Lead Ban

[MJN]

I have a lead pellet lodged in my finger, it has been there about 20 years and I am not dead yet.

 

but your mental abilities .........

 

 

M :-)

 

what an old topic

[Elby]

silly question here anser but you mention no prosecutions in Scotland, have there been many south of the border? as to me its still likely to be unenforceable.

Exactly, as a cert holder no one has ever sent me a letter stating lead is banned.

I could actually argue that as a lonely shooter that buys no publications ect that I never even knew a ban exists, think that's crazy, my FAO never knew one existed until I told him, and that was just 2 years back.

It's like every other ban, pretty unenforceable and just put in place to keep flowery dressed sandal wearers happy.

[al4x]

funnily enough one of the pieces of evidence done before the LAG was set up tested wildfowl bought in supermarkets and they contained lead and was submitted as evidence despite the fact they shouldn't contain lead legally. The problem is people write laws that are so badly written people ignore them its like most firearms legislation

[Beardo]

I have a lead pellet lodged in my finger, it has been there about 20 years and I am not dead yet.

 

Early symptoms of lead poisoning in adults are commonly nonspecific and include depression, loss of appetite, intermittent abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and muscle pain.[17] Other early signs in adults include malaise, fatigue, decreased libido, and problems with sleep...

 

go figure

[Elby]

Early symptoms of lead poisoning in adults are commonly nonspecific and include depression, loss of appetite, intermittent abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and muscle pain.[17] Other early signs in adults include malaise, fatigue, decreased libido, and problems with sleep...

 

go figure

Right own up......who shot me

[Whitebridges]

One of the major arguments against lead poisoning birds is that you do not often find the dead birds and my explanation is that scavengers clear most of the carcasses up and shooting is likely to remove many of the affected birds when they are in the early stages of poisoning.

 

Back in the 1980s when it was still legal to use lead shot for wildfowl . I used to catch several thousand duck a year for ringing in the Wensum Valley and a number of these birds were suffering from lead poisoning. Tufted duck and pochard were the worst affected as they could pick up spent shot from the hard bottoms of several near by shot over flooded gravel pits. The symptoms of lead poisoning were very bright green dropping staining their under plumage and a lack of energy in the birds. Later they became listless and stopped feeding and would be dead in about a week. On dissection we found between 1 and 7 pellets in the gizzard.

 

I no longer ring waterfowl , but talking to others there is not much of a problem now with the exception of sites where very heavy shooting has taken place in the past and the pellets are still within reach of the birds. The rate they sink into the pond substrate depends if its soft mud or sand\gravel. And a flood or dredging out the mud can expose pellets fired years ago. If you search back in this forum I did post several links of articles where pheasants and other game birds had been found with lead poisoning. Rabbits are not effected in the same manner as they have a different digestive system with no gizzard. However where exceptional amounts of lead shot has dropped onto the ground grass can absorbe it and them when a rabbit or hare eats the grass it too will suffer from lead poisoning . This happened at Somerlayton clay shooting ground on the Norfolk\Suffolk boarder and for many years the rabbits and hares were unfit for human consumption due to very high lead levels in the body.

 

Thanks for the post Rob, very informative. You'd confirm that lead can hang around for ages? Is there a chance that the "spent shot"could in fact be old lead shot left behind from the days when anglers used it?

You mentioned "flooded gravel pits" and as far as I know these places were and still are heavily fished. I presume you'd agree that the chances of excessive lead in the Wensum river itself would be negligible due to shooting because of the width off the river and lack of access.

Can you expand on what you mean by "a number of these birds were suffering from lead poisoning". A rough percentage would be appreciated. Cheers.

[Graham M]

Sorry lads……….but I am starting to get the feeling that we are being set up.

 

I have never read such articulate postings about the effect of lead in animals or birds that have been shot……….other than on RSPB sites that is.

 

 

 

I think the government call it “leaking to the public” and it is used to get something into the public domain prior to breaking bad news………sort of getting the public used to the idea.

 

 

Or am I being paranoid

G.M.

[chrispti]

Lead has already been banned in plumbing, paint, printing, solder,even in wheel weights and, already, wildfowling. It will eventually get banned and we will just have to like it or give up shooting

[Graham M]

Have you ever wondered where old PCs and such go to die?

 

I daresay some silver tongued minister will say that due to our wonderful system of getting rid of lead, we recycle them ….

 

 

Well here is where they go, we transfer the technology that would cost US an arm-and-a-leg (making our goods more expensive) to Africa, where they use children to melt the gold and silver etc out of them. The only thing is they don’t use smelters with fume scrubbers/filters to extract the lead before getting to the precious metals. No…..they simply build a fire and melt it all down out in the open. The children do all the work and the bosses take all the money.

 

This really makes me want to puke, when rich nations like Britain put on this “Holier-than-thou” attitude to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are taking steps to get rid of toxic waste in a safe manner, whilst in reality we are filling up electrical goods with lead and then sending the scrap off the poor countries to dump it so that WE don’t have to deal with it at all.

And than we scream about a small amount of lead being used in firearms, that pales into insignificance compared to the amount of lead that we are sending over to Africa for some poor little kids to deal with.

I think we ought to sort out this mind-numbing scam before we turn on our own shooting industry http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7543489.stm

 

 

G.M.

[Elby]

Sorry lads……….but I am starting to get the feeling that we are being set up.

 

I have never read such articulate postings about the effect of lead in animals or birds that have been shot……….other than on RSPB sites that is.

 

 

 

I think the government call it “leaking to the public” and it is used to get something into the public domain prior to breaking bad news………sort of getting the public used to the idea.

 

 

Or am I being paranoid

G.M.

Just because you're paranoid don't mean you aint being watched

[robgee]

There are thousands of miles of lead water pipe in the ground in this country will the goverment ban that ( i hope so because i install new new plastic water services)

Edited September 29, 2010 by robgee

[anser2]

It was 30 years ago when I was duck ringing and catching effected duck so i cant give exact numbers. late summer was the worst time when lakes were at low levels and presumably lead pellets were easily avaliable. Around 15% of the diving duck were effected , 5 % of the mallard and odd pintail , but it varied between years. No teal or wigeon were found showing signs of posioning. Anglers weights are split unlike the whole round lead used in shotguns. All the pellets were found were round , though a few were so worn the split could have disapeared. We rarely had birds tangled in fishing line so i suspect anglers weights were not a major problem.

 

Its true the odds of being caught using lead on private ground are slim , but claiming you did not know about the ban on using lead for wildfowling would be no excuse in law. Defra and the RSPB have checked a number of game dealers for wildfowl containing lead and a number have been found. Around me two of the three the game dealers I use always ask if duck have been shot with non toxic shot.

 

from the BASC website "Increased monitoring of shoots and game dealers is likely this season. Remember that shoot organisers (landowners, shoot captains, gamekeepers, agents and club chairmen) can be prosecuted, as well as the individual Gun, for allowing lead shot to be used illegally. Prosecution may also lead to loss of shotgun certificates and BASC insurance cover. "

 

 

I am not going to pay £10.00 for the report but i found this on the web - Reports & survey results

Non-Toxic Shot – Progress and Needs. RMCS Seminar proceedings ... cases were reported by 1055 keepers, with 585 prosecutions over a twelve month period ...

 

www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/research/p... - 33k - Similar pages

 

I cant beleve the above web search means 585 people have been prosecuted for using non toxic shot , but that is how it reads.

[Elby]

Its true the odds of being caught using lead on private ground are slim , but claiming you did not know about the ban on using lead for wildfowling would be no excuse in law.

I think it would be a perfect excuse.

If the government are going to introduce these things then they have a responsibility to inform the people it affects.

Like I said (and it is very true) an FAO from Thames Valley didn't know about it so why would a mere civilian know.

I understand your point of view but my original point all them pages ago was that it was a stupid rule due to the fact that I can stand next to my river/pond ect shooting pigeon all day long with lead, but two fields away I have to change to steel for wildfowl.

It's just another badly thought out rule to keep the anti's happy, just like the ban on hand guns, the ban on hunting with hounds ect.

It's unenforceable especially as 99% of wildfowl shot are for the pot and never see the gamedealers, also your average copper may well come and ask what you're doing while shooting but would have no idea of the lead ban.

As far as the prosecutions are concerned, having a girlfriend that works for the CPS I can almost guarantee that if you pleaded innocent due to ignorance of the law it would be highly unlikely to reach a court room.

[Whitebridges]

Sorry lads……….but I am starting to get the feeling that we are being set up.

 

I have never read such articulate postings about the effect of lead in animals or birds that have been shot……….other than on RSPB sites that is.

 

 

 

I think the government call it “leaking to the public” and it is used to get something into the public domain prior to breaking bad news………sort of getting the public used to the idea.

 

 

Or am I being paranoid

G.M.

 

No set up Graham. Impossible. Keep the debate going, fire your views in to the pot. Articulate, you are having a laugh? :sick:

[Whitebridges]

It was 30 years ago when I was duck ringing and catching effected duck so i cant give exact numbers. late summer was the worst time when lakes were at low levels and presumably lead pellets were easily avaliable. Around 15% of the diving duck were effected , 5 % of the mallard and odd pintail , but it varied between years. No teal or wigeon were found showing signs of posioning. Anglers weights are split unlike the whole round lead used in shotguns. All the pellets were found were round , though a few were so worn the split could have disapeared. We rarely had birds tangled in fishing line so i suspect anglers weights were not a major problem.

 

I'm well aware of split shot for angling purposes. At no 5/6 these are tiny. You mentioned "spent shot" earlier, I would put it to you that it would be difficult to know whether these were cut (split shot) or fired from a smooth bore gun. Your comment about birds tangled in line is irrelevant, most anglers will tell you they spill more shot (non toxic these days) than they use cocking a float.

The scale of your ringing exploits were "thousands" so your percentages above gives a good feel for the problem 30 years ago. I suppose we would all like to know the level of the issue (if there is one) today?

I also think the migratory duck in your sample could have picked up lead miles away from the Wensum valley.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Whitebridges

[starlight32]

silly question here anser but you mention no prosecutions in Scotland, have there been many south of the border? as to me its still likely to be unenforceable.

 

Al4x, There has been no prosecutions as far as I am aware in England,Scotland and Wales for the above since the ban came in. The problem is it is very hard to enforce, and to be honest no-one knows who even is supposed to police it...Some say the Enviroment agency,Some say the police, and some even say it is Trading standards!!!!. The RSPB have done a few studies at game dealers, but as you are well aware shot wildfowl does'nt turn up in dealers from wildfowlers but more commercial shoots. I have travelled and shot in the United states too and over there it is a different ball game. They have stiffer rules, and they are well and clearly enforced. Get caught with lead cartridges in a wildfowl hunting area and you risk a fine of anything up to $100 for every lead shell in your possession and a possible ban on hunting for life, which to an American would be like taking both his arms......The wildlife officers over there have more power than the state police. In some states even when you dress a bird for the freezer you have to leave one wing on the feather for identification purposes to enforce possession limits. Another interesting note, no game can be sold in the united states, not even deer which are in abundance. There is an explosion in snow geese over there at the minute and it is open season on them like canada over here. You still can't sell them though, however big refigerated bins are placed outside the hunting areas where they can be donated and processed for distribution among hard up families which i though was a good thing.

 

Exactly, as a cert holder no one has ever sent me a letter stating lead is banned.

I could actually argue that as a lonely shooter that buys no publications ect that I never even knew a ban exists, think that's crazy, my FAO never knew one existed until I told him, and that was just 2 years back.

It's like every other ban, pretty unenforceable and just put in place to keep flowery dressed sandal wearers happy.

 

Elby, you are correct in your summing up of the lead shot situation from outside the wildfowlers prespective. I am a wildfowler and agree with your comments totally. Everyone to there own, but as far as I am concerned, steel is not as good as lead. Forget about all the pomp from the pro steel mob and the ballistic experts who reload the secret recipies which give the velocity of an 88mm anti tank gun.They often talk about minimizing your range to 35 yards and such like, but then why should you use something which limits your ability to do that? Ballistics may exist from tests, but in my life I have always found and sort out find out for myself what I think about anything. Yes I have used steel, and now all I use is Hevi shot, factory and reload. And the reason why? Because it is the nearest thing to lead I can legally use- and I do have a higher kill ratio, and at greater ranges along the lones of what I used to enjoy with my Winchester super xxx's (sadly a cartridge I still miss to this day).

Edited September 30, 2010 by starlight32

[mudpatten]

As usually, and understandably, happens, these threads do seem to meander about a bit.

 

Elby. Are you suggesting that, since it seems to be largely unenforced, that we should ignore the legal requirement to use non lead ammunition for shooting wildfowl?

 

I assume that, as a responsible certificate holder you are not advocating breaking the law. You have started up another anti non toxic thread but I can`t for the life of me see the point you are trying to make. What is it, please?

 

You earlier mentioned that no one had actually informed you personally about the need to use non toxic shot. Neither will "they" have told you about changes to the planning laws, the Road Traffic Act, the Environmental Protection Act or any other piece of legislation you care to name. Our law does`nt work like that. (Rightly or wrongly!) so don`t feel personally hard done by.

 

Just to put NTX into some sort of perspective from the fowling community at large. Steel works perfectly well. There are other alternative materials. The majority of newcomers to fowling, say during the last 10 years, will not have had an opportunity to compare the performance of lead and NTX making any practical differences largely academic.

 

Wildfowling is actually thriving again despite, or perhaps because of, NTX.

 

As a `fowling club "officer", if I discovered someone using lead when they should`nt I would take all steps within my power to see the offender prosecuted. The majority of fowlers would do the same.

 

Are you fronting up some sort of campaign to see the reinstatement of lead? If so, it would be interesting to hear your strategy. Or are you just pointlessly venting hot air?

[Elby]

As usually, and understandably, happens, these threads do seem to meander about a bit.

 

Elby. Are you suggesting that, since it seems to be largely unenforced, that we should ignore the legal requirement to use non lead ammunition for shooting wildfowl? If you bothered to read what I have said you would have noticed that I stated that I have used non toxic for wildfowl

 

I assume that, as a responsible certificate holder you are not advocating breaking the law.You assume correct You have started up another anti non toxic thread Did I start this thread?but I can`t for the life of me see the point you are trying to make. What is it, please?Again had you bothered to read my posts you would have noticed the point I was trying to make, you know the one about it being perfectly legal to shoot pigeons with lead stood next to my river

 

You earlier mentioned that no one had actually informed you personally about the need to use non toxic shot. Neither will "they" have told you about changes to the planning laws, the Road Traffic Act, the Environmental Protection Act or any other piece of legislation you care to name. Our law does`nt work like that. (Rightly or wrongly!) so don`t feel personally hard done by.I don't feel hard done by, I feel quite happy that should the worst happen they have given shooters a way out

 

Just to put NTX into some sort of perspective from the fowling community at large. Steel works perfectly well. There are other alternative materials. The majority of newcomers to fowling, say during the last 10 years, will not have had an opportunity to compare the performance of lead and NTX making any practical differences largely academic.

 

Wildfowling is actually thriving again despite, or perhaps because of, NTX.

 

As a `fowling club "officer", if I discovered someone using lead when they should`nt I would take all steps within my power to see the offender prosecuted. The majority of fowlers would do the same.

 

Are you fronting up some sort of campaign to see the reinstatement of lead? If so, it would be interesting to hear your strategy. Or are you just pointlessly venting hot air?And finally no, if anything I would like the law to be sensible and enforceable

I hope this clears things up for you and maybe in future you'll bother to read what has been said rather than "venting hot air" of your own.

[al4x]

Sorry lads……….but I am starting to get the feeling that we are being set up.

 

I have never read such articulate postings about the effect of lead in animals or birds that have been shot……….other than on RSPB sites that is.

 

 

 

I think the government call it “leaking to the public” and it is used to get something into the public domain prior to breaking bad news………sort of getting the public used to the idea.

 

 

Or am I being paranoid B)

G.M.

 

 

And there we go full circle to where the BASC had to go on a PR offensive, the leaking of one of their Scientific advisors memo stating lead would be banned so it would be a good idea to slowly drip feed membership with the plus points of non toxic ammo. Shooting Times got the hump about it as did qute few others but apparently its rubbish and they don't have to listen to their advisors. But thats been done and dealt with as ever we have a law that for many of us makes no sense, if you are a fowler then yes its perfect but inland with small ponds with a mix of species it doesn't, we drive pheasants out as well as duck on drives its hardly practical to swap cartridges so you use non toxic but legally you don't have to on the pheasants etc. Neighbouring pheasant drives you can shoot with lead and the shot all goes in the same place. The US system would be nice but in a way our country couldn't give a fig about shooting its a minority sport whereas in the US its far from it. With no policing its hardly surprising some people ignore it if the birds end up in your own pot then the evidence isn't going to stay arround long

[mudpatten]

Elby, Thank you for clarifying that. What you appear to be suggesting is that the whole question of the use of non toxic shot should be thrown back into the legislative melting pot. Personally, I`m not sure that now, with all the various and potentially hostile firearms reviews going on, is a good time to be doing that.

 

You say " ....if anything I would like the law to be sensible and enforceable." From a politicians simplistic viewpoint, given that non toxic shot was forced upon us by an external legislative process about which they can do very little, the easiest way to make the process sensible and ENFORCEABLE, is to ban lead. If lead is outlawed, there can be no problems and the job of the police is made infinitely easier.

 

Your strategic thinking on this issue is flawed as is the thinking behind publicly suggesting on an open internet forum that inland, non wildfowling, shooters regularly flaunt the non toxic shot regulations simply because they are inconvenient.

 

It is a commonly held belief within the fowling community that it is the open contempt in which the NTX regs. are held by inland shooters that will lead to an eventual ban on the use of lead shot.

 

I have no desire to see lead outlawed and will continue to use it where and when permissible.

[Elby]

Elby, Thank you for clarifying that. What you appear to be suggesting is that the whole question of the use of non toxic shot should be thrown back into the legislative melting pot. Personally, I`m not sure that now, with all the various and potentially hostile firearms reviews going on, is a good time to be doing that.

 

You say " ....if anything I would like the law to be sensible and enforceable." From a politicians simplistic viewpoint, given that non toxic shot was forced upon us by an external legislative process about which they can do very little, the easiest way to make the process sensible and ENFORCEABLE, is to ban lead. If lead is outlawed, there can be no problems and the job of the police is made infinitely easier.

 

Your strategic thinking on this issue is flawed as is the thinking behind publicly suggesting on an open internet forum that inland, non wildfowling, shooters regularly flaunt the non toxic shot regulations simply because they are inconvenient.

 

It is a commonly held belief within the fowling community that it is the open contempt in which the NTX regs. are held by inland shooters that will lead to an eventual ban on the use of lead shot.

 

I have no desire to see lead outlawed and will continue to use it where and when permissible.

I have no doubt that sooner or later we will get a total ban on lead, my point is that the ban at the moment is badly thought out (as the ban on hand guns, hunting with hounds ect).

If you were on a pheasant shoot and duck were pushed off a pond, would you ignore them if you only had lead shot? Not many would and neither should they as duck are sometimes an important part of the bag.

Maybe the fowling community are just a little upset that the rest of us mere mortal shooters can still use lead.

To me not only is the law ridiculous and unenforceable but it is just another step forward for the anti's and just more proof of the nanny state we live in.

Maybe if enough evidence was shown to all the wild fowling clubs in the first place they would have voluntarily banned lead as a club rule just as some shoots don't allow plastic wads.

You also say that you will continue to use lead, why would you do that if as you say steel is it's equal or better?

[David BASC]

If two types of cartridge are equally OK for your shooting then I guess you would go with the cheapest?

 

I agree it seems daft that you can shot a pheasant with lead but on the same land you can't shoot a duck with lead in England & Wales. As I say the system in Scotland is more sensible in my opinion.

 

The compliance survey in 2002, showed two thirds of ducks sampled at game dealers had been shot with lead, revealed a disturbing, and damaging, lack of compliance. But just because you don’t agree with something does not give you the right to ignore the law!

 

David

[al4x]

It doesn't and it does show how particularly stupid some people are if they shoot them with lead then let them go to dealers. Though i'd guess they are collected from estates with paid days so attributing it to an individual would be a nightmare. I have to say our shoot is very careful and they do use NTX on ducks but sounds like its in the minority

[mudpatten]

Primarily because I`m a realist. We have the current situation regarding NTX, however it was arrived at, and, as a responsible fowler I`m compelled to work within the law.

 

No amount of ranting on my part will change that. Not that I don`t think the law should be changed. It`s just that I don`t see anyone mounting a coherent campaign to reverse the legislation, a process beset with potential problems as I previously illustrated. All I see is the expulsion of hot air to no useful end.

 

Your comments that the legislation is poorly thought out is perfectly valid but none of your comments on this forum will materially alter that fact and I don`t see you meaningfully engaging with any of the shooting organisations or the government to actually change what so offends you.

 

Your question about the duck on a pheasant drive, sadly, encapsulates the problem and shows why inland shooters will be responsible for the loss of lead. Where it me I would have loaded up with non toxic before the drive, knowing that duck were on the menu. Something that you apparently consider to be beyond the wit of the average pheasant shooter.

 

Your comments about the fowling community are both interesting and revealing. Most experienced fowlers of my acquaintance would not go back to lead shot, even if they could. These chaps all use steel and find it works remarkably well. I have no desire to go back to lead for fowling whatsoever. Again, as I said previously, a great many of today`s fowler`s have never used lead on fowl.

 

Your thoughts that fowlers are somehow upset at the loss of lead reveals the narrow perspective and lack of practical experience you have on the whole subject.

 

The whole thing may be anti inspired and an illustration of the nanny state. Nothing I can do about that and you seem not to be trying.

 

My fowling club was the first in the country to go all non toxic, something that is a matter of historical record, some three years before legislation was brought in. Something you would have known if you understood fowling and an established fact that rather destroys your argument.

 

I have no problem with the use of lead. You have never heard me go on about poisoning or any of the other reasons, other than the political ones, attacking the use of lead.

 

The reason I defend steel is that people constantly, mischeviously and ignorantly attack it by saying it does not work. It does. If they simply said "steel works but has significant other issues attached to its universal use" then you would`nt hear me entering in these arguments.

 

All the while they twist the truth, I`ll be there annoying them.

[Elby]

Primarily because I`m a realist. We have the current situation regarding NTX, however it was arrived at, and, as a responsible fowler I`m compelled to work within the law.

 

No amount of ranting on my part will change that. Not that I don`t think the law should be changed. It`s just that I don`t see anyone mounting a coherent campaign to reverse the legislation, a process beset with potential problems as I previously illustrated. All I see is the expulsion of hot air to no useful end. Again you seem to have a greta knack of ignoring what has been written, I have no objection to lead if it stops birds suffering, my problem is the law as it is is a bit daft and unenforcable, there I've said it AGAIN

 

Your comments that the legislation is poorly thought out is perfectly valid but none of your comments on this forum will materially alter that fact and I don`t see you meaningfully engaging with any of the shooting organisations or the government to actually change what so offends you. I'm glad we agree on something, so what are you doing?

 

Your question about the duck on a pheasant drive, sadly, encapsulates the problem and shows why inland shooters will be responsible for the loss of lead. Where it me I would have loaded up with non toxic before the drive, knowing that duck were on the menu. Something that you apparently consider to be beyond the wit of the average pheasant shooter.so you would shoot lead on all the other drives, why when steel is so good? Could muck up your shooting of the pheasants too, no matter how good you say it is it will shoot different, loads more wounded pheasant for the keeper to find

 

Your comments about the fowling community are both interesting and revealing. Most experienced fowlers of my acquaintance would not go back to lead shot, even if they could. These chaps all use steel and find it works remarkably well. I have no desire to go back to lead for fowling whatsoever. Again, as I said previously, a great many of today`s fowler`s have never used lead on fowl. But you still use lead whenever it's legal, can you see a pattern devoloping here?

 

Your thoughts that fowlers are somehow upset at the loss of lead reveals the narrow perspective and lack of practical experience you have on the whole subject.Perfectly correct, I know nothing

 

The whole thing may be anti inspired and an illustration of the nanny state. Nothing I can do about that and you seem not to be trying.I'm having my say on a public forum, for the little wildfowling I do a lead ban doesn't affect me too much

 

My fowling club was the first in the country to go all non toxic, something that is a matter of historical record, some three years before legislation was brought in. Something you would have known if you understood fowling and an established fact that rather destroys your argument. That's good, so why didn't all clubs take this step and there would have been no reason for a ban on lead

 

I have no problem with the use of lead. You have never heard me go on about poisoning or any of the other reasons, other than the political ones, attacking the use of lead.And guess what, I have no problem with the use of steel, just the way we are told how to use it

 

The reason I defend steel is that people constantly, mischeviously and ignorantly attack it by saying it does not work. It does. If they simply said "steel works but has significant other issues attached to its universal use" then you would`nt hear me entering in these arguments. Show me where I have said "it does not work" my point AGAIN throughout this thread is that the law doe not work, a point you seem to have chosen to ignore, but AGAIN if it works so well why do you state that you'll continue to use lead where legal? Cost cannot be an issue because it has been stated that it is no more expensive now

 

All the while they twist the truth, I`ll be there annoying them.

I don't think I have "twisted the truth" feel free to quote me where I have