Is anybody aware of studies quantifying direct (shooter) and indirect (household member) lead exposure? The gold standard (so to speak) is bloodstream lead levels, but I think that’s hard to measure as it relates to specific events like going to the gun range.
From the article:
Key findings
- In both democratic and authoritarian contexts, technologies are being deployed in ways that erode, and in some cases effectively dismantle, human rights.
- Technology use risks facilitating or amplifying repressive practices and systems, and becoming an instrument of authoritarian governance.
- Surveillance technologies are being expanded and entrenched with the purpose of exerting control over entire populations and/or specific groups of people such as journalists and human rights defenders.
- The authoritarian use of technology is ultimately having a ‘chilling effect’.
- Some technologies are disproportionately intrusive by design and should not be used.
- Technologies’ use is often incompatible with the rule of law, lack redress and raise mass impunity risks.
- A lack of transparency facilitates the authoritarian use of technologies.
I disagree for two reasons. First, there’s lots of ammo that’s non jacketed lead. Start with .22LR, which is probably the most common ammo.
Second, I didn’t think the jacketing helps that much in either hunting or indoor range contexts. In hunting, the bullet mushrooms or fragments or disintegrates, dispersing it’s kinetic energy through lots of tissue; that’s how it kills. Disintegration means there are lots of tiny lead bits scattered in the meat. And at the range, if the bullet hits a hard backstop, it again disintegrates into even finer pieces, making lead dust.