Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lawsuit city and violates the First Amendment.

Is the use of lead shot some type of religious obligation?

I'm not strict it's more for the holidays.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lawsuit city and violates the First Amendment.

Is the use of lead shot some type of religious obligation?

Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.


EDIT: I am not as familiar with rifle bullets, but on the pistol side its all lead all the time, unless you want something like a Cor Bon solid copper, but thats extremely expensive and makes one subject to hippy tree hugger EPA types shouting "cop killer!" "cop killer!"

It violates the First Amendment as it abridges a person's ability to actually use said firearm in a practical method.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lawsuit city and violates the First Amendment.

Is the use of lead shot some type of religious obligation?

Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.


EDIT: I am not as familiar with rifle bullets, but on the pistol side its all lead all the time, unless you want something like a Cor Bon solid copper, but thats extremely expensive and makes one subject to hippy tree hugger EPA types shouting "cop killer!" "cop killer!"

It violates the First Amendment as it abridges a person's ability to actually use said firearm in a practical method.

The First Amendment refers to free speech and religious practice. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you comment.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lawsuit city and violates the First Amendment.

Is the use of lead shot some type of religious obligation?

Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.


EDIT: I am not as familiar with rifle bullets, but on the pistol side its all lead all the time, unless you want something like a Cor Bon solid copper, but thats extremely expensive and makes one subject to hippy tree hugger EPA types shouting "cop killer!" "cop killer!"

It violates the First Amendment as it abridges a person's ability to actually use said firearm in a practical method.

The First Amendment refers to free speech and religious practice. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you comment.

Sorry Second. Thats what happens when I try to spell check something.
First also refers to press and assembly. Can't forget those.

Frazzled wrote:
Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.

...CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available.

It helps to read the articles you post.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lawsuit city and violates the First Amendment.

Is the use of lead shot some type of religious obligation?

Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.


EDIT: I am not as familiar with rifle bullets, but on the pistol side its all lead all the time, unless you want something like a Cor Bon solid copper, but thats extremely expensive and makes one subject to hippy tree hugger EPA types shouting "cop killer!" "cop killer!"

It violates the First Amendment as it abridges a person's ability to actually use said firearm in a practical method.

You do realize you can work for government in environmental regulation and still own a gun, right? They don't make you sign a paper saying that you'll support a certain set of political positions and none other when you work for the EPA or join the Sierra Club.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.

...CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available.

It helps to read the articles you post.

It is an unreasonable request though in my mind because I am not personally aware of any non-lead bullet material that performs like lead. There certainly exist non lead bullets, some of which are not more expensive, but they're either range rounds not meant for hunting or self defense or they're rounds with a certain type of performance characteristic wanted when lead is not desired anyhow.

JP looks like they already thought of your fishing weights, and yes you are a meat eating mead swilling barbarian!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/conservationists-target-lead-ammunition-fishing-tackle/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Lead bullets, not shot. It helps to be at least slightly familiar with the topic before you make statements.

...CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available.

It helps to read the articles you post.

Name Two.

Grignard wrote:

You do realize you can work for government in environmental regulation and still own a gun, right? They don't make you sign a paper saying that you'll support a certain set of political positions and none other when you work for the EPA or join the Sierra Club.

... yet anyway. ........

The wheels are in motion, fret not.

EPA is the Enviromental Protection Agency yes ?

.. I must admit, never having thougt about it at all, I'd assumed that bullets weren't made of lead anymore anyway. Live and learn.


Tip o' the hat to Mr. Spiggott as well.

Frazzled wrote:
Name Two.

You disputed my knowledge of the topic because I referred to shot, whereas you assumed only bullets were under threat of ban. The article, in the first paragraph, clearly indicated that shot was also under threat. This tells me you only read the headline, or have a terrible memory.

That out of the way, name two what? Articles that you've posted? Alternatives to lead?

There are several alternatives to lead, most already covered in this thread, but for the sake of your possible question: steel, tungsten alloys, bismuth alloys, tungsten polymers.

As far as articles go: The Iranian nuke thread featured you claiming that Iran had enough material to make two nuclear bombs, this was false per the article you cited. In the thread about an MSNBC reporter working with the White House, you indicated that she had taken money when nothing in the article you cited indicated that.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Name Two.

You disputed my knowledge of the topic because I referred to shot, whereas you assumed only bullets were under threat of ban. The article, in the first paragraph, clearly indicated that shot was also under threat. This tells me you only read the headline, or have a terrible memory.

That out of the way, name two what? Articles that you've posted? Alternatives to lead?

There are several alternatives to lead, most already covered in this thread, but for the sake of your possible question: steel, tungsten alloys, bismuth alloys, tungsten polymers.

As far as articles go: The Iranian nuke thread featured you claiming that Iran had enough material to make two nuclear bombs, this was false per the article you cited. In the thread about an MSNBC reporter working with the White House, you indicated that she had taken money when nothing in the article you cited indicated that.

So you don't know what you're talking about. You can't use steel. Thats illegal. Something about blowing really nice holes through police body armor.
Mmm. Just went to yea old bullets online, didn't see any any "alloy bullets." The closest I found for 9mm for example, was a "leadless" but its actuall a lead bullet with specially designed copper jacket. Still lead.

Frazzled wrote:
So you don't know what you're talking about. You can't use steel. Thats illegal. Something about blowing really nice holes through police body armor.

Steel shot isn't illegal.

If you wanted to ask a question about bullets alone, then you should have been more precise.

Frazzled wrote:
Mmm. Just went to yea old bullets online, didn't see any any "alloy bullets." The closest I found for 9mm for example, was a "leadless" but its actuall a lead bullet with specially designed copper jacket. Still lead.

Tungsten shiot

Ask better questions if you are interested in actually discerning what someone does, or does not know.

Say it with lead...

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
So you don't know what you're talking about. You can't use steel. Thats illegal. Something about blowing really nice holes through police body armor.

Steel shot isn't illegal.

If you wanted to ask a question about bullets alone, then you should have been more precise.

Frazzled wrote:
Mmm. Just went to yea old bullets online, didn't see any any "alloy bullets." The closest I found for 9mm for example, was a "leadless" but its actuall a lead bullet with specially designed copper jacket. Still lead.

Tungsten shiot



Ask better questions if you are interested in actually discerning what someone does, or does not know.

Again thats SHOT The initial article stated bullets and shot. Bullets are not shot. They are completely separate. Shotguns have substitutes. Bullets generally don't.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
So you don't know what you're talking about. You can't use steel. Thats illegal. Something about blowing really nice holes through police body armor.

Steel shot isn't illegal.

If you wanted to ask a question about bullets alone, then you should have been more precise.

Frazzled wrote:
Mmm. Just went to yea old bullets online, didn't see any any "alloy bullets." The closest I found for 9mm for example, was a "leadless" but its actuall a lead bullet with specially designed copper jacket. Still lead.

Tungsten shiot



Ask better questions if you are interested in actually discerning what someone does, or does not know.

Again thats SHOT The initial article stated bullets and shot. Bullets are not shot. They are completely separate. Shotguns have substitutes. Bullets generally don't.

This is true, steel shot is perfectly legal, but I can see steel bullets not being. I didn't know that, but they would probably be armor piercing. Is that illegal or is it a FFL thing like a fully auto? Its sort of silly because I imagine a jacketed round from my .270 would penetrate a vest, which is of course perfectly legal match ammo.

The bullets/shot thing isn't just semantics. Furthermore, lead shot isn't illegal, it is illegal to use to hunt migratory birds. You can still use lead shot for most anything else, including sport shooting, subject to state regulations.

From personal experience I would disagree that there are affordable alternatives to lead for most purposes for most shooters. Bismuth shells are more expensive, and many handguns don't like frangible bullets, many of which are lead anyway. I think it is more of a safety hazard than an environmental one. As a professional, I would need to see a lot of convincing data to even think of lead from ammunition being an environmental concern.

Lead bullets don't kill people; Kids who play videogames kill people.

reds8n wrote:

Grignard wrote:

You do realize you can work for government in environmental regulation and still own a gun, right? They don't make you sign a paper saying that you'll support a certain set of political positions and none other when you work for the EPA or join the Sierra Club.

... yet anyway. ........

The wheels are in motion, fret not.

EPA is the Enviromental Protection Agency yes ?

.. I must admit, never having thougt about it at all, I'd assumed that bullets weren't made of lead anymore anyway. Live and learn.


Tip o' the hat to Mr. Spiggott as well.

Nope, the vast majority of cartridges sold have lead bullets. Shotgun shells on the other hand are frequently loaded with steel, because of the migratory bird issue. However, lead shot is not illegal, and steel just sucks as shot. Handling lead bullets is not generally considered harmful, though the packages generally come with warnings to wash your hands after handling. Lead poisoning usually occurs in children when they consume some sort of lead product. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I have never heard of a human being being poisoned from encountering lead from ammunition in the outdoors. Apparently there have been issues with firing ranges, so pick well ventilated indoor ranges.

Frazzled wrote:
Again thats SHOT The initial article stated bullets and shot. Bullets are not shot. They are completely separate. Shotguns have substitutes. Bullets generally don't.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I never even made a claim regarding the existence of substitutes for lead in bullets. You asked me to name substitutes without ever mentioning bullets, so I named a series of substitutes for lead in projectiles in general.

Honestly, I don't even know why your on about this other than as attempt to make me look bad. You first criticized me for using the word shot in a comment that was a joke about you citing the wrong Amendment, when the article specifically mentions shot. I then quoted the article to demonstrate this, and you somehow decided that quote was proffered as support for the existence of alternatives to lead in bullets, which it wasn't.

Kilkrazy wrote:Lead bullets don't kill people; Kids who play videogames kill people.

And then they progress to the next level and call us all Newbs.

Grignard wrote:
This is true, steel shot is perfectly legal, but I can see steel bullets not being. I didn't know that, but they would probably be armor piercing. Is that illegal or is it a FFL thing like a fully auto? Its sort of silly because I imagine a jacketed round from my .270 would penetrate a vest, which is of course perfectly legal match ammo.

Steel, among other materials, is banned from use in the cores of bullets according to federal law. Of course, I never said anything to the contrary, but some people can't seem to avoid making unjustified inferences.

Grignard wrote:
The bullets/shot thing isn't just semantics. Furthermore, lead shot isn't illegal, it is illegal to use to hunt migratory birds. You can still use lead shot for most anything else, including sport shooting, subject to state regulations.

I'm aware that its not just semantics.

Grignard wrote:
From personal experience I would disagree that there are affordable alternatives to lead for most purposes for most shooters. Bismuth shells are more expensive, and many handguns don't like frangible bullets, many of which are lead anyway. I think it is more of a safety hazard than an environmental one. As a professional, I would need to see a lot of convincing data to even think of lead from ammunition being an environmental concern.

I agree completely.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again thats SHOT The initial article stated bullets and shot. Bullets are not shot. They are completely separate. Shotguns have substitutes. Bullets generally don't.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I never even made a claim regarding the existence of substitutes for lead in bullets. You asked me to name substitutes without ever mentioning bullets, so I named a series of substitutes for lead in projectiles in general.

Honestly, I don't even know why your on about this other than as attempt to make me look bad. You first criticized me for using the word shot in a comment that was a joke about you citing the wrong Amendment, when the article specifically mentions shot. I then quoted the article to demonstrate this, and you somehow decided that quote was proffered as support for the existence of alternatives to lead in bullets, which it wasn't.

Translataion-you're arguig just to argue. Gotcha. Putting back on ignore.

Frazzled wrote:
Translataion-you're arguig just to argue. Gotcha. Putting back on ignore.

Arguing for the sake of arguing usually involves making inferences, and I haven't made one in this entire thread. You, on the other hand, have taken issue with every post I have made without even taking the time to explain what those issues are. All because I made a joke. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems an awful lot like your the one intent on arguing.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

Frazzled wrote:http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

Fraz, this is why it is getting harder and harder for me to justify opening my wallet and renewing my NRA membership. I don't think there is any evidence that the EPA is trying to find a sneaky way to ban ammunition. They're considering it because some small, fringe environmental group is making a claim. Has the EPA made a statement that they want to ban ammunition? Environmental regulation is what that agency does, if someone creates enough noise about an environmental issue, they have to "consider" it. It doesn't mean they're going to actually do anything at all.

What motivation does the EPA have to try to initiate a "stealth" ammunition ban?

This is the NRA trying to scare me into shelling out more money. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening.

This one has been around for quite a few years, but I'd be lying if I said it was on my top 10 list of things to worry about. Quite a few folks have speculated that the way to control guns is to control the ammunition. Most of this I suspect is fueled by the rather dramatic price increase/shortages of ammo for the last 2 or 3 years. Folks started figuring out if they don't have bullets, all the guns in the world don't matter. Even the re-loaders complained about the availability/price of primers, brass, lead, etc.

Ultimately, I look at it this way. The EPA is around to regulate threats to our enviroment. The first thing that would have to happen is there would have to be proof that lead from hunting is damaging the environment. I just don't buy that being the case. Lead shot from hunting waterfowl is a bit more isolated and conatminates the watershed - lead from overland hunting I suspect is contained quite handily in the soil/trees/whatever and has no real method of concentrating.

Secondly, there's the politics behind it. Want to take a guess at who some of the most influential folks are where it comes to conservation? Hunters and fishermen. The EPA is waaaay too in bed with these groups to risk pissing them off too much.

Third, Dems could *barely* get healthcare and the stimulus passed. A lot of them are going to get queasy at any attempt to start shenanigans that smell like gun control. Does anybody honestly thinks the politicians aren't going to be called on the carpet for what the EPA tries to do? A lot of people believe Clinton's assault weapons bill lead to the Democrats imploding in the 90's. It's more or less a dead issue for the time being.

It's good to remain vigilent against stuff like this, but it's sort of a dead issue at the moment. I'm not sure what it would take for gun control to spark back up as viable. Maybe if the drug violence starts to escalate again, but that could swing folks into MORE pro-gun camps.

We have 'environmental bullet traps' at shooting ranges here in Oz.
We haven't gone so far as to ban lead bullets, but handguns, semi-automatic rifles and most fancy shotguns are illegal here with the exception of for military, police and licensed security work (that latter generally only being allowed the use of handguns).

Hey Frazz, am I still on ignore too?

If scientists figured out a way to get lead out of lead wargame figures they can surely get the lead out of bullets.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:We have 'environmental bullet traps' at shooting ranges here in Oz.
We haven't gone so far as to ban lead bullets, but handguns, semi-automatic rifles and most fancy shotguns are illegal here with the exception of for military, police and licensed security work (that latter generally only being allowed the use of handguns).

Hey Frazz, am I still on ignore too?

No one ignores Arctic Ferengi!

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/27/epa-on-lead-ammunition-ban-never-mind/

On a related note. Am I the only one who gets annoyed from having 2 rounds left in this box, 3 rounds left in that box etc. only to not be able to fire them all on the same day without cleaing the barrel in between? I would honestly be all for a universal ammunition material if it were at least as effective as say copper, just to not have to deal with this anymore.

Wait so they want to ban lead bullets because they are toxic, but does that matter if the animal is dead?

heacy hitter wrote:Wait so they want to ban lead bullets because they are toxic, but does that matter if the animal is dead?

It's more a case of when the bullet misses and it gets into ground water.