Only 20? Y'all are missing out!

Short answer: yes, if it's something you can reasonably afford.

Long answer: Like any other game system it has its share of exclusives, mods, hacks, and other stuff. If that library and those capabilities are something you want and you can afford it, then go for it. If it's outside your price range and/or you don't see anything enticing enough for the money then pass. High demand doesn't necessarily mean it's something you should get, it just means lots of people want it and the supply isn't getting any larger.

As far as the why: the 3DS has less viable emulation options than other systems (although they do exist and are always getting better), it's difficult to emulate correctly without two screens and a touchscreen, it has a lot of games that have not been ported elsewhere, there are tons of cool hardware variants, and it became "collectible" as soon as it was discontinued thanks to immediate reselling/scalping.

For what it's worth I've been into game collecting and retro gaming since about 2005 and I expect the 3DS will only continue to rise in price.

Yikes, those are some pretty high blood lead levels. And from what I understand that only shows recent exposure, not how much has already been internalized into your bones.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of the study, I'm afraid. I think pointing out this kind of data is exactly the type of thing that will encourage other studies to dig deeper on a topic. It seems to make it easier for other groups to perform studies after a possible link has already been established since it saves them legwork.

I doubt any NRA endorsed ranges or the military would allow independent studies of this nature to be done. But it sure would be nice.

As far as anti-gun sentiment in the comments here: that's just Lemmy ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I'm a rural Texan so I'm pretty rarely in a city at all, much less on a dusty day.

But I didn't know about food combatting lead exposure, thanks for the link! I'll look into it.

Absolutely could be a problem depending on the context/location, but doesn't seem to be within the scope of the cited study.

My AK eats steel all day, but I tend to feed it brass. All I know is my hands is black and bullets is gross, so it gets the abrasive lead soap from my range bag when I'm done. I was more commenting on how one's hands would get dirty from a small amount of shooting than the composition of the dirt in a box of ammo. I agree, I suspect most of that is mostly inert yet gross.

I don't have hard data on how many microns or percents of primer heavy metals are ending up in my gas tube or on my clothes or hands. But from what I know it's a nonzero amount and I take precautions accordingly like I would for any nonzero amount of heavy metals. Lead is cumulative, so every tiny bit adds up over the years.

If you don't think that's an issue for you, then rock on my friend. Keep doing it the way you want.

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.

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. 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.

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!

Non-hunter who enjoys shooting as a sport: it's rare that I encounter non-lead ammo.

It seems that hunting has way more restrictions but I've never been to a range where most/all of the ammo sitting around wasn't lead.

Showing lead levels are higher in shooters didn't seem to be the point from how I read it. It stated that lead is dangerous and that around half of the people polled report not performing any kind of post-shooting hygiene.

"...post-shooting hygiene behaviors are uncommon and may represent a substantial pathway for residential lead exposure."

The implications seems to just be that poor shooting related hygiene could be a way people are getting exposed to lead. As in it might be something worth investigating.

If I were to guess why it's not a thing that's readily taught I would assume it's because of the rather shockingly large lead lobby that exists in the USA pushing against education and regulation against lead. There's a meaningful establishment bent on making sure we don't ask about it or learn about it.