She could always wear a respirator.
The noise from a .22 won't matter to the baby
The noise from a .22 won't matter to the baby
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Pregnant Wanting To Take A Firearm Safety Course.
- Thread starter anthony42288
- Start date
Jamie
NES Member
Exactly.
FYI my wife who is about 3 month pregnant just took the taunton rifle clubs class and it was a non-shooting one. Though they did dryfire with snap caps a dozen different firearms. While I am not going to suggest that she goes to the range with me everytime, I don't think the small amount of lead that come from TMJ bullets with a water snail backstop and heppa filters is going to do a dam thing.
The sound may be a different story but like MARK056 said, the zero tolerance policy is a little overkill (based on how well the human race survived up till this point and the rampant over population in places with little or no 'eviromental' protection).
The sound may be a different story but like MARK056 said, the zero tolerance policy is a little overkill (based on how well the human race survived up till this point and the rampant over population in places with little or no 'eviromental' protection).
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,910
- Likes
- 2,916
Take the course. Apply for the ltc. Practice shooting outdoors.
Eta You can limit the amount of shooting if you feel better about that.
Eta You can limit the amount of shooting if you feel better about that.
I don't think noise would be a factor but lead is definitely a factor. Lead binds to the hemoglobin in a persons blood and prevents oxygen from binding. That causes oxygen deprivation to the fetus. An adult won't even notice the effect but a developing fetus will notice the reduction in oxygen.
As parents we owe it to our children, born or not, to make sure they have every opportunity to grow and develop at a normal rate. Knowingly introducing any chemical or element that inhibits that development is a disservice to your child and, frankly, shameful.
Obviously you are conversant on the subject, but how much is enough? Is one session at an environmentally controlled range going to do any damage? It would appear to me that there are enough pollutants that an expectant mother could be exposed to on a more regular basis.
Your last statement makes you sound like you are from Cambridge and IMO is unworthy of you. I suppose that you are of a mindset that mother is unfit if she goes to a range and should turn her child over to the state to DCF (formerly DSS) upon birth. The state will protect the child from lead and all other harmful pollutants I am sure. It would seem that in FreeWillie's world, a pregnant woman would be encased in a plastic bubble for nine months in a totally sterile environment. I find it both interesting and curious that we have seen a rise in certain auto immune disorders, autism, asthma and allergies. Some suggest that this is due to the horrific way we have polluted our environment, while others suggest that perhaps we have created too sterile an environment.
So far you have only alluded to the physical aspects of the child's welfare, I suppose to that you believe that it does take a village to raise a child and that parents need to have a "thriving environment" whatever that means.
Gawd, you sound like a do-gooder social worker...and we know what they have done to alter our society in the last 50 years. Social engineering and progressivism at its finest. You really surprise me with your judgmental stance. In the end you may be correct, but frankly if what you have written is an implication of your larger worldview is not one I share, nor would I care to live in. The world simply filled with too many do-gooders who have taken it upon themselves to decide what is good for everyone else and this thread and indeed your response IMO is reflective of this trend. Oh, you may be a squared away 2A person, not debating that, but at what point will you start telling us that having guns in the house might be bad for children and responsible parents should turn them into the police?
It's the step by step indoctrination. First we don't want to harm the fetus, then we don't want to harm the child, and pretty soon everything we do becomes "for the kids."
Last edited:
I appreciate your attempt at self thought but simply assuming common belief is over-hyped is just as bad as going along with the flock.
Although there are some guidance documents, there is no range environmental standard for recreational shooters so you can't assume any range is safe. Many indoor ranges are simply "designed" by whomever volunteered to put in the fan. If you frequent a "professionally" built range (constructed by a commercial outfit) more than likely it's going to prohibit use by pregnant women. FWIW, employees are regulated by OSHA and there are blood content standards for general health, but that's a post exposure test.
You need only look at post 15 to read a first hand account of why this is a bad idea.
Ok the wife and I have been trying for kids for a few years and thank God today I can say that I have a 9 day old little girl. There is nothing that can't wait a few months. I personally wouldn't risk it. Take a non live fire class and wash you hands or make sure the instructor is aware that you don't want to expose yourself to lead during "pass around" times of the class etc. Go shooting when you need a break from changing diapers.
She can take a Home Firearm Safety course. That does not involve any live fire. It is still acceptable for an LTC.
She absolutely should not be anywhere there is live firing. Besides the lead issue, you can't put hearing protection on a fetus. Tests have shown that the womb does not sufficiently protect the fetus from hearing loss due to loud noises.
There is no need to take the risks of noise and lead. She can still get her LTC without taking those risks.
Okay, fair enough answer but no one has answered the question: how much exposure is too much exposure? Is there a proscribed and measurable standard or is this just some do-gooder idea based on the idea that prolonged exposure to lead can be harmful? It seems increasingly that due diligence means total abstinence or avoidance. I'm sure that one could consume one 64 ounce cup of Coca Cola without any ill effect (except if one is diabetic) but according to Mayor Bloomberg all 64 ounce soda cups are a hazard to one's health and need to be banned to protect the public. Someone else has made an arbitrary decision.
If you can provide an objective measurable standard that's one thing but if you can't then it is subjective and open to question IMO.
And yes, I know that prolonged exposure to lead can cause health problems and the effects of children eating lead paint chips is well documented. The Roman Patrician Class was weakened and poisoned by the lead in glaze of the pottery vessels and may have contributed indirectly to the fall of the Empire and all of that so I know that it is not theory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
and THIS
which the "Home Firearms Safety Course" isn't a home study but the name of the course. 4 hours, no shooting, then spend some time with a trainer to actually fire the pistols when you have time, post breast feeding. For better or worse, most MA LTC Courses have just enough firing to get you excited about shooting and not nearly enough to actually feel like you're qualified for anything if you've never shot before. But that's the "Mass approved course", hate it or hate it
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
see
GOAL's Home Firearm Safety Course (NRA LTC-007)
as far as I know, no one wants to be the first to find out how much lead exposure is too much for a pregnant woman.
seriously. there have been many studies correlating lead exposures and children IQ but there are many interfering factors. Also once a study has identified a high lead exposure they have a moral obligation to notify the study participants and then they will take mitigating action to avoid exposure. so it's hard to quantify a threshold but the history as lead as a toxin goes back centuries.
So it comes down to risk assessment. What's the risk? potentially harmed unborn child. What's the benefit? experience firing ten rounds of .22 lr. You make the call.
but simply put, there's no more exposed (or protected, depending how you look at it) group than pregnant women.
Last edited:
Me and the wife talked and I showed her all the comments. She said she agrees with everyone and feel's there may not be a huge risk, a risk is a risk and with the unborn child safety potentially at risk shooting a gun right now isn't worth it to her. I talked to her about home classes I got a few private messages about home classes and classes with no live fire, she going to look into everything and see what she want's to do. I think right now she is just nervous over all and using the pregnancy to avoid even coming face to face with a firearm. One minute she wants to do it and the next she saying she can't cause of A, B and C. So maybe waiting till the baby born is the best option right now, I have to talk to her. I think right now she has it built in her mind because we live in Brockton that gun's period are just used to hurt people and she very skittish around a weapon.
her nervousness and concern just means she's going to be a great mom
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
it's obviously an overwhelming time and my girlfriend didn't want to be "involved" with guns at first and then just one day decided to go to the range with me. she didn't become a gun nut but it certainly cleared up the the bad voodoo vibes and she had a great sense of accomplishment in overcoming a fear when the day was done.
O yeah she is a great mom already this is our 3rd child on the way. I think that's what it's going to take a spur of the moment thing, cause even when I sat her and my best friend at the table and he took the magazine out and cleared the firearm and placed it on the table she was shaky just touching it so I know it's a huge fear she want's to get over it's just got to be on her term's, that's why I'm thinking soon she has the baby and does a class and see's she's in a pretty controlled environment with professional's that are going to work with her the stress might subside and she'll get over her fear. I give her credit for even wanting to take a chance at getting over the fear my sister you couldn't drag out to shoot a pellet gun.
- - - Updated - - -
Lmao @K7500 you aren't lying especially in this state.
- - - Updated - - -
Lmao @K7500 you aren't lying especially in this state.
and just one more option: sign her up for a women's only class when she's available for some live fire.
Women On Target Events.
Women On Target Events.
When I took my live fire class in Holliston there was a pregnant woman with her husband. He did the live fire, she did not. I couldn't tell you if her certificate says LIVE FIRE or not but I'd be wiling to bet it does (complete speculation on my part).
+1.
Non shooting class to get the license going - no need to wait until she first becomes a proficient shooter.
She can work on her shooting after getting a license and should only carry when she is properly trained... but start the LTC process immediately. I do not know of any PD which gives a hoot whether you took a course that included live shooting or not, but that could just be me being an ignoramus.
EDIT:
People stopped acknowledging that DOSAGE MATTERS. Any discussion of poisoning that does not specify dosage is likely a Kalifornia inspired "if we can detect it, it is poisonous" idiocy that they use to justify their hyper-regulated state.
Wanna talk poison? Pure water is a poisn that will kill you if you drink too much. Apples naturally containt cancer-causing compounds - should pregnant women stop eating apples? We could go on for a while, but the rational discussions on this topic include information dosage.
Yes, if my wife would be pregnant, I would advise her that the lead exposure from firing 10 .22lr rounds in 10 minutes at a range is just fine. As pointed out in the thread, noise is a different beast, but your kid is exposed to plenty of noises during pregnancy and a few .22lr rounds are unlikely to create actual damage. But yes, YMMV - make your own decisions.
Just skip the "if I can avoid an atom of lead than I should do so" nonsense - it hits a bit too close to the "if we can only save one child" line.
Last edited:
flintoid
Banned
You think incorrectly. The impulse of the shoundwave isn't going to hurt a fetus through his wife's body. The only sound the fetus can detect are lower frequency (larger wavelengths) due to the material between it and the air outside. At 5 months the baby's eardrums have formed, but not fully either.
The couch warrior opinion sharing in this thread sucks. This guy needs to talk to his doctor, or a pediatrician.
Not you.
From what I've read, the attenuation is only 10 db, which is not enough to protect from damage.
That said, why take the risk, even it is small? There's no need. She can take an HFS course without an firing.
flintoid
Banned
the baby hears the lower frequency of this action. And it does little to hurt their hearing (contrary to all the opinions of the people in this thread that would rather govern everyone else's children's lives because they are busybodies).
There are popular theories that attribute noise exposure to in-the-womb-babies that associate positive social behavior to such pre-natal activity.
Once again, Another_David came out and pissed on another opinion because he's a closet nanny-stater.
Last edited:
flintoid
Banned
Interesting. What scientific journal claims this? I'd like to know.
I'd like to see how a gunshot's sound energy correlates to the detectable range of a fetus' hearing spectrum. From what I understand, they can only hear things under 500 hz after 5 months. There's a lot of energy in that spectrum of a gunshot, so 10 db attenuation isn't going to do much against 120 db of sound pressure.
Last edited:
flintoid
Banned
This is where I thank you for interjecting science, instead of personal bullshit opinion, and where I bow out before all of the now-proven-know-it-alls relish in their rape of my corpse.
You're a good dude, M1911. Thanks, man, for the reading material.
flintoid
Banned
this is also a good read:
Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn
hearing loss has been attributed to women consistently exposed to 85 db to 95 db.
Do 120 db bursts for a day hurt? Who knows. I'm not going to criticize someone else's decision if that's important to them. I
Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn
hearing loss has been attributed to women consistently exposed to 85 db to 95 db.
Do 120 db bursts for a day hurt? Who knows. I'm not going to criticize someone else's decision if that's important to them. I
our parents all grew up being pregnant with us around while around lead paint and asbestos insulation. Big effing deal, we all turned out fine. Don't eat the bullet leads or lick your fingers after and you should be fine.
Fixxah
NES Member
Why handicap your child to prove a point? Is it not our responsibility to protect our own children at all costs?
What is it going to matter if she waits? If her baby ends up with hearing loss, she will live with the guilt forever. Most mothers won't risk it.
To each her own.
-Trolling via S3.-
Similar threads
