Norway Looking to Repeal Lead Ammo Ban

They banned lead shot in 2005, now they are re-examining it:

The organisation criticised the ban on the grounds that it lacked a solid evidential basis and that the use of alternative ammunition posed animal welfare risks. Non-lead ammunition does not kill as cleanly or as efficiently as lead, and therefore causes unnecessary suffering to quarry, the JI has argued. It also maintains that the potential adverse effects of such substitute materials on health and the environment have not been studied in sufficient detail.

The typical substitute for lead is bismuth, which is nearly as dense as malleable as lead. The problem is that almost all the bismuth production is the world today is a byproduct of lead production. It’s only about twice as common as gold is. There is essentially no way for the shooting sports to function solely on lead substitutes. While Norway may be poised to repeal its law, we’re going backwards here, with Oregon considering a ban on lead ammunition.

7 thoughts on “Norway Looking to Repeal Lead Ammo Ban”

  1. Haters will just say then this sets a precedent to ban hunting.

  2. Sometimes I get the feeling that lead ammo bans are really a carefully disguised attempt at backdoor gun control. Ammo becomes more expensive, with less effectiveness and variety of loads. Net result is a little tighter regulation of our sport.

    This has been a fear of mine for years. If gun control advocates went after the long view, this is exactly what tey would want. Add to it stuff like liability insurance, ammo taxes, shipping and storage restrictions. They can go after ranges with noise ordinances, zoning restrictions or other forms of denial. I’m sure that you can think of more.

    We need to watch out for these backdoor efforts at control as well as the overt ones.

    1. Everything you mentioned IS backdoor gun control, all you have to do is listen to the zealots repeat them. None of those things you talk about are put forward by them to “solve gun violence”, they’re all a means to make gun ownership and the shooting sports so onerous and expensive that people just give up, thus breaking the generational chain and letting the culture fade away. You don’t have to worry about trying to ban anything if the people don’t want to deal with owning it to begin with.

      Thankfully from what I understand the liability insurance angle won’t work as making people carry insurance for illegal acts can’t be done I believe, but maybe someone else can correct me or expound on it.

    2. That’s what they most certainly are. You ban lead hunting ammo, at the same time all alternative compositions are technically banned under AP ammo restrictions. What exactly is left? Ammo made out of styrofoam?

  3. “Obviously the US should follow the Scandinavian lead and un-ban lead ammo immediately.”

    What? It’s the same logic they use when Scandi countries do something they want

  4. I don’t recall the particulars of the study, as to who funded it, but it was reported in the NRA’s magazine a few years back. THey examined the Gettysburg battlefield for lead contamination. Found NONE. All those bullets fired in the 1860’s, in and on the ground. No leeching of lead into the ground, or the water. Proves lead shot and bullets are not a health hazard. Here in CA, they still can’t figure out where the birds are getting lead poisoning, but it hasn’t changed since they banned lead shot years ago. They’re all lying.

  5. It is quite obvious to me that the majority of hunters have been consuming lead for generations. Go figure.

Comments are closed.