James, you might want to re-read my reply to cadet. I clearly acknowledged that he said he was still able to use lead shot in Australia, and told him I was glad of it, and also noted that legal use of lead shot in other parts of the world for waterfowl isn't causing the kind of problems that purportedly led to the 1991 U.S. ban.
cadet made a totally inaccurate statement by claiming that there are some here who seem to think there is a total ban on firearms in Australia. That simply isn't true, and I have probably been the most active here in reporting exactly what restrictions Australian gun owners have suffered. You've probably seen the photos I've posted of huge piles of confiscated and banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and government notices warning owners of banned guns to turn them in. But I know there is not a total ban on all guns... Yet.... Even if the path seems to be a death by a thousand cuts.
As such, I remarked that Australian style restrictions on firearms have absolutely nothing to offer to us here. Well, I should clarify and say that they have nothing to offer except an example we should avoid and fight at all costs. King Brown and Ed Good probably think they are reasonable, but certainly not you or the majority of us. I know little about Australian hunting laws, and did not comment on them except to say I was glad he still got to use lead shot. He could have reported how Australian gunners managed to keep that right, but instead went to to disseminate a false statement and to suggest that Australian Firearm laws might offer a model for us in the U.S.
Now, if you want to comment on short-sightedness, you might want to reply to Larry Clown who thinks that there is no way to reverse past wrongs such as the 1991 lead ban, even in a limited sense for vintage guns, and instead goes on to concede that lead shot is even a problem with many dove hunting situations.
Too bad Larry didn't threaten to move to Canada if Trump won. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want him either.
