Interesting open letter concerning the lead shot/ammunition ban

[Spear Chucker]

The problem is the approach isn’t proportionate. If it was proportionate then there would be no proposed ban on lead ammunition for shooting clay pigeons at established grounds.
A proportionate response would be banning the sale of lead shot game and permitting game for personal consumption to be harvested with lead shot. If we are all still permitted to smoke and drink alcohol then we should be free to choose to consume lead shot game.
A proportionate response would see the curtailment of lead shot use on large commercial game shots and see its use on small scale walked up shoots continue.
A proportionate approach would be not to cite the death of one grey partridge to lead shot ingestion as sufficient reason to see the introduction of draconian anti lead shot legislation.
It’s time it was realised that the long term future of sustainable shooting doesn’t lie in appeasing the opponents of fieldsports and that large bag commercial shooting producing a glut of game meat that can hardly be disposed of isn’t the best example of sustainable shooting.
The above of course only applies if first quantifiable effects of the use of lead ammunition from an unbiased source can be produced to put the risk of using lead ammunition in context rather than the almost hysterical no safe level of lead mantra which has unfortunately become the norm from the anti lead campaigners.
Surely BASC with its anti lead shot legislation policy can contribute a strong case for the defence of lead shot use where risks are shown to be insufficient to warrant legislative intervention.Hopefully we will see their latest ideas posted on the forum quite soon in an attempt to shift away from acceptance to constructive opposition.

Well said Sir.

 

[Liveonce]

. Lead is classified as a ‘substance of very high concern’ and has a zero-tolerance threshold meaning that there are no safe accepted levels.

If it’s so dangerous to human health at such low levels then why is the numerous everyday food and drink that contains lead not also being banned from sale?

It’s a ban for the sake of ban, no logic to the scope or content of the ban, because they can, just like now needing two references on a shotgun certificate application, will make no difference to public safety, but they can change the law so they have.

We are the most law abiding citizens but are the most persecuted just because we own firearms and easy to targets for the government to do as they like with us.

oh for an org like the NRA USA with balls.

 

[Spear Chucker]

@Heym SR20 where’s your reply ?

The cat has something in its paws...

 

[AGR]

Survivorship bias and false conclusions.

I saw an interesting You Tube programme last night on American B-17 "Flying Fortress" bombers. These suffered greatly in daylight bombing with many lost to enemy fire and others only just managing to return to their home airfields but badly shot up and some then having to be scrapped as being beyond repair to be able to ever safely fly again.

So the US Army Air Force made a study of these returned badly shot up 'planes. Marking the damage on the outline of a drawing of the 'plane and decided that the solution would be to add armour to the areas that this diagram showed as getting the most hits from enemy fire.

Until...

Until a more intelligent mind said that they were using the wrong logic. That their survey result gave a false conclusion. That in fact the areas that needed to be reinforced with added armour were those areas on the badly damaged and returned aircraft were those areas THAT SHOWED NO HITS.

As the actuality was that as none that came back had any hits in the same undamaged areas this meant that by simple deduction that any hit in what on a surviving plane was an undamaged area was actually fatal to a 'plane that was hit in that area. Which is why those that come back showed no hits in those areas.

So by extension to what we do the ONLY research some are relying on is that they have found lead shot in the gizzards of wild dead ducks. There may be considerably more wild ducks that also have lead shot in their gizzards that aren't picked to the be dissected because they haven't died from it. So therefore the survey by only using wild dead birds is based on flawed evidence.

Again the reply many have given as to "where then are all these dead wild duck"?

And that surveys based on captive bids dosed with lead are also to be discounted as the dosing of them may far exceed what would be, if any, the amount of lead in the gizzard of a wild bird. So basing a survey on what you have to hand (be that survived 'planes) or dead wild birds is incorrect as what you actually should be surveying is the very things you can NEVER survey (shot down 'planes or live wild duck).

See 2:50 onwards in the video. It is called "survivorship bias". In the Wikipedia article what is relatable to wild ducks is the paragraph about cats falling from buildings.

In this case the vice-versa in that wild duck that have ingested some lead shot and survive are never subject to testing. As still being alive they are therefore never sampled. In simple terms some would therefore condemn such conclusions based on dead wild birds as useless as being no more that the equivalent of "cherry picking" dressed up as supposed science.

Survivorship bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry, but the theory that some ducks survive after ingesting lead shot is nonsense. Unless they are tougher than pheasants. My experience was that upon killing an obviously sick pheasant(s), as little as the remains of only one pellet was found in the gizzard.
I'm quite sure by the way that in my life I would have eaten/swallowed several pellets and still have my faculties and most of my teeth. I won't be risking my old teeth on steel shot though!

 

[Cloudhopper]

These personal attacks by a handful of fellow forum members on @Heym SR20 for merely stating facts are out of order. Lead is classified as a ‘substance of very high concern’ and has a zero-tolerance threshold meaning that there are no safe accepted levels. Its impacts on wildlife, the environment and human health are well documented. Taking a proportionate approach to the elimination of risk posed by lead ammunition is beneficial to the environment and the long-term future of sustainable shooting.

Just out of interest Conor, where do you think lead comes from?
CH

 

[Heym SR20]

These personal attacks by a handful of fellow forum members on @Heym SR20 for merely stating facts are out of order. Lead is classified as a ‘substance of very high concern’ and has a zero-tolerance threshold meaning that there are no safe accepted levels. Its impacts on wildlife, the environment and human health are well documented. Taking a proportionate approach to the elimination of risk posed by lead ammunition is beneficial to the environment and the long-term future of sustainable shooting.

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

 

[Chris Richardson]

These personal attacks by a handful of fellow forum members on @Heym SR20 for merely stating facts are out of order. Lead is classified as a ‘substance of very high concern’ and has a zero-tolerance threshold meaning that there are no safe accepted levels. Its impacts on wildlife, the environment and human health are well documented. Taking a proportionate approach to the elimination of risk posed by lead ammunition is beneficial to the environment and the long-term future of sustainable shooting.

But he hasn’t stated facts has he? I’ve asked him to supply me with a study that proves eating lead shot game causes illness in humans and he can’t despite insisting that it does , so clearly sir mine and your definition of facts varies greatly

 

[Chris Richardson]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

Any luck finding me that study ?

 

[Chris Richardson]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

Also who’s worshiping Epstein ?? I think you’ve ingested a bit too much copper sir

 

[timbrayford]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

Boorish bullies? I think that you might have to look a little closer to home for that one, and I don't mean you either!

 

[Spear Chucker]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

 

[Liveonce]

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

A week in politics is a long time a year an eternity.

 

[Chris Richardson]

All quiet again …. How odd

 

[M@tt]

Mark Crudgington has been talking about this for a long time. However the pro lead, anti ban side have yet to be able provide any solid scientific evidence to successfully demonstrate that lead is NOT harmful to living organisms.

Difficult to prove the negative.

 

[Liveonce]

one for BASC

 

[Spear Chucker]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

Just thinking about this, Old Dear, you seemed quite happy to dish it out when your dander was up. Having said that, your dander rises quite quickly as soon as anyone questions you. Does this mask a sense of loss of control, or just indignation that a free thinking member with an enquiring mind and a determination not to accept an injustice, has the temerity to call your statements in for scrutiny?
If these "personal attacks" are too much for you, maybe you could refrain from taking the tone from one of spirited and intellectually stimulating debate, to outright confrontation as you did on Monday at 11:04 (page 1).

Most of what we are discussing is reasonably intelligent. Because you and people like you have neither evidence or right on your side, you have to resort to p***ing on the opposite point of view and those that dare make a reasoned interrogation of the facts. This approach is normally the preserve of the Packhams of life. "We have no facts, no knowledge, no supporting evidence, so let's just throw fertiliser at the wall and see if it sticks".

Your surprisingly thin skin and evasiveness on the topic smacks of a lack of understanding, or intelligence, I cannot decide which and don't really care.

I, and seemingly a surprising number of other normally placid shooters (see recent surveys) of all disciplines are not buying the horse manure that our so-called representative bodies and their leg-humpers are peddling. While parliament will decide as you correctly state, they will do so using bent information cooked up by bent people in bent organisations with bent agendas. It may become law. We will have to comply with it, but that does not mean it is good law or that we have to accept that it must remain unchallenged.
The surveys recently conducted amongst the shooting fraternity -which has 85% of respondents in opposition to the line taken by BASC, CA, GWCT and their friends the LAG- shows just how completely out of touch with their "support base" these organisations are. BASC is desperately trying to put all this behind it by publishing all sorts of clever little reports ("look at the birdie, look at the birdie, Oops! you didn't see the knife in my other hand, bad luck") but the inescapable fact is that they have sold us out. They can retrieve the situation by accepting their mistake and using the money in their coffers from the dissenting members to challenge the resulting legislation or fund a proper review. Fat chance.

No Sir. This is a disgusting mess and those who we pay to defend us have betrayed us.

 

[Spear Chucker]

All quiet again …. How odd

Probably chasing the cat.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

Thanks @Conor O'Gorman. Yes these personal attacks are pretty unpleasant, and it’s the likes of them that will end shooting as they are nothing more than boorish bullies that most find distinctly unpleasant. Funny they also think any one who disagrees with them is some sort of lunatic left winger, and they all worship at the feet of Farage, Trump, Boris and Epstein. And they might be suffering the effects of a little too much lead.

Frankly what they say is totally irrelevant now. Parliament will decide.

Ah so you can give a select few of us grief but when the shoe is on the other foot you dont like it? Ironic.

You're spouting rubbish as per. You fail to view the ban from anyone else's perspective and have a rational conversation about the blatant issues with lead free. Just three days ago I was stalking and happened to use my dope calculator. My usual eldm required 1.8mrad of adjustment for a 500 yard shot. The CX load ive got required 2.6mrad and nigh on double the windage for the same shot. Its probably worth noting my S+B only gives me enough elevation for the eldm, 1.8mrads worth before it hits the stop.

They aren't equal and no matter how much crap you spout, they never will be. Even if I took the shot, the CX wouldn't have expanded reliably and subsequently left the deer to run on with a bullet hole through it. The cx i will add is one of the higher BC bullets, the usual offerings have run out of steam over 250 yards. It ain't good enough.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor, your credibility on this topic is shot. These are not personal attacks, it is gentle ribbing. Don't try to make something out of nothing. It does you no favours. He is not stating fact. He is just repeating your highly selective line. With you and BASC on our side, shooting has no future, sustainable or otherwise. You sold us out on the back of bent reports. You are just desperate to defend what is obviously an entirely indefensible position. BASC has no relevance. John Swift saw to that, the new mob are just continuing the ruination of what was a fairly decent body. Away with you.

They are personal attacks and bullying plain and simple and you might reflect on your role in that.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Just out of interest Conor, where do you think lead comes from?
CH

If you are genuinely interested in a discussion on the science feel free to PM me. The issue I am raising is personal attacks on fellow forum members in this thread for which you have had no part in.