- This topic has 171 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
let me rephrase the conclusion:
“it was found that when people were shot with lead bullets they immediately developed very serious health problems as well as a high frequency of death.”
Thank you for the information, but this was in regard to hunting, where I was told by a reputable source (someone who has done more research on this then most in the general frum community) that the imputus for this was in order to slowly stop gun ownership. Since the supreme court said you cannot ban a gun based on its classification, they are finding different ways to get around it.
Furthermore, I read an article where they said that game shot with the lead bullets were found to cause no significant harm to human health (but not enough research was done with pregnant women). They said this was a scare and is not such a large worry at this point. It was an article I read ( and not from a local newspaper or unreputable source either.)
It doesnt get around the main reason right now- Gun Ownership in all technecalities is a RIGHT, not a privelege able to be taken away by the government.
havesomeseichel,
As I wrote in my post, lead shot has been banned for waterfowl hunting in the entire US since 1991, yet guns are still available. So it’s possible that the ban on lead shot for hunting animals (as opposed to waterfowl) is part of a 30-year-plan to ban guns altogether. However, I think it’s more likely that the ban is due to relatively recent research showing adverse effects of even small amounts of lead exposure from sources as disparate as old peeling paint, lead crystal, and yes, lead shot. I understand the article you read showed no adverse effects, but the recent (as of 11/7/08) study released by the state DOH & the CDC did show adverse effects.
Fine. As the article I read was also published very recently (I just cannot recall the exact date, but it was very recent) I assume that the studies on both parts were not conclusive. We will just have to wait and see what the next study concludes. By the way- it all depends on what perspective the article was written from. If it was, for example, the New York Times/LA times who wrote it- then I would not believe half of what is written (unless it says something pro-Bush, pro-Israel, or pro-republicans). Anyways- we got sidetracked from the major issue- GUNS ARE OUR RIGHT and you, or any other leftist group, cannot take that away from me! If I have not been convicted of a felon, am old enough, and have not been medically diagnosed as “insane”- why should I be prevented from using my right?
feivel
Member
let me rephrase the conclusion:
“it was found that when people were shot with lead bullets they immediately developed very serious health problems as well as a high
Interesting conclusion, but I found the same result in my study on the effects of using a guillotine blade containing lead.
squeak
yes another confirmation of the dangers of lead
Remember that “lead, in the state of California (having been there on a trip I saw this sign), has been known to cause cancer or birth defects.” So far, and correct me if I am wrong, only California has these signs hanging. I have been to many states and there were no proclamations on products or store walls…
Remember… if you take it outside the state lines, you will be ok. It is only in the state of California it causes problems.
Speaking of lead, just wanted to remind parents of babies &/or toddlers (just in case some don’t know), to get your child a lead blood test. Most pediatricians order those blood tests, but if they don’t, then ask for it. The American Academy of Pediatrics website has loads of helpful information pertaining to this topic.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;116/4/1036
havesomeseichel,
The article I cited about consumption of lead-shot animals & blood lead levels was a summary of study results released by the Centers for Disease Control and the state Department of Health. The article was written from the perspective of the CDC and the state DOH, based on their scientific research. I’m not sure if you’d consider that leftist or not.
I understand your point that gun ownership is a right, and I don’t want to take away that right. All I’m trying to say is that lead shot bans are not an end run around gun ownership rights. People can and still do hunt waterfowl even though they’ve not been allowed to use lead shot to do this in the US for almost 20 years. Therefore I don’t think a ban on lead shot for hunting land animals uses will end hunting, and I’m not sure why anyone would think that it would.
we are going round and round in circles… What I am trying to say is that they should not be banning items- this is america! Land of the Free… What- they do not trust me to take care of myself? they should publish what they want, promote the dangers of it, and if I still want to poison myself, why shouldn’t I be able to? If I am above the age of 18 (and 21 for alcohol) why shouldn’t I be able to be treated like an adult? If you dont think that 18 is old enough to take care of themselves, then take away the voting age at 18, raise the age for enlistment, drivers liscences without restrictions….If I am an adult, whether it is 18, 38 or 108- let me be treated like an adult!!!
Land of the Free… but not too long the way we are going….
By the way, the article that I read based on the research findings said that “there were slight amounts of lead, but not enough to be worried about…”
havesomeseichel,
I see that you don’t think the government should pass legislation to protect public health. I think many hunters agree with you about this, and that (along with the greater cost of lead-free shot) is why they object to these laws. I don’t want to argue in circles either, but since you originally posted that these laws were an attempt to ban guns, I wanted to make clear that this isn’t the case. Rather, the ban on lead ammunition is a ban on one type of shot only, not on hunting itself.
I am an adult and, after fair warning and the scientific news being publicized, have the right to do what I want, as long as that doesnt endanger other people. This is in regard to other things as well, not just lead. So, having buisinesses being required to not use lead in products, or even having the FDA, is alright. But not when it interfears with my personal life and only bothers me. If it bothers my family, friends, neighbors ect health then there would be reason for govermental interfearance. So, having laws on construction of houses makes sense to protect the neighbors from fire, hurricane, tornado or earthquake damage stemming from my home’s collapse. But what if I was single and what I would do would not bother other people?
havesomeseichel we have to go shooting one day together! i am one of the panic crowed i ordered 2,0000 rounds of .223 for my ar15 theres a 2 week wait on it everyone scared obama is going to assault – assault rifles well i’m not taking any chances either. see you at the range 🙂
Havesomeseichel, by that logic, you seem to be endorsing suicide. Shouldn’t you have the right to kill yourself as long as no one else is harmed? But what about the family, friends, co-workers etc. you leave behind, who will grieve for you?
If you want to “poison yourself” with unsafe bullets and are not concerned for your own well-being, think about your loved ones who would certainly want you to take care of yourself. If you won’t take the necessary precautions for your own sake, do it for theirs.
dont worry everyone as long as theres change there is nothing to worry about
“But what if I was single and what I would do would not bother other people?”
Well, then, that’s just sad.
YOSHI 100% RIGHT
Bump
Because of who? Trump, Clinton or Sanders?
Or all of the above?
The only ones who will leave are the very wealthy. Even then most of them will not want to do it. I remember when neighborhoods changed it was the renters who moved out first and then later the home owners moved. It is very hard to move to a new place, giving up a good job, home, schools and communities for the unknown.
All this is, is talk. The poor and elderly rely on government programs wouldn’t go. The middle class need their jobs and wouldn’t want to lose their house shuls, yeshivas and investments unless they fear for their lives. The only ones that can do it are the young singles who haven’t settled down yet.
Who knows if Canada will accept a large influx of Jews? Maybe there are the same problems over there.
How many of us will on the spur of the moment move to Israel? Sell your house at a loss. Transfer your investments out of the country for fear that the government will seize them.
Well now, some of the beginning comments on this thread sure didn’t age well. sooooo …. looking back, do those people who supported the previous president think he was pro-Israel or anti-Israel? especially given the last vote in the UN before President Trump took office? 20 years of sitting in that church had an affect on him, no?
Do these same people feel the Democrats care for the Jews or put Liberalism before people?And congrats to the guys who stood up for guns. You seem to know your facts correctly. The stat about guns killing the owner is #fakenews put out by the Brady Campaign and repeated ad nauseam. Most gun owners are responsible and teach their families about gun safety. And btw, last I checked, more children under the age of 10 die in an accidental drowning (in the bathtub or falling into the toilet) than they do from guns. So unless you want to ban bathtubs and toilets, I suggest you get your facts straight.
Yes. We have life insurance, home owners & car insurance, and also wills. I trust in Hashem but I am not going to rely on Him to magically send my family money in the event of an accident or death.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.