Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Shooting while pregnant

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Entire report:

    http://iweb.tntech.edu/cpardue/pregnant.html

    Conclusions:

    Recommendations
    Current scientific knowledge does not bring any evidence thatshooting is safe during pregnancy. While current data clearlyshows that noise and lead can be significantly toxic during pregnancy,we don't have any data that is specific to shooting and pregnancy.More research is clearly needed in this area. However, at thispoint, author Fabrice Czarnecki recommends that pregnant womendon't shoot, and avoid firing ranges.

    It is the carefully considered opinion of the authors that pregnantwomen should evaluate the risks involved in consultation withher doctor. Obviously, shooting in self-defense if needed wouldbe recommended, but shooting on regular basis during pregnancywould just increase the risks to both mother and child. It isrecommended that pregnant women avoid working on or near firingranges where chronic noise and lead exposure would be an issue.Commercial shooting schools should carefully consider whetherto allow pregnant women on their courses, or on the ranges, andwith what safety measures in place. Gila Hayes of the FirearmsAcademy of Seattle does not allow pregnant women on the range,even as visitors.

    Most of the experts agree that pregnant women should not cleantheir guns, to reduce exposure to chemicals. Guns should be cleanedby other people, away from the pregnant woman.

    Law enforcement agencies and the military need to consider developmentof safer alternative solutions to live-fire qualification forpregnant officers, using systems like FATS simulators (or otherbrands), BeamHit, and Airmunition. The technology is now in placeto offer this. Agencies which allow their pregnant officers tocontinue to carry their firearm past their qualification can beliable; this protects the
    officer and the agency. However, in some cases, the physical aspectsof qualifying could be inappropriate for pregnant women, remindsSgt. Greg Conrad of the New York State Courts, especially if thisis "including running, kneeling and shooting while prone."This will vary dependant on each state or agency's standards.

    For the woman who must shoot while pregnant, we recommend:

    - Discuss this with your doctor, and show him/her this article

    - Use lead-free ammo (with lead-free primers)

    - Shoot outdoors (to reduce exposure to noise and chemicals)

    - Shoot the smallest possible number of rounds

    - Wear a respirator

    - Wash hands carefully (3 times) with cold water

    - Do not drink/eat within 1 hour after shooting

    - Use a silencer when possible

    - Wear heavy clothing and or soft body armor covering the abdomen


    Ken Cooper of Tactical Handgun Training of NY adds, "I wouldalso
    recommend that the qualifying instructor separate the pregnantwoman from the other officers and qualify them separately"to minimize noise exposure from other shooters. Ken believes that,"Shooting, whether for work, pleasure or sport is inherentlydangerous. It is up to the individual officer to investigate allchallenges to her safety and the safety of her baby."

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    - Use a silencer when possible


    i just found it funny that somebody would reccomend a silencer.



    i know most people,even in the gun owning crowd arent pro silencer.



    (i support them though)
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    L' F, I don't know about the "most" thing. You should start a poll and see how many really are opposed to mufflers. Just sayn'.springerdave.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    188

    Post imported post

    I'd be for it but I probably couldn't afford one even if they were legal. I hear they are pretty expensive.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hartford, MI, ,
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Denny wrote:
    I'd be for it but I probably couldn't afford one even if they were legal. I hear they are pretty expensive.
    On average, about $200 for an entry-level suppressor for .22 rimfire. Most pistol suppressors are about $400. I'd get one for my AR15 and for my 1911, and call it a day. Oh yeah, that's without the $200 tax stamp.

    Unfortunately, Michigan sucks.

    It's considered "rude" to shoot at a range in France WITHOUT a suppressor.

    -Richard-



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    188

    Post imported post

    Hmm, thats not too bad. I musta been thinking about the added expense of the tax stamp.

  7. #7
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    L' F, I don't know about the "most" thing. You should start a poll and see how many really are opposed to mufflers. Just sayn'.springerdave.
    i have no doubt that most of the people on here are pro silencer,as we have sense,and no criminal record.



    but there was some silencers on a display rifle at the most recent gunshow in ingham county.

    i was suprised at how many people about them
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  8. #8
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    The suppressor/silencer issue is mute. They should be legal. Hollywood made them look bad, not gun owners. If I remember right weren't they legal once in England as it was great to hunt with and not make noise? Or some reason like that. Frankly as always it's not law abiding people who cause problems.











    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    How are "loud noises" harmful to children when the sound will be muffled by the amniotic fluid? How will lead be harmful unless it is ingested by the mother?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    How are "loud noises" harmful to children when the sound will be muffled by the amniotic fluid? How will lead be harmful unless it is ingested by the mother?
    You didn't read the report did you?
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    I stand corrected. That is some would have thought the amniotic fluid would have helped more than what their evidence shows.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    I stand corrected. That is some would have thought the amniotic fluid would have helped more than what their evidence shows.
    But water transmits sound better than air alone. Whales can hear calls for miles, some say hundreds of miles. I would think that the fluid would make it worse. No layers of fat may help as would dressing in bulky clothing. But I'm not acoustically savvy.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    http://library.thinkquest.org/28170/36.html

    Sound under water travels at a speed that is five times greater than in the air. One might expect that hearing under water is easier but this is not so. The volume does not depend on the speed of sound; rather, it is dependent on the amplitude of sound waves and on the perceptive capabilities of the audial organs. There are two methods of perceiving sound waves; the first being air conductivity (outer audial opening, eardrum or tympanum, audial bones of the middle ear) and the second being bone conductivity (the vibration of the bones of the skull). Air conductivity is prevalent in the air, whereas bone conductivity is prevalent under water.This peculiarity is due to the fact that the acoustic resistance of water is close to that of human tissues and the loss of energy for the transition of sound waves into skeletal bones is less under water than it is in the air. Air conductivity under water disappears because the outer audial opening is filled with water and there are no conditions for normal vibration of the eardrum. It has experimentally been proven that bone conductivity is weaker than air conductivity by 40%. Consequently, hearing under water is impeded. The distance within which sound can be heard depends on tonality rather than on the volume of sound. Sounds of greater tonality can be heard at greater distances than those of lower tonality. Sounds that are being emitted under water are usually inaudible above the surface of the water and vice versa.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    http://library.thinkquest.org/28170/36.html

    Sound under water travels at a speed that is five times greater than in the air. One might expect that hearing under water is easier but this is not so. The volume does not depend on the speed of sound; rather, it is dependent on the amplitude of sound waves and on the perceptive capabilities of the audial organs. There are two methods of perceiving sound waves; the first being air conductivity (outer audial opening, eardrum or tympanum, audial bones of the middle ear) and the second being bone conductivity (the vibration of the bones of the skull). Air conductivity is prevalent in the air, whereas bone conductivity is prevalent under water.This peculiarity is due to the fact that the acoustic resistance of water is close to that of human tissues and the loss of energy for the transition of sound waves into skeletal bones is less under water than it is in the air. Air conductivity under water disappears because the outer audial opening is filled with water and there are no conditions for normal vibration of the eardrum. It has experimentally been proven that bone conductivity is weaker than air conductivity by 40%. Consequently, hearing under water is impeded. The distance within which sound can be heard depends on tonality rather than on the volume of sound. Sounds of greater tonality can be heard at greater distances than those of lower tonality. Sounds that are being emitted under water are usually inaudible above the surface of the water and vice versa.
    Interesting, but can the sound waves still damage delicate tissue, cells, etc. regarless of hearing (ear damage)?
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    SNIP
    Interesting, but can the sound waves still damage delicate tissue, cells, etc. regarless of hearing (ear damage)?

    Yes, that's why you should not do this while underwater...


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ectL29w_9l8



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •