Interior Secretary Reverses Obama’s Lead Ammo Ban

The mentally ill population of the United States commits crime at an identical rate to the healthy black population.

Are you saying because they were born a different way they deserve less rights?

 

Do you realize that in America there is a growing underclass, of people that will be discrimated against Legally ???

Anyone declared Mentally incompetent or convicted of certain Crimes will not be able to Work, Possess or bear Arms, Vote etc... ???

If that is the case, Crime is the only occupation open to them !!!

 

Duplicate post

 

Those with small hands will be so excited.............

 

Small hands ??? Huh ???

 

Look up Rubio about small hands.

 

I see no evidence of this. In fact I do not believe it is true

 

However, you believe anything that impacts Gun ownership negatively.

 

That is incorrect

 

another new poster spouting completely silly anti gun nonsense that has been debunked for years. IF yo are afraid to own a gun, don't. If you don't trust yourself to safely keep and store firearms-don't. But don't tell us not to own guns or spew complete nonsense that isn't credible

 

DoctorWho:
However, you believe anything that impacts Gun ownership negatively.

Hundreds of posts say otherwise.
You constantly quote Anti-Gun People and web sites.

 

Duplicate post

 

Yes when I believe they are wrong

 

@Troianii

Can you link the thread you started on the Mentlly Ill and crime rates?

It was a while ago but it showed the comparison between the mentally ill and the healthy black population.

I searched for it but since the site updated I can't find anything.

 

Sounds like someone owns a garand

 

Survivalists always store FMJ's

 

FMJs aren't lead free; in fact, the bottom of the 55 grain 223 bullet has an exposed lead base.

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1174752-overview

Gun-Rights supporters are often correct in condemning some gun control initiatives as being unsupportable and based solely upon emotional and not pragmatic knowledge of firearms. This, on the other hand, is an emotional argument being made by gun-rights activists. There's no question that lead is highly toxic and that preventing lead contamination of our national wildlife refuges, or any pollution of our national wildlife refuges, is desirable. That's not a "political issue" but instead is an environmental issues. Would the same gun-rights activists be for or against people dumping their trash in the same places?

The substitute for lead ammunition and fishing tackle is typically tin. It does have some minor disadvantages to lead but nothing that would result in significant negative effect the firearms performance. The use of tin ammunition does not harm the firearm nor does it result in a significant drop in accuracy.

By claiming that the banning of lead in national wildlife refuges is "political" as opposed to it being environmental based upon scientific and medical dangers related to the high toxicity of lead degrades the gun-rights arguments to the same level as many of the gun-control arguments because it's based upon emotion and not facts.

It's the response to the ban that is political and not the ban itself.

 

I have no idea what this has to do with the use of lead, a highly toxic heavy metal, in ammunition and fishing tackle.

Of course there's at least one reason that the purchase of more firearms hasn't lead to a corresponding increase in firearms related crimes. Statistically the number of people that own firearms isn't increasing but the number of firearms owned by people is increasing. People commit crimes, not firearms, so the number of firearms owned is irrelevant to the crime statistics that are created by people.

 

Correct and being loaded into brass or steel cases there is no exposed lead to contaminate the handler unlike cowboy action loads, most wadcutters, or hard cast hunting rounds.

 

Once fired, however, there is some exposure. It's miniscule, though, and only of concern so as to create ammunition shortages. Lead is pretty far down the pollutant priority list.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/priority-pollutant-list-epa.pdf

 

Lead in metallic form (i.e. the form in fishing weights and bullets) is not bioavailable, and isn't highly toxic (yes, it is toxic, just not highly toxic).

 

Lets be clear. Being black or mentally ill are not crimes.

 

Oh boy, digging up that old one would be a headache. I think it'd be easier for me to just find the key figures and restate the point I was making.

1. Blacks commit more murder than whites - significantly more. This source in particular found that the rate at which blacks commit murder is 8.58x that of whites, based on an analysis of 2013 FBI data.
https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/ (note - I'm unfamiliar with this source, they seem on a surface glance biased, but the hard data isn't - it's analysis of FBI data)
2. The precise rates will vary based on study, but this study found that people with depression are 3x more likely to commit acts of violence. Note, though, that for depression, acts of violence are often committed against themselves (i.e. suicide). http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/...imes-more-likely-to-commit-violent-crime.html

Those are roughly the basic data points. Again, these aren't the best sources, but the data references is hard data and pretty reliable, whether it's from a .com or a .gov.

I was responding to the suggestion of some that we should take 2nd amendment rights away from people diagnosed with mental illnesses, such as depression. My point was quite simple - that is denying someone their Constitutional rights without them having committed any crime, having done anything wrong, based only on "group statistics". Depression will not *make* someone commit murder, and having more melanin will not *make* someone commit murder. We are all individuals, and if you actually think that we should deny Constitutional rights to those with mental illnesses, because of nothing they've done but because of group statistics, then it would actually make more sense to restrict the gun rights of black people, since the correlation between being black and committing murder is stronger than having depression and committing murder.

I, of course, don't subscribe to the idea that we should deny black people their Constitutional rights. No one should be denied their fundamental rights based on group statistics, they should only be deprived of their rights because of their own wrongdoing. This was simply a point to illustrate how frightening the rational basis is of those who suggest we should restrict rights of people with mental illness, based simply on group statistics.

 

For clarity, the correlation between mental illness and murder is actually much weaker than being black and committing murder. And of course, neither group deserves less rights simply because of group statistics.