534
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
534 points (97.0% liked)
science
29351 readers
1421 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I am almost 40, I've been around guns since I was maybe 7 and I have never been warned about this before. I also have a PhD and am happy to make you feel stupid if that's your jam, but it seems like something we should be taught but aren't?
Of course we clean ourselves and our guns but I would never have said "hey hold on, I need to use an extra product before I eat my turkey sandwich". I don't prefer to smell like gunpowder, but I don't like smelling like a cow either and the cleanup was similar.
are you equating PhDs with overall intelligence?
that would be ironic
No, that would be something you would expect Alanis Morissette to put in her song "Ironic" but in reality she doesn't know how to define ironic either.
Yes I am here to tell you that those things are correlated. I have been outside where it is peopley.
It's amazing how many things we completely fail to question. Your parents said or didn't say something, showed the action or inaction was completely normal, and then you autopiloted indefinitely until something is specifically called it out. I continue to find new things wrong with my dad's statements. It's... Infuriating when I figure it out. Usually happens when I go to say it out loud as fact to someone else. That triggers the internal fact check mechanism.
This has been going on for decades.
This is exactly how it happens.
You've never read the print on boxes of lead ammunition? There are warnings printed on the boxes about lead.
I was today years old.
The real WTF.
Meh. I held my first firearm when I was 3, couldn't even pull the trigger.
Just so I can pitch the reply correctly - is it the bad parenting, or the failed state you were born into, that you're looking for pity for here?
Bad parenting is teaching your kids abstinence-only gun education. If you live in a country where half the people have guns, your kid should have a basic understanding of them. If you live in a household that has guns, your kid should have an avanced understanding of them.
Based on your handle(name), we probably lived in similar places. I only look for pity for helping others and shouldering their pain.
Bad parenting? Ugh not really, maybe the leave me alone treatment or thrown against the wall or being whipped fun times. Aside that, it's like I had three cars in high school, an apartment, a credit card, and another apartment in another country, a 4k computer in the early 2000s.
Maybe I want a place to vent. Is that so wrong? You aggress me just because "firearms" and ignore that I've helped many people throughout my life.
What will probably piss you off is that I have 7 firearms on my bed right now, they need to be maintained and I'm lazy so I just sleep in another room.
As a counter argument, are you looking to vent your frustrations on someone else? When's the last time you asked your friends how they're doing, or what's bothering them? One day it will be too late.
Edit: ~~down vote with no comment, classic~~ didn't update sigh
I'm not that guy, but...
Dude, they are talking about your parents, not you.
You've just listed a bunch of things that I'd associate with bad parenting. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and spoiling with expensive items.
I don't disagree. But I've learned how to overcome. I still did what I wanted anyway. I asked for a $600 beater so I could learn how to fix cars. I got a Mercedes instead. The first car I bought was a $600 non working jeep with 300k miles.
It's probably why I had so many people come to me for help--I think I have a few screws loose; where I came from the kids had knives on the playground. I have two cuts on my face.
It was a strange thing to have people in their 50's come out, being gay, to me; I don't have a problem with that. Or even tell me about what atrocities they experienced in their childhood. It's the only thing I can brag about, that people, even to this day, tell me their darkest secrets that they've held on to throughout their lives.
Sincerely - get help.
Meowka, thanks for the concern.
If I were to guess why it's not a thing that's readily taught I would assume it's because of the rather shockingly large lead lobby that exists in the USA pushing against education and regulation against lead. There's a meaningful establishment bent on making sure we don't ask about it or learn about it.
I am not sure it's quite so sinister.
I was today years old when I read the box of ammunition to see that it says "hey wash your hands" though I would assume we are talking about something more than soap and water.
How many cleaners that your parents taught you to use have you stopped and read the ACTUAL directions for? Like of course I know how to use Windex! Oh I shouldn't use it on electronics I guess even though parents always wiped down the TV with it.
Honestly, it would be easier to just ban lead based ammo then trying to enforce this
You obviously didn't get a PhD in not being a douche I guess.
a funny thing happens once your education and intellectual levels reach a certain point. you just get sick of dealing with everyone's shit.
Imagine being stuck in a room full of rude 5th graders that keep telling you that you're wrong about the things you studied for half your life. now imagine you've been stuck in that room with a rotating selection of rude 5th graders for decades.
would you be nice to them?
People who say unprompted that they have a PhD as proof of their intelligence probably don’t, and most likely don’t spend much time dealing with PhDs either.
why shouldn't they promote their state of education to relay their level of comprehension and intellect? they worked hard for it. it's not like they hand them out to everybody.
the use didn't even use it as a power move, simply said it as a way to reject idiots from challenging their statements.
that's the real shame here, but I get it. that's why when idiots often open their mouths I have zero inclination to correct them.
you can fix ugly, you can fix ignorance, but you can't fix stupid.
People with PhDs generally have a deep understanding of a narrow subject. And outside of that narrow scope, some of them do things like try to fill a bucket with more water by extending it at the top with cardboard. And that type are the most likely to compensate for their other inadequacies by relying on their academic achievement.
In my experience the people with PhDs whose intellects I have the most respect for are the ones I'm least likely to hear about their doctorate from. It's not a marker for comprehension and intellect, it's a marker for obsessive perseverance and interest in an academic field, plus an ability to write technical language in that field.
You're much nicer, and a lot less asshole-ish, than I am at walking through this topic. May I learn from you the next time I feel the need to call it out. Anyway here's a cool illustration of how getting a PhD works that succinctly frames this concept in my opinion:
https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
Dude you don't have to white knight for the douchey PhD guy. Saying shit like that, even if you are really super duper smart, is incredibly arrogant. People that say shit like, "I'm super smart and you're super dumb and I have a piece of paper to prove how super smart I am." Are gigantic douche bags. It ranks up there with, "I have a huge IQ." In levels of douche-dom. In fact, the more I think about it the more I think this is some shit that Trump would say. Just outrageously, fart smellingly, douchey.
So no I'm not gonna imagine the scenario where you somehow think I'm a 5th grader and you and PhD guy are the only super smart people on the entire internet. Not only is it a douchey thing to say, but also would make me a douche, and I really don't wanna be a douche.
not white knighting. it's just personal experience.
you clearly have no idea how draining it can be to deal with idiots. the mental fatigue alone is depressing.
besides they didn't say you were stupid, they said they are free to make you feel stupid. you clearly are dealing with some feelings of inadequacy and felt threatened by that statement.
I have multiple pieces of paper that say I'm smart too. Some of those pieces of paper are even college ruled! I also have been on the internet since you had to make funny phone sounds to log on. I don't think I've ever been like (in my best nasally Ben Shapiro voice), "Everyone is stupid and a 5th grader. Also I'm smart so I don't want to deal with stupid people cause you're all stupid." I don't think it's helpful, it's thought terminating, and is often said by people that are super wrong and they say it so they won't be challenged.
I'm just a guy here challenging those douches and you gotta come in here and try to white knight for them. I seriously don't get it unless...
Totally got me pegged on that huh? Not projecting in the slightest are we? Maybe I just think douchebags should be called out so they stop being douchey? But maybe you're right and it was a personal challenge to PhD guy and you had to come along and ruin it. I guess we'll never know now will we?
the irony is, I'm doing the same thing.
I'm older but I've been shooting since I was around the same age. This whole thing about lead poisoning is just dumb, most ammunition is wax covered if it's bare lead (22lr) or it's copper jacketed. The amount of lead you're handling is miniscule and everyone I shoot with and have ever shot with, we wash our hands before we eat. It's not rocket science, most people who aren't gross wash their hands before they consume food even if they're just at a desk job.
This study is junk science anyways. They literally just conducted a survey, which is just dumb for this type of study. How about go measure actually how much lead is deposited on clothing or gear, it's probably not even registrable.
If they wanted real data, they should go to the military and get data. Most people who shoot, do it once or twice a month at best (shits not cheap for most people) and most of the time they're doing it for an hour or two at most.
People living in older cities are going to be getting more exposure from leaded soil than someone going to a range once a month.
Nothing burger meant to paint gun owners as idiots.
Yes, before eat food, if available wash hands. If I had my hands inside a deer or something of course I'd wait until I could clean up. Taking a few shots at a squirrel or something doesn't seem the same kind of dirty.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379726003168?dgcid=author
Okay here's the study. In the conclusion it says:
Here's a couple of those studies cited:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347624000787
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121009361
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512300511X
So like maybe there is something and we should keep looking? These sorts of survey studies are also helpful to identify populations that may be affected in longitudinal studies. Perhaps you should just wash your hads and practice a little more safety/isolation with your shooting garb. I dunno it seems like a pretty easy and straightforward way to mitigate a potential risk of lead exposure, that at least several research scientist have identified as a risk, to you and your family.
Every one of those has a "may" in there. Sure do the research, but right now these studies have show 0 evidence that it's actually a significant problem. They literally read like "people who shoot guns are idiots". Just look at how people are responding in this thread. I'd like to see the study actually go and test clothing and how much lead is aerosolized with each common type of primer/caliber and from someone shooting more than 30mins.
https://www.umass.edu/agriculture-food-environment/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/soil-lead-fact-sheet
Lead in soil is a much bigger issue in cities from years and years of leaded fuels/leaded paints.
What? Your reading comprehension is really, like extremely, bad. You might want to get that checked out. That or you're super desperate to confirm your biases. You should consider reading them again and trying to remove this weird obsession with thinking multiple scientist, across several universities, are conspiring to make gun owners look dumb by trying to make sure they aren't exposed to lead. Either way, given your response here I think I'm done with this conversation.
Literally first link is the link that is under discussion here. It has no data about lead levels, and is what I pointed out.
Second link, your own quoted bit of it says "may be"
Third link,
And
Which follows into the 4th study, that is just a repeat of the 3rd link...
Starts off with:
Again may be...why? Because it's very difficult to correlate the two, because...as the study states:
Most people who live or work in clean environments and have money usually are not firearm owners. Aka a large portion of firearm owners are not rich. So they have occupations that are more likely to be around lead exposure, and they're more likely to live in older parts of a city or area that has more lead exposure via the soil like I pointed out.
I suggest you read your own links before you call out my reading comprehension. None of these links actively provide evidence that firearms are a major source of lead exposure...as I stated above, they should be looking at the military more than someone shooting for a whooping 30mins a month.
I agree study link number 4....
You are being incredibly selective in your reading and it's showing in your highlights. You deliberately didn't highlight the word "licensure" for instance in one of your quotes. You are literally following the climate denier playbook here and selectively choosing words in the non-conclusion parts of studies and glossing over the data parts. I don't know what to tell you other than have a nice day, cause I, nor the absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary of your belief, is going to convince you otherwise.
Just note to anyone else that stumbles upon this thread, there are literally hundreds of studies that have shown that firearm use and lead levels have a direct correlation. Here's an example of a review of some of those studies done by the NIH in regards to specifically firing ranges:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/
Furthermore the conclusion is not a "may be" no matter how much anyone wishes it to be so:
Getting more exposure from one place doesn't make getting less exposure from another not an issue worth investigating. Both things can be problems at the same time, especially when dealing with a substance for which the healthiest amount of exposure is zero. Lead anywhere is worth investigation and study.
I'm not about to give up shooting over it, but if I can easily make it safer for little effort then I see no reason not to. And I don't read anywhere in any of this that gun owners are being painted as idiots, it just seems like you're upset that people are taking a thing seriously that you don't personally take seriously.
And I agree. I would love to see data on lead on clothing at ranges and lead exposure for military recruits. That would be extremely valuable!
Hey buddy! I have that link and many more further down. Here's a review by the NIH though that might help truncate some of the legwork:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/
Feel free to bring in other sources though. I couldn't find any studies that show the negative but that's a little more tricky and not something most people are trying to study. Also there are like hundreds of other studies out there than seem to show a pretty strong correlation that are a quick search away!
Yikes, those are some pretty high blood lead levels. And from what I understand that only shows recent exposure, not how much has already been internalized into your bones.
And I haven't said anywhere to not study this further, but to do a study like this is pointless, as it's terribly done.
Which should be normal, as I said elsewhere, you should be washing your hands anyways after shooting. It's just good hygiene in general.
You should read the rest of this thread then. It's a bunch of people suggesting it. That what these shitty studies do, re-enforce anti-2a groups biases that gun owners are idiots...this just adds to it.
That's where the data needs to come from. It'd be perfect for a study like this. Everyone is on basically the same economic level, they usually shoot around the same amounts, they live in the same areas as well.
So you're removing a ton of stuff that this study and the others failed to account for.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of the study, I'm afraid. I think pointing out this kind of data is exactly the type of thing that will encourage other studies to dig deeper on a topic. It seems to make it easier for other groups to perform studies after a possible link has already been established since it saves them legwork.
I doubt any NRA endorsed ranges or the military would allow independent studies of this nature to be done. But it sure would be nice.
As far as anti-gun sentiment in the comments here: that's just Lemmy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯