• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Shooting while pregnant

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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."
 

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
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)
 

office888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
352
Location
Hartford, MI, ,
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-
 

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
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 :cuss:about them
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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?
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
imported post

I stand corrected. That is some would have thought the amniotic fluid would have helped more than what their evidence shows.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

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

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]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.[/size][/font]
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

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

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]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.[/size][/font]
Interesting, but can the sound waves still damage delicate tissue, cells, etc. regarless of hearing (ear damage)?
 
Top