RedFlag Headlines: Obama Proposed AWB List - Real or Fantasy?

[Corlissimo]

Just came across this post (http://redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out-by-alan-korwin) and am not too sure of its veracity.
I'm not familiar with Alan Korwin so I post here for comments.

[Chemsoldier]

Well for one thing the list doesnt make a lot of sense. While this never stopped an anti-gunner I think it throws some doubts on its veracity, or makes it so pie in the sky or conceptual and unstaffed that it isnt anything to worry about (yet).

Why put weapons that are already on the DD list under an AWB? Additionally the criteria would ban Saiga-12s yet the list of semi-auto shotguns is short and its absence is prominent.

The wording for the article is kind of odd. It doesnt feel like something written by a lawyer (a profession who makes their living in communicating well) unless it is a lawyer trying to get razor close to lying without actually doing so. There are some ambiguous sentances where he could be talking about past actions or current actions and the ambiguity may be deliberate.

Looks like manufactured news.

[jetfire]

This quote is how I know it's just hysteria:

and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us.
On what planet exactly do the Democrats have enough votes in a Republican controlled House to "pass anything"?

[TheRoland]

This quote is how I know it's just hysteria:

On what planet exactly do the Democrats have enough votes in a Republican controlled House to "pass anything"?

Tons of people have not seen "Schoolhouse Rock".

[Morbidbattlecry]

I think Obama might be in league with gun and ammo sellers. They are making a killing off him.

[JPNIII]

Anyone hear about this????

Full Article Here:http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015


U.S.reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Please refrain from posting copyrighted material on pistol-forum.com unless you are the copyright holder or have written permission from the copyright holder. This includes photographs, wholesale reposts of threads/articles from other websites, wire services, etc.

It is perfectly allowable to post a link along with a thumbnail or snippet.

Copyrighted material which is posted without following these guidelines is subject to deletion without warning.

[G60]

Consider the source.

I haven't seen anything regarding this 'list' anywhere else besides whatever "red flag news" is and all the chicken littles reposting it on FB. And I do keep up with 2A politics.

[F-Trooper05]

And we all know that 2/3 of the Senate will ratify this. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

[jumpthestack]

That Reuters article is from 2009, and so is the text you posted, which starts off with 2 paragraphs that come from the Reuters article but then veer off into stuff that's mostly unsupported.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[Alaskapopo]

This quote is how I know it's just hysteria:

On what planet exactly do the Democrats have enough votes in a Republican controlled House to "pass anything"?

Lots of Chicken Littles out there. Even in the Democrat controlled senate there is not enough anti gun votes to pass anything. Gun control does not follow party lines strictly. Plenty of pro gun democrates from the south and north states like mine.
Pat

[cclaxton]

Mr. Korwin has no reference and states no document or evidence to make this accusation. He is obviously a partisan who completely distorting Obama's position. And, BTW ignoring the fact that Democrats support guns and the NRA by solid majorities. And, conversely, strong Republican majorities favor gun regulations, such as background checks. Supporting gun rights is no longer a party line issue any more.

Democrats know this, and that is why they are not making any noise about gun restrictions. Bill Clinton, in particular, has advised Democratic candidates to avoid gun issues because a solid majority of Americans support gun rights. And, they also know that going after gun restrictions isn't dramatically changing American society in the same way that Health Care or Environmental Protections or job creation or debt reduction will change America.

In short, there is no payoff to go after our guns.

There was a list of assault weapons under the old law, and no surprise that anti-gun advocates would be updatimt that list. But at the end of the day this is going nowhere.

CC

[Tamara]

Just came across this post (http://redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out-by-alan-korwin) and am not too sure of its veracity.
I'm not familiar with Alan Korwin so I post here for comments.

Korwin is one of our fringe-ier allies in the RKBA movement. He's the guy who came up with the "Adnarim" statement that he thinks you should give cops after a shooting, if you'd like some entertaining googling.

His heart's in the right place, but he's awfully credulous.

[Tamara]

That Reuters article is from 2009, and so is the text you posted, which starts off with 2 paragraphs that come from the Reuters article but then veer off into stuff that's mostly unsupported.

I would have said "...veers off into absolute internets crazytalk," but yours is more polite.

These rumors always show the carefully-honed grasp of how the government works usually displayed by the people who worry about the gold fringe on courtroom flags.

[Tamara]

Democrats know this, and that is why they are not making any noise about gun restrictions.

You mean like where Obama said with his mouth, live on national television, "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/obama-calls-for-renewal-of-assault-weapons-ban/)"

Does that count for making any noise about gun restrictions? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, friend.

[peterb]

In short, save your energy for the real legislative proposals -- which will come -- instead of the black-helicopter stuff.

[Chemsoldier]

This quote is how I know it's just hysteria:

On what planet exactly do the Democrats have enough votes in a Republican controlled House to "pass anything"?

Because parts of the article were likely copy/pasted from early in the Obama adminsitration before the mid-term elections. Bits and pieces from an anti-gun working group 4 years ago that never got off the ground because BHO started campaigning for re-election right around the time he was sworn in and wasnt going to touch that.

I am begining to wonder if he is going to go there in this term either. He is such a politician and has so much vanity that he may be more concerned about his "legacy" than any particular activist legislation with such a potential for cross-party dissent, no matter his personal feelings on the matter. Not to mention that the country really does have bigger issues than guns. Sell them from vending machines or ban them all completely, neither will solve any of the major issues facing the country. So unless a ban somehow falls in his lap or circumstances change dramatically, I doubt BHO will do anything that requires congress to vote.

[cclaxton]

You mean like where Obama said with his mouth, live on national television, "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/obama-calls-for-renewal-of-assault-weapons-ban/)"

Does that count for making any noise about gun restrictions? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, friend.

I didn't see this, and it is a good reference. However, The President didn't seem to be that serious about it, instead focusing on understanding what is causing the violence rather than focusing on the assault weapons. He said in Chicago there is a lot of violence, but they don't use assault weapons. Keeping guns out of the wrong hands and enforcing the laws we already have was what he stated first.

Again, while the rhetoric might be there to appeal to the complainers, there isn't going to be a bite because there is no payoff...only political downsides.

CC

[joshs]

Supporting gun rights is no longer a party line issue any more. Democrats know this, and that is why they are not making any noise about gun restrictions.

What about the Democrat National Platform on Firearms?


Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform (emphasis added).

[NickA]

FWIW looks like Korwin didn't actually write that piece:

http://pagenine.typepad.com
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[LOKNLOD]

However, The President didn't seem to be that serious about it, instead focusing on understanding what is causing the violence rather than focusing on the assault weapons. He said in Chicago there is a lot of violence, but they don't use assault weapons.


Did he also say, then, that maybe just banning "assault weapons" isn't enough?


Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.

[WDW]

That list is fake. It was written to inflame preppers, ninjas, Serpa wearers, & the like.

[Tamara]

That list is fake. It was written to inflame preppers, ninjas, Serpa wearers, & the like.

Uh, no, the list is real, but it is from a fantasy AWB that didn't have a prayer of passing a GOP-controlled House intact, hence the "Shoot The Moon" nature of it.

Always ask for the sky, and then offer up some concessions so as to appear reasonable and open to compromise.

[Chemsoldier]

FWIW looks like Korwin didn't actually write that piece:

http://pagenine.typepad.com


Yeppers, stuff from 2009 repackaged and republished with a few incinderary statements added and branded as new and faked as a respected person's recent statement.

With all the blatent anti-liberty crap spouted by our leaders, it is disconcerting some people are so narrow minded that they STILL need to make sh*t up. In the end it is still accomplishing its end, plenty of folks who got this as an email forward will just believe it and even on this thread where we have identified its bogus nature, the thread is starting to stir up our partisan disagreements.

[Chemsoldier]

Uh, no, the list is real, but it is from a fantasy AWB that didn't have a prayer of passing a GOP-controlled House intact, hence the "Shoot The Moon" nature of it.


No, it is from a fantasy AWB that didnt have a prayer of passing a Democratic controlled House intact. In JAN 2009 the DNC controlled both houses of congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

They lost The House to the GOP in the mid-term elections of NOV 2010.

[Tamara]

No, it is from a fantasy AWB that didnt have a prayer of passing a Democratic controlled House intact. In JAN 2009 the DNC controlled both houses of congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

They lost The House to the GOP in the mid-term elections of 2010.

You are correct. My lysdexia read that "9" as a "6" initially.

[WDW]

Fake, fantasy, symantics really. Still only surfaced to insight fear.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Fake, fantasy, symantics really. Still only surfaced to insight fear.And it is working. Already received two email forwards spouting this $h1t.

[cclaxton]

What about the Democrat National Platform on Firearms?


Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform (emphasis added).

Yes, some concern. But, it's about as effective as the Republican platform on abortion. Platforms work to hold together their constituencies and caucus, and rarely actually result in action unless there is some political advantage. There is NO political advantage because these are not popular, even among Democrats. There may be talk to satisfy parts of the base but go nowhere.

This doesn't justify the crazy rant that started this thread.
CC

[Byron]

I find it odd that my more outspoken friends keep forwarding me material like this -- full of misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and fake citations -- but haven't made any mention of the recent NRA-supported bill that was stalled in the Senate this past Monday.

Said bill tried to increase hunter access to federal land, strip the EPA of any future ability to regulate ammunition (given lead content), and increase the number of shooting ranges and marksmanship programs on public land.

That bill, supported by the NRA, as well as hunting/fishing groups, also would have reduced the federal deficit (if only by $5 million) by allowing the BLM to sell off less valuable land that isn't being utilized.

OutdoorLife calls it "the most important piece of hunting and fishing legislation of our generation"
source: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/2012/11/tell-senate-pass-sportsmens-act-now

The bill was opposed by the Humane Society, some select conservation groups, and California Sen. Barbara Boxer (a name which should need no introduction around here).

Of course, as we all know, the Democrats want nothing more than to suppress the free market, and plenty of people have been saying for years that they would use the EPA to regulate ammunition, so they put a stop to this legislation.

Oh.... wait...

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-blocks-bill-hunters-more-land-access-194646104.html

Republicans supported opening lands for outdoorsmen and many other provisions in the bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, but GOP senators blocked the legislation on principle Monday evening in a mostly party-line procedural vote after Senate Budget Committee's top Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, objected to spending on conservation programs included in the bill.
...
The legislation would also exclude ammunition and tackle from federal environmental laws that regulate lead
...
Boxer was the only Democrat to vote against moving the bill forward Monday.
http://www.examiner.com/article/major-outdoor-recreation-and-conservation-bill-pulled-from-senate-floor

All Duck Stamp money goes to wildfowl conservation efforts and the program pays for itself and would not increase the federal deficit. Still, this would mean spending more money, which makes the bill subject to more Senate hurdles.

Other than that, CBO says the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $5 million by allowing the Bureau of Land Management to sell less valuable property to put in a fund to buy more prized land.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84254.html

“This is not even taxpayer spending,” protested Gary Taylor, legislative director for Ducks Unlimited. “This is waterfowl conservationists and hunters reaching into their pockets to pay for stamps and wetlands.”

No less than the National Rifle Association has been a prime mover behind the bill



My mistake!

It was the Republicans who stopped the bill, "on principle," even though they had previously claimed to support it. They voted along party lines against the Democrats, aligning themselves with the only Democrat who voted against it: the aforementioned Sen. Barbara Boxer.

I can't even find mention of this story on FoxNews.com (I had been curious what their reporting would look like)
I've searched for "Sportsmen," "Tester," "Sessions," "Duck Stamp," and "Conservation." None of the keywords produce relevant results. I tried the same on Redflagnews (which admittedly I've never seen before) and NRO before finally giving up.

It seems that the formula for conservative news outlets is:
Democrats could potentially get in the way of gun-owners = SOUND THE ALARMS!
Republicans actually get in the way of gun-owners = NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG, PEOPLE! BY THE WAY, DID YOU HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S NEW DOUBLE-SECRET GUN CONTROL LIST?

[F-Trooper05]

I find it odd that my more outspoken friends keep forwarding me material like this -- full of misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and fake citations -- but haven't made any mention of the recent NRA-supported bill that was stalled in the Senate this past Monday.

Said bill tried to increase hunter access to federal land, strip the EPA of any future ability to regulate ammunition (given lead content), and increase the number of shooting ranges and marksmanship programs on public land.

That bill, supported by the NRA, as well as hunting/fishing groups, also would have reduced the federal deficit (if only by $5 million) by allowing the BLM to sell off less valuable land that isn't being utilized.

OutdoorLife calls it "the most important piece of hunting and fishing legislation of our generation"
source: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/2012/11/tell-senate-pass-sportsmens-act-now

The bill was opposed by the Humane Society, some select conservation groups, and California Sen. Barbara Boxer (a name which should need no introduction around here).

Of course, as we all know, the Democrats want nothing more than to suppress the free market, and plenty of people have been saying for years that they would use the EPA to regulate ammunition, so they put a stop to this legislation.

Oh.... wait...

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-blocks-bill-hunters-more-land-access-194646104.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/major-outdoor-recreation-and-conservation-bill-pulled-from-senate-floor

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84254.html




My mistake!

It was the Republicans who stopped the bill, "on principle," even though they had previously claimed to support it. They voted along party lines against the Democrats, aligning themselves with the only Democrat who voted against it: the aforementioned Sen. Barbara Boxer.

I can't even find mention of this story on FoxNews.com (I had been curious what their reporting would look like)
I've searched for "Sportsmen," "Tester," "Sessions," "Duck Stamp," and "Conservation." None of the keywords produce relevant results. I tried the same on Redflagnews (which admittedly I've never seen before) and NRO before finally giving up.

It seems that the formula for conservative news outlets is:
Democrats could potentially get in the way of gun-owners = SOUND THE ALARMS!
Republicans actually get in the way of gun-owners = NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG, PEOPLE! BY THE WAY, DID YOU HEAR ABOUT OBAMA'S NEW DOUBLE-SECRET GUN CONTROL LIST?

I used to be a registered Republican. Then I spent six years on Capitol Hill working for a Republican Senator. I'm now a registered Independent. Reasons like that^^ are why. It's all bullshit.

[Tamara]

I find it odd that my more outspoken friends keep forwarding me material like this -- full of misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and fake citations -- but haven't made any mention of the recent NRA-supported bill that was stalled in the Senate this past Monday.

It's really no different than the emails I get from my friends on the other side of the aisle warning that the GOP wants to take away my right to vote...

[cclaxton]

Said bill tried to increase hunter access to federal land, strip the EPA of any future ability to regulate ammunition (given lead content), and increase the number of shooting ranges and marksmanship programs on public land.

Of course, as we all know, the Democrats want nothing more than to suppress the free market, and plenty of people have been saying for years that they would use the EPA to regulate ammunition, so they put a stop to this legislation.


All the politics aside, talking about the issues themselves: I support more hunter access and increasing shooting ranges on public lands, as long as safety can be managed and poaching enforced. But, shouldn't we at least *start* thinking about the impact of lead on the environment and the fragile ecosystems? It benefits hunters for the ecosystem to be healthy...it results in healthier animals and more of them to hunt and benefits future generations of Americans who want to enjoy our wonderful outdoors and the animals that live there.

Shouldn't we *start* thinking about how to reduce lead ammo deposits, at least where the ecosystems are most vulnerable? And, for those who think it's too expensive....out west where copper ammo is required in some areas, the copper rounds are not that much more expensive...in fact the same price in some cases (no pun intended). I bought a case of 9mm all copper and it was actually cheaper than the lead rounds when I was in Las Vegas gun show. They worked perfectly.

CC

[peterb]

There you go being rational. Don't you know that the only acceptable positions are "It's all a plot! Lead is harmless!" or "Lead is evil and should be banned everywhere!"?

From my reading, there are a lot of variables that affect the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife and ecosystems -- species, terrain, soil/bottom composition, water pH, diet, hunting load, and many more. In some areas lead reduction would have much more impact than others. But that requires being guided by data, and we know how popular that is....

A good reference for lead & wildlife: http://www.tufts.edu/vet/lead/

[joshs]

I bought a case of 9mm all copper and it was actually cheaper than the lead rounds when I was in Las Vegas gun show. They worked perfectly.

Were they solid copper or a TMJ? Copper is more expensive than lead (even at current demand levels), so it shouldn't be possible to make solid copper projectiles cheaper than solid lead or FMJ projectiles. You also must consider that if all ammunition were made of copper, then demand for copper would increase significantly causing an even larger difference in price than in the current market. Currently, copper is one of the few alternative projectile options, in part due to the Armor Piercing Ammunition ban that applies to most of the other materials that are feasible for projectile construction.

A ban on lead ammunition would shrink the shooting and hunting community significantly, and for what benefit? The arguments I have seen advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club rely entirely on anecdote. They point to predator birds that have received acute lead poisoning by by eating game with lead shot or projectiles, but I'm not aware of any evidence of systematic damage to the ecosystem from lead projectiles.

[cclaxton]

Were they solid copper or a TMJ? Copper is more expensive than lead (even at current demand levels), so it shouldn't be possible to make solid copper projectiles cheaper than solid lead or FMJ projectiles. You also must consider that if all ammunition were made of copper, then demand for copper would increase significantly causing an even larger difference in price than in the current market. Currently, copper is one of the few alternative projectile options, in part due to the Armor Piercing Ammunition ban that applies to most of the other materials that are feasible for projectile construction.

A ban on lead ammunition would shrink the shooting and hunting community significantly, and for what benefit? The arguments I have seen advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club rely entirely on anecdote. They point to predator birds that have received acute lead poisoning by by eating game with lead shot or projectiles, but I'm not aware of any evidence of systematic damage to the ecosystem from lead projectiles.

They were solid copper. Yes, demand would go up but so would production. The reason 9mm is so much cheaper than other ammo is high demand drives high production and competition which drives down the price. Ain't capitalism great?

I wouldn't advocate a ban anyway...maybe a gradual approach where more vulnerable areas are limited to eco-friendly ammo first. Then, over a period of years or even longer, it could be achieved. If you look at how seat belts were done initially, it wasn't overnight. It took many years to get seat belts and airbags and that is a huge success story. Death and serious injury from car crashes has been dramatically reduced.

CC

[NETim]

Is the EPA a rational organization? They talk of implementing "dust control" on midwest farmers while they harvest. Now how on God's green earth is a 500 HP combine going 4 MPH while cutting a 40 foot swath through a dry bean field NOT going to make dust? How would one go about controlling dust in an economically feasible manner in that scenario?

The EPA, as well as other federal regulatory agencies, should NOT be in the business of both writing AND enforcing regulations. Given that the primary mission of ANY bureaucracy is the preservation of that bureaucracy, guess who ultimately wins? It certainly isn't common sense and most definitely isn't the consumer. (Some might even suggest individual liberties are in jeopardy as well.)

Congress is at fault for abdicating its power and leaving it up to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to write policy, particularly those with radical agendas.

[joshs]

They were solid copper. Yes, demand would go up but so would production. The reason 9mm is so much cheaper than other ammo is high demand drives high production and competition which drives down the price. Ain't capitalism great?

9x19 also has fewer inputs than other comparable service calibers, so it is consequently less expensive. High demand can only lead to a reduction in price if there are current market inefficiencies and the higher demand causes new entrants who can compete at lower marginal costs. If you could magically increase the supply of copper and the ability to machine it into projectiles without huge fixed cost outlays, then I agree that increased demand could lead to lower marginal cost. I just don't think those assumptions are likely. When dealing with commodities, like copper and lead, where copper is already more expensive at current demand levels, I don't understand how an increase in the demand for copper could possibly result in a lower price for copper. The increase in the raw material price of copper would also impact the price of brass, so cases would also be more expensive.

I think your explanation could apply to the current price difference between copper projectiles and lead projectiles to the extent that the price difference is greater than the difference between the materials cost, again assuming that the fixed cost outlays for the industry would not be so great that it would not be possible to recoup those costs at a lower marginal price per copper projectile.

[LittleLebowski]

A ban on lead ammunition would shrink the shooting and hunting community significantly, and for what benefit? The arguments I have seen advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club rely entirely on anecdote. They point to predator birds that have received acute lead poisoning by by eating game with lead shot or projectiles, but I'm not aware of any evidence of systematic damage to the ecosystem from lead projectiles.

Are you saying that there's no statistical data nor anything other than anecdotal on the "problem" with lead and birds?

[peterb]

A ban on lead ammunition would shrink the shooting and hunting community significantly, and for what benefit? The arguments I have seen advanced by the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club rely entirely on anecdote. They point to predator birds that have received acute lead poisoning by by eating game with lead shot or projectiles, but I'm not aware of any evidence of systematic damage to the ecosystem from lead projectiles.

Removing predators and scavengers by poisoning MAY have an effect on the ecosystem balance.

In the case of California the documented death of condors from ingested lead was a major argument for the lead bullet ban for hunting, but that was already an endangered species.

I agree that sweeping bans would probably due more harm than good, but specific controls may make sense in some cases. The number of rounds a deer hunter fires at game is miniscule compared to the number of rounds expended at ranges. Moving to non-lead loads for some hunting situations would not be a great burden.

[peterb]

Are you saying that there's no statistical data nor anything other than anecdotal on the "problem" with lead and birds?

Good data is hard to come by because of the difficulty of gathering mortality data in the wild. Sick birds are easier prey for predators, and carcasses are quickly consumed.

That said, the link I posted is full of references.

[joshs]

Are you saying that there's no statistical data nor anything other than anecdotal on the "problem" with lead and birds?

I'm not saying there is "no" data, because I honestly haven't looked that hard, but what I have seen generally is one of two varieties. 1. Examination of lead left in wound tracts, which the study extrapolates could cause harm to predators or scavengers. 2. Studies showing lead poisoning in scavengers and predators that is often from actually ingesting whole sinkers, lead shot, or large lead projectile fragments.

As peterb suggested, the lack of data is possibly due to the difficulties of collecting data in the field.

Personally, I use Barnes TSX or TTSX bullets and, if I ever go bird hunting again, I would probably use non-lead shot even if it were not required by law, but I don't think the evidence supports banning conventional lead ammunition for most forms of hunting.

[Chemsoldier]

9x19 also has fewer inputs than other comparable service calibers, so it is consequently less expensive. High demand can only lead to a reduction in price if there are current market inefficiencies and the higher demand causes new entrants who can compete at lower marginal costs. If you could magically increase the supply of copper and the ability to machine it into projectiles without huge fixed cost outlays, then I agree that increased demand could lead to lower marginal cost. I just don't think those assumptions are likely. When dealing with commodities, like copper and lead, where copper is already more expensive at current demand levels, I don't understand how an increase in the demand for copper could possibly result in a lower price for copper. The increase in the raw material price of copper would also impact the price of brass, so cases would also be more expensive.

I think your explanation could apply to the current price difference between copper projectiles and lead projectiles to the extent that the price difference is greater than the difference between the materials cost, again assuming that the fixed cost outlays for the industry would not be so great that it would not be possible to recoup those costs at a lower marginal price per copper projectile.
This. 9mm is cheaper than .40 and .45 and .44 because it uses less material. I realized it when I got into reloading. Go to a large reloading supply store and pick up 10,000 230 grain .45 projectiles and do it again with 10,000 115 grain 9mm projectiles. Mass costs money. Do it again with a large quantitiy of 9mm and then .45 caliber brass cartridge cases.

I think we as a nation has started to have the discussion on lead. We have enacted policy to control the most damaging types of lead contamination from firearms use, the use of lead shot in waterfowling. There was a very real and measurable effect on lead levels when shot was falling into bodies of water. The number of ranges and their dispersion is much more favorable environmentally compared to waterfowl hunting and the number of ponds and lakes hunted. Additionally the lead levels in the lake spread the effects accross the entire body of water. Lead from shooting activity is mostly confined to the berms at ranges and the lead abatement programs in the states I have lived in seemed fairly extensive. As to the use of firearms on BLM land, aside from habitual shooting spots (that may be worth installing berms in) the number of projectiles for the area used seems like a minimal risk.

Frankly, in light of the many environmental concerns we face, the risk of lead exposure that can directly attributed to recreational shooting seems minimal. However the idea of reducing the influence of the shooting community by making shooting expensive/onerous/intrusive is a real concept that the anti-gun community must affect if they are going to gain in traction in today's America. As CCW becomes more and more mainstream, growing groups of classically Democratic voters including minorities and women are getting permits for practical reasons. The ends of gun control cannot be furthered without reducing the growing tide of gun owners and recreational shooters. The cant just ban them out of existence, so now they have to make the owning and use of firearms enough of a pain in the butt that they can alter the demographic. I consider this a bigger risk than lead contamination...and this is coming from a person who does take measures to mitigate lead exposure.

[cclaxton]

I think we as a nation has started to have the discussion on lead. We have enacted policy to control the most damaging types of lead contamination from firearms use, the use of lead shot in waterfowling. There was a very real and measurable effect on lead levels when shot was falling into bodies of water. The number of ranges and their dispersion is much more favorable environmentally compared to waterfowl hunting and the number of ponds and lakes hunted. Additionally the lead levels in the lake spread the effects accross the entire body of water. Lead from shooting activity is mostly confined to the berms at ranges and the lead abatement programs in the states I have lived in seemed fairly extensive. As to the use of firearms on BLM land, aside from habitual shooting spots (that may be worth installing berms in) the number of projectiles for the area used seems like a minimal risk.

Frankly, in light of the many environmental concerns we face, the risk of lead exposure that can directly attributed to recreational shooting seems minimal. However the idea of reducing the influence of the shooting community by making shooting expensive/onerous/intrusive is a real concept that the anti-gun community must affect if they are going to gain in traction in today's America. As CCW becomes more and more mainstream, growing groups of classically Democratic voters including minorities and women are getting permits for practical reasons. The ends of gun control cannot be furthered without reducing the growing tide of gun owners and recreational shooters. The cant just ban them out of existence, so now they have to make the owning and use of firearms enough of a pain in the butt that they can alter the demographic. I consider this a bigger risk than lead contamination...and this is coming from a person who does take measures to mitigate lead exposure.

Chemsoldier: I like this posting. I think you make a good point here on the overall risk to the environment of lead compared to other problems. It is important to look at the big picture and look at lead contamination ranked with all the other major issues. I know, for instance, in lakes in southern areas that runoff from fertilizers creates large algae blooms which destroy huge areas of wildlife and some endangered species. There are lots of other major environmental hazards that may rank much higher. I would be interested in where the EPA ranks lead among all those other issues.

Also, I wanted to say that copper is not the only solution for bullet materials. There are lots of other potential materials, some may even be better than lead. Ceramics, neoprene, polypropylene, and many other materials have potential.

[Chemsoldier]

Also, I wanted to say that copper is not the only solution for bullet materials. There are lots of other potential materials, some may even be better than lead. Ceramics, neoprene, polypropylene, and many other materials have potential.

Oh lord, it would be the "plastic pistol" debate all over again. *grin*. Shades of Die Hard 2, "That gun has porceline bullets, they wont get picked up by your metal detectors." *claps hands to cheeks in horror*

I think your problem ultimately is mass. In a bullet, your best performance comes from a relatively small bullet that is as heavy as possible. If two bullets have the same ballistic coefficient and the same velocity, the one with the higher mass wins the contest. The mass helps it fly further, have less effect from the wind and hit harder. All the current cartridges are designed around lead. To get a projectile with an identical weight and diameter of current projectiles using those materials you listed above you would have to increase the length of the bullet. However MOST cartridges are already pushing max OAL and still have the firearm function reliably.

Atoms are only so heavy, when you get into the mass that is useful for current firerams...you have to use relatively heavy metals, which are all toxic to some degree. Tungstan, Depleted Uranium, etc. Think of the periodic table of elements, see everything less than lead? Not so useful, or any compound made of multiple elements that have less mass than lead.

You might be able to use some of the materials you mention to encapsulate the metal core to prevent some metal contamination but that wont work with expanding bullet types and I cant think of anything that is environmentally inert that can take smacking into hard objects at firearms velocity and not break open (like a copper jacket flying apart on striking a steel target and leaving its lead core flattened on the ground in front of the target).

Even if you did, come up with something it is likely going to cost more. A mostly pure element (lead) is relatively cheap to produce). A complicated process to make a bullet out of multiple elements or composite type projectiles is going to be more expensive because you are using multiple processes and materials.

Its worth talking about, but we are a long long way from an alternative that is just as good and the physics for getting there are not promising.

[peterb]

Chemsoldier: I like this posting. I think you make a good point here on the overall risk to the environment of lead compared to other problems. It is important to look at the big picture and look at lead contamination ranked with all the other major issues. I know, for instance, in lakes in southern areas that runoff from fertilizers creates large algae blooms which destroy huge areas of wildlife and some endangered species. There are lots of other major environmental hazards that may rank much higher.

Right. In some areas it's much more important than others. A trap range in the northeast -- with acidic soil & rain, nearby public water supplies, etc., has completely different issues than a rifle range in a dry area of the southwest. Waterfowl and upland bird hunting have very different hazard profiles. Lead controls should be imposed where there's a real problem, not just because some people think lead is icky.

[tmoore912]

Author Korwin disavows e-mail scare under his byline

http://www.examiner.com/article/author-korwin-disavows-e-mail-scare-under-his-byline


Veteran Arizona gun rights advocate Alan Korwin, author of several gun law books and a prolific writer, is scrambling to distance himself from what appears to be a rather cleverly concocted fraud that takes something he wrote almost four years ago and makes it look like some brand new sinister scheme he has uncovered.

In an unusual step, he has issued an alert that appears on the Ammo Land website, denouncing the first paragraphs of this new missive that has spread across the Internet like a bad case of the flu, under his byline. It purports to identify a new list of guns that the Obama administration has its heart set on banning.


And this is how Korwin reacted: “I did not write that inflammatory paragraph and its next sentence, even though someone has attributed that to me.”

Is there anything about that statement that is not understood?

Korwin adds, “It is horrifying from a gun-rights perspective. Whoever used my name without my permission or knowledge was at least clever.”

[Mjolnir]

In short, save your energy for the real legislative proposals -- which will come -- instead of the black-helicopter stuff.

... Because we al know that helicopters just cannot EVER be painted black and fly from dusk to dawn...

Yes, I don't believe the article is legit but barring more programmed shootings I don't think there will be any significant legislation, either.