Gun News

[billvon 3,132]

>Now show me where lead from a range is affecting the environment.

From the EPA:

Lead can be introduced into the environment at
shooting ranges in one or more of the following
ways. Each of these pathways is site-specific
and may or may not occur at each individual
range:
• Lead oxidizes when exposed to air and
dissolves when exposed to acidic water or
soil.
• Lead bullets, bullet particles, or dissolved
lead can be moved by storm water runoff.
• Dissolved lead can migrate through soils to
groundwater.

From a University of Florida study:

Weathering of Lead Bullets and Their Environmental Effects at Outdoor Shooting Ranges

Lead contamination at shooting range soils is of great environmental concern. This study focused on weathering of lead bullets and its effect on the environment at five outdoor shooting ranges in Florida, USA. Soil, plant, and water samples were collected from the ranges and analyzed for total Pb and/or toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) Pb. . . .

Total Pb and TCLP Pb in the soils from all five shooting ranges were significantly elevated with the highest total Pb concentration of 1.27 to 4.84% (w/w) in berm soils. Lead concentrations in most sampled soils exceeded the USEPA’s critical level of 400 mg Pb kg1 soil. Lead was not detected subsurface soils in most ranges except for one, where elevated Pb up to 522 mg kg1 was observed in the subsurface, possibly due to enhanced solubilization of organic Pb complexes at alkaline soil pH. Elevated total Pb concentrations in bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] (up to 806 mg kg1 in the aboveground parts) and in surface water (up to 289 g L1) were observed in some ranges. Ranges with high P content or high cation exchange capacity showed lower Pb mobility. Our research clearly demonstrates the importance of properly managing shooting ranges to minimize adverse effects of Pb on the environment.

(Note to readers - Pb is the chemical symbol for lead.)

[quade 4]

No. I believe that among the dangers posed are: inhaling airborne particles, handling and transference issues as well as lead building up in the earthen berms used as backstops.

There's probably not a whole lot you can do in a practicle way of not inhaling small amounts. Probably only a minor concern over the course of a lifetime, but if combined with other sources could contribute to an overall effect.

Probably not a bad idea to wash your hands after handling rounds. This would help mitigate transfer to your food and next of kin. (Same could be said of riggers and lead seals BTW.)

As for rounds going into berms at outdoor ranges. I would imagine that if a range were open for several years the berm -would- collect a significant amount of lead. I don't care how careful the shooters are, that's the reason the berm is there -- to catch the occasional stray bits o' lead -- right? Well, when the range closes (all businesses die eventually don't they?) -- who cleans up the lead? Further, just because some tests in one part of the range didn't show any leeching into ground water doesn't mean it doesn't or won't happen later. You'd need to conduct some pretty extensive hydrologic testing to ensure lead wasn't being leeched into the areas water table.

Years ago, Disney had shooting galleries at its theme parks. The shooting galleries used lead pellets. Eventually the Company decided that the long term liability of lead issues just weren't enough to justify continuing to use lead pellets so they switched over to light. This had nothing to do with the EPA or any pending lawsuits, they just saw that all of those airborne lead particles, the handling and transference issues could open them up to some real hassles later on down the line.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Could you please supply me with the URL (if it exists) of the original NRL web page on which this information appeared?

I get it as a weekly or-so e-mail from the NRA, from a news subscription list. I don't know if it exists as a web page.

If you're wondering if I editted anything, well, sort of. I removed the stuff non-relevant to news, that urges people to call their Congressmen, yada yada yada.

I'll be happy to forward the e-mail to you.

[quade 4]

Ok. Just curious.

Didn't think you'd done anything to alter I just wanted to see exactly how separated the different parts of the NRA actually were. For instance, in this news letter about legal issues they mentioned the "NRA Foundation". Just kinda curious if they mention legal issues in "NRA Foundation" newsletters and web pages.

In other words, you're probably correct in that the different aspects of the NRA are separate as far as bank accounts go and other technically legal aspects go, but ideologically how closely are they related? Clearly they all have the same banner of "NRA" and all of what that implies to most non-members, but do the educational aspects ever cross over into activism?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It would be interesting to see a study on the long term effects of lead levels in ground water and the shooters themselves. As you're probably aware lead hinders the nervous system.

I studied up on this years ago, and my recollection is that lead generally does not leach down into ground water.

Most of the fear-mongering about lead in the wild is from shotgun pellets, which are ingested by birds and fish, and get into their blood systems, and carried over into eggs. Most states are passing laws getting away from lead shot, switching to things like tungsten instead.

Quote

I'd also like to see what happens when a firing range goes out of business. Who cleans up and how?

My gun club charges a $25 fee per year per member, as a remediation fund for one of our ranges, which is on land leased from the Army Corps of Engineers. This pot of money is in a trust fund for purposes of returning the land to its native state if/when the range ever shuts down. It's also used to periodically, about every five years or so, dig up the impact berms, remove the lead, which is sold to recyclers, and the cleansed dirt put back in place. The recycling value of the lead doesn't come close to covering the cost of digging it out.

Indoor ranges are now built with backstops that don't splatter the lead into the atmosphere, as well as fans to provide fresh air circulation.

Reloaders who smelt their own lead and cast their own bullets have to take precautions with air and contact handling.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's been known for a while that anti-gun activists were using the Lead-pollution ticket as a way to push shooting ranges out of business. Our public range here in my hometown was closed down due to a lawsuite from a local farmer because of "lead Pollution." IMO, it's just another way for the anti-gun crowd to try to gain control.

Yep. I've also seen a local range closed, when "environmentalists" sic'd the state version of the EPA on them. The things that were suddenly demanded of the range, under threat of huge penalties, could not be afforded, so the range was put out of business.

I've even seen the anti-gun folks try to shut down ranges, under the guise that they're concerned about the health of shooting enthusiasts. Awww, that's so sweet of them to be worried about our health like that...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And let's remind Mr. Quade that when the NRA was founded in 1871, it was NOT a "political action" entity by any means. Its intent was to foster interest and competence in the shooting sports!

It did not go into politics until politics began to encroach on the rights guaranteed us by the 2nd Amendment. That spurred gun owners into action to defend what had previously been something so generally accepted that no one thought it even needed defending.

Correct. One of the complaints from many NRA members is that the NRA spends too much money on politics. Well, if the anti-gun folks would just leave us alone and quit trying to take away our guns and our sports, then the NRA would be happy to go back to spending all of its money once again upon running shooting competitions, teaching safety, and building ranges. The problem is, the NRA is *forced* to spend on money on politics, to keep all of our rights from being taken away. It's the anti-gun organizations that drive that spending. The NRA has no choice but to counter it.

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so in their study, one of the five ranges had elevated lead sampling, and if I read things right, most of it was in plant roots and surface soil. I didn't read the entire thing, but what I got out of it is:
(A) Florida has special circumstances making it particularly susceptable to lead causing a problem in some places, (B) the lead was in surface dirt (weathered soil, not subsurface soil), (C) there was more lead in older ranges ~duh~ (D) the levels were higher but not significantly higher than soil from the surrounding area, (E) they relied on a 1970s study for "common" soil/lead levels, (F) the berms contained a lot of lead, but there was none in the subsurface soil, and they did no analysis of the water table beyond surface water, and had no conclusive statement that the lead in that one pond came from the range.

Overall, I don't find this very incriminating at all. It looks like they made the study sound scary in the opening and conclusion to get more funding.

- one issue I have with the study is that they used 2mm sieves. that would leave in a large number of bullet fragments (smaller than bullets but bigger than problem lead, right?), which would skew the number high, would it not?

I would, however, support ranges who decided to bring in dirt from other areas if multiple scientists concluded definitively reduced possibility of lead run off.

ps - it also looked like local plants absorbed the lead that did leave surface soil, indicating once again that mother nature is quite capable of taking care of herself.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

(Man, it just doesn't get any easier than this.)

Quote

The problem is, the NRA is *forced* to spend on money on politics, to keep all of our rights from being taken away.

It's not like somebody's holding a gun to their heads.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

OK, that was funny, but isn't it "holding a gun to my head" telling me I can't defend myself the most efective way possible?

(afterall, studies show that armed resistance lead to fewer injuries and more aborted violent crimes than any other method, including passivity, shouting, and physical resistance without a gun)

I love it when you let me use these great little tidbits.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Clearly they all have the same banner of "NRA" and all of what that implies to most non-members, but do the educational aspects ever cross over into activism?

(keep in mind, I'm not NRA certified, and I don't qualify myself as an instructor, but...)

It seems everytime I introduce someone to guns, or talk to people about the differences in firearms, the question on "assault weapons" comes up. When I explain exactly what they are, and what they do, and how often they are used in crimes according to the FBI UCR, people wonder WTF politicians were doing worrying about them instead of putting penalties on criminals.

Would you say I'm crossing education with activism just because I explain the truth versus the common misconception?

What, in your view, would qualify as "crossing into activism?"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

I think it's a matter of program policy.

If a person is simply giving instruction about gun safety, then it's probably not activist.

If part of the safety program is to also get them to join the NRA, that probably would qualify in my book as activist in nature since so much of the NRA membership funding appears to go to the clearly and overtly PAC-type activities.

And again, I'm not saying that PACs are, in and of themselves a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it could be rightfully argued that the USPA is a PAC. In fact, it seems to be one of the activities we mostly rely on them for. We want them to fight our battles for us in D.C..

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think it's a matter of program policy.

If a person is simply giving instruction about gun safety, then it's probably not activist.

If part of the safety program is to also get them to join the NRA, that probably would qualify in my book as activist in nature since so much of the NRA membership funding appears to go to the clearly and overtly PAC-type activities.

So, then I would be correct to infer that you KNOW how the NRA's spending breaks down?

Please, tell me, what is the percentage breakdown of NRA membership funding that goes to pro-gun lobbying, versus other programs like teaching cops to shoot, or teaching kids, women, and others how to safely handle a gun (when age appropriate), or wildlife conservation, or building shooting ranges.

Because if you made that statement without having some pretty specific knowledge about how much NRA money goes to "clearly and overtly PAC-type activities," I suggest you STFU until you can provide EVIDENCE, rather than make insinuations out your butt.

I wish I could remember the figures I read once a few years ago, that showed how LITTLE of NRA's money was actually used to lobby.

Maybe Kennedy or JohnRich can help. Quade, I have trouble believing you're going to come up with the stats I requested.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Because if you made that statement without having some pretty specific knowledge about how much NRA money goes to "clearly and overtly PAC-type activities," I suggest you STFU until you can provide EVIDENCE, rather than make insinuations out your butt.

I wish I could remember the figures I read once a few years ago, that showed how LITTLE of NRA's money was actually used to lobby.

Maybe Kennedy or JohnRich can help. Quade, I have trouble believing you're going to come up with the stats I requested.

If you're going to crank up the inflammatory language like that, I think the onus is on you to put up or shut up.

I think back to the 2000 election and the dozens of letters I got asking for money to lobby against the evil Gore-Feinstein empire of evil (yes, it was) and it sure seems like more money is spent on politics than anything else. Or I fear, that most of the extra money I gave was turned right back out to mail me more requsts for money. A lot of this is under the NRA-ILA umbrella, but it's hard to view America's First Freedoms as non activist.

I think it's very hard to separate the instructional aspects from the political ones. If you're going to teach someone how to shoot safely, you're likely to want to impress upon them that their rights to self defense are at great risk. One of the more useful books for sale here is titled "How to own a gun in California and not go to jail"

[quade 4]

Quote

So, then I would be correct to infer that you KNOW how the NRA's spending breaks down?

One needs only to look at this thread and the comments of John about the complaints received over the spending.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[OATSF14 0]

Quote

Post: Gun News, from the NRA:

Excellent post