Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Stealth gun control?  (Read 5320 times)

booksmart

  • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4327
  • E. Pluribus Unum.

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2012, 11:34:39 PM »
By your own words I'd say the matter would be moot.... ".22 and easier to move through the gullet VS mall shot stays in the digestive tract"........

Birdshot?  Is that mostly lead, or copper (depending on what you buy, I assume)?


Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

goatroper

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2012, 12:03:37 AM »

If it was identifiable, I'm willing to bet it hadn't been digested enough to cause issue - probably because it was a .22 and easier to move through the gullet, vs. small shot that would've acted like sand or fine gravel and stayed in the digestive tract.  Lead bloodlevels to be concerned about are 10μg/dL - 10 micrograms per deciLiter.  I would be fascinated to see what the lead levels in that meat are.


OK, this is getting boring, and you're making it too easy.  (May I suggest you look up the Socratic method?)  I probably won't continue with this much longer -- I don't honestly think you're listening.  Nothing personal, just how I feel.

10 micrograms/dL (mcg/dL) is the suggested human pediatric actionable level, based primarily upon developmental issues.  The adult actionable level is 25 mcg/dL (CDC) or 20 mcg/dL (FDA).  ( http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=7&po=8 )  It's been suggested as late as this year that the childhood level be downgraded to 5 mcg/dL, but there are studies that indicate there may not be sufficient scientific evidence to support this. 

Lead is found in the environment in a wide variety of compounds, both organic and inorganic.  ( Grant, L.D. (2009). "Lead and compounds". In Lippmann, M.. Environmental Toxicants: Human Exposures and Their Health Effects, 3rd edition. Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 0471793353. )  Organic lead compounds -- such as those formerly used in leaded gasoline, and still found in relatively high concentrations in soil in larger cities and near long-established highways -- readily cross into biological systems through skin and respiratory  pathways.  ( Kosnett, M.J. (2007). "Heavy metal intoxication and chelators". In Katzung, B.G.. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0071451536. )  ( http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000017/p0000017.asp#head002005000000000 )  In the case of the eagle you cited earlier, has there been any determination as to the entry mode of the lead found in that eagle's system?  Was it subclinical (lead toxicity) or acute (lead poisoning)?  There's a difference; if the eagle did actually die of lead blood/tissue content (and not from a wild-animal reaction to captivity-shock and the treatment itself) it would certainly seem to have been acute.

"Is carrion the only possible source of lead ingestion? No, but it is the most likely (I would assume other sources include sinkers in fish that got away, etc.).  And it being from a natural source is highly unlikely to impossible (since lead needs refining from ore).  That pretty much leaves us - presuming otherwise is disingenuous."   Right.  What is your basis for this statement?  How am I to be convinced that I should take your word for it?  Particulary since lead can enter the environment by so many pathways, including mining, smelting, pottery glazing, medical/electronic equipment manufacturing, etc, etc.  Look it up.

"Lighten up, Francis."  Of course I gave you a straw-man argument -- one that has as much basis in provable fact as the one offered in the OP.  I was being a bit of a smart-arse on purpose.  As far as the straw-man bit goes, you gave me the same in reverse -- as did the OP article cited.  I was speaking in general of animals killed on the highways -- and I could infer by devious mathematics in the X plus y, therefore z mode you employ, that I see so many more than ever deer, possums, coons and other assorted critters (groundhogs are excepted from this argument of course, as they are genetically predisposed, by all the available evidence, to merge with pavement) and extrapolating from the total of miles of highway in the continental US (leaving out, for the sake of I-don't-feel-like-doing-the-math, dirt roads, which are not as easily measurable) that we are collectively killing BAZILLIONS of animals!!!  (Could that by any stretch be how that 20-million birds number in the OP article was manufactured arrived at?)  You respond with the argument that you haven't hit an animal since <insert year here>.  Taking the argument conveniently from macro to micro offers no basis for making a decision with macro effect.  It is, however, a tactic conveniently and repeatedly used by hoplophobes, various "green" organizations, and others, who rely upon emotion rather than fact.  The article I quoted uses the same methodology, in reverse.

Yes, I'm pushing this out to the edges a bit, but only as illustration.  The article quoted (in full) in the OP only offers one concrete and verifiable bit of evidence, that of the condor treated and released.  It also offers very large numbers, with no citation as to the source and verifiability of those numbers.  And I don't believe 'em.  Who counted those 20 million birds, and did all the requisite lab work?  And verified the mode of entry into the systems of those birds?  That's a rather large undertaking, and not a cheap one.

The OP article asks us to make a macro change based upon one verifiable bit of micro evidence and some unsubstantiated large numbers.  I think it's a pig in a poke.

All that said . . . I'm an animal lover my own self, and don't ever want to knowingly make any critter suffer unnecessarily.  I also unapologetically love to eat a few of 'em.  Just my own silly opinion, but I do believe we pay mother nature back for what we take, and that we have a responsibility to continue to discover/rediscover our balance point within the world in which we live.  I just don't think this is the one I'm going to hang my hat on.
VirginiaGoatroper

goatroper

  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2012, 12:12:14 AM »
Sorry, booksmart, I meant to add this one to my last post.  It's late.

From one of your posts: "I would be fascinated to see what the lead levels in that meat are."

Here you go:

"The media recently misquoted a study saying that eating meat killed by hunters may cause lead poisoning or lead blood levels to increase. This is not true, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the national government health advisory organization. The North Dakota health advisory had no basis; it was motivated by an environmental group's study that was found to be a fabrication. The North Dakota Department of Health is now encouraging hunters to donate venison to local food banks."

Source:  http://web.extension.illinois.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=12303
VirginiaGoatroper

booksmart

  • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4327
  • E. Pluribus Unum.

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2012, 01:26:50 AM »
Goatroper- (responding to last post first, will respond to other post after sleep (it is, indeed late)) - I actually meant the meat from Grant's rooster, since it had ingested lead, but died of other (presumably unnatural ;) ) causes. Just curious.

No, I don't expect him to send it out to a lab. *grin*

coelacanth

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2012, 03:29:10 AM »
This has gotten silly.   :scrutiny    Game, set and match to Mr. goatroper.    :coffee
"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness.  Bad manners.  Lack of consideration for others in minor matters.  A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot." 

            Robert A. Heinlein , "Friday"

booksmart

  • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4327
  • E. Pluribus Unum.

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2012, 01:34:36 PM »
All that said . . . I'm an animal lover my own self, and don't ever want to knowingly make any critter suffer unnecessarily.  I also unapologetically love to eat a few of 'em.  Just my own silly opinion, but I do believe we pay mother nature back for what we take, and that we have a responsibility to continue to discover/rediscover our balance point within the world in which we live.

I've no argument with that.  :D

gunnermax

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Guns 4 A livin

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2012, 11:06:22 AM »
20 Million birds a year dead from lead poisoning.  I highly doubt this.  I dont hear about morticians doing autopsies on 20 million birds a year.
FloridaMember: NRA, GOA, SAF, VCDL, NAGR


Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

booksmart

  • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4327
  • E. Pluribus Unum.

  • Offline

JesseL

  • Gun Mangler
  • WTA Staff
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890

  • Online
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2012, 12:21:22 PM »
My personal feeling is that while there may be some legitimate environmental concerns regarding lead poisoning in raptors, I have zero doubt that this is an effort to hurt the hunting and shooting communities as evidenced by their effort to have lead completely banned from civilian ammo regardless of the fact that the vast majority of it cannot possibly have any environmental impact.

If the people behind this petition were genuine is their motivations, instead of the EPA they'd be presenting their concerns to the state level fish and game authorities that actually have the power to act and (hopefully) a closer view of all the issues involved.
Arizona

coelacanth

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2012, 04:50:52 AM »
Another thing routinely ignored in most of these studies is the environmental incidence of heavy metals in the range of the animals tested.  Anyplace with significant deposits of precious metals ( gold, silver) as well as tin, uranium and other ores found particularly in the western U.S. also have significant concentrations of lead and arsenic present.  The range of the California condor in particular is primarily in areas that have been known for gold and silver deposits for hundreds of years and have supported mining operations for generations.   Abandoned mines and current mining operations are all sources of environmental lead readily accessible to wildlife.   To lay the problem of lead poisoning at the feet of the hunting and shooting and fishing communities is to completely ignore the other sources. 

"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness.  Bad manners.  Lack of consideration for others in minor matters.  A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot." 

            Robert A. Heinlein , "Friday"

JesseL

  • Gun Mangler
  • WTA Staff
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890

  • Online
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2012, 09:23:51 PM »
It seems the EPA didn't find anything more in this petition to justify overstepping their authority than they did the last time.

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/response_4.9.12.pdf
Arizona

coelacanth

  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #36 on: April 14, 2012, 01:17:50 AM »
Keep throwing it at the wall - sooner or later its bound to stick.   :facepalm
"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness.  Bad manners.  Lack of consideration for others in minor matters.  A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot." 

            Robert A. Heinlein , "Friday"

JackCrow

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 838
  • This Jack Crow is no other Jack Crow.

  • Offline
Re: Stealth gun control?
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2012, 12:56:03 AM »
Yep, had some local reports about this in relation to debris left strewn around open desert shooting areas just this week.
"First comes smiles, then lies, last comes gunfire." - Roland of Gilead

aikorob

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 783

  • Offline
GeorgiaFrom The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."


Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.