Guns and Pie

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So glad we're talking about science, we're speaking my language now. Inorganic lead (Lead(II) Nitrate) is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as "probably carcinogenic to humans." [the link is a PDF] Granted, the research doesn't conclusively identify it as a carcinogen, but then gravity is still just a theory too. If you want to gamble your children's health on "maybe not though," it's sadly your right as a parent.

As for me, I'm going to place my trust in the IARC over the Lincoln Park Gun Club and their studies which may or may not have been scientific--I have no way of knowing without citations.

The EPA did the tests at Lincoln Park Gun Club.

At what age would children be best exposed to the dangers of lead poisoning? Should we wait until they are adults? Are adults subject to leasd poisoning? Should we ban bullets, Mox? Ban firearms maybe? Which.

Again, I will be pleased to hear how you trained your children. which method, at what age, etc.

[mox 298]

Should we ban bullets, Mox? Ban firearms maybe? Which.

Oh, this again. Ok, maybe visaveteran will indulge you, have fun.

[visaveteran 1]

Some data:

RISKS OF LEAD POISONING IN FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS AND THEIR STUDENTS

by Anthony M. Gregory, Copyright 1990 by THE ASLET JOURNAL, March/April 1990 Volume 4 Issue 2

Lead is toxic, and anyone who spends much time on an indoor shooting range is at serious risk of developing lead poisoning. This is particularly true of firearms instructors who devote a lot of thought and attention to making sure that no one gets shot.

Virtually all ranges mandate both ear and eye protection, and yet one almost never sees any precautions being taken against lead poisoning, which indicates that it is not perceived as a serious threat. This is a grave mistake. Even at low levels, lead poisoning can significantly detract from the quality of life, depriving one of energy and vitality for years, and occurs so subtly that it may never be investigated, much less diagnosed. At intermediate levels, lead poisoning produces serious or even devastating symptoms that mimic many other diseases, and explains why it is so easily misdiagnosed. Even at levels one can easily acquire on the shooting range, lead poisoning can, and does, kill.

In the August 19, 1989 issue of the weekly magazine, Science News, there appeared an article summarizing a research project on lead poisoning that was first reported in the American Journal of Public Health. This research documented the significant risk of lead poisoning in indoor range users. The study followed 17 members of a law enforcement trainee class through a three month period of firearms training on a state-owned indoor range. During the peak training period, the trainees spent an hour on the shooting range every four days. This isn't much range time compared to the amount put in by most firearms instructors. Nonetheless, in this class, all but two people developed elevated lead levels, and several developed levels considered to be lead poisoning.

The author of this article is a firearms instructor and an avid shooter, and was aware of the potential of lead poisoning with indoor range use, but like most, he hadn't worried much about it. However, encountering this report caused him to have his blood lead level tested. It turned out that he had serious lead poisoning which explained the reason for a host of unpleasant and debilitating symptoms that had been developing for months, but which his physician had been unable to diagnose. It also motivated the author to do some serious research into lead poisoning, and to write this article.

Most individuals simply do not realize how easy it is to accumulate a toxic dose of lead, nor would they recognize the symptoms of lead poisoning if they had it. Massad Ayoob, a well known firearms expert and author, has stated that he would rather forage for food in a toxic waste dump than to regularly shoot on an indoor shooting range. Nonetheless, it's easy to understand why most people don't take the risk of lead poisoning seriously. Lead is a commonplace material and people are accustomed to it. Lead is used in bullets, batteries, fishing sinkers, old toy soldiers, and for decades it was an additive in gasoline. If told not to handle cyanide or plutonium, everyone takes that warning very seriously, but it's easy to ignore or minimize the toxicity of substances one regularly encounters.

Another problem is that it has only been within the last 10 years or so that much medical attention was paid to lead poisoning. It was thought of as a problem mostly confined to adults working in lead processing industries, or to children chewing on lead based paint. Most physicians knew very little about it, and many had never seen a case (or failed to recognize it if they had).

Make no mistake, LEAD IS EXTREMELY TOXIC. To get some idea of just how toxic, let's take a familiar object, the .38 caliber 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter bullet, and divide it into 1000 parts. Just one of those parts -- 1/1000th of a bullet -- dissolved and circulating in the blood stream, represents enough lead to constitute serious lead poisoning.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Some data:

RISKS OF LEAD POISONING IN FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS AND THEIR STUDENTS

by Anthony M. Gregory, Copyright 1990 by THE ASLET JOURNAL, March/April 1990 Volume 4 Issue 2

Lead is toxic, and anyone who spends much time on an indoor shooting range is at serious risk of developing lead poisoning. This is particularly true of firearms instructors who devote a lot of thought and attention to making sure that no one gets shot.

Virtually all ranges mandate both ear and eye protection, and yet one almost never sees any precautions being taken against lead poisoning, which indicates that it is not perceived as a serious threat. This is a grave mistake. Even at low levels, lead poisoning can significantly detract from the quality of life, depriving one of energy and vitality for years, and occurs so subtly that it may never be investigated, much less diagnosed. At intermediate levels, lead poisoning produces serious or even devastating symptoms that mimic many other diseases, and explains why it is so easily misdiagnosed. Even at levels one can easily acquire on the shooting range, lead poisoning can, and does, kill.

In the August 19, 1989 issue of the weekly magazine, Science News, there appeared an article summarizing a research project on lead poisoning that was first reported in the American Journal of Public Health. This research documented the significant risk of lead poisoning in indoor range users. The study followed 17 members of a law enforcement trainee class through a three month period of firearms training on a state-owned indoor range. During the peak training period, the trainees spent an hour on the shooting range every four days. This isn't much range time compared to the amount put in by most firearms instructors. Nonetheless, in this class, all but two people developed elevated lead levels, and several developed levels considered to be lead poisoning.

The author of this article is a firearms instructor and an avid shooter, and was aware of the potential of lead poisoning with indoor range use, but like most, he hadn't worried much about it. However, encountering this report caused him to have his blood lead level tested. It turned out that he had serious lead poisoning which explained the reason for a host of unpleasant and debilitating symptoms that had been developing for months, but which his physician had been unable to diagnose. It also motivated the author to do some serious research into lead poisoning, and to write this article.

Most individuals simply do not realize how easy it is to accumulate a toxic dose of lead, nor would they recognize the symptoms of lead poisoning if they had it. Massad Ayoob, a well known firearms expert and author, has stated that he would rather forage for food in a toxic waste dump than to regularly shoot on an indoor shooting range. Nonetheless, it's easy to understand why most people don't take the risk of lead poisoning seriously. Lead is a commonplace material and people are accustomed to it. Lead is used in bullets, batteries, fishing sinkers, old toy soldiers, and for decades it was an additive in gasoline. If told not to handle cyanide or plutonium, everyone takes that warning very seriously, but it's easy to ignore or minimize the toxicity of substances one regularly encounters.

Another problem is that it has only been within the last 10 years or so that much medical attention was paid to lead poisoning. It was thought of as a problem mostly confined to adults working in lead processing industries, or to children chewing on lead based paint. Most physicians knew very little about it, and many had never seen a case (or failed to recognize it if they had).

Make no mistake, LEAD IS EXTREMELY TOXIC. To get some idea of just how toxic, let's take a familiar object, the .38 caliber 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter bullet, and divide it into 1000 parts. Just one of those parts -- 1/1000th of a bullet -- dissolved and circulating in the blood stream, represents enough lead to constitute serious lead poisoning.

Except the lead in wadcutters doesn't dissolve. The source of lead in indoor shootring ranges is lead styphnate in priming compound. You will aso not that this alarming article never mentions getting lead poisoning from handling clean firearms.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh, this again. Ok, maybe visaveteran will indulge you, have fun.

Mox, I have stated how I taught my children about firearms beginning more than 30 years ago. I cannot change what I did (and do not want to) basically I have stated the facts and you and Visa Veteran have a lot of theory to throw around. None of which disputes anything I said. or offers a better method that either of you used to teach your children how to handle firearms. I mean, if you two want to gang up on Gary, at least take exception with what I said.

I never said 3 year olds should have unsupervised access to loaded firearms and have never done so.

I never said you cannot get lead poisoning from shooting at indoor shooting ranges which are not ventilated (the danger is in the airborne priming compound, not in the bullets of residue on the firearm) In fact, I stated exactly that and the next post is an article which reiterates what I already said as an argument against me.

I said that children do not get lead poisoning from clean firearms while being taught firearms safety. To suggest so is completely moronic. Such an argument can ONLY exist because one is completely ignorant...or just wants to argue. It cannot be supported by any logic, reason, tests, history or data. It cannot. NOT POSSIBLE.

I cannot believe an adult with a functioning brain cell in ANY part of their brain, would think a child would be safer without instruction than with it. What kind of dumb@ss f*cktard would one have to be to think educating a child about potentially dangerous things they will encounter in their home is bad? Do you seriously believe the main threat to a child in a house with firearms is lead poisoning???? You are joking, right?

I suppose we should not teach them about the dangers of stairs...not because they might fall but because of posioning from the glue used in the plywood to make the stairs!!!!! #######!!!!!!! Maybe I should not teach them about the dangers of electric outlets because some children have been choked by wire! Have you ANY idea how dumb@ss it sounds to suggest not teaching children about firearms because they may get lead poisoning. OMG, that is, hands down, the absolute most stupid thing I ever heard. I am surprised you didn't just let VV claim that one for himself.

But hey, Alla has even discussed having another child, so if anyone can suggest how you taught your children and protected them from firearms AND lead poisoning, I would be forever greatful.

[Martyshk 137]

Don't let a biochemist interfere or anything...

[mox 298]

Except the lead in wadcutters doesn't dissolve. The source of lead in indoor shootring ranges is lead styphnate in priming compound. You will aso not that this alarming article never mentions getting lead poisoning from handling clean firearms.

ALL lead can dissolve in solution Gary, even metallic leads.

But there's not a lot of moisture on an indoor shooting range, so I agree that dissolved lead in and indoor range probably isn't much of a problem. The much bigger problem comes from lead in the air, in the form of lead fumes and particulates. That's why indoor ranges, as visaveteran pointed out, tend to be well-ventialted.

Where the danger for a 3 year-old comes in is in the form of oral fixation. Given the chance, a 3 year-old will put anything and everything in their mouth, including cleaning cloths and guide rods. Anything with lead particulate dissolves VERY nicely in stomach acid. The eyes are also a great collection point, and will eagerly absorb a variety of airborne particulates, including lead.

And while Lead poisoning is dangerous to anybody, it's especially dangerous to growing children. Even small levels of lead inhibit development, motor skills, and speech, often irreversibly. Very happy to hear that your children suffered none of these problems, but many children are not so lucky.

None of which has ####-all to do with a stance on gun control one way or the other, by the way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh, this again. Ok, maybe visaveteran will indulge you, have fun.

So I guess this means you will not be indulging us on how you educated your children about firearms?

Maybe VV will indulge me in that also.

One thing I will say for myself, I am not afraid to say how I did things, and if I criticize how someone does something, it is because I know, or at least believe I know, a different way, a better way and will state what it is. Simply picking apart what someone has had success doing without offering anything but half-baked criticism is somewhere I don't go. So, for example, if I had never taught 4 children about firearms in one method, I would not be critical of how you did so...just for an example. I may state how my parents taught 8 children to do so, I have that experience also. To simply say that a method is wrong without offering an alternative is...well, ignorant. Sounds ignorant to thinking people.

NO OTHER method of teaching children has been presented here by anyone. Clinical evaluations of brain functions and checmical contents of wadcuters have little impression on 3 year olds, THAT I can tell you from experience.

While you are long on what a parent should know about the physiological function of a child's brain, you seem to be completely lacking on how to teach a child how to deal with firearms.

[mox 298]

I said that children do not get lead poisoning from clean firearms while being taught firearms safety. To suggest so is completely moronic. Such an argument can ONLY exist because one is completely ignorant...or just wants to argue. It cannot be supported by any logic, reason, tests, history or data. It cannot. NOT POSSIBLE.

And as I said, (well implied anyway), cleaning a firearm is probably the best way to give your young child lead poisoning. Unless you're using 100% leadless ammo, lead particulates cling to every surface of your gun after firing. This is not opinion, this is science.

Obviously you can't go back and do-over, I don't think I ever suggested that. As I said, I'm glad your children turned out ok.

I cannot believe an adult with a functioning brain cell in ANY part of their brain, would think a child would be safer without instruction than with it. What kind of dumb@ss f*cktard would one have to be to think educating a child about potentially dangerous things they will encounter in their home is bad? Do you seriously believe the main threat to a child in a house with firearms is lead poisoning???? You are joking, right?

I cannot believe an adult with a functioning brain would think it was so important an infant straight out of the womb should start to learn about field stripping a machine they're not even going to have the motor skills to use for at least 6-8 years, but ridicules the idea of learning how and why your child thinks and develops in the way he does. Teaching your child firearm terminology when they're just learning to speak is not teaching them firearms or firearm safety, nor is it embedding some kind of deep respect and understanding. It's just fulfilling your personal fantasy. Which is not harmful per se, but it's right up there with those parents who teach their kids how to say "Lexus" or "Starbucks" early on because it's just so damn cute.

Have you ANY idea how dumb@ss it sounds to suggest not teaching children about firearms because they may get lead poisoning. OMG, that is, hands down, the absolute most stupid thing I ever heard. I am surprised you didn't just let VV claim that one for himself.

Have you ANY idea how dumb@ss it sounds to suggest that your infant child could field strip a weapon? Home movies or it didn't happen.

Nobody suggested that teaching gun safety is a bad thing. You're actually the one who moved the discussion to crazy town.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

ALL lead can dissolve in solution Gary, even metallic leads.

But there's not a lot of moisture on an indoor shooting range, so I agree that dissolved lead in and indoor range probably isn't much of a problem. The much bigger problem comes from lead in the air, in the form of lead fumes and particulates. That's why indoor ranges, as visaveteran pointed out, tend to be well-ventialted.

Where the danger for a 3 year-old comes in is in the form of oral fixation. Given the chance, a 3 year-old will put anything and everything in their mouth, including cleaning cloths and guide rods. Anything with lead particulate dissolves VERY nicely in stomach acid. The eyes are also a great collection point, and will eagerly absorb a variety of airborne particulates, including lead.

And while Lead poisoning is dangerous to anybody, it's especially dangerous to growing children. Even small levels of lead inhibit development, motor skills, and speech, often irreversibly. Very happy to hear that your children suffered none of these problems, but many children are not so lucky.

None of which has ####-all to do with a stance on gun control one way or the other, by the way.

Too late for my poor children. But they are adults now, so...So what do you suggest? Teach your children and then wash their hands? I mean, suggest something. I won't say I was great about washing their hands after each gun lesson, but the guns were clean. They DID wash their hands after cleaning guns. I would also think (but I am no biochemist) that Hoppe's Number 9 may be more immediately toxic than lead, so I always thought is a good idea to wash after that stuff. So your suggestion to have 3 year olds wash their hands (if that is indeed what you suggest) is a good one, and you could have said so to begin with. I will go along with that. Using lead poisoning as a reason not to teach children about firearms is moronic.

Now as to the other stuff. There is a lot of moisture in lake Michigan, it is downright wet. So much moisture you can even drown. For 75 years the Lincoln Park Gun Club threw hundreds of tons of lead into the water. There was no increase in dissolved lead levels in the water in front of the club. There was no increase in dissolved lead in the ground at the club. Th elead in bullets and shot does not dissolve in water in gorund moisture. Bodily fluids may offer different results. so far that hasn;t been discussed in this thread.

The danger of indoor ranges, as I pointed out, is caused by airborne lead from priming compounds inhaled in the lungs, not by dissolved lead from wadcutters. There is nothing on an indoor range to dissolve lead.

[mox 298]

So I guess this means you will not be indulging us on how you educated your children about firearms?

Are you kidding? They were field stripping AR-15's in utero! My kids weren't born, they f*cking disembarked the womb and stormed the OR. My first son wound up killing a doctor and wounding 2 nurses before I could stop him, and only then because he'd run out of ammo. Kid got a helluva spanking for that one--I told the little ####### for 9 months to pack an extra clip, but did he listen? Kids. Pff.

Actually my father taught my kids about gun safety. He's always been much more active with firearms than I've been, it was a chore he happily took on, and one which I happily let him do. For years my kids could be heard singing the Eddy Eagle "stop, don't touch! call an adult!" song. I've said before that firearms are not a huge part of my life, and were not an everyday part of my family life. Except for hunting (which I enjoyed as a kid, but can't stand it as an adult), I never felt the desire to have firearms around. Now that I'm older, I enjoy handguns as a sport and for personal protection, but I also refuse to live my life in fear by arming myself to the teeth. And even though I've said many times that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, I guess that makes me somebody who wants to take away your guns. So go on, have at it, enjoy yourself.

[mox 298]

And just to followup my previous reply, it wouldn't change the facts one bit if my kids had grown up knowing absolutely nothing about gun safety. The discussion wasn't about whether you should teach your children gun safety at all. I never taught my kids what to do in case of a nuclear attack either, but that doesn't make them any more or less susceptible to lead poisoning.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And as I said, (well implied anyway), cleaning a firearm is probably the best way to give your young child lead poisoning. Unless you're using 100% leadless ammo, lead particulates cling to every surface of your gun after firing. This is not opinion, this is science.

Obviously you can't go back and do-over, I don't think I ever suggested that. As I said, I'm glad your children turned out ok.

I cannot believe an adult with a functioning brain would think it was so important an infant straight out of the womb should start to learn about field stripping a machine they're not even going to have the motor skills to use for at least 6-8 years, but ridicules the idea of learning how and why your child thinks and develops in the way he does. Teaching your child firearm terminology when they're just learning to speak is not teaching them firearms or firearm safety, nor is it embedding some kind of deep respect and understanding. It's just fulfilling your personal fantasy. Which is not harmful per se, but it's right up there with those parents who teach their kids how to say "Lexus" or "Starbucks" early on because it's just so damn cute.

Have you ANY idea how dumb@ss it sounds to suggest that your infant child could field strip a weapon? Home movies or it didn't happen.

Nobody suggested that teaching gun safety is a bad thing. You're actually the one who moved the discussion to crazy town.

A 3 year old is not an infant.

You have not suggested another method of teaching yet. I actually do have home videos on VHS around here somewhere of my 2nd son stripping an M1911 on the kitchen table at age 3 (no videorecorders around when the first one was 3) , I really don't care if you believe it. ( I did release the spring pressure on the recoil spring plug first) Obviously a 3 year old can shoot themselves. You think a 3 year old can shoot themself and not take apart a firearm?

Mox. Do you have any children? You speak as though you don't. Surely you know that a three year old is quite capable of taking things apart, especially things that need no tools to do so. Mox, really...tell me. Have you no idea what 3 year olds can do? Ask any parent what a 3 year old can take apart given the chance.

The one in this article that started all this was playing Wii. I don't know how to play Wii She then picked up a gun and shot herself in the abdomen. You think that three year old couldn't operate a cylinder latch? You think they couldn't press a magazine release? Oh, Mox, really? Sheesh, the little "busy boxes" they give to 10 month olds are at least as complex to operate as an M1911. I have a 9 month old grandson. If I pull the square block out of the hole, he can put it back in. Over and over. It isn't uncontrolled muscle actions. He deliberately picks up the block and puts it back in the hole, then laughs because he has "outsmarted" grandpa. "I'll show YOU, you take it out and I will put it right back in!" And he doesn't try to put it in the round hole. You think he won't know how to open a S&W cylinder latch when he is 3 years old? If I dump out a box of .45 auto on the floor, he can already put them back in the holes (they are FMJ bullets, no lead poisoning, never fear) You think he won't know that you push the S&W latch forward and pull the one on a Colt back? You think he won't be able to look at it and know the difference? It is pretty obvious at first glance for anyone that knows. A 3 year old is capable of knowing.

Teaching children from the day they come home has a lot of advantages, in my opinion. What child physcologist doesn't recommend bonding? They recommend reading and speaking to your child quietly. Do you think a 10 day old infant knows ####### about Alice in Wonderland? Or "the little engine that could"? It is about bonding and learning their parents voices. why not do it with a gun lesson? How is it less valuable with a gun, than say a Big Bird doll? I didn't teach them words to be cute. Lexus and Starbucks are pretty useless words, really. "Slide stop" is much more practicial when you live in a house with many firearms. There is something wrong with teaching a child vocabulary?

Again Mox, let us know what we, as parents, should be doing. More advice on what not to do, nothing on what TO do.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Are you kidding? They were field stripping AR-15's in utero! My kids weren't born, they f*cking disembarked the womb and stormed the OR. My first son wound up killing a doctor and wounding 2 nurses before I could stop him, and only then because he'd run out of ammo. Kid got a helluva spanking for that one--I told the little ####### for 9 months to pack an extra clip, but did he listen? Kids. Pff.

Actually my father taught my kids about gun safety. He's always been much more active with firearms than I've been, it was a chore he happily took on, and one which I happily let him do. For years my kids could be heard singing the Eddy Eagle "stop, don't touch! call an adult!" song. I've said before that firearms are not a huge part of my life, and were not an everyday part of my family life. Except for hunting (which I enjoyed as a kid, but can't stand it as an adult), I never felt the desire to have firearms around. Now that I'm older, I enjoy handguns as a sport and for personal protection, but I also refuse to live my life in fear by arming myself to the teeth. And even though I've said many times that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, I guess that makes me somebody who wants to take away your guns. So go on, have at it, enjoy yourself.

What age did he begin to teach them? What did he do to prevent lead poisoning? What would have been harmed if he taught them earlier?

[mox 298]

You didn't say they were 3. You said they were infants. As I understand, by the time they were 3, they were old hands at this stuff.

They started gun lessons within the first week they were born. Some of their first "sentences" were "slide stop" or "barrel bushing" and why the long extractor and controlled feed of a mauser type bolt is superior to the push feed action.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3783746

I mean, wow. Toddlers start speaking around 6-10 months, and start speaking sentences shortly after that. So basically you're trying to sell me on this idea that your toddler was giving dissertations on "why the long extractor and controlled feed of a mauser type bolt is superior to the push feed action." You might understand then why I continue to believe that about 90% of what you say is bs.

Edited March 10, 2010 by mox