FBI, National Safety Council Data: 33 Times More People Die from Falls in a Single Year than in 24 Years of Mass Shootings

BY AWR Hawkins12 Dec 2025

FBI stats show 1,432 people were killed in “active shooter incidents” from 2000-2024, and the National Safety Council reported 47,026 people were killed in falls in 2023 alone.

According to the FBI, there were “556 incidents” in the timeframe of 2000-2024, resulting in 1,432 killed and 2,489 wounded.

The year with the highest number of casualties during the studied timeframe was 2017, with 734 deaths. The second highest year was 2016, with 214 deaths.

But figures from the National Safety Council show a whopping 47,026 people died from falls in 2023. Moreover, the National Safety Council noted “more than 8.8 million people treated in emergency rooms for fall-related injuries in 2023.”

Additionally in 2023, the National Safety Council pointed out “there were 100,304 deaths from preventable poisoning.”

In summary: 1,432 deaths in mass shootings, or “active shooter incidents,” during the timeframe 2000-2024 versus 47,026 deaths from falls in 2023 alone. Over 100,000 deaths occurred in 2023 due to poisoning.

I just took Everytown’s online firearm training course …   by Lee Williams

Everytown’s new firearm training classes are about as honest and realistic as the journalism produced by its paid staffers at the Trace. In fact, the amount of anti-gun propaganda produced by Everytown’s Train Smart instructors may actually exceed the anti-gun propaganda shoveled out by the kids at the Trace. Suffice it to say, it’s a close race.

The fun began with a 1.5-hour video class called “The Smart Guide to Buying a Gun.” Cost was $20. Students can take the class live or on-demand. There are two additional classes, including an 8-hour trip to the range, which you watch from home.

Nellis and Jake were the instructors. None of Everytown’s trainers provide their last names, which is very telling. Most real instructors provide all of their training and experience in addition to their full names.

Nellis, according to her bio, is “a mother and advocate, she is committed to building safer environments and believes that all children deserve a future free from gun violence.”

Jake’s bio is about as bad: “As an instructor, Jake strives to create welcoming spaces where everyone can learn to feel safer and more confident with firearms.”

Neither of the instructors ever mentioned what their kids actually deserve or how they create “welcoming spaces.”

Besides their missing last names, none of Everytown’s training staff list their actual instructor credentials or even where they were trained, but they are all beautiful people and very diverse, which is probably much more important to the folks at Everytown than their CVs.

Before Nellis and Jake were even on screen, Everytown unleashed a massive liability warning.

“By participating in this training and viewing this recording, you acknowledge and agree that Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and its affiliated organizations are not responsible for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising from, in connection with, or as a result of your use of firearms, and you agree to release and hold harmless Everytown of Gun Safety Support Fund from any claims related to your participation in the training. If you require specific advice or expertise about your use, possession or ownership of a firearm, please consult a qualified professional or consult your local law enforcement.”

Does this mean Everytown’s firearms instructors aren’t “qualified professionals?” Can’t real firearm training serve as a defense if you ever have to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones?

Instructor Jake began by cautioning viewers that no students should have access to a firearm during the course.

“We’ll be talking about tough topics like firearm homicides and suicides,” he warned the class.

If anyone wanted to learn more about gun ownership than Jake and Nellis were willing to teach, they were told to go to Everytown.org.

The instructor duo then presented an incredibly fictional group of statistics, which the site claimed came from the “Annals of Internal Medicine and American Journal of Public Health.”

By owning a gun, you double your chances of dying by homicide, they falsely claimed. And access to a firearm inside a home triples your chances and everyone in your home’s chances of dying by suicide. These, however, were not the worst claims.

“The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the woman will be killed,” Nellis claimed. “And according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, when a male abuser has access to a firearm, the risk that he’s going to shoot and kill a female increases by 1,000 percent.”

Everytown has always had problems with the truth. Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have decried hundreds of school shootings, but when the shootings are actually examined, they consist of a list of incidents that often doesn’t involve actual bad guys or students or schools or guns.

One so-called shooting involved a school bus being hit with a BB. Others involved negligent discharges. Many never even happened during school hours. When the list was examined thoroughly, many of the claims were found to be seriously overinflated.

Nellis, too, had real problems with overinflation, in addition to numbers, tactics and the truth.

“Since 2020, guns have been the leading cause of death for children age 1 to 17,” she falsely claimed.

All weapons, she said, should be kept unloaded—period. Her reasoning was nonsensical.

“That might be a little controversial. It might even defeat the point but hold on. Every second matters when you need a gun. Some people believe it’s okay to keep a gun on a nightstand. If you’re moving so fast that you don’t have time to access your gun, you likely don’t have time to confirm your target before shooting. Once that bullet leaves your gun, it ain’t coming back, and you may actually live in a state that requires you to lock up your gun,” she said.

Jake even brought racist police officers into the training.

“Police interactions may be risky for black gun owners,” he said. “We want to acknowledge that. Gather more information about police in your area.”

The two instructors stressed the false benefits of home security systems—alarms, signs, decals, doorbell cameras, fences, landscaping and other external barriers such as cacti and thorny plants. These are great ideas, until the bad guy enters the victim’s home.

Their solution?

“Adopt a dog,” they said. “A lot of self-defense instructors say dogs are better defense against intruders than guns. Consider getting a dog.”

When the instructor duo described the types of guns available, the forgot to even mention the country’s most popular rifle. The video does not show a single photo of an AR or any other popular semi-automatic rifle.

What Nellis and Jake excelled at was parroting small doses of real gun safety information without giving the author the credit they deserve. They showed a quick video that stressed Col. Jeff Cooper’s Four General Firearm Safety Rules. The good colonel, of course, was never mentioned.

Neither Nellis nor Jake ever mentioned how the Four Rules became standardized or how they progress logically from one to another. Instead, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s kids acted like they invented the rules themselves, which is about what you’d expect.

Truth be known, Col. Cooper’s rules were about the only realistic information offered during the entire hour-and-a-half of training time.

This video tried to scare students. Guns are dangerous and should be unloaded, disassembled and locked up, the instructors repeatedly said.

Everytown’s so-called training course is chock-full of fear, which they use to scare folks, so they won’t ever consider buying a firearm, much less carrying one. As you’d expect, this makes it propaganda—anti-gun propaganda.

It is definitely not firearm training. It’s not even close.

Stop lying about guns. Start getting serious about crime in New York | Opinion

Mike Lawler Special to the USA TODAY Network

Regarding "Lawler and Trump reward the gun lobby. NY will pay the price," lohud.com, Aug. 15:

Beth Davidson’s recent column reads like it was ripped straight from the far-left gun control lobby’s playbook, and is filled with the usual scare tactics, deliberate distortions and flat-out lies we see too often in politics. Respectfully, Davidson either doesn’t know what she is talking about or is willfully misleading the people of the Hudson Valley. Either way, I won’t let those lies go unanswered.

Let’s start with her central attack: the legislation I supported to remove the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Davidson calls these “silencers” and claims they make it impossible to hear gunfire. Wrong on both counts. They are suppressors, and just like a car muffler, they reduce sound but do not eliminate it. They protect hearing, make hunting and sport shooting safer and less disruptive and are rarely used in crimes. That’s why many European countries encourage their use, and why even municipalities in New York hire sharpshooters with suppressors to manage deer overpopulation.

And here’s what Davidson left out: suppressors remain tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act. Purchasing one still requires two separate FBI background checks, ATF registration, fingerprinting, photographs and notification to local law enforcement. No law-abiding New Yorker is suddenly walking out of a gun shop with a “silencer” like in a Hollywood movie. The only thing this change did was stop penalizing responsible citizens with a $200 tax. Suggesting otherwise is either ignorance or dishonesty.

Why can't Democrats talk about crime?

But let’s talk about what Davidson and her Democratic allies refuse to talk about: crime.

New York’s problem isn’t a lack of gun control laws. We already have some of the strictest in the nation. The problem is that Democrats refuse to enforce the laws on the books. In 2022, even Mayor Eric Adams admitted that more than 80% of people arrested with a gun in New York City were back on the streets. Many had multiple prior gun arrests. Repeat offenders, often with lengthy rap sheets, cycle through the system and are released under disastrous policies like cashless bail, Raise the Age, and Clean Slate. Just weeks ago, a criminal ignored Times Square’s “gun-free zone” and opened fire, injuring three people.

Democrats like Davidson claim they want to “prevent crime,” but if you are soft on criminals who actually commit crimes with guns, you can’t credibly argue you’re preventing anything. Real prevention means taking dangerous people off the streets, not targeting law-abiding citizens.

Contrast that with my record.

In Albany, I supported harsh measures to crack down on ghost guns, disguised guns that look like toys, and unlawful gun purchases by fugitives. I backed laws expanding Extreme Risk Protection Orders, requiring background checks for semiautomatic rifles, and cracking down on body armor sales. And helped shepherd Alyssa's Law to ensure the use of panic alarms in our public schools. In Congress, I led the bipartisan renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act, working with Senator Schumer to keep guns undetectable by metal detectors illegal. I introduced a tax credit to promote safe storage and cosponsored background check legislation while making clear that 90% of criminals obtain their firearms illegally—by theft, on the street, or from friends and family—not through gun shows or private sales.

That’s a record of common sense and bipartisanship — the opposite of the cartoon villain Davidson paints.

Meanwhile, Democrats like her push unconstitutional bans that even the Supreme Court has made clear cannot stand after D.C. v. Heller. If an assault weapons ban were constitutional and effective, why didn’t Democrats pass it when they controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2009–2010 and again in 2021–2022? They know it won’t withstand scrutiny, and they know it won’t stop crime. But it makes for a good talking point.

New Yorkers don’t need talking points. They need action.

They need leaders willing to confront the fact that violent criminals — not hunters, not collectors, not veterans, not single women working night shifts concerned for their safety, not moms and dads teaching their kids to safely shoot at the range — are the source of gun violence. They need leaders willing to admit that policies like cashless bail have failed, and that coddling repeat offenders is a recipe for tragedy. They need leaders who understand that protecting constitutional rights and protecting public safety are not mutually exclusive, and who are willing to do the hard work of both.

Davidson wants to run for Congress on a platform of blaming the tool and ignoring the criminal. I’ll run on a record of bipartisan action, common-sense solutions, and standing up to the failed soft-on-crime policies that have made New York less safe. That’s the difference between leadership and empty rhetoric.

Davidson may think repeating lies makes them true. It doesn’t. If she were serious about gun safety, she’d realize a warning label won’t do anything to stop crime, but tougher penalties on criminals will.

Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican, represents New York's 17th congressional district.

Armed Marine veteran stops Michigan Walmart stabbing suspect

Derrick Perry held knife-wielding man at gunpoint without firing a shot until authorities arrived

By Stephen Sorace
Fox News

An armed bystander was seen on video heroically stopping a knife-wielding man who authorities say stabbed 11 people at a Walmart in Michigan on Saturday.

The man, identified by family as Derrick Perry, is seen in the video pointing a firearm at the suspect in the store’s parking lot in Traverse City as he and other bystanders shout "drop the knife!" Perry is a Marine veteran, the New York Post reported, citing his family.

"What they did was amazing," Grand Traverse County Sheriff Michael Shea told reporters during a media briefing on Sunday.

Perry and the other bystanders ended the suspect’s rampage without firing a shot and held him until authorities arrived to take the man into custody without injury.

"First of all, I commend them. It's not very often that we have citizens that are willing to step up and take action, and I ask that we grant them the privacy that they need right now," the sheriff said. "If they choose to make a public statement, they will. But I would ask that we all just give them a little space and say, attaboy."

The suspect, identified as 42-year-old Bradford James Gille, of Afton, Mich., acted alone when he entered the store wielding a folding knife with a 3.5-inch blade, the sheriff said. He faces terrorism charges and 11 charges of assault with intent to murder.

The 11 victims, ranging in age from 29 to 84-years-old, were all expected to survive, Munson Healthcare officials said. One patient has been released while five were listed in fair condition, two in good condition, one in serious condition and two others were treated and transferred as of Monday morning.

The Overheard in Traverse City Facebook group wrote a post recognizing the brave actions of Perry.

"This is Derrick Perry!" read the post. "He is the hero from today’s stabbing at Walmart, he is the man that took his gun out and risked his own life to save many lives! Thank you so much Derrick."

Perry’s daughter replied to the post, describing her father’s heroic life-saving actions as a "proud daughter moment." His daughter-in-law wrote in a separate post that Perry is a "true hero."

The National Association for Gun Rights called Perry a "good guy with a gun" whose courage "deserves recognition" in a post on X.

U.S. REPS: SHE'S NEXT... (video)
Langley Outdoors Academy

DOJ urged to investigate New York gun laws over Second Amendment concerns
May 15, 2025 12:51 PM / Updated: May 15, 2025 12:51 PM  Digital Team

Two New York lawmakers are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate state-level gun control measures they argue are unconstitutional.

On May 15, 2025, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) sent a formal letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. She requested that the DOJ investigate whether New York State’s firearm laws violate constitutional protections. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) also signed the letter.

Lawmakers cite major Supreme Court rulings

In their letter, Tenney and Stefanik point to several landmark Supreme Court decisions that define the scope of the Second Amendment. These include:

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

According to the lawmakers, these rulings confirm an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, they argue, New York’s current regulations violate the Constitution.

Specific gun laws under scrutiny

Tenney and Stefanik highlight three specific policies they believe are unconstitutional:

• A ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles
• Mandatory licensing and registration of firearms
• A cap on magazine capacity that they describe as arbitrary

“These restrictions amount to a structural repudiation of the Second Amendment,” Tenney wrote. “Law-abiding gunowners must be protected.”

Revisiting NYSRPA v. Bruen

The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision in 2022 marked a significant shift in how courts evaluate gun laws. It struck down New York’s requirement for concealed carry applicants to show “proper cause.” The Supreme Court ruled that firearm regulations must align with the historical tradition of gun laws in the United States.

Despite that decision, Tenney claims that state lawmakers have continued to impose new restrictions. In her view, these measures directly contradict the Court’s guidance.

DOJ urged to take action

In her letter, Tenney emphasized the Department of Justice’s responsibility to uphold constitutional rights. She called for a swift federal investigation into New York’s gun control framework.

“The Second Amendment is not a suggestion,” she said. “It is a Constitutional guarantee that requires enforcement.”

According to Tenney, DOJ intervention is necessary because New York lawmakers have, in her words, “restricted the rights of New Yorkers for too long.”

What happens next

Whether the Department of Justice will respond or take formal action remains to be seen. However, the request signals ongoing legal and political friction surrounding gun policy in New York. As federal courts continue to shape Second Amendment interpretation, state laws will likely face increased scrutiny.

This content is brought to you by the FingerLakes1.com Team. Support our mission by visiting www.patreon.com/fl1 or learn how you send us your local content here.

Congresswoman Tenney Reintroduces the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to Protect Qualified Immunity

May 15, 2025 

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24), alongside Congressman Andrew Garbarino (NY-2), reintroduced the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act to protect qualified immunity for police officers serving at the state and local levels nationwide.

This bill solidifies the precedent set in the Supreme Court case Saucier v. Katz, which ruled that police officers can only be held liable if there is a clear violation of an individual's constitutional rights. The Local Law Enforcement Protection Act will block federal grants to state and local governments if they deprive police officers of qualified immunity protections. 

“As assaults on police officers continue to increase and the radical Left's ‘Defund the Police’ movement gains traction, some local and state-level governments are cutting police budgets and working to strip away qualified immunity. Police officers who put their lives on the line every day should be able to do their jobs without the constant threat of senseless lawsuits. The Local Law Enforcement Protection Act safeguards qualified immunity for these courageous police officers who risk their lives to serve our community. I will continue to stand with our men and women in blue to ensure they are treated like the heroes they are,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

 “Qualified immunity has long protected law enforcement officers from being sued for doing their jobs when acting lawfully in the line of duty. Police protect and serve our communities every day—we have a responsibility to stand with them, not tie their hands. I’m proud to co-lead the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act, which discourages state and local governments from adopting harmful policies that undermine our law enforcement community," said Congressman Garbarino.

TRUMP'S CIVIL RIGHTS HEAD PREPARING FOR WAR WITH ANTI-GUN STATES

NY Governor Kathy Hochul Doubles Down, More Gun Control for Law-Abiding New Yorkers

Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 8, 2025 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

Albany, NY — Governor Kathy Hochul signed three new gun control bills into law last week, claiming they’ll help reduce violence in New York. But for lawful gun owners, it’s just more government overreach that chips away at constitutional rights without addressing the real causes of crime.

The new laws, rushed through Albany and signed late Thursday, add more restrictions on firearms, ammunition, and now even how you pay for them.

Here’s what Hochul just signed:

• Ban on Pistol Converters: One bill adds “pistol converters”—devices that can allegedly turn a semi-auto pistol into a full-auto—to the list of banned “rapid-fire” mods in the state. Think bump stocks, binary triggers, and now… simple plastic blocks. Lawmakers say it’s about Glocks, but critics say it’s another excuse to vilify a popular brand and scare people with rare, fringe modifications.
• Credit Card Tracking of Gun Purchases: Another law orders credit card companies to create a special code for firearm retailers so purchases can be flagged and tracked. Hochul claims it will help stop mass shootings. But civil liberties experts and Second Amendment advocates warn this is financial surveillance—targeting people for exercising a constitutional right. Big banks will now be the gatekeepers of your rights.
• New Dealer Warning Signs and Paperwork: The third bill requires gun shops to post big warning signs and hand out papers to every buyer about the “dangers” of firearm ownership. The new language is more aggressive and clearly designed to stigmatize lawful gun ownership.

Hochul Says It’s Working—But At What Cost?

The Governor celebrated what she called a “53% drop in shootings” since 2022, crediting her administration’s $2 billion spending spree on law enforcement and gun control programs. But many question those numbers and whether that drop had anything to do with policies like credit card tracking or warning posters in gun stores.

Critics say the real goal here isn’t safety—it’s control.

“This is just more harassment of legal gun owners,” said one upstate dealer. “People who follow the law aren’t the problem. But Hochul and her team don’t seem to care about that. They just want headlines.”

Background Checks for Ammo Still Broken

New York’s background check system for ammunition, launched in 2023, is still plagued with delays. Even for a single box of .22s, buyers are often forced to wait days. As a result, many sportsmen are now buying larger quantities less often—ironically, the same behavior Hochul now wants banks to flag as “suspicious.”

Despite that, the Governor insists gun owners have nothing to worry about.

“It’s not about you,” Hochul said Thursday. “It’s about patterns.” But in practice, these laws cast a wide net that hits every legal gun buyer in the state.

“People Over Profit”… Or Politics Over Freedom?

Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon (D-Brooklyn), who pushed two of the bills, took direct aim at gun manufacturers, singling out Glock. She accused the company of ignoring its supposed role in gun violence despite the fact that criminals—not the tools—cause crimes.

“It’s time to put people over profit,” Simon said. But for many New Yorkers, it feels more like putting politics over freedom.

Bottom Line

Once again, Governor Hochul is doubling down on feel-good legislation that scores political points but punishes the wrong people. Law-abiding citizens who follow every rule are being treated like suspects, while violent criminals still walk free thanks to soft-on-crime policies across the state.

New York isn’t getting safer. It’s just getting more hostile to your rights.

Should Lead-Core Bullets Be Banned?

All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

The campaign to ban lead ammunition for hunting is based on the far-reaching claim that there are no known safe blood lead levels (BLLs) for neurotoxicity, particularly for children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, Environment Canada, and the UK’s Food Standards Agency have singled out game harvested using lead ammunition as exposing children and pregnant mothers to an unacceptably high health risk.

Arguing that “a conservative approach” is appropriate when characterizing risk, the Canadian government is studying additional measures to further reduce exposure to lead. Lead has been banned from other products, including gasoline and paint, and banning lead-core bullets and sinkers is under consideration. A ban of lead bullets and shot would undermine civilian firearms ownership by making shooting extraordinarily expensive for many hunters and target shooters.

There is no disagreement that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, particularly for young children and fetuses. Low levels can harm children’s developing brains, causing learning disabilities, per the CDC. Research has shown that consuming meat contaminated with lead particles increases BLL. However, the research to date does not clearly demonstrate that the risks of lead poisoning from eating game harvested with lead ammunition are severe enough to justify a general ban.

Outdoor organizations (American, British and European) reject the necessity of banning lead ammunition, arguing that the health risks of lead are being exaggerated for political reasons and that individual hunters are well able to make informed choices about what is best for them and their families. “The use of traditional ammunition does not pose a health risk to human beings,” said Ted Novin, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Novin added that “there has never been a documented case of lead poisoning among humans who have eaten game harvested with traditional ammunition.”

In an abundance of caution, state wildlife agencies (such as Minnesota and Wisconsin) have increased efforts to educate hunters about the best practices of preparing game that minimize the risk of lead poisoning. Some tips are: always trim a generous distance away from the wound channel, and discard any meat that is bruised, discolored, or contains hair, dirt or bone fragments. Hunters are also encouraged to consider higher quality (and more expensive) ammunition such as copper or lead-core bullets that have high-weight retention.

To better understand the risks to human health from eating game meat it is necessary to examine the research behind these claims. Let’s look at two studies to see if their conclusions are justified:

1. Iqbal and his colleagues examined 736 people in North Dakota who lived in various locations in ND, holding a wide range of occupations, from welder to refinery worker. Most had lived in same household for over 10 years. Those who reported eating wild game were found to have 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game. Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Statistically, these differences are significantly different. This study was used to ban donations of game meat to food banks by generous hunters.

Analysis: The study did not examine alternative explanations for higher BLL, including hobbies and occupational differences. Despite finding higher BLL in those who ate wild game, the BLLs of both groups were well below a CDC threshold of 5 micrograms per deciliter. Importantly, both groups were at or below the US national average of 1.6 micrograms per deciliter. Unsurprisingly, no deleterious health effects were reported for hunters or their families.

2. A recent Canadian study is cited as supporting the dangers of consuming game harvested with lead ammunition, and it illustrates some of the methodological problems in studies linking higher blood levels with game harvested using lead ammunition.

Fillion and her co-researchers focused on three small Inuit communities in Nunavut (an arctic Territory in Northern Canada) where participants in the Inuit Health Survey in 2007–2008 had the highest blood lead levels (BLL). The study first examined the lead levels in game meat, house dust, paint chips and types of ammunition used by study participants. Blood samples from the 169 participants in the study showed that those involved with hunting, living in houses undergoing repairs or re-modelling, or eating game harvested with lead shot had higher BLLs than other participants.

To assess the lead level in game meat, samples were obtained from game harvested with lead ammunition from at least two parts of the animal. The researchers were surprised to find that lead levels in the game meat were generally low and did not exceed the guidelines for lead levels. They concluded that it was unlikely to be the major source of lead exposure for this population. Nevertheless, BLLs were highest among those who ate birds shot with lead pellets. No information was given if samples were taken from the wound channel or if visible lead fragments were removed before analysis.

In the second section of the study, the researchers assessed the isotopic profiles of each possible source of lead in the participants’ blood. Analyses showed that lead in house dust, paint chips, and ammunition had similar isotopes to those found in the blood, while differing from the isotopic profiles found in wild game. This suggests that exposure could have come from the dust from old paint, decrepit walls in the houses, or direct from the ammunition, but not from consuming wild game.

Analysis: The first point to note is that the participants in this study are not typical North American hunters; rather they were deliberately selected for having the highest blood lead levels in the earlier Inuit Health Survey. Second, the small size of the sample and the wide diversity among the participants (particularly in housing quality, hunting involvement, and game consumption patterns) made interpretation difficult.

Despite the disparity in isotopic profiles of lead in participants’ blood and wild game, the authors conclude, “Blood-lead concentration results were consistent with the hypothesis that lead-contaminated game bird meat is a significant source of exposure . . .” This conclusion is based on the significant increase in blood-lead concentrations of the main study group after the spring harvest of water birds. However, as the authors recognize, this ignores the possibility of lead contamination from alternative sources. The authors speculate that this contamination might stem from handling lead shot shells, and urge that lead shot shells be banned for all game hunting. There are plenty of game hunting tips on the internet, but this is probably one that you should put into practise until there is a full ban.

The recommendation of a ban is based on speculation, not the research findings. While the researchers note that participants made (cast) lead sinkers, they ignored this information. Nor did the researchers investigate the isotopic nature of the sinkers. Had they done so it would have been possible to discover if the higher BLL in men who hunt could have come from their reported activity of casting lead sinkers. Casting lead has long been known to be a dangerous activity and requires proper handling procedures and particularly extensive ventilation. Appropriate ventilation would be even more crucial in the arctic.

Meat preparation is a key determinant of the amount of lead residue found in game meat, but handling practices were inadequately reported. To know if a study adequately reflects the risk facing hunters using lead ammunition, it would be necessary to utilize procedures that follow best-practices, thereby ensuring lead is adequately removed from game. Information on best practices is available from various organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

These vulnerabilities in the claims about the dangers of lead bullets identified here imply that concerns about lead have been exaggerated. The case against lead bullets remains inconclusive. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game at typical consumption levels. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handing techniques.

Hunters have long recognized that hunting entails a variety of threats and have learned to “adapt and overcome.” Clearly, outdoor activities are more dangerous than playing video games or watching television.

Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with the threats facing hunters – from wilderness survival to possible CWD to lead toxicity. To the extent that lead contamination poses a threat to those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition, hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. Whether that is mixing up their hunting methods like using a deer feeder similar to what you can learn more about at Feed That Game to lure them into floor traps or whatever gets the job done to reduce the chance of the neurotoxins entering inexperienced hunters mouths.

Traditional outdoor organizations are well placed to educate hunters about the best practices for butchering game harvested using lead ammunition or to help them decide if they wish to use non-lead ammunition. Such groups have long provided information about best practices for casting lead sinkers or bullets.

Groups willing to throw the ammunition baby out with the supposedly toxic bathwater reveal their true purpose is opposition to hunting and not concern for the welfare of hunters or their families.