Guns and Pie

[sandinista! 1,816]

LOL! I couldn't possibly be setting myself up for this one could I? Hell, if I dug up 100 cases it wouldn't matter.

mox: Hey slim, here's a link to a guy who got firearms related lead poisoning.

slim: Yeah it's a link from the liberal media, doesn't prove anything except that the liberal media is trying to take our guns.

Why is it that anything negative that is remotely connected to firearms is liberal media misinformation from people trying to take away your guns? Science is not liberal or conservative. It is what it is.

we were actually just discussing this at my work today. i tested a baby's lead levels yesterday, and her test came back really elevated, from what i don't know. but it reminded one of the pediatricians i work with of a case when she was working at a children's hospital and treated an 18 month old undergoing chelation therapy for major lead poisoning. some genius let this baby suck on lead bullets.

[etripke 0]

Hey Guys. I have been lurking in this thread now for over a week and decided I would chime in a bit on the lead poisoning issue. I am a LEO and have been for 31 years (counting my 8 years active duty Army Military Police). When I was first hired by my agency in 1986 we had an indoor range facility in the basement of our shared City/County/Municipal bldg. The building was constructed in the early 50's and since it housed both the Sheriff's office and city P.D. they put in a range located in the basement. They had upgraded the ventilation system prior to my hire, but apparently that was not enough to keep the lead content down in the environment. In 1993 one of the county range officers became concerned about health issues and they tested him for lead in his blood. I do not remember the exact amount found, but suffice it to say it was alarming enough to shut down the range permanently and contract with some environmental clean up company to clean things up as best they could. The range is now sealed and locked up.

There are many articles out there written by the LEO community about the dangers of shooting in a poorly ventilated area. I myself try to shoot outdoors as much as possible and I am very cautious of washing my hands after shooting and after cleaning my weapons. I never use my baseball cap to police up brass and never shoot anything that is not jacketed.

As far as the debate(s) in the thread about different firearms, concealed carry and self defense, I think I'll stay out of them, only to say I do believe in the 2nd amendment but with a common sense standpoint.

Always think safety first, on the range and in the home.

[mox 298]

Thanks for the info etripke and sandinista, and welcome!

[visaveteran 1]

only someone without a fully developed central nervous system would think that an 8 or 9 yr old child has a fully developed nervous system. and that ergo, they are less susceptible to lead.

I'm not a doctor or scientist so I can not speak as an expert. I have always heard lead is most dangerous to infants and younger children. I do make a distinction between developed and changing...as our brains are always changing. Intelligence and cognition wise, I think around 7 is still considered where a kid reaches 75% development. I read that the average kid reaches maximum IQ via testing and cortex measuring at 9.

[Nasturtium 500]

Your IQ should not really change throughout your lifetime in any significant way. If it does, then something is going on either with the testing being wrong or something happening to you.

IQ (for those who are wondering) also has zero to do with that you know, that is achievement testing.

[Nasturtium 500]

Oops, no example. What I mean with you vs. testing is maybe the test is administered incorrectly.. and also some tests tend to give higher results than others. Also on your end you could, as the test subject, be injured in some way-- through our lovely lead example or a TBI (traumatic brain injury)-- two examples. TBI will do it of course if it's in the right area. Also, it could just be the conditions you are under. If you tested out at 189 range consistently and one day happened to have a test of 135, it may be because you were super tired that day, didn't feel into it, were distracted, and really were wishing you could just get out of there and get back to reading the book you had which was just getting good. Also, traumatic emotional events can affect your performance of course, etc.

Then there are issues of bias-- such as mule vs. jenny answers, etc.

Edited March 13, 2010 by julianna

[slim 1,525]

it reminded one of the pediatricians i work with of a case when she was working at a children's hospital and treated an 18 month old undergoing chelation therapy for major lead poisoning. some genius let this baby suck on lead bullets.

No doubt the "father" was a hardcore OG Gangsta and thought if his baby sucked on bullets it would make him hardcore as well. (Probably didn't realize lead is actually soft.... and toxic.)

Point, mox. That is a remotely firearms-related case of lead poisoning. Doctors can be liberals (esp. pediatricians) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

They had upgraded the ventilation system prior to my hire, but apparently that was not enough to keep the lead content down in the environment. In 1993 one of the county range officers became concerned about health issues and they tested him for lead in his blood. I do not remember the exact amount found, but suffice it to say it was alarming enough to shut down the range permanently and contract with some environmental clean up company to clean things up as best they could. The range is now sealed and locked up.

Two points, mox.

However, can we not agree that in both instances carelessness by adults was the cause of the poisoning? This is what we constantly get in the gun debate. Guns aren't safe because of XXXXXX. Almost every single time though, XXXXXX is an adult being careless. I haven't seen a public outcry to end adults being careless, only to ban guns. Why is that?

As far as the debate(s) in the thread about different firearms, concealed carry and self defense, I think I'll stay out of them, only to say I do believe in the 2nd amendment but with a common sense standpoint.

Well... since you brought it up.... what is a "common sense standpoint" on the 2nd Amendment? Will you not support my Right to overthrow the government by force if necessary? Or, do you support it but only if I use a flintlock musket? Or do you not support it at all but think I should still retain my Right to hunt geese with a semiautomatic shotgun? Pump-action shotgun (less than 5 rds.)? Single-shot shotgun? How about a handgun? How about a handgun in an urban area? How about a loaded handgun in my home, car, place of business, school, police station, city council meeting? What about an unloaded handgun that's broken down or in plain sight? What about in my vehicle?

And on and on and on.

TBI will do it of course if it's in the right area. Also, it could just be the conditions you are under.

I read an interesting study about TBI that induced savant-like qualities in folks who were otherwise "normal" before their TBI. They could "memorize" certain things with such accuracy that it baffled scientists and they were being studied to see if their memory powers could be duplicated by other means. Pretty interesting stuff. It's been said we only truly utilize 10% of our brain's capacity... imagine if we could do 90% more.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/245683-firearms-advice-from-the-resident-experts/page__pid__3799725__st__240entry3799725

[sandinista! 1,816]

No doubt the "father" was a hardcore OG Gangsta and thought if his baby sucked on bullets it would make him hardcore as well. (Probably didn't realize lead is actually soft.... and toxic.)

Point, mox. That is a remotely firearms-related case of lead poisoning. Doctors can be liberals (esp. pediatricians) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Two points, mox.

However, can we not agree that in both instances carelessness by adults was the cause of the poisoning? This is what we constantly get in the gun debate. Guns aren't safe because of XXXXXX. Almost every single time though, XXXXXX is an adult being careless. I haven't seen a public outcry to end adults being careless, only to ban guns. Why is that?

exactly. it was completely and utterly stupid, careless and disgusting. but given the mechanics of firing a gun, it's really, really hard not to poison yourself with one if you use ammunition containing lead, and primers with lead styphnate. even smart people, who know what they're doing when it comes to guns do it all the time. shooting outdoors doesn't make you immune either, unfortunately. is that what you mean in regards to "stupid behaviour"?

how common are lead-free ammunition? how common is lead-free primer? are those alternatives being widely utilized? i certainly hope so. for those not using lead-free primer or ammunition, how common is it for them to wear full respiratory masks when shooting? i'm not asking in a confrontational way, i'm just curious what the reality is. because i've read that those things are available, but have no idea how much they're being used by real-life gun owners.

[mox 298]

However, can we not agree that in both instances carelessness by adults was the cause of the poisoning? This is what we constantly get in the gun debate. Guns aren't safe because of XXXXXX. Almost every single time though, XXXXXX is an adult being careless.

Sure, negligence probably accounts for the majority of these types of cases, especially if you consider "lack of education" as negligence. As I said, toddlers are orally fixated, and the shape, color, and size of bullets are probably VERY enticing. They are also small and easily grabbed unseen by a very busy drive-by child. But my first point was that it's also negligent to allow a small child to clean a firearm, or even be around while it's being cleaned. (I also personally would never allow a child under, say, 10 years old access to an indoor range.) You and I know to wash our hands after cleaning a firearm, and to not to put our hands in our mouth or eat food until then. (at least I hope we do.) A toddler has no such reservations. Those fingers go in their mouths, up their noses, in their siblings mouths, the dog's mouth, and of course onto food. Often within the span of seconds. And there's no way you're going to stop your toddler from doing it, no matter how much "instruction" you give them. This is a hard-wired behavior.

I'll say this in response to your comment "guns aren't safe because of XXXXXX." Let's face it: Guns are not inherently safe, by definition. True, a gun can't normally fire itself, and I'm fully on board with the "people kill people" talking point, but guns are in fact inherently dangerous, and not just when you're on the pointy side of them.

I haven't seen a public outcry to end adults being careless, only to ban guns. Why is that?

It's interesting that you bring this up, because I was lambasted for taking exactly this stance some pages back in this very thread. I proposed that in order to exercise your 2nd amendment right, *everybody* should have to pass a basic gun safety course. I was told that that this is complete hogwash, infringes on our 2A right, and could put an undue hardship on people who don't have the money to pay for a gun safety course (although they apparently have money for guns and ammo). So I agree with you, I too am outraged at careless adults who set back our 2A efforts every time a child shoots themselves or their sibling or a friend.

When you ask why there isn't a public outcry about careless adults, the answer's right in front of your face. A dogmatic insistence that gun ownership can have absolutely no qualifiers only allows irresponsible gun owners to muddy the waters. And when the waters are muddy, the public opinion point goes to the anti-gun people. We require licenses for the most potentially dangerous jobs out there: flying airplanes, practicing medicine, or hell even driving a forklift or a cab. I'm not even suggesting we license people to carry firearms (in fact I would vehemently oppose such a move). I'm just asking that they demonstrate a core set of competencies before being allowed to operate one.

[Nasturtium 500]

First let me say YAY the thread lives!

I read an interesting study about TBI that induced savant-like qualities in folks who were otherwise "normal" before their TBI. They could "memorize" certain things with such accuracy that it baffled scientists and they were being studied to see if their memory powers could be duplicated by other means. Pretty interesting stuff. It's been said we only truly utilize 10% of our brain's capacity... imagine if we could do 90% more.

Yes, this can definately happen. Of course I don't know that we should all run out to get a TBI in hopes of it coming true lol (although I think some may have tried that and failed already).

[Nasturtium 500]

exactly. it was completely and utterly stupid, careless and disgusting. but given the mechanics of firing a gun, it's really, really hard not to poison yourself with one if you use ammunition containing lead, and primers with lead styphnate. even smart people, who know what they're doing when it comes to guns do it all the time. shooting outdoors doesn't make you immune either, unfortunately. is that what you mean in regards to "stupid behaviour"?

Wooo-hoo MENA invasion.

You have to know what I am just one, correct post away from posting in here right? Evil, evil, evil! Sacndalous and evil!

I've never seen anyone wear a full respiratory mask. Also, people are amazingly stupid and I cannot imagine anyone being surprised about that fact (unless they were also stupid). I know I am preaching to the choir here, though.

[slim 1,525]

is that what you mean in regards to "stupid behaviour"?

how common are lead-free ammunition? how common is lead-free primer? are those alternatives being widely utilized? i certainly hope so. for those not using lead-free primer or ammunition, how common is it for them to wear full respiratory masks when shooting? i'm not asking in a confrontational way, i'm just curious what the reality is. because i've read that those things are available, but have no idea how much they're being used by real-life gun owners.

I don't know if this was for me or someone else, but I said "careless" not "stupid." Big difference there. (Although they sometimes are the same.)

As for the respiratory masks and such, they're not very common becuase the "danger" associated with firearms is minimal when adults take care to protect themselves.

I'll say this in response to your comment "guns aren't safe because of XXXXXX." Let's face it: Guns are not inherently safe, by definition. True, a gun can't normally fire itself, and I'm fully on board with the "people kill people" talking point, but guns are in fact inherently dangerous, and not just when you're on the pointy side of them.

A gun is not inherently dangerous. A knife is. The corner of the end table is. The steps are. A swimming pool is. A car is not. A lawnmower is not. A fork could be... get the picture?

Yet for some reason, people out there are under the impression that a gun is "more dangerous" than some other inanimate object that is not sharp or heavy. Why people feel guns are more dangerous than any other piece of machinery is beyond me. A radial arm saw is 1,000 times more "inherently dangerous" than a gun yet people don't want to ban them. Why is that?

Folks know to use caution around radial arm saws and to keep their kids away from them. Why are guns treated differently when a kid is injured by one? If a kid got killled by a radial arm saw most folks would say, "stupid parents." Yet when a kid gets killed by a gun people say, "guns are dangerous and should be banned." See the difference? Care to explain?

It's interesting that you bring this up, because I was lambasted for taking exactly this stance some pages back in this very thread. I proposed that in order to exercise your 2nd amendment right, *everybody* should have to pass a basic gun safety course. I was told that that this is complete hogwash, infringes on our 2A right, and could put an undue hardship on people who don't have the money to pay for a gun safety course (although they apparently have money for guns and ammo). So I agree with you, I too am outraged at careless adults who set back our 2A efforts every time a child shoots themselves or their sibling or a friend.

When you ask why there isn't a public outcry about careless adults, the answer's right in front of your face. A dogmatic insistence that gun ownership can have absolutely no qualifiers only allows irresponsible gun owners to muddy the waters. And when the waters are muddy, the public opinion point goes to the anti-gun people. We require licenses for the most potentially dangerous jobs out there: flying airplanes, practicing medicine, or hell even driving a forklift or a cab. I'm not even suggesting we license people to carry firearms (in fact I would vehemently oppose such a move). I'm just asking that they demonstrate a core set of competencies before being allowed to operate one.

I so want to agree with you that people who own firearms should "qualify" to own them.... but I can't. The 2nd Amendment is pretty simple in it's wording - "shall not be infringed." So, we'll just have to treat guns like any other inanimate object that could possibly cause harm if used in an irresponsible or unsafe manner - people will be responsible for their own well-being. Hmmm. Imagine that. (And that's why it's so hard for the libs to grasp. Personal responsibility is not something they like very much.) Being responsible for one's own self? We can't do that, can we?

we should all run out to get a TBI in hopes of it coming true lol (although I think some may have tried that and failed already).

While I haven't done it intentionally, I've had a few bumps to the noggin in my day. Could explain some of the above posts, huh mox?

[mox 298]

A radial arm saw is 1,000 times more "inherently dangerous" than a gun yet people don't want to ban them. Why is that?

Well a gun is more portable than a radial arm saw, and you have a much better chance of hitting somebody with a bullet than you do throwing a radial arm saw at them, for starters. Better range on a Glock than a Skil too, I'd bet, what with that stupid extension cord and all. But you and I KNOW why people want to ban guns. Except for the very fringe idiots who you will never make see the light, people want to ban guns because they lack education.

Folks know to use caution around radial arm saws and to keep their kids away from them.

No, actually a lot of folks don't know to use caution around tools and machines. MOST people are predisposed towards caution, but many aren't. That's why you need a license to drive a forklift. It's why responsible companies have ongoing training programs where about every 6 months or so you have to sit through a boring class on why it's important not to stick protruding body parts into the big machine you operate daily. It's why the good doctors keep going to conferences and reading journals about their specialty.

Why are guns treated differently when a kid is injured by one? If a kid got killled by a radial arm saw most folks would say, "stupid parents." Yet when a kid gets killed by a gun people say, "guns are dangerous and should be banned." See the difference? Care to explain?

Lack of education. Lack of willingness to understand. Eagerness to turn a very complex issue into black and white. (your and my crowd have the last 2 issues too.)

I so want to agree with you that people who own firearms should "qualify" to own them.... but I can't. The 2nd Amendment is pretty simple in it's wording - "shall not be infringed." So, we'll just have to treat guns like any other inanimate object that could possibly cause harm if used in an irresponsible or unsafe manner - people will be responsible for their own well-being. Hmmm. Imagine that. (And that's why it's so hard for the libs to grasp. Personal responsibility is not something they like very much.) Being responsible for one's own self? We can't do that, can we?

Ahhhh. Well this is probably the best I can hope for then. At a gut level you know that requiring people to be educated before handling a firearm would be the right thing to do, but your dogged persistence of believing that 2A is somehow handed down from almighty Gawd and therefore untouchable holds you back. You'd rather put your trust in a piece of paper written by infallible human beings than use your own ability to think and reason. But that's also the answer your question, "why do people want to take our guns away?". People on the other side believe just as strongly that guns are evil and must be taken out of our hands. Some of them even believe God wants them to take your guns away. Neither side wants to compromise for "sensible legislation," and so it goes. This is what frustrates me so much about our side. Both sides have good points, but nobody wants to listen.

[baron555 934]

People on the other side believe just as strongly that guns are evil and must be taken out of our hands.

Wrong. They only want to have control. They know all these arguments are sound and reasonable and they know that the range of a Skil saw is only so much. They only want control. Make no small bones about it.

Controlling a populace by removing their ability to defend themselves, by controlling the media, their education, their health, is a very effective means of controlling a large population. History has many many examples of how effective this is.