Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I dunno. I got my wife some decaf coffee beans when she was quite pregnant. When she hit the grinder button my son freaked out and jumped inside her! Freaked her out big time!
Now four years later my son still freaks out over loud noises, afraid to flush public toilets and use those useless hand blower dryers although he's much better than he was.
My response was not a comment on gunshots effecting babies in the womb, ffs. And if it was the only reference I would need is this dB (decibel) study of different guns being fired on the range.
You are spreading misinformation that will cause harm to the unborn.
At least abortionists make a profit. All you're doing is causing harm.
Anecdotes don't trump data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8899911/ whatever, fuck science right? It's just the unborn. This is chapo trap house, not the Donald, right?
The human skull, when fully developed, absorbs between 20-45 decibels of sound. Assume an undeveloped skull at 34+ weeks with a fontanelle is half of this still. 10 decibels of natural sound absorption, roughly equal to the NRR of earplugs fitted by an untrained, average user.
Now also conduct that through amniotic fluid which at this stage is probably hovering about the typical 1L, but because of the short distance, the fluid itself is not attenuating much sound. Going from air, to solid (skin) to fluid (amniotic fluid) to mechanical (ossicular chain) to fluid (cochlear fluid) to electrical (synapse response of 8th Cranial nerve) is a lot of transmission loss, but would require a significant amount of math to accomplish. After all of this, we're more than 40+dB for 500Hz-8000Hz, and basically negligible for extended high frequencies (60+dB, if not higher) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12139758_Fetal_Exposures_to_Sound_and_Vibroacoustic_Stimulation
This is more than any hearing protection on the market will ever allow you.
And she's shooting outside which eliminates a great deal more factors.
Natal risk from shooting is from increases in lead exposure, not from sound. And you'll find in nearly any study cited for noise exposure risk that the risk exposure is for constant OSHA-risk levels of constant noise and not impulse noise.
Acoustics and hearing person. I also run newborn hearing screening programs and it is not a risk category we even ask as part of the increased risk of noise exposure.
Absolute bullshit here. My mom used to shoot machine guns with my dad all the time when she was pregnant with me. This was back in the 70’s. Not a single issue from that.
Teaching people to shoot responsibly is fine. The issue is that a pregnant woman cannot protect her baby from the sounds of the gunshot and the exposure to metals. The time to teach a woman is when she is not pregnant. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the baby.
Are you fucking serious? Unless you're pro-abortion and believe doing whatever tf you want to the baby while in womb is fine and dandy, surely you have an ounce of sense to understand this is NOT ok in any way shape or form. Seeing this picture made me very angry at whoever tf thought this stupid photo op of a hillbilly-cousin-fing-happy time was ok should be in jail for child abuse. Absolutely NO gun shots around pregnant women unless absolutely necessary. Not only does it cause the child to go deaf, it can lead to pretty serious mental and physical health issues.
Edit; I seem to have failed to acknowledge the very huge risk of lead poisoning. Expecting father's, please minimize any lead exposure as much as you can control for love love of your wife and expected children. This is a 100% serious issue
This post being supported and stickied is an insult to everything this community has stood for since it's creation. It's literally torture to the fetus
IMHO it doesn't really matter why this was Stickied, it was & is being seen & discussed by a lot of people. Opinions and info are being exchanged. Some people might think it is funny, or patriotic, and others might think it is extremely dangerous, but those who knew nothing of any potential danger or damage to an unborn baby have now learned something, and they can check into it further for themselves. Seems like it was a win-win to me.
"Sudden loud noises (impact or impulse noise) that are loud enough for you to need hearing protection or that startle you should be avoided during pregnancy. "
Maybe you haven't had kids, but they test their hearing once they're born.
They're humans who are in a woman's womb. They aren't that protected. This is not a really debatable topic. They fucking learn language's syntax while in the womb. Hearing is not protected by the mother's body.
The human skull, when fully developed, absorbs between 20-45 decibels of sound. Assume an undeveloped skull at 34+ weeks with a fontanelle is half of this still. 10 decibels of natural sound absorption, roughly equal to the NRR of earplugs fitted by an untrained, average user.
Now also conduct that through amniotic fluid which at this stage is probably hovering about the typical 1L, but because of the short distance, the fluid itself is not attenuating much sound. Going from air, to solid (skin) to fluid (amniotic fluid) to mechanical (ossicular chain) to fluid (cochlear fluid) to electrical (synapse response of 8th Cranial nerve) is a lot of transmission loss, but would require a significant amount of math to accomplish. After all of this, we're more than 40+dB for 500Hz-8000Hz, and basically negligible for extended high frequencies (60+dB, if not higher) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12139758_Fetal_Exposures_to_Sound_and_Vibroacoustic_Stimulation
This is more than any hearing protection on the market will ever allow you.
And she's shooting outside which eliminates a great deal more factors.
Natal risk from shooting is from increases in lead exposure, not from sound. And you'll find in nearly any study cited for noise exposure risk that the risk exposure is for constant OSHA-risk levels of constant noise and not impulse noise.
Acoustics and hearing person. I also run newborn hearing screening programs and it is not a risk category we even ask as part of the increased risk of noise exposure.
We don’t always know what causes hearing problems in babies. If you work in a noisy job and have a baby with hearing problems, we may not be able to tell if the hearing problems were caused by your job or by something else.
We don’t know for sure what levels of noise are safe for a pregnant woman and her baby
I think the baby would get use to it- and she needs to protect that baby from the democrat national socialists that eat baby's andrenochrome to stay young and get high.
You've clearly never been to an aquarium where they have signs up everywhere fish are behind a glass. You know, "don't tap on glass". You didn't question why? Little taps can cause damage to the fish who are made to be in water.
Yes, this is bad for baby. Yes, this is trashy. NO, we shouldn't care what the fuck people think of us. How do you think we ended up here, outside reddit?
Yep. Or a Soros shill. Some kind of shill. You're pickin' fights with people who are pro-law enforcement on the day that two officers were almost executed. You're complaining about a country pic of a pregnant woman shooting. You're complaining about mods. And that's just in the first five comments I read of yours.
Edit: given further info from another pede, yes, gunshots can adversely affect an unborn baby's hearing.
I'd like to hear more about this alleged "rogue mod" that's boasting about "infiltrating" us. This is a public domain. We aren't some secret group (Antifa) that coordinates violent crime through Signal. There's not much to infiltrate, and the Mods here are of the highest caliber in Patriotism, humor, and integrity. Sauce, or get out.
I see comments like this a lot, but not sure a lot of you actually understand how alcohol works. The calories in alcoholic drinks almost always come from the alcohol, not the rest of the drink.
1.5 oz Jack Daniels contains 115 calories. Let's say you mix that with 3-5 oz of coke, you now have a ~200 calorie drink that you can consume MUCH quicker than a beer.
200 calories for a 4-6 oz drink vs ~95 calories for a 12 oz light beer. The beer is the best way to go from a diet standpoint every time, the key is moderation.
To add to this further alcohol slows your metabolism of any other caloric intake. Meaning that carb dense food you're eating while drunk doesn't get burned the same way.
Ever notice that alcoholics that never eat are actually skinny? Yet their caloric intake is 2,000 or so?
Also carbs are different than sugars. Carbs are more likely to end up as fat.
Ever notice that alcoholics that never eat are actually skinny? Yet their caloric intake is 2,000 or so?
What if i told you its literally all caloric intake vs. exercise levels. You could eat nothing but candy for calories and you wouldn't put on weight, if it was equal or below your caloric burn for the day. This has been proven.
Carbs are more likely to end up as fat because they are long term energy stores being converted because they cannot be burned right now. If your caloric intake is below your caloric burn, you will burn off the fat.
You will feel shit in other ways if you do not have a proper diet, but weight loss/gain is all related to calories and exercise. I've had a few friends who have lost tons of pounds. Caloric reduction was behind all of there success stories.
Correct. There was a man who ate less than his total daily energy expenditure (calorie count) but only ate Twinkies - he still lost weight. This was an extreme experiment to advocate for CICO (calories in / calories out).
Obviously, ~1600 calories of Twinkies a day is going to leave you feeling hungry/empty. That's where lean proteins and green vegetables are excellent choices for eating under your TDEE and still feeling decently full and getting the fuel a working body needs.
This is my wheelhouse as an acoustics and hearing doctor. I run newborn hearing programs for hospitals. Lead is the problem, not hearing, and the NIOSH/OSHA statements being cited here have an assumption of risk without any significant research.
The army does not restrict outdoor weapons fire for pregnant women (AR 40-501). Why do you think that is when the exposure is both frequently louder than civ spec weapons and can be longer exposure time?
Your claim assumes that boots actually gave a shit when the rangemaster mandated hearing protection to be placed to the levels of the laboratory settings that created the NRR for hearing protection would. Never happened, like with a lot of safety training's intent.
It's a combination of factors, but I'm pretty sure you can recall a time or two that your fellow marines were wanting to blow shit up/shoot shit and not put in hearing protection more than was necessary to get to yut at eachother.
Respect all the same (Marine Corps family): army does a lot of army shit for sure.
LOL, no. There is nothing in the “spec” of a civ weapon that makes it quieter. Hunting rifles are all louder than any 556 or 762 the mil uses. An AR-15 is about the same loudness as an M4. Worse usually because civilians use comps and brakes much more than A2s.
There are no 6month pregnant women on army firing ranges. And, if you had any credibility as a hearing specialist, you would know the single most of expensive and most common injury from all military branches to the VA is hearing damage. Anyone that’s ever been mil knows they don’t give a fuck about your hearing.
The study I saw used intra uterus microphones and had exposure over 140db from a 165db gun shot. You SHOULD be aware that hearing damage is all volume times duration. Gun shots are fast but loud so you don’t need many, while the silencer “hearing safe” number is “under 140db” shooting an hour at 139 is really bad for you.
There is the FUCKING OBVIOUSNESS that gun shots are too loud for women in advanced pregnancy. But you go and take pregnant women to the range for all i care. Just don’t post pictures of it because it makes us reasonable people look bad.
When I referenced 'civspec', I was referring (in an admittedly obtuse way) not a direct 1:1 shot from 556 out of an AR and an M4, but volume of exposure, as noise exposure is also additive.
You have made a false equivalency here as well - hearing loss is the most common VA claimed disability because of several factors including training (it's why hearing protection gets a 50% derating from NRR on the packaging - assuming boots put hearing protection in correctly is dumb - where I assume you are listing the military doesn't give a shit about hearing loss despite having a massive financial incentive to reduce hearing loss and having the most robust hearing conversation program in the world), opportunity cost (boots don't give a shit if the hearing protection is in, they want to throw lead downrange) and thirdly because military people don't stick their heads underwater before shooting in most situations - which will do as I have listed above.
Are you referencing the intra-uterine microphone ewe study? If so, it is showing you that once the sound reaches the amniotic sac (where the microphone can be placed), there is already 25dB of attenuation against the peak intensity level (an entire range, as noise causes damage across a spectrum) - roughly what I claimed earlier. That is before the transmission loss between additional media.
The OSHA or NIOSH calculators are based off of intensity x frequency (what you list as volume x duration), and you are correct - gunfire can cause instantaneous hearing loss when unprotected.
It's not obvious to people who actually understand acoustics and science and therefore is an extremely 'feels vs. reals' claim. If it were reasonable, why don't we mandate everyone wear double hearing protection (plugs + muffs) at all times in all situations? Do a lit review and come back to me on that before making a credibility claim.
"Previous research in small mammals has suggested a critical period in development when susceptibility to noise exposure may be greater. Several investigations, using sheep as a model for in utero hearing loss, have provided evidence of fetal hearing changes after noise exposure. Although the reported epidemiological studies concerned with the possibility of fetal hearing loss had limitations, there were some suggestions of noise-induced hearing loss in children whose mothers experienced noise exposure."
Thank you for citing a research study. It doesn't say exactly what is being claimed, though, so let me break it down (if you understand what the study is saying, then I mean this more for the public reacting to the study and not you, personally).
The cochlea is typically fully formed at 20 weeks (the full 2.5+ turns of the cochlea) and neural pathways do fully form at 24 weeks (why fetuses can response to external noises for sure), however the study you are citing is concerning longterm noise exposure (16+ hours at 120dBSPL, or louder than a chainsaw/similar to jet aircraft noise at 30+ft).
They then ran a bone-conduction Auditory Brainstem Reponse (ABR) shortly following the 16 hour exposure and showed a temporary shift in hearing thresholds - basically a temporary change in hearing following the acoustic trauma. That makes sense, however as it was temporary, that also meant a recovery period back to at or near baseline (a bone conduction ABR cannot typically ascertain normal hearing/has poor sensitivity for near-normal or mild hearing losses, which is a part of the reason why many state newborn hearing programs couple it with an additional test of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) to evaluate hair cell function).
This is the rough exposure level of 16 hours of constant suppressed 5.56, i.e. more than any normal exposure that would be obtained in even likely an entire period of birth.
At least from some researchers, part of the critical threat for hearing assumed in the 90s was BELIEVED (but not research-backed) to be because there was less amniotic fluid at this time/less of an acoustic buffer from fetal urea + amniotic fluids at this 20-ish week period, versus the nearly 1L of buffering amniotic fluid at 34-36 weeks, as well as because anatomically everything is 'closer' together and so sound waves do not have as long of a time frame to dampen.
The study accurately states it had limitations - the primary one being it was not a study of impulse noises and only managed to show a temporary shift to hearing. 16 constant hours at 120dB unprotected would be the equivalent of 15 constant minutes at 150dB unprotected, so still more than what you experience frequently if you are outdoors and not on a line at the range.
Which study are you referring to? I linked to many of them.
"Conclusions: This study showed an association between occupational noise exposure during pregnancy and hearing dysfunction in children. In view of mechanistic evidence and earlier indicative epidemiological and experimental findings, the results support that pregnant women should not be exposed to high levels of noise at work. " From Jenny Selander et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jun.
This doesn't even begin to touch on lead exposure and development.
If you're ok with putting your unborn children through this, fine. We'll pay for it for decades after, for you. But don't try and muddy the water to promote dangerous behavior for others.
Unable to cite how the federal government and researchers are wrong for recommending pregnant women not be exposed to gun fire, don't minimize the impact we're having by citing the data.
OP didn't even know the smoke from gun fire has heavy metals in it.
Basic knowledge is needed here. So don't split hairs and lose the forest for the trees. I feel like I'm talking to a child about why eating candy before dinner isn't allowed. Just totally repetitious failed logic. One guy is going deep on the physics and doing it exactly like a homework assignment, assuming the sound all travels in one direction so he can look smart with the figures.
In a shotgun, it's less of an issue. There's a "wad" protecting the base of the shot load. And, a lot of states have outlawed lead shot. The federal government bans it in certain areas. Spez: but, the primer may contain lead.
For rifle and handgun ammo, the risk of lead exposure is not handling the ammo.... it's the small amount of lead at the base of the bullet that is shed by the powder charge (spez: and the primer). Depending on what you are shooting, that ends up all over your hands, face, clothes, etc. And if there isn't good ventilation, you inhale it.
Wash your hands or use wipes before handling food -- preferably soap/wipes specifically designed to remove lead and other heavy metals.
There is ammo (and bullets for self reloading) with a "total" metal jacket, which completely encases a bullet with a metal jacket:
Shortly after lead gets into your body, it travels in the blood to the “soft tissues” and organs (such as the liver, kidneys, lungs, brain, spleen, muscles, and heart). After several weeks, most of the lead moves into your bones and teeth. In adults, about 94% of the total amount of lead in the body is contained in the bones and teeth. About 73% of the lead in children’s bodies is stored in their bones. Some of the lead can stay in your bones for decades; however, some lead can leave your bones and reenter your blood and organs under certain circumstances (e.g., during pregnancy and periods of breast feeding, after a bone is broken, and during advancing age).
Your body does not change lead into any other form. Once it is taken in and distributed to your organs, the lead that is not stored in your bones leaves your body in your urine or your feces. About 99% of the amount of lead taken into the body of an adult will leave in the waste within a couple of weeks, but only about 32% of the lead taken into the body of a child will leave in the waste. Under conditions of continued exposure, not all of the lead that enters the body will be eliminated, and this may result in accumulation of lead in body tissues, especially bone.
Not true. Outdoors doesn't always mean wind pushes smoke away. Additionally, lead dust at the firing line and from down range is known to cause problems.
"Tripathi et al. (1989) [9] observed that BLLs of 7 outdoor firing range police cadets had a baseline average of 6 μg/dL prior to commencing shooting training and an average BLL of 15 μg/dL at the end of training 5 days later."
At 20 μg/dL, you're pulled from service in the military due to the toxicity.
For adults, the concern is organ damage and cancer. For the unborn and children, it's that and IQ loss + more violence later in life.
Indoor or outdoor, the blast distributes lead particles all over your face, hands, and clothing. In her case, it would be all over her exposed body.
But, I believe it's less of an issue with a shotgun, depending on what she is shooting. The wad would at least partially protect the shot load from the blast.
Spez: I forgot about the primer. Depending on the primer, it contains lead.
"Tripathi et al. (1989) [9] observed that BLLs of 7 outdoor firing range police cadets had a baseline average of 6 μg/dL prior to commencing shooting training and an average BLL of 15 μg/dL at the end of training 5 days later."
At 20 μg/dL, you're pulled from service in the military due to the toxicity.
For adults, the concern is organ damage and cancer. For the unborn and children, it's that and IQ loss + more violence later in life.
"Sudden loud noises (impact or impulse noise) that are loud enough for you to need hearing protection or that startle you should be avoided during pregnancy."
Make your own choices, but harming the unborn just isn't cool.
Looks like the abortionists don't like this comment!
If you actually read it, that statement was speculative
We don’t always know what causes hearing problems in babies. If you work in a noisy job and have a baby with hearing problems, we may not be able to tell if the hearing problems were caused by your job or by something else.
We don’t know for sure what levels of noise are safe for a pregnant woman and her baby
You are not reading that correctly. Loud noise causes hearing damage. You sound like the tobacco industry in the 1950s.
Maybe you haven't ever been around firearms? Especially larger ones.
"Big-bore firearms can generate noise levels of more than 165 dB, and guns with short barrels (handguns) and firearms fitted with muzzle breaks can elevate peak SPLs even further (see sources).
CDC issued guidance on masks due to an artificial shortage of PPE caused by communist China buying up our equipment and shipping it home while freezing export of equipment we built over there.
It was an act of war with a weapon of mass destruction. President Trump is working a response from a legal angle, for now.
CDC was really clear they wanted the limited supply to go to first responders and medical staff, first.
That is normal wartime decision making and President Trump's been getting this stuff right from the beginning. There is a massive disinformation campaign going on and we've been targeted, for sure. The left makes everything political. They ruined care and caused massive harm with their decisions.
Triggered people that don't understand how sound dampening works...
Edit: for those saying it hurts the baby. Go ahead and fill up a bathtub, submerge yourself completely, then get a speaker and crank it up while playing a video of a range from a shooters perspective... then while you aren't hearing much, even with the volume cranked, imagine you're also wrapped in a layer of fat and skin. Perhaps take a thin steak and wrap it around your head, then hop in the tub...
Not to mention how it makes the rest of gun owners look when one of us isn't responsible. We should hold each other accountable. Criticism is selfish, easy, and makes us feel better. But pro-active action, personal responsibility, and concept of ownership is what makes us ALL better. I am in favor of moderating posts that don't meet a minimum standard of responsibility.
This seems extremely negligent to the unborn child. I surely hope that it did/does not lead to physiological trauma or hearing damage for the poor baby.
We are supposed to be the protectors of the unborn.
Cascading Style Sheets. It's basically the design rules for a website. Nearly every website you go to uses it.
There are two kinds of CSS here on TheDonald.win
The Generic Reddit look, and the "/r/TheDonald" look which is more customized and pretty.
What CSS does is to set rules for your website's layout. One quick example is "every paragraph must use 15pt Bold Comic Sans font and is contained in a green 4 pixel border"
on TheDonald.Win you can switch between the two CSS options by enabling/disabling the "Community Style" in the settings tab.
Edit: Downvoted for an explanation, some real /r/politics type people today.
Cascading Style Sheets. It's basically the design rules for a website. Nearly every website you go to uses it.
There are two kinds of CSS here on TheDonald.win
The Generic Reddit look, and the "/r/TheDonald" look which is more customized and pretty.
What CSS does is to set rules for your website's layout. One quick example is "every paragraph must use 15pt Bold Comic Sans font and is contained in a green 4 pixel border"
on TheDonald.Win you can switch between the two CSS options by enabling/disabling the "Community Style" in the settings tab.
Lead and extremely loud noises are terrible for an unborn child. It could cause hearing damage before they're even born.
Basically this. Gunshots are terrible for an unborn child's hearing if you're pregnant and doing the shooting. You can protect your own ears, but not the baby's. The fat surrounding the uterus may provide some protection but the amniotic fluid a great conductor of sound. Best to not risk it unless in a serious self-defense situation.
You don't even have to handle the rounds. The primers in many cartridges are either lead styphnate, barium nitrate, or mercury fulminate (corrosive primers). The combustion of just that will be expelled through the barrel and/or chamber/breech of the firearm. Probably not a huge issue for recreational use for older (teens and up) shooters, but for babies it can be extremely hazardous as well.
Yikes. I love shooting guns and I love that my wife likes shooting with me. But pregnant ladies absolutely should not shoot. Can damage baby's hearing, possible psych damage due to it being scared by loud noises and exposure to various heavy metals which in utero babies are extremely sensitive to.
She needs to exercise better judgment. I really hope this is just posed and that she didn't actually shoot anything
the fat around the uterus may muffle the sound to some degree. The amniotic fluid, being laregly water, is a fantastic conductor of sound. We just don't know how loud it is to the baby, and that's why its so foolish to risk this unless in a literal life-or-death situation.
This is America but I don't recommend shooting a gun while pregnant unless absolutely necessary. Of course if commies come knocking might need to make an exception. Edit: My wife is currently pregnant with our fourth and I do not allow her to shoot during this time after researching during our first. She is still locked and loaded.
Yes, came here to say this. I thought maybe this was the most ignorant post I’ve ever seen here, but then I realized OP has had sound advice (pun intended) coming his way all day and still defends this photo and the actions that are glorified in the photo.
This was done for vanity, not as Second Amendment apologetics or actual self-defense or patriotism or any other worthy pursuit. This is simply photographic proof that two egomaniacs endangered the health and safety of their precious unborn baby today so they could win the digital applause of a bunch of internet strangers.
Women in Hollywood do this all the time. Just ask Alyssa Milano and Michelle Williams! Their “sorry, not sorry” sentiment is identical to OP’s.
This isn't white trash...this is an American, God-fearing family making patriot babies and training to protect their livelihood and community! 3 cheers for the head of the household!
Who's due first?
jk. Congrats!
LOL!
I dunno. I got my wife some decaf coffee beans when she was quite pregnant. When she hit the grinder button my son freaked out and jumped inside her! Freaked her out big time!
Now four years later my son still freaks out over loud noises, afraid to flush public toilets and use those useless hand blower dryers although he's much better than he was.
Could be completely unrelated though
Kids being afraid of loud stuff, especially high powered public toilets, is super common.
I know that. Just thought it was a funny story to share
My response was not a comment on gunshots effecting babies in the womb, ffs. And if it was the only reference I would need is this dB (decibel) study of different guns being fired on the range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZvl2aqIyNg
That song is such a ripoff of Foreigner
You've heard of being Rick Rolled? This is being Billy Bowled.
^^^ Worth a google.
Teaching your pregnant wife to shoot guns accurately so she can protect herself is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with this image
How about that the baby can hear/feel it? .38spcl sounds more sensible for plinking, load it with .357 for carry.
Ever put your head underwater and had someone shout at you? No sound gets through
You are spreading misinformation that will cause harm to the unborn.
At least abortionists make a profit. All you're doing is causing harm.
Anecdotes don't trump data. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8899911/ whatever, fuck science right? It's just the unborn. This is chapo trap house, not the Donald, right?
The human skull, when fully developed, absorbs between 20-45 decibels of sound. Assume an undeveloped skull at 34+ weeks with a fontanelle is half of this still. 10 decibels of natural sound absorption, roughly equal to the NRR of earplugs fitted by an untrained, average user.
Now also conduct that through amniotic fluid which at this stage is probably hovering about the typical 1L, but because of the short distance, the fluid itself is not attenuating much sound. Going from air, to solid (skin) to fluid (amniotic fluid) to mechanical (ossicular chain) to fluid (cochlear fluid) to electrical (synapse response of 8th Cranial nerve) is a lot of transmission loss, but would require a significant amount of math to accomplish. After all of this, we're more than 40+dB for 500Hz-8000Hz, and basically negligible for extended high frequencies (60+dB, if not higher) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12139758_Fetal_Exposures_to_Sound_and_Vibroacoustic_Stimulation
This is more than any hearing protection on the market will ever allow you.
And she's shooting outside which eliminates a great deal more factors.
Natal risk from shooting is from increases in lead exposure, not from sound. And you'll find in nearly any study cited for noise exposure risk that the risk exposure is for constant OSHA-risk levels of constant noise and not impulse noise.
Absolute bullshit here. My mom used to shoot machine guns with my dad all the time when she was pregnant with me. This was back in the 70’s. Not a single issue from that.
None of that is relevant. Except for sheeple.
I forgot how loud it is underwater /s
Smoothies, you're gonna have to work harder.
I described the physics in an eli5 way, how about you prove me wrong and if you'd like, I can dig up the equations but I'm not deriving jt
It's like people who play Mozart and Beethoven for their unborn children.
Well, some might think that -2 months is a bit early to start magazine change drills.
Teaching people to shoot responsibly is fine. The issue is that a pregnant woman cannot protect her baby from the sounds of the gunshot and the exposure to metals. The time to teach a woman is when she is not pregnant. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the baby.
Yeah, I was thinking more of the lead exposure than the decibel level. This is not wise.
[citation needed]
Ive been all around the world and heard every single thing about pregnant women.
They can't dive! Yet in the tropics they dive while 8 months pregnant.
Etc etc.
You're just wrong.
OK
https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/shooting-guns-while-pregnant/
https://thewellarmedwoman.com/about-guns/guns-babies-part-2-pregnancy/
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/repro/noise.html
https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20170414/shooting-ranges-pose-hidden-risks-study#1
https://www.earq.com/hearing-health/articles/babies-hearing-loss-in-utero
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665292/
https://medium.com/@BigfootGunBelts/shooting-while-pregnant-a-safe-fetus-and-firearm-safety-must-correlate-4114bac5aa7f
Do it before she isn't carrying your child.
That kid is gonna be deaf.
Are you fucking serious? Unless you're pro-abortion and believe doing whatever tf you want to the baby while in womb is fine and dandy, surely you have an ounce of sense to understand this is NOT ok in any way shape or form. Seeing this picture made me very angry at whoever tf thought this stupid photo op of a hillbilly-cousin-fing-happy time was ok should be in jail for child abuse. Absolutely NO gun shots around pregnant women unless absolutely necessary. Not only does it cause the child to go deaf, it can lead to pretty serious mental and physical health issues.
Edit; I seem to have failed to acknowledge the very huge risk of lead poisoning. Expecting father's, please minimize any lead exposure as much as you can control for love love of your wife and expected children. This is a 100% serious issue
Lighten up Francis
We were all thinking it.
This post being supported and stickied is an insult to everything this community has stood for since it's creation. It's literally torture to the fetus
Source on that?
What I want to know is... can you even?
What's really insulting is your hillbilly cousin fking comment.
IMHO it doesn't really matter why this was Stickied, it was & is being seen & discussed by a lot of people. Opinions and info are being exchanged. Some people might think it is funny, or patriotic, and others might think it is extremely dangerous, but those who knew nothing of any potential danger or damage to an unborn baby have now learned something, and they can check into it further for themselves. Seems like it was a win-win to me.
How can a baby go deaf while it's in a womb protected by amniotic fluid? Do you have proof to support your claims? A study perhaps?
"Sudden loud noises (impact or impulse noise) that are loud enough for you to need hearing protection or that startle you should be avoided during pregnancy. "
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/repro/noise.html
Maybe you haven't had kids, but they test their hearing once they're born.
They're humans who are in a woman's womb. They aren't that protected. This is not a really debatable topic. They fucking learn language's syntax while in the womb. Hearing is not protected by the mother's body.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/4/724.full.pdf
The human skull, when fully developed, absorbs between 20-45 decibels of sound. Assume an undeveloped skull at 34+ weeks with a fontanelle is half of this still. 10 decibels of natural sound absorption, roughly equal to the NRR of earplugs fitted by an untrained, average user.
Now also conduct that through amniotic fluid which at this stage is probably hovering about the typical 1L, but because of the short distance, the fluid itself is not attenuating much sound. Going from air, to solid (skin) to fluid (amniotic fluid) to mechanical (ossicular chain) to fluid (cochlear fluid) to electrical (synapse response of 8th Cranial nerve) is a lot of transmission loss, but would require a significant amount of math to accomplish. After all of this, we're more than 40+dB for 500Hz-8000Hz, and basically negligible for extended high frequencies (60+dB, if not higher) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12139758_Fetal_Exposures_to_Sound_and_Vibroacoustic_Stimulation
This is more than any hearing protection on the market will ever allow you.
And she's shooting outside which eliminates a great deal more factors.
Natal risk from shooting is from increases in lead exposure, not from sound. And you'll find in nearly any study cited for noise exposure risk that the risk exposure is for constant OSHA-risk levels of constant noise and not impulse noise.
Interesting, thanks!
Sound travels better in water. We just cant understand the words
I've just gotten a thorough education on the subject. Thanks!
Have you ever gone swimming underwater in a lake only to hear the high-pitched whine of a motorboat's propeller that was a mile or more away?
Fluids are a superior conductor of sound.
That is sound generated in the fluid, not above the fluid. The physics work like a mirror, very little energy goes into the fluid
I'm learning a lot today. Thanks!
I think the baby would get use to it- and she needs to protect that baby from the democrat national socialists that eat baby's andrenochrome to stay young and get high.
More studies https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8899911/
Here I am, made it to 60 (so far).
Spez: My mother was a drummer too in addition to shooting guns. I guess that's why I picked up a bass.
And? Nobody said you'd be killed, but just because you "survived" isn't a justifiable reason to encourage and condone child abuse
You clearly have never put your head underwater
You've clearly never been to an aquarium where they have signs up everywhere fish are behind a glass. You know, "don't tap on glass". You didn't question why? Little taps can cause damage to the fish who are made to be in water.
It's glowing.
You think leftist shills give a shit about an unborn child? Where tf have you been?
I actually agree, this does have the "trash" look and im sure its bad for the child's developing ears, but I wasn't going to say anything about it.
Should be shooting a bow especially with these ammo prices
Target practice with Airsoft
Yes, this is bad for baby. Yes, this is trashy. NO, we shouldn't care what the fuck people think of us. How do you think we ended up here, outside reddit?
Yep. Or a Soros shill. Some kind of shill. You're pickin' fights with people who are pro-law enforcement on the day that two officers were almost executed. You're complaining about a country pic of a pregnant woman shooting. You're complaining about mods. And that's just in the first five comments I read of yours.
Edit: given further info from another pede, yes, gunshots can adversely affect an unborn baby's hearing.
I'd like to hear more about this alleged "rogue mod" that's boasting about "infiltrating" us. This is a public domain. We aren't some secret group (Antifa) that coordinates violent crime through Signal. There's not much to infiltrate, and the Mods here are of the highest caliber in Patriotism, humor, and integrity. Sauce, or get out.
You make the 2nd Ammendment look like a mistake if you think this is okay.
Haha yeah fucking pussies giving a fuck about if their babies can hear or not. /s
I had redneck as fuck relatives and they still wouldn't have done this. This is irresponsible gun ownership and parenting.
GOT HIM! 🤣🤣🤣
One must proudly rock the Budda Belly!
We earned it! Flaunt it! Haters just gonna hate bro!
idk looks pretty flat to me
Yeah, Jesus dude. Switch your beer out for whiskey.
I see comments like this a lot, but not sure a lot of you actually understand how alcohol works. The calories in alcoholic drinks almost always come from the alcohol, not the rest of the drink.
1.5 oz Jack Daniels contains 115 calories. Let's say you mix that with 3-5 oz of coke, you now have a ~200 calorie drink that you can consume MUCH quicker than a beer.
200 calories for a 4-6 oz drink vs ~95 calories for a 12 oz light beer. The beer is the best way to go from a diet standpoint every time, the key is moderation.
Who said anything about mixing it with soda? Whiskey is intended to be consumed straight.
To add to this further alcohol slows your metabolism of any other caloric intake. Meaning that carb dense food you're eating while drunk doesn't get burned the same way.
Ever notice that alcoholics that never eat are actually skinny? Yet their caloric intake is 2,000 or so?
Also carbs are different than sugars. Carbs are more likely to end up as fat.
What if i told you its literally all caloric intake vs. exercise levels. You could eat nothing but candy for calories and you wouldn't put on weight, if it was equal or below your caloric burn for the day. This has been proven.
Carbs are more likely to end up as fat because they are long term energy stores being converted because they cannot be burned right now. If your caloric intake is below your caloric burn, you will burn off the fat.
You will feel shit in other ways if you do not have a proper diet, but weight loss/gain is all related to calories and exercise. I've had a few friends who have lost tons of pounds. Caloric reduction was behind all of there success stories.
Correct. There was a man who ate less than his total daily energy expenditure (calorie count) but only ate Twinkies - he still lost weight. This was an extreme experiment to advocate for CICO (calories in / calories out).
Obviously, ~1600 calories of Twinkies a day is going to leave you feeling hungry/empty. That's where lean proteins and green vegetables are excellent choices for eating under your TDEE and still feeling decently full and getting the fuel a working body needs.
There is a difference between sources and types of calories. It isn't just an imputed number.
🤔
Yea, pregnant women aren't supposed to shoot trap.
Kneecaping your kids before they are even born.
Yup. That's how liberals are made. Reduced brain capacity, and screwed up development.
Lmao post of the day
Haha.
What about shooting traps?
One would think so. Probably scares the shit out of it too.
Chill dawg.
No. He’s entirely right.
Women past 6mo the pregnant should not be shooting guns. It is too loud on baby’s ears. I had to research it for my wife.
...unless they use a silencer.
Depends. A suppressed 556 or 762 semi auto is still not hearing safe. But 140+dB at shooters ear is definitely more acceptable.
True, I've shot 5.56 with a suppressor and it's certainly not "silent".
But I'd definitely recommend a .22LR with a decent can, for any pregnant lady who wants to get in some firearms practice.
Can you cite that research?
This is my wheelhouse as an acoustics and hearing doctor. I run newborn hearing programs for hospitals. Lead is the problem, not hearing, and the NIOSH/OSHA statements being cited here have an assumption of risk without any significant research.
The army does not restrict outdoor weapons fire for pregnant women (AR 40-501). Why do you think that is when the exposure is both frequently louder than civ spec weapons and can be longer exposure time?
Your claim assumes that boots actually gave a shit when the rangemaster mandated hearing protection to be placed to the levels of the laboratory settings that created the NRR for hearing protection would. Never happened, like with a lot of safety training's intent.
It's a combination of factors, but I'm pretty sure you can recall a time or two that your fellow marines were wanting to blow shit up/shoot shit and not put in hearing protection more than was necessary to get to yut at eachother.
Respect all the same (Marine Corps family): army does a lot of army shit for sure.
LOL, no. There is nothing in the “spec” of a civ weapon that makes it quieter. Hunting rifles are all louder than any 556 or 762 the mil uses. An AR-15 is about the same loudness as an M4. Worse usually because civilians use comps and brakes much more than A2s.
There are no 6month pregnant women on army firing ranges. And, if you had any credibility as a hearing specialist, you would know the single most of expensive and most common injury from all military branches to the VA is hearing damage. Anyone that’s ever been mil knows they don’t give a fuck about your hearing.
The study I saw used intra uterus microphones and had exposure over 140db from a 165db gun shot. You SHOULD be aware that hearing damage is all volume times duration. Gun shots are fast but loud so you don’t need many, while the silencer “hearing safe” number is “under 140db” shooting an hour at 139 is really bad for you.
There is the FUCKING OBVIOUSNESS that gun shots are too loud for women in advanced pregnancy. But you go and take pregnant women to the range for all i care. Just don’t post pictures of it because it makes us reasonable people look bad.
When I referenced 'civspec', I was referring (in an admittedly obtuse way) not a direct 1:1 shot from 556 out of an AR and an M4, but volume of exposure, as noise exposure is also additive.
You have made a false equivalency here as well - hearing loss is the most common VA claimed disability because of several factors including training (it's why hearing protection gets a 50% derating from NRR on the packaging - assuming boots put hearing protection in correctly is dumb - where I assume you are listing the military doesn't give a shit about hearing loss despite having a massive financial incentive to reduce hearing loss and having the most robust hearing conversation program in the world), opportunity cost (boots don't give a shit if the hearing protection is in, they want to throw lead downrange) and thirdly because military people don't stick their heads underwater before shooting in most situations - which will do as I have listed above.
Are you referencing the intra-uterine microphone ewe study? If so, it is showing you that once the sound reaches the amniotic sac (where the microphone can be placed), there is already 25dB of attenuation against the peak intensity level (an entire range, as noise causes damage across a spectrum) - roughly what I claimed earlier. That is before the transmission loss between additional media.
The OSHA or NIOSH calculators are based off of intensity x frequency (what you list as volume x duration), and you are correct - gunfire can cause instantaneous hearing loss when unprotected.
It's not obvious to people who actually understand acoustics and science and therefore is an extremely 'feels vs. reals' claim. If it were reasonable, why don't we mandate everyone wear double hearing protection (plugs + muffs) at all times in all situations? Do a lit review and come back to me on that before making a credibility claim.
You claim no attenuation occurs but also doesn't occur. That doesn't make any sense.
Thank you!
"Previous research in small mammals has suggested a critical period in development when susceptibility to noise exposure may be greater. Several investigations, using sheep as a model for in utero hearing loss, have provided evidence of fetal hearing changes after noise exposure. Although the reported epidemiological studies concerned with the possibility of fetal hearing loss had limitations, there were some suggestions of noise-induced hearing loss in children whose mothers experienced noise exposure."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8899911/
Hearing is basically fully formed at 24 weeks.
Thank you for citing a research study. It doesn't say exactly what is being claimed, though, so let me break it down (if you understand what the study is saying, then I mean this more for the public reacting to the study and not you, personally).
The cochlea is typically fully formed at 20 weeks (the full 2.5+ turns of the cochlea) and neural pathways do fully form at 24 weeks (why fetuses can response to external noises for sure), however the study you are citing is concerning longterm noise exposure (16+ hours at 120dBSPL, or louder than a chainsaw/similar to jet aircraft noise at 30+ft).
They then ran a bone-conduction Auditory Brainstem Reponse (ABR) shortly following the 16 hour exposure and showed a temporary shift in hearing thresholds - basically a temporary change in hearing following the acoustic trauma. That makes sense, however as it was temporary, that also meant a recovery period back to at or near baseline (a bone conduction ABR cannot typically ascertain normal hearing/has poor sensitivity for near-normal or mild hearing losses, which is a part of the reason why many state newborn hearing programs couple it with an additional test of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) to evaluate hair cell function).
This is the rough exposure level of 16 hours of constant suppressed 5.56, i.e. more than any normal exposure that would be obtained in even likely an entire period of birth.
At least from some researchers, part of the critical threat for hearing assumed in the 90s was BELIEVED (but not research-backed) to be because there was less amniotic fluid at this time/less of an acoustic buffer from fetal urea + amniotic fluids at this 20-ish week period, versus the nearly 1L of buffering amniotic fluid at 34-36 weeks, as well as because anatomically everything is 'closer' together and so sound waves do not have as long of a time frame to dampen.
The study accurately states it had limitations - the primary one being it was not a study of impulse noises and only managed to show a temporary shift to hearing. 16 constant hours at 120dB unprotected would be the equivalent of 15 constant minutes at 150dB unprotected, so still more than what you experience frequently if you are outdoors and not on a line at the range.
Which study are you referring to? I linked to many of them.
"Conclusions: This study showed an association between occupational noise exposure during pregnancy and hearing dysfunction in children. In view of mechanistic evidence and earlier indicative epidemiological and experimental findings, the results support that pregnant women should not be exposed to high levels of noise at work. " From Jenny Selander et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jun.
This doesn't even begin to touch on lead exposure and development.
If you're ok with putting your unborn children through this, fine. We'll pay for it for decades after, for you. But don't try and muddy the water to promote dangerous behavior for others.
Unable to cite how the federal government and researchers are wrong for recommending pregnant women not be exposed to gun fire, don't minimize the impact we're having by citing the data.
OP didn't even know the smoke from gun fire has heavy metals in it.
Basic knowledge is needed here. So don't split hairs and lose the forest for the trees. I feel like I'm talking to a child about why eating candy before dinner isn't allowed. Just totally repetitious failed logic. One guy is going deep on the physics and doing it exactly like a homework assignment, assuming the sound all travels in one direction so he can look smart with the figures.
Mawp...
Maybe she isn't 6 mos pregnant? Hoping that's the case. My wife has a similar frame and was MUCH bigger at full term. Still, not a great idea.
Just trying to be optimistic ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I’m not promoting this.
Just saying: chill dawg.
The health of the unborn is nothing to be chill about.
FREE ABORTIONS FOR ALL, BLACK LIVES MATTER
That is so fundamentally wrong I don't even know how you could think its possible to post it.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/repro/noise.html absolutely false.
Yep. And also lead exposure isnt great.
The lead is fine so long as she isn’t handling lead ammo and then touching mucus membranes. In this case it’s entirely the noise.
In a shotgun, it's less of an issue. There's a "wad" protecting the base of the shot load. And, a lot of states have outlawed lead shot. The federal government bans it in certain areas. Spez: but, the primer may contain lead.
For rifle and handgun ammo, the risk of lead exposure is not handling the ammo.... it's the small amount of lead at the base of the bullet that is shed by the powder charge (spez: and the primer). Depending on what you are shooting, that ends up all over your hands, face, clothes, etc. And if there isn't good ventilation, you inhale it.
Wash your hands or use wipes before handling food -- preferably soap/wipes specifically designed to remove lead and other heavy metals.
There is ammo (and bullets for self reloading) with a "total" metal jacket, which completely encases a bullet with a metal jacket:
https://ammo.com/bullet-type/total-metal-jacket-tmj
To make it more confusing, "full" metal jacket (FMJ) usually refers to a bullet I describe above: lead at the base of the bullet is exposed.
You need to be dumping a ton of rounds daily for lead exposure to really matter.
So basically you're saying November 4th-January 20th we'll be at risk?
Lead exposure is cumulative, especially for children:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/pro-tip-how-to-deal-with-lead-exposure/
A followup, after reading an article cited by u/Slyhillary:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/
If you look at table 1:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/table/Tab1/?report=objectonly
You'll see that shooters of only 200 rounds/month had a wide variation in blood lead levels, and some of them were high enough to warrant monitoring:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/table/Tab2/
That's only a concern at indoor ranges.
Not true. Outdoors doesn't always mean wind pushes smoke away. Additionally, lead dust at the firing line and from down range is known to cause problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/
"Tripathi et al. (1989) [9] observed that BLLs of 7 outdoor firing range police cadets had a baseline average of 6 μg/dL prior to commencing shooting training and an average BLL of 15 μg/dL at the end of training 5 days later."
At 20 μg/dL, you're pulled from service in the military due to the toxicity.
For adults, the concern is organ damage and cancer. For the unborn and children, it's that and IQ loss + more violence later in life.
Indoor or outdoor, the blast distributes lead particles all over your face, hands, and clothing. In her case, it would be all over her exposed body.
But, I believe it's less of an issue with a shotgun, depending on what she is shooting. The wad would at least partially protect the shot load from the blast.
Spez: I forgot about the primer. Depending on the primer, it contains lead.
Have you ever fired a gun, though? Every time, smoke is produced. That's where the heavy metals are aside from the rounds themselves.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/
"Tripathi et al. (1989) [9] observed that BLLs of 7 outdoor firing range police cadets had a baseline average of 6 μg/dL prior to commencing shooting training and an average BLL of 15 μg/dL at the end of training 5 days later."
At 20 μg/dL, you're pulled from service in the military due to the toxicity.
For adults, the concern is organ damage and cancer. For the unborn and children, it's that and IQ loss + more violence later in life.
Per table 2 in the article you cited, the recommendations are:
Remediation measures get progressively more drastic after that.
Spez: here's a direct link to the table:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/table/Tab2/
People don't want to care about their own health, why would they care about the next generation of pedes?
Lead exposure through shooting is mostly caused by the lead shed by the bullet when you shoot the gun. See my comment above:
https://thedonald.win/p/HEpvLe8W/x/c/16bPQRZh5z
Shotgun shells not as big a problem as bullets, because the lead shot is usually encased in a wad.
Spez: I forgot about the primer, which may also contain lead.
Nothing some hearing aids and 18 years of being made fun of through school can't fix!
For real people, don't do this. My friend's dog went literally deaf after he brought him to a skeet shoot.
It's all fun and games till you get fucking tinnitus. LOL. Trust me it sux.
Just according to everything we know about human physiology.
But hey, internet points!
Feel bad for that unborn child that can't receive the protection needed against shotgun blasts.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/repro/noise.html
"Sudden loud noises (impact or impulse noise) that are loud enough for you to need hearing protection or that startle you should be avoided during pregnancy."
Make your own choices, but harming the unborn just isn't cool.
Looks like the abortionists don't like this comment!
Yep, this photo is actually really trashy.
i feel there should be mandatory(or at least incentivize) free classes at the hospital for new parents that cover things like this in the curriculum.
But they'd also include marxist shit.
It's called not being a dumbass.
Right you are. This is just ignorance in this pic...
If you actually read it, that statement was speculative
You are not reading that correctly. Loud noise causes hearing damage. You sound like the tobacco industry in the 1950s.
Maybe you haven't ever been around firearms? Especially larger ones.
"Big-bore firearms can generate noise levels of more than 165 dB, and guns with short barrels (handguns) and firearms fitted with muzzle breaks can elevate peak SPLs even further (see sources).
Hearing loss may occur gradually due to repeated unprotected exposure to firearm noise, or suddenly due to acoustic trauma from even a single unprotected, high-intensity gunshot." https://leader.pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/leader.AEA.23032018.18
& http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/4/724.full.pdf
Show me the physics saying I'm wrong because you can't
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8899911/
Same CDC who said masks and HCQ would work then didn't then did again then didn't....shit, I've lost track.
CDC issued guidance on masks due to an artificial shortage of PPE caused by communist China buying up our equipment and shipping it home while freezing export of equipment we built over there.
It was an act of war with a weapon of mass destruction. President Trump is working a response from a legal angle, for now.
CDC was really clear they wanted the limited supply to go to first responders and medical staff, first.
That is normal wartime decision making and President Trump's been getting this stuff right from the beginning. There is a massive disinformation campaign going on and we've been targeted, for sure. The left makes everything political. They ruined care and caused massive harm with their decisions.
First words from new baby:
"What?"
Nah. It’s gonna be “PULL!”
😂😂
TBH not sure where the downvotes are coming from?
Triggered people that don't understand how sound dampening works...
Edit: for those saying it hurts the baby. Go ahead and fill up a bathtub, submerge yourself completely, then get a speaker and crank it up while playing a video of a range from a shooters perspective... then while you aren't hearing much, even with the volume cranked, imagine you're also wrapped in a layer of fat and skin. Perhaps take a thin steak and wrap it around your head, then hop in the tub...
He’ll learn early to just make eye contact and nod.
Mawp
Literal "reeeeeeeeeee"
Not to mention how it makes the rest of gun owners look when one of us isn't responsible. We should hold each other accountable. Criticism is selfish, easy, and makes us feel better. But pro-active action, personal responsibility, and concept of ownership is what makes us ALL better. I am in favor of moderating posts that don't meet a minimum standard of responsibility.
Dude, letting someone lean back like that whole shooting anything is bad, especially a shotgun. And she’s pregnant? This is a pretty unsafe event.
Dumb af. SMH.
Came here to comment on the “chick lean”
Naw man she’s good, the pregnant belly acts as a counterweight to her leaned back upper body. She’s basically standing completely upright
internetphysics
Chill dawg.
Damn. I hate to sound like a moralizer, but that baby could have shell shock and hearing damage for life.
Good you and other here spoke up. This is not a good situation for the baby.
Shotgun while pregnant. What an idiot.
☝️
funfact, OP is actually a mod, here
no disagreement here. Elsewhere in this thread, OP mentioned that he himself stickied this post.
Um, OP is a mod.
He only posts generic mocking conservative posts and stuff about nuking other people.
the OP is a mod
Is that healthy for the baby?
No, it most definitely is not.
Spez: Downvote me if you want, morons. I don't give a damn. If I'm wrong, please explain why the pregnant woman is wearing ear protection.
This seems extremely negligent to the unborn child. I surely hope that it did/does not lead to physiological trauma or hearing damage for the poor baby.
We are supposed to be the protectors of the unborn.
Is she single?
wew
😄😄 I'm gonna take the downvote to mean "No."
Dumb mother. Lead and extremely loud noises are terrible for an unborn child. It could cause hearing damage before they're even born.
I love guns, but I'm sorry, like with alcohol and tobacco you should refrain from using them when you're pregnant. (unless it's self defense, duh)
I'm literally turning off the CSS just to downvote you.
CSS?
Cascading Style Sheets. It's basically the design rules for a website. Nearly every website you go to uses it.
There are two kinds of CSS here on TheDonald.win
The Generic Reddit look, and the "/r/TheDonald" look which is more customized and pretty.
What CSS does is to set rules for your website's layout. One quick example is "every paragraph must use 15pt Bold Comic Sans font and is contained in a green 4 pixel border"
on TheDonald.Win you can switch between the two CSS options by enabling/disabling the "Community Style" in the settings tab.
Edit: Downvoted for an explanation, some real /r/politics type people today.
Thanks for the explanation!
you're welcome
Cascading Style Sheets. It's basically the design rules for a website. Nearly every website you go to uses it.
There are two kinds of CSS here on TheDonald.win
The Generic Reddit look, and the "/r/TheDonald" look which is more customized and pretty.
What CSS does is to set rules for your website's layout. One quick example is "every paragraph must use 15pt Bold Comic Sans font and is contained in a green 4 pixel border"
on TheDonald.Win you can switch between the two CSS options by enabling/disabling the "Community Style" in the settings tab.
Basically this. Gunshots are terrible for an unborn child's hearing if you're pregnant and doing the shooting. You can protect your own ears, but not the baby's. The fat surrounding the uterus may provide some protection but the amniotic fluid a great conductor of sound. Best to not risk it unless in a serious self-defense situation.
Also, lead can cause various neurological and developmental issues. Unlikely in the likely small quantities that its being exposed to here (i.e. outdoors, hopefully washed up well, afterwards) but why risk it? Babies & children should have zero lead exposure due to their susceptibility to it.
You don't even have to handle the rounds. The primers in many cartridges are either lead styphnate, barium nitrate, or mercury fulminate (corrosive primers). The combustion of just that will be expelled through the barrel and/or chamber/breech of the firearm. Probably not a huge issue for recreational use for older (teens and up) shooters, but for babies it can be extremely hazardous as well.
I did the same. Not a good post. So bad for the baby.
Does she smoke and drink too while pregnant?
Which kicks harder, the Baby or the 12 guage?
The calm before the storm. For those about to rock, we salute you.
Absolutely
One is 9 months and the other 6 months.
Yikes. I love shooting guns and I love that my wife likes shooting with me. But pregnant ladies absolutely should not shoot. Can damage baby's hearing, possible psych damage due to it being scared by loud noises and exposure to various heavy metals which in utero babies are extremely sensitive to.
She needs to exercise better judgment. I really hope this is just posed and that she didn't actually shoot anything
kinda trashy but whatever. Congrats though btw.
The baby will hear it, muffled by the embryonic fluid...it’s just not recommended... MAGA.
the fat around the uterus may muffle the sound to some degree. The amniotic fluid, being laregly water, is a fantastic conductor of sound. We just don't know how loud it is to the baby, and that's why its so foolish to risk this unless in a literal life-or-death situation.
OP, if this is real, you should be ashamed.
I love women shooting, but I can't upvote this.
Hearing damage and lead exposure.
My wife loves to shoot, but we made the decision to not go to the range while she was pregnant.
This is America but I don't recommend shooting a gun while pregnant unless absolutely necessary. Of course if commies come knocking might need to make an exception. Edit: My wife is currently pregnant with our fourth and I do not allow her to shoot during this time after researching during our first. She is still locked and loaded.
Technically the baby is in a tank now
ASTUTE OBSERVATION PEDE.
Kid rock approved! https://youtu.be/4KnAzpi4avo
Looks like the gun ain't the only thing firing on a full barrel. lol Congrats!!
Her ears are safe, but what about the baby?
Dual wielding
Lean forward!
I’m scareroused.
Baby's gonna be born with his ears ringing because he didn't have ear muffs
Hearing loss for life.
Nobody: "How much redneck can you fit in one picture?"
OP: "Yes."
Coming in as a Trump supporter and a medical professional, this is not healthy for a baby. There is sound transfer and shockwaves.
They do not care about the unborn. Internet points matter more.
Yes, came here to say this. I thought maybe this was the most ignorant post I’ve ever seen here, but then I realized OP has had sound advice (pun intended) coming his way all day and still defends this photo and the actions that are glorified in the photo.
This was done for vanity, not as Second Amendment apologetics or actual self-defense or patriotism or any other worthy pursuit. This is simply photographic proof that two egomaniacs endangered the health and safety of their precious unborn baby today so they could win the digital applause of a bunch of internet strangers.
Women in Hollywood do this all the time. Just ask Alyssa Milano and Michelle Williams! Their “sorry, not sorry” sentiment is identical to OP’s.
This is trashy, irresponsible, and I’m disappointed it’s stickied
Dumb fucks.
Fucking gross !
She drinks a lot of beer.
Looks like a real woman to me.
In all seriousness, it's probably not good for the fetus to be around lead gases.
Teaching the baby early! I like it! Only in the USA!
This looks like anti-white propaganda.
This is white trash
This isn't white trash...this is an American, God-fearing family making patriot babies and training to protect their livelihood and community! 3 cheers for the head of the household!
Congratulations! What a wonderful family!
You forgot your /sarc tag.
Not liking what I see here.
It's okay, she has a counter weight
Yah. Picture is trash. But you do you.
That was a funny comment hahah
Murica