Pregnant Wanting To Take A Firearm Safety Course.

[M1911]

How great is the risk? Probably not that great. But why take that risk when there simply isn't any need to do so?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The issue with lead is that very small amounts can have a negative impact on brain development. This is well documented with young children, and one can reasonably assume the impact would be at least as great on a pre-born.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

How great is the risk? Probably not that great. But why take that risk when there simply isn't any need to do so?

The correct question is not whether there is a NEED - that's the old chestnut used to shift discussion on why people NEED AR-15's.

The question is whether risk aversion is justified given the actual risk and the cost of refusing to assume that risk... and the only person who can answer that is the pregnant woman in question.

EDIT:

People take risks every day when simply there isn't any NEED to do so. I play soccer, and thus assume the risk of injury during that activity. Do I NEED to play soccer? Nope - I just choose to, knowing full well what the risks are.

You take your life in your hands every time you drive. Or go out of your house. Or stay in your house. There is no risk-free choice that I know of

 

[M1911]

The correct question is not whether there is a NEED - that's the old chestnut used to shift discussion on why people NEED AR-15's.

Those are two completely orthogonal issues.

She wants an LTC. She can get it by taking two different types of courses -- ones with live fire, and ones without. The ones with live fire contain some added risk that is hard for us to quantify. The ones without live fire do not entail that risk.

So she can achieve her goal -- getting an LTC -- without taking that risk. So there isn't any need for her to take that risk in order to achieve her goal.

 

[M1911]

The issue with lead is that very small amounts can have a negative impact on brain development. This is well documented with young children, and one can reasonably assume the impact would be at least as great on a pre-born.

I suspect it would likely have a greater impact on a fetus than on a child. The number of brain cells is smaller and the percentage of stem cells is larger.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Those are two completely orthogonal issues.

She wants an LTC. She can get it by taking two different types of courses -- ones with live fire, and ones without. The ones with live fire contain some added risk that is hard for us to quantify. The ones without live fire do not entail that risk.

So she can achieve her goal -- getting an LTC -- without taking that risk. So there isn't any need for her to take that risk in order to achieve her goal.

You are basing your analysis on the assumption that getting the LTC is her only goal.

She might also want to get actual firearms training, in which case the situation is different as she would forfeit the firearms training in order to avoid the lead/noise risks.

I'll stop splitting hairs right now. Too many posts/characters/pixels used on this simple matter already.

 

[stormcrow]

my two cents ... A pregnant woman working at a range and being exposed to the lead and noise 8 hours a day, or even going shooting regularly, would be a really really bad idea, however the 60-90 minutes of live fire in a class seems like a negligible risk.

 

[Carver patriot]

If she really wants to she can wear gloves and a respirator