I am not “parroting anything from anti-gunners”. It isn’t possible, I don’t know any. This is all undisputed fact and the information has been widely disseminated for well over a decade. News flash: Lead is toxic, it isn’t good for you. I learned this from the Law Enforcement officers, weapons experts and others I shoot with at the various ranges. That’s where I got it from, but if you need sources that are spreading this anti-gunner propaganda; You can start with Olin/Winchester, Remington, Federal, CCI, the DoD, US Army, The CDC, most police fraternities and private security firms, BlackwaterUSA, etc.
There are so many variables involved such as what you are shooting, handgun or rifle, What targets, (Steel target, etc.) inside or outside, is there proper ventilation. If you just hunt and shoot infrequently there should be no problem. I shoot a lot and that is how I answered the question that was asked me. When you think about the sheer number of rounds that go through just an average range in a day, well that’s a lot of lead. I am not being an alarmist, but I have seen a few ranges closed and many more have to close because of the expense. People do get sick and a lot of LEO’s who shoot an hour a week or more, have to get blood level tests. My main point was this will not hinder people from owning and firing weapons; All major manufacturers have a “clean round” available in most calibers and they are maybe a nickel or dime more per round. When the demand increases, the price will go down.
Yes, I was referring to the primer and meant to say 1/5 of the lead in the air was from the primer. When the primer detonates, it absolutely sends a cloud of molecular lead compounds into the air. Around a grain sounds about right for the lead styph crystals, but 20% of a grain in your bloodstream is enough for some to develop lead poisoning. You fire off a few thousand rounds a week and it starts to add up. I will agree that the .22 lead ammo ban is likely just anti-gunners trying to make it hard on gun owners because the .22 ammo is so cheap. I am not trying to be alarmist and personally I have never seen any problems for those just shooting when they hunt or occasional shooting. But, if you’re a range shooter it is good to be aware. Lead ammo or the clean ammo, I am fine with either, as long as I am shooting. I just take a few precautions shooting lead that I didn’t 5 years ago.
Not true. I'm disputing it for one.
and the information has been widely disseminated for well over a decade
This is just about the right time frame for the stuff about lead poisoning of wetlands due to hunters causing the curtailment of lead shot in waterfowl hunting. The whole purpose was not to prevent lead in the sacred environment, but to curtail hunting (and hence gun ownership.) Wide dissemination of information doesn't mean that the information is true.
I am not “parroting anything from anti-gunners”. It isn’t possible, I don’t know any
I don't know upChuckie Schemer, Carolyn McCarthy, or Diane Feinstein, but I am aware of their positions. You don't have to know someone to either agree with or disagree with their positions.
learned this from the Law Enforcement officers, weapons experts and others I shoot with at the various ranges.
I wouldn't trust LEO's opinion's on anything except where to get the best donuts. Typically stuff like this originates in the virulently anti-gun, anti-freedom New England Journal of Medicine I was wondering if that's where you first found it.
All major manufacturers have a “clean round” available in most calibers and they are maybe a nickel or dime more per round. When the demand increases, the price will go down.
There are only three primer compounds that I know of lead azide (reacts with brass and copper to become more sensitive over time - however is frequently used in things like hand grenades where the primer cup is aluminum), lead styphnate (the most common one)and DDNP ( (a relative of TNT and Picric acid - I have read, although it was on the internet and not verified, that the long term storage of DDNP primed munitions is problematic with the primer decaying over time more so than the lead based primers) Considering that there was a push on by the antigunners several years ago to force all ammunition to have limited life primers so as to avoid citizens being able to "stockpile" it for their "arsenals" I can't help thinking that the current lead reduction push is just a way of softening up the populace for making primers that maintain their ability to fire on long term storage go away. (and BTW I fired off about 70 1946 BMG .50 rounds a couple of months ago without a single misfire - damn things were almost as old as I am)
Yes, I was referring to the primer and meant to say 1/5 of the lead in the air was from the primer.
That wasn't what you said. You said that 1/5 of the lead in a round ended up in the air and that's just not true. If you meant that 1/5 of the lead from the primer ended up in the air - I might go along with that. The lead products of primer ignition are molecular lead (vapor) and lead oxide. The lead vapor condenses to lead dust almost immediately and the lead oxide forms a dust also; both fall out of the air relatively quickly.
I have seen a few ranges closed and many more have to close because of the expense
Who was behind the health scare that closed the ranges I wonder. Was there REALLY a health risk or was it just some overblown EPA hype for something that really isn't a problem. I suspect that the so-called dangers of lead poisoning at ranges while theoretically possible are greatly exaggerated.
The medical profession, while not particularly concerned about the 140,000 deaths that occur annually due to medical malpractice, seems to have strong antigun opinions concerning the 28,000 deaths that occur annually due to gunshot (Half or more of which are suicides). I wouldn't put it as beyond possibility for a lot of lead poisoning "data" to be distorted so as to give the anti-gunners more propaganda to assault our second amendment rights.
People do get sick
Again I did a google search, and I found a lot of stuff on the so-called hazards (from government sources - Peoples' Democracy of MA for one), but I couldn't find any actual clinical lead poisoning cases for humans that could be traced to gun ranges. The closest I got was a paper that found elevated lead levels in some wild animals found near a shooting range in GA and some people who were found to have elevated lead levels in their blood in CA, but no symptoms of lead poisoning were mentioned.
but 20% of a grain in your bloodstream is enough for some to develop lead poisoning.
This doesn't compute. If 1/5 of the lead in a primer gets temporarily airborn, this doesn't mean that it gets into your blood. for this to happen you'd have to ingest or inhale 100% of the combustion products and then they would have to be 100% absorbed.
I think that while the possibility for lead poisoning from dust at ranges exists, the danger is being enormously exaggerated by the government and the biomedical hegemony as part of the drum roll for more anti-gun laws. If there is a danger to anyone at a range it would be to the range employees who are there all day and to the people who clean the range (probably should wear dust masks)