alternatives are all very expensive. It's also unnecessary because, as mentioned before, safe handling is far easier to achieve than a politically unpopular ban. You also don't really need to "enforce" safe handling beyond air scrubbing systems at indoor ranges. There are also cases, such as blackpowder shooting and antique firearms, where non-lead projectiles may not be feasible. If I have an oddball caliber antique weapon I can still use it by casting my own lead bullets even if nobody makes commercial ammunition.

autokad 11y ago

agree on all points. Even if lead isn't in the mix, its incredibly stupid to lick your fingers after firing a weapon. you get covered with ridiculous amounts of gun powder residue, oils, and god knows what else. its also worth noting that copper isn't exactly healthy in your body either. One last thing, the map is almost comical. The 'red' on half of those states is due to the fact that those states don't have many in door shooting ranges. I'm pretty sure Montana has like.... ZERO.

cplease 11y ago

Your entire post is minimizing potential risks.