Comments on: Lasers to Replace Air Pistols in Pentathalon

By: comatus

comatus — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:17:13 +0000

The modern revival of the Olympics was brought about by Pierre de Coubertin. Guess what his sport was.

By: Arizona Rifleman

Arizona Rifleman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:23:22 +0000

mikeb: Additionally, lead-free bullets and primers do exist (though they tend to be considerably more expensive than lead bullets), and could be used in environmentally-sensitive areas or at the Olympics.

By: Arizona Rifleman

Arizona Rifleman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:21:54 +0000

mikeb: I think the major issue with the lead used in gasoline was that it was burned and dispersed into the air. It could then be easily breathed. Additionally, it was able to spread through the air and settle on relatively distant things that could further spread contamination (e.g. if it drifted from a highway onto a nearby farm, aqueduct, reservoir, etc.). Lead from bullets remains solid and contained reasonably where it falls. While there is a small amount of airborne lead generated by the primer and the bullet impact, it's minimal and usually contained in the area where the gun is fired and where the bullet impacts, respectively. Many ranges retrieve lead from their backstops and recycle it, but even if left alone, the lead remains on the range. Even if it didn't, the amount of lead used in bullets is minuscule compared to the amount of lead used in gasoline, and wouldn't have anywhere near the effects that leaded gasoline would have.

By: mikeb302000

mikeb302000 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:18:21 +0000

Some months ago I became convinced by Sebastian that lead at shooting ranges does not pose a major problem. It’s odd then that the Olympic committee is concerned. And how does this apply to the lead in gasoline. In some countries they still have it. I remember, maybe in the 70s more or less, it was quite accepted that it caused serious problems. Is that a different kind of lead, one that’s more transmissable than the solid lead in bullets?

By: Lucky Forward

Lucky Forward — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:37:13 +0000

Ronnie at #14 hits the bulls-eye. The “green” smear of firearms is a way to discredit guns, from international sports all the way down to shooting sports in schools. It’s a way to turn public sentiment against guns in a new way, and make them “uncool,” especially with kids. I think this is a much bigger deal than some of the posts here would let on.

By: Guav

Guav — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:09:09 +0000

I think benEzra is correct.

By: benEzra

benEzra — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:58:08 +0000

It would have been trivially easy to mandate lead-free pellets, if the “lead poisoning” argument were the real reason behind this change. Replacing air pistols with lasers instead of a much simpler requirement to use nontoxic shot suggests that it was the “gun-ishness” of the air pistols, and not the environmental impact, that may have been the primary driver here…

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:48:06 +0000

Could turn interesting if they could come up with a 5 watt laser pistol a la ‘Terminator’.

Air pistols seem pretty tame anyway. They have already taken the ‘bang’ out of the sport of shooting.

By: Tam

Tam — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:33:38 +0000

“The Olympics should just give gold medals to all contestants, regardless of how good they did in the event.”

I hear the Norwegian judge has already given Barack a perfect 10.0 in the Men’s 10-meter platform dive.

By: Guav

Guav — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:10:30 +0000

Yes, feelings are the most important thing. I like the summer olympics. Winter olympics have always interested me less.

By: Extreme Tolerance

Extreme Tolerance — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:29 +0000

Guav, I think you mean “how good they FELT about the event”?

I am going to be the lone ranger here and say that I love the Olympics. It makes me unhappy when we loose the medal count. Olympics is crack for people who have athletic adhd.

By: Guav

Guav — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:15:25 +0000

Why even have winners and losers anymore? Isn’t that unfair to those athletes that aren’t as gifted? It’s got to be hard on their self esteem. The Olympics should just give gold medals to all contestants, regardless of how good they did in the event.

By: BobG

BobG — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:11:18 +0000

Why even have the Olympics at all? Wouldn’t be easier to just have a bunch of Norwegians decide who wins which medals and give them to the athletes?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:53:45 +0000

Just another reason to not watch the olympics. Like I needed another.

And the Nobel Olympics prize goes to Barack Obama! Or Al Goron!

By: Guav

Guav — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:55:31 +0000

Excellent analogy Tam, and yes, that’s all I mean.

By: Tam

Tam — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:53:15 +0000

It’s okay, Guav, I got your point. Mercury comes from the Earth, too, but that doesn’t mean I’ll chug a tall, frosty glass. Also, just because mercury is poisonous doesn’t mean they need to ban thermometers at the Olympics.

By: Guav

Guav — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:37:56 +0000

That’s pretty fascinating Kristopher, I’m just not sure how it pertains to the discussion.

By: Guav

Guav — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:35:02 +0000

Extreme Tolerance & Joe: I never said that the new policy of the Olympics was anything but stupid, or that I supported lead bullet bans—I don’t.

Ronnie: I’m not an anti-lead crusader. My comment was not about lead specifically, but your logic, which is basically “Lead comes from the earth so it can’t be bad.” Carbon dioxide under pressure underneath Lake Nyos in Africa escaped and asphyxiated all living organisms within a 15-mile radius. Just because something is naturally occurring doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. That’s all I meant to point out.

As far as lead goes, I tend to think that the lead from bullets is not a serious environmental issue.

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:20:30 +0000

Guav: Some more things that come from the earth:

http://oklo.curtin.edu.au/

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:56:21 +0000

Guav, when we gunner folk shoot our guns at an approved target range, or even when we do so responsibly somewhere in the densely wooded areas of private or public lands, this does not result in lead being “sprinkled all over the place,” nor does this cause lead to “enter the food chain” whatsoever.

I hope that you will realize soon, that is, if you have not already, that the whole lead-contamination issue is nothing but yet another farcical tactic that the hoplophobes have tried to use against the rest of us whenever we wish to exercise our constitutionally-protected firearm freedoms.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:54:13 +0000

gauv -

“I don’t know the science”

Enough said. That is why we aren’t listening to you.

By: Extreme Tolerance

Extreme Tolerance — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:51:24 +0000

Guav, I think you nailed it in your first comment. Why not just replace all shooting sports with laser pointer aiming?

Ok, so you think lead is bad. Well collect and recycle and jacket with copper.

By: Guav

Guav — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:05:52 +0000

Fair enough. To be clear, my point was not that lead pellets or bullets are in fact environmentally harmful—I don’t know the science—my point was that merely pointing out that something exists in nature or comes from the earth is not in itself a compelling argument argument against the possibility that it’s harmful.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:39:27 +0000

Guav,
Lead from bullets does not “enter the food chain”. It is inert. It does not enter ground water, or travel at all. A study was done at Gettysburg, where lead bullets have been sitting in and on the ground for over a century.

By: bwm

bwm — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:25:46 +0000

Next will be the announcement that the other Olympic sports will be done using Wii games instead of actually being outdoors where altitude, temperature, and terrain might affect the performance of the “athletes.”

I would be way more likely to watch this to be honest