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!

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.

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.

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.

Which should be normal, as I said elsewhere, you should be washing your hands anyways after shooting. It's just good hygiene in general.

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.

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.

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!

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.