Gun Control Reform Activism

If the intent is to make an argument with substance, be sure of the accuracy before you make the claim. Putting out an argument that is demonstrably inaccurate, is counter-productive, in terms of convincing those on the fence to sway one way or the other.

There are federal regulations related to the use of lead shot, it's prohibited from being used for hunting waterfowl. specifically due to the potential impact of ingesting lead shot by bottom feeding ducks and other creatures. That law is an example of good legislation, environmentalists pointed out the danger resulting from using lead shot and the government responded with sensible regulations that mitigate the risk. Waterfowl hunters are required to use steel or bismoth shot, specifically for that reason and that's been the law for over a decade.

Similar concerns have been voiced in recent years over the potential for lead contamination in raptors that consume big game carcasses that go unrecovered by hunters, that may be contaminated by lead bullets. As a result, in areas where there are populations of large raptors that are threatened, such as the California Condor, laws have been enacted to require that hunters use non-lead bullets when hunting big game in those areas. Again, a sensible solution to the problem. Non-lead bullets are becoming increasingly popular among many big game hunters, even in areas where there are not challenged populations of raptors, it's likely that the popularity of non-lead bullets will continue to grow and I would not be surprised if lead bullets disappear at some point in the future. The use of jacketed bullets also reduce the amount of lead residue in particulate form, that is created while shooting.

My point is not to suggest that gun control advocates should not raise these issues, only that arguments that are intended to sway the undecided are likely to be more effective if they can stand up to scrutiny. That's typically a more effective strategy.