As I said, there's little hope of changing anyone's mind. That's mostly because they are immune to evidence. The decisions made to ban lead are baed on hard scientific evidence, not on the conspiracy theory of the moment, and they are intended to protect game, people or both. That's the reality, like it or not.
The state makes a judgment based on the science, puts out a new regulation, but that regulation runs contrary to what a hunter wants. So, he rejects the regulation, claims he knows the science behind it is bogus or incorrect. He neglects to say how he knows. He declares that the state is out to do him harm, so is now his enemy. Now, of course, he has the moral obligation to ignore the regulation and do as he pleases, pats himself on the back as a true hero and begins advising others to do as he does. Who needs laws, we know what is true, regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary. What's a little lead poisoning among friends?
Spence
The state makes a judgment based on the science, puts out a new regulation, but that regulation runs contrary to what a hunter wants. So, he rejects the regulation, claims he knows the science behind it is bogus or incorrect. He neglects to say how he knows. He declares that the state is out to do him harm, so is now his enemy. Now, of course, he has the moral obligation to ignore the regulation and do as he pleases, pats himself on the back as a true hero and begins advising others to do as he does. Who needs laws, we know what is true, regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary. What's a little lead poisoning among friends?
Spence