shooting while pregnant?

LoopyLolly88

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but just curious if anyone knows is it safe to shoot while pregnant?? Like noise wise etc thanks

tac foley

My present wife, mrs tac, continued to shoot .22 and centre-fire handgun throughout her two pregnancies.

This was on ranges - indoor and out - where some big machinery was being unloaded.

If in doubt, ask your resident pediatrician.

tac

LoopyLolly88

Thanks for the reply i have a .22,am only 7 weeks atm so never even thought of asking my doctor but will do at next appointment. Had a quick search online but was very confusing some people say its safe then others say it isnt!!

FISMA

LoopyLolly88 wrote: »

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but just curious if anyone knows is it safe to shoot while pregnant?? Like noise wise etc thanks

I am no doctor, but I think it is a bad idea.

Sound travels faster in water than air. I would not want to experiment on a developing child.

You're jus to close to the source of the boom for my liking.

Then there's the gases and powder that you will be inhaling. Not a problem for an adult, but again, for a developing child.

Err on the side of caution, no matter what the Doctors say.

Have you a bow and arrow?:D

LoopyLolly88

FISMA wrote: »

I am no doctor, but I think it is a bad idea.

Sound travels faster in water than air. I would not want to experiment on a developing child.

You're jus to close to the source of the boom for my liking.

Then there's the gases and powder that you will be inhaling. Not a problem for an adult, but again, for a developing child.

Err on the side of caution, no matter what the Doctors say.

Have you a bow and arrow?:D

Do you think sub sonic's would be better or just not bother? Also what about a slicencer?

Haha no dont have a bow & arrow,oh did a few months back thou!

hedzball

9 months to put down a gun isn't really a long time.


If in doubt dont..




Also congrats on the sprog nua..



'hdz

deerhunter1

LoopyLolly88 wrote: »

Do you think sub sonic's would be better or just not bother? Also what about a slicencer?

Haha no dont have a bow & arrow,oh did a few months back thou!

I would say it should not be problem, mother nature is a lot more resilient to adapting to things like this, I think health and safety is gone way OTT,what did the women do all those years ago, dragging, cleaning working almost to the day.:

bazza888

make sure the place is well ventilated,lead and such things that may be in the smoke around the place are probably not good for a developing baby

Grizzly 45

Always cracked us up when I went shooting with herself in the USA.
In CA they always asked here are you pregnant?? Herself being a willowly 5'11 ,it would show right away!:rolleyes::)

They were worried about LEAD inhalation or injestion causing damage to the foetus.So anyone over 8 weeks in the "9month club" was precluded from shooting.
However after having a chat with a US pediatrican friend on this we got the following info.

Thats CA where they are paranoid about every damn thing that might result in a lawsuit on a gun range and all want to live forever.:rolleyes:

Dont put any bullets in your mouth and suck on them every day.:p

WASH YOUR HANDS After shooting and before eating or drinking.
Change your clothes as well just in case there is any lead residue at some stage after shooting.

Make sure on an indoor range the ventilation is working properly and dont sit in smokey petrol fumed car exhaust areas where you will pick up more lead even with unleaded petrol than a month on the range. Or just shoot outside.
Continue untill your feet swell up,or you cant shoot comfortably anymore in a prone position.Then call it a day.:P

dCorbus

Very interesting question OP. Firstly, congratulations on your impending new arrival.

Secondly, fair play to you for considering this and asking around.

My first advice would be to discuss this with your own ob-gyn: they're the professionals and as your medical advisors, they should be able to give you some medical recommendations.... Although, I'd say they'll have to look it as it probably not too common a question asked!

I'm not a medical professional....but....

As you are shooting a 22, I'm assuming you are using and handling lead bullets (as opposed to brass etc.) Precautions should always be taken when handling lead and the potential health risks from lead exposure reduced by a few simple measures. That said the risks associated with lead-exposure are increased during pregnancy, so you should probably take all reasonable measures to avoid exposing yourself and your future child to lead and the other nastier byproducts of shooting.

That may well involve temporarily taking a break from shooting. Better to err on the side of caution I think when the health of mother and child are concerned.

Additionally to your lead exposure during shooting, powder and priming materials are not the healthiest of substances to breathing in either.

I would suggest you entirely avoid INDOOR shooting. Outdoor shooting MAY be fine: but that's something your medical advisors will advise you on. Again, is it something you'd want to take a chance on? As an expectant mother, probably not

The noise / sonic shock wave issues may come into play, but it would be the potential health risks from exposure to lead and other substances that would personally concern me more.

Check out this CDC link http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/tips/pregnant.htm

And before making your decision, GET PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE.

Hope that's of some help and again, congratulations and best wishes!

dC

beanie10

I thought I read on a can of gun oil to keep away from pregnant women. I don't have a can at the minute to confirm.There is also lead content.
I would err on side of caution. A lot of other dangers exist like falling while climbing a gate, shooting while lying down, crossing fields with cattle, most shooting will be in middle of no-where.

Longranger

my missus shot countless clays while expecting our kids and found it to be great to relieve the stress. All of our children are perfectly healthy and, maybe cos of this, are not bothered in any way by loud noises!

LoopyLolly88

Thanks for the replys id be shooting outdoors so would be well ventilated, would like to get out a bit before baby is born as doubt id have time with a newborn lol we usually go when kids are in school. Ill ask doctor about the lead etc see what he has to say,if he doesnt think its safe ill give it a miss. Thanks again

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Always cracked us up when I went shooting with herself in the USA.
In CA they always asked here are you pregnant?? Herself being a willowly 5'11 ,it would show right away!:rolleyes::)

They were worried about LEAD inhalation or injestion causing damage to the foetus.So anyone over 8 weeks in the "9month club" was precluded from shooting.
However after having a chat with a US pediatrican friend on this we got the following info.

Thats CA where they are paranoid about every damn thing that might result in a lawsuit on a gun range and all want to live forever.:rolleyes:

Dont put any bullets in your mouth and suck on them every day.:p

WASH YOUR HANDS After shooting and before eating or drinking.
Change your clothes as well just in case there is any lead residue at some stage after shooting.

Make sure on an indoor range the ventilation is working properly and dont sit in smokey petrol fumed car exhaust areas where you will pick up more lead even with unleaded petrol than a month on the range. Or just shoot outside.
Continue untill your feet swell up,or you cant shoot comfortably anymore in a prone position.Then call it a day.:P

In addition to the stuff in red; use nitrile gloves or barrier cream when cleaning your gun to minimise skin contact with lead particles. Handling ammunition in it's solid bulky form (as compared to microscopic particles flung from your gun and clouding the air around you) is fine.

tac foley

Let's not get anal about the rules in California. Let me remind you that California - is the place where the Surgeon General also requires a label to be applied to every item under the sun advising you not to eat it or otherwise ingest it in any form. The one I'm looking at right now states 'The Surgeon General of the State of California has determined that this product contains chemicals that are known to the State of California To cause cancer, birth defects or Other reproductive harm' - note that the capitals are exactly as copied.

The label is on the packaging of a 28 pound brass and stainless steel museum-grade model live-steam locomotive.

Yum-yum?

I don't think so.

tac

BattleCorp

When doing a Range Officers course, we were advised against pregnant women being on the range.

When I asked him why, he said that it's easy enough for me to use ear protection, but how am I going to put ear protection on the baby's ears and that the sound would seem louder to the baby as the sound waves would be travelling through fluids.

Kind of made sense to me.

J.R.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Always cracked us up when I went shooting with herself in the USA.
In CA they always asked here are you pregnant?? Herself being a willowly 5'11 ,it would show right away!:rolleyes::)

They were worried about LEAD inhalation or injestion causing damage to the foetus.So anyone over 8 weeks in the "9month club" was precluded from shooting.
However after having a chat with a US pediatrican friend on this we got the following info.

Thats CA where they are paranoid about every damn thing that might result in a lawsuit on a gun range and all want to live forever.:rolleyes:

.:P

Would be interesting to find out if female, armed, police officers in CA are forbidden from practicing or using their gun during pregnancy - as they would be on duty for some months of the pregnancy.

J.R.

found the answer to above question


http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/pregnant_officer.htm

The Pregnant Officer

Fabrice Czarnecki. M.D.

From Clinics In Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 641-648 (August 2003)



In 2000, women accounted for 10.6% of local law enforcement officers and 14.4% of federal law enforcement officers. These numbers are likely to rise in the next few years. New issues that are relevant to female officers have been raised, such as adjusting the working conditions of pregnant officers. Every employer must make the workplace as safe as possible for all employees. Pregnant employees tend to be more susceptible to chemical and physical hazards and deserve special consideration to minimize risks to the fetus. Law enforcement agencies should implement policies to ensure the best possible outcome of the pregnancy and to decrease the woman's professional risks. This article presents these professional hazards and how to mitigate them while complying with the law. Occupational chemical hazards faced by pregnant workers include exposure to heavy metals (lead, mercury), organic solvents (acetone, benzene, formaldehyde, halogenated hydrocarbons, styrene, toluene, trichloroethylene, xylene), and pesticides. Physical hazards include trauma, radiation, and noise. Additional pregnancy hazards that are specific to the law enforcement profession include firearms training and an increased likelihood of trauma.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

The label is on the packaging of a 28 pound brass and stainless steel museum-grade model live-steam locomotive.

Yum-yum?

I don't think so.

tac

Lets face it..A state that requires a warning on your coffee from Mc Donalds stating "CAUTION HOT liquid inside" because some mentally defective won a multi million dollar lawsuit for burning her gob on said hot liquid,is really beyond redemption!!
So ...yeah...proably there is moron out there with a lower intelligence than the average ameoba
who proably would try to eat it!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
The Morons of the world are truely on the march!!

cookimonster

Part of my studies inculded 'Life Cycle Nutrition' from pre pregnancy to old age. What a women does or does not ingest CAN (not always, but can) impact on both fetal and childhood development.

Military and civilian guide lines now strongly recommend the washing of hands and face with cold water after fire arms use (even when using FMJ's) the cold water won't open your pores so reducing the risk of absorbtion of lead particles and propellants through your skin and into your circulatory system.
The handling and use of petrochemical materials, solvents and other cleaning materials with out the use of gloves is to be avoided as many will be absorbed also through the skin and can effect organs in the long term.
Chemical substances must come with a data sheet or a source such as a web page, this will detail use, disposal and risks associated. Often it will detail maximum contact/ usage time and weather or not pregnant or nursing women may use them.
With respect to hearing and noise pollution that is the least of your concern.
It is my unqualified advice, as I would give in relation to nutrition, that you seek professional advice, as advised here already, but from what I know I would advise against coming into unnecessary contact with any chemical substance that may be harmfull to both you and you baby.
Having said all that just be safe and mindful but enjoy you pregnancy and all will be well.
Have a good Christmas.

4200fps

shoot of the bi-pod for now

Sparks

We worry a lot about the lead and there aren't any doctors here so seek your own medical advice.

That said:



That's Katerina Emmons winning gold in Beijing while a few months pregnant. And there have been others who've shot internationally like that while pregnant.

Mind you, pretty good ventilation on those ranges...

IRLConor

There's also Nur Suryani Mohamad Taibi who shot in the London Olympics while 8 months pregnant.



Now, both her and Kateřina Emmons were shooting airgun so the noise wouldn't be an issue. As for the lead, if they weren't careful about washing their hands already both of them would have substantial quantities of lead in their systems given the number of rounds a shooter goes through at that level so I can only presume that either the lead risk is negligible or that they take adequate precautions.

EWQuinn

While being a random sample of one, I think I am a pretty good data point. I have shot, reloaded, and loaded & shot smokeless and black powder firearms and shotguns for many years. This has entailed the following - weekly handling of lead handgun bullets & lead shot w/o jackets, shooting indoors and out, inhaling black & smokeless powder smoke, and cleaning guns with solvent, getting hands REALLY filthy with solvent filled with carbon/lead residue, and not taking too many precautions, never wearing gloves. In other words for a shooter I have had a lot of potential exposure to lead over a long period of time. So in a check-up a couple years back I asked for a lead blood test. Results - zero, totally normal. Disclaimer: Use more precautions than I have when cleaning guns.

The lead threat in shooting is overblown unless or until valid data is produced, then circumstances must be investigated thoroughly. Having said that, if pregnant, follow doc's advice tempered with common sense as needed.

[Now lead paint is a different story. One time I had an old building renovation. The "owner" told me not to worry about all the interior walls with lead paint chipping and peeling everywhere, that lead paint was only a threat to kids. It cost them $200,000 extra to remove and/or encapsulate, but the job came out great, far better than designed originally.]

harmoniums

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Lets face it..A state that requires a warning on your coffee from Mc Donalds stating "CAUTION HOT liquid inside" because some mentally defective won a multi million dollar lawsuit for burning her gob on said hot liquid,is really beyond redemption!!
So ...yeah...proably there is moron out there with a lower intelligence than the average ameoba
who proably would try to eat it!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
The Morons of the world are truely on the march!!

California has a lot to answer for, but this particular incident happened in Albequerque New Mexico, also she burned her gee when it spilt on her lap, not her mouth.

OP, my wife went once to the outdoor range and after shooting a few rounds had to retire to the car, she said the baby clearly wasn't enjoying it and was kicking up a storm.

Then when we had the baby and it was a kind of a cross between a bat and a child type of a thing, it immediately flew out of her dragging its placenta behind it which affected its lift terribly so it just landed and took a taxi to Mexico instead.

Two of the above sentences are true, one is false.

Sparks

Grizz, do some reading :

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Grizzly 45

Indeed you should too Sparks...;)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/

Point being apart from point scoring and pendantism aside and old ladies spilling coffee of their private parts while drinking it while operating a motor vechicle in the drive thru lane of Mc Donalds in New Mexico over 20 years ago. The most basic of senses ,common sense seems to becoming even less common as the weeks go by in humanity.
IOW do we all have to pay for individual stupidity on a collective basis???
Think on that one in relation to shooting here and globally this Xmas day.

long range shooter

EWQuinn wrote: »

While being a random sample of one, I think I am a pretty good data point. I have shot, reloaded, and loaded & shot smokeless and black powder firearms and shotguns for many years. This has entailed the following - weekly handling of lead handgun bullets & lead shot w/o jackets, shooting indoors and out, inhaling black & smokeless powder smoke, and cleaning guns with solvent, getting hands REALLY filthy with solvent filled with carbon/lead residue, and not taking too many precautions, never wearing gloves. In other words for a shooter I have had a lot of potential exposure to lead over a long period of time. So in a check-up a couple years back I asked for a lead blood test. Results - zero, totally normal. Disclaimer: Use more precautions than I have when cleaning guns.

The lead threat in shooting is overblown unless or until valid data is produced, then circumstances must be investigated thoroughly. Having said that, if pregnant, follow doc's advice tempered with common sense as needed.

[Now lead paint is a different story. One time I had an old building renovation. The "owner" told me not to worry about all the interior walls with lead paint chipping and peeling everywhere, that lead paint was only a threat to kids. It cost them $200,000 extra to remove and/or encapsulate, but the job came out great, far better than designed originally.]

Its when you start putting labels on the ammo as enviromentally green, things start to go wrong.
As experienced by the Norwegian army when using green lead free swedish Nammo 223 ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/05/06/green-ammo-strikes-again-makes-soldiers-sick/

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Indeed you should too Sparks...;)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/
Point being apart from point scoring and pendantism aside and old ladies spilling coffee of their private parts while drinking it while operating a motor vechicle in the drive thru lane of Mc Donalds in New Mexico over 20 years ago. The most basic of senses ,common sense seems to becoming even less common as the weeks go by in humanity.

Grizz, she wasn't driving.
And McD's served coffee at a scalding hot temperature purely to save money because it kept the coffee drinkable for longer. And she wasn't the first person badly injured that way, not even the tenth - 700 cases? And nobody thought "er, lads..."? And when she asked them to pay the medical bills, they didn't think "Hm. Either we appear to be caring for old ladies, or we're the lads who gave an 80-year-old grandmother third degree burns over 20% of her body (which is life-threatening at that age) and then told her to feck off"? I'd fire that whole PR department for a start...

This whole thing is not a case of some daft little old lady - this is a case of a large corporation doing something for money that caused damage and then not even having the wits to do cheap damage control.

And it's not a one-off, it's a pattern in the US. Remember the Ford Pinto and the exploding gas tank and their bean-counter memo that calculated it was cheaper to pay the wrongful death lawsuits than to fix the car? Or any other example - and there are a lot over the last few decades?

If you want something to think about in relation to shooting today, think about bad assumptions and incomplete facts...

Grizzly 45

If you want something to think about in relation to shooting today, think about bad assumptions and incomplete facts...

Looking at the mirror there???:p

Grizz, she wasn't driving.

She was in charge of a motorised vechicle with the engine running.THAT my dear Sparks consists of driving in any police officers langauge in any Western country.Especially in the US of A.


And she wasn't the first person badly injured that way, not even the tenth - 700 cases?
Compared to how many billion cups of coffee served by Mc D every year globally,drunk and enjoyed???
Kind of the the same as the anti gun arguement here.


And it's not a one-off, it's a pattern in the US. Remember the Ford Pinto and the exploding gas tank and their bean-counter memo that calculated it was cheaper to pay the wrongful death lawsuits than to fix the car? Or any other example - and there are a lot over the last few decades?

Tragic,but ultimately true in the long run financially,and somwhat doctored as well in the plantiffs cases too...And then there was of course the forgotton Ford pickup that was rigged by the US media in another lawsuit make the dramatic explosion even more dramatic by hiring an explosives expert to beef up the footage....Just saying.
Getting back to the Pinto.Yes,crap car,crap design,but when taken into the account of having spent millions on development,setting up a production line,building the car,employing thousands and all the other ancillary Hundreds of millions of dollars that went into it. It is cheaper to pay the lawsuits in the long run and discontinue the model at the end of its natural life run..

Or any other example - and there are a lot over the last few decades?

Yup and some of them even more dafter and money hungry..Like the family of a pilot who was killed in a Piper cub monoplane of ww2 vintage!!
They wanted to sue Piper as the plane had an inherent design fault...stress cracks on a 65 year old aircraft designed for military usage,put together by the hundreds per week,and not subject to FAA checks for saftey,as it was registerd as "experimental" aircraft[what many small planes are in the US].


If you want something to think about in relation to shooting today, think about bad assumptions and incomplete facts...

Yes indeed...arent we getting plenty of it at the moment in relation to shooting in the USA????:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Where plenty of stupid people do very stupid things and get lots of money for their stupidity and like here no one is at fault ,but its all an inaminate objects fault.Wonder how long it will be here before in the second most litagatious country of the West..Ireland,we start doing dumb things for money as well???

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

She was in charge of a motorised vechicle with the engine running.THAT my dear Sparks consists of driving in any police officers langauge in any Western country.Especially in the US of A.

...except that she was in the passenger seat and her grandson was driving at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Compared to how many billion cups of coffee served by Mc D every year globally,drunk and enjoyed?

Okay, for a start, it's McDonalds coffee, so let's be realistic and drop the enjoyed bit

Secondly, it's not about how many cups they serve. This was a landmark case where the punitive damages came to two days worth of coffee sales; but she'd tried to settle the case out of court three times for less than one tenth of the award the jury gave.

Kind of the the same as the anti gun arguement here.

No, nothing like the anti-gun argument. Liebeck was a corporate decision to use a potentially unsafe practice to increase profits in disregard to a large number of serious accidents. The anti-gun argument is that if it might save one life, ban everything. So the former is about a known-to-be-dangerous practice done for money with several hundred injured people; and the latter is a hypothetical that proposes group punishment of the innocent in pursuit of possibly preventing that hypothetical (despite the NAS and CDC saying we have no idea what would happen in the US, and us not needing to do anything over here according to emperical evidence).

Tragic,but ultimately true in the long run financially,and somwhat doctored as well in the plantiffs cases too...And then there was of course the forgotton Ford pickup that was rigged by the US media in another lawsuit make the dramatic explosion even more dramatic by hiring an explosives expert to beef up the footage....Just saying.
Getting back to the Pinto.Yes,crap car,crap design,but when taken into the account of having spent millions on development,setting up a production line,building the car,employing thousands and all the other ancillary Hundreds of millions of dollars that went into it. It is cheaper to pay the lawsuits in the long run and discontinue the model at the end of its natural life run..

Yup, it is.
The thing is, it's deeply unethical. It's a corporation (and ultimately, people) setting a monetary value on human life and deciding that if they paid that, then ending that life was a perfectly fine way to do business.
That is why they teach that case study as a "what not to do" in engineering schools.

Yup and some of them even more dafter and money hungry..Like the family of a pilot who was killed in a Piper cub monoplane of ww2 vintage!!
They wanted to sue Piper as the plane had an inherent design fault...stress cracks on a 65 year old aircraft designed for military usage,put together by the hundreds per week,and not subject to FAA checks for saftey,as it was registerd as "experimental" aircraft[what many small planes are in the US].

I've never heard of that case and I think you're getting things mixed up badly there Grizz - the Piper cub was no more used for military purposes than an AR-15 is an assault rifle. The Cub predates the war, and they made a (very altered) version of it as a spotting plane that got used throughout WW2, Korea and Vietnam; but it wasn't the same aircraft by a long, long way.

There were lawsuits - one because the pilot had loaded the aircraft incorrectly, putting the center of gravity beyond the aft limit for the aircraft (something you learn in flight school very very early on) and the aircraft stalled on takeoff and crashed, killing the pilot. They lost the case, btw.

Another because the pilot (whose licence was not current and who shouldn't have been flying the cub apparently) mounted a great big feck-off video camera (this was back when those weren't tiny things built into your phone) and took off to do aerial photography, only to find that the camera meant he couldn't see forward, which is important for flying. Thing is, when he went to taxi out to the runway, the airport manager saw him and parked a van on the runway to stop him taking off (apart from not being current on the cub, he also had some unpaid airport bills) But with the camera, he couldn't see the van, flew into it and was killed because he'd also taken off the shoulder harness (the plane's version of a safety belt) to fit the camera. They won the case, and Congress thought it so ridiculous that they could that they changed the law (which stopped a rash of liability lawsuits that were destroying the light aviation industry in the US at the time). Mind you, Piper had no liability insurance, so it pretty much kicked the carp out of them anyway...

Yes indeed...arent we getting plenty of it at the moment in relation to shooting in the USA????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yup. Lots of scared people there right now.

Wonder how long it will be here before in the second most litagatious country of the West..Ireland,we start doing dumb things for money as well???

Don't throw rocks, we've taken a case to the Supreme Court where the plaintiff was basicly arguing that he should be allowed to have a licence for a pistol because all his mates had one!

Traumadoc

http://www.awsda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59%3Ashooting&catid=25&Itemid=63

probably better not to, there have not been any major studies into it however.

Grizzly 45

Okay, for a start, it's McDonalds coffee, so let's be realistic and drop the enjoyed bit

I can live with it,but then again I like airline food too!!:D

Yup, it is.
The thing is, it's deeply unethical. It's a corporation (and ultimately, people) setting a monetary value on human life and deciding that if they paid that, then ending that life was a perfectly fine way to do business.
That is why they teach that case study as a "what not to do" in engineering schools.

Welcome to the really real world of big big busisness.:rolleyes: Ethics...whats that??But its no different in any commercial strata including politics..Found out recently ,never knew this.This Irish vote of No1 and second vote.Give a canditate your no 1 you might as well give him and his party a fiver!! No 2 vote is worth 2.50 euros... No wonder these big parties can keep going ..Its like the old payola contract.

I've never heard of that case and I think you're getting things mixed up badly there Grizz - the Piper cub was no more used for military purposes than an AR-15 is an assault rifle. The Cub predates the war, and they made a (very altered) version of it as a spotting plane that got used throughout WW2, Korea and Vietnam; but it wasn't the same aircraft by a long, long way.
[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub All you need to know on the piper cubs war record.. WW2,Korea,'Nam.
Maybe I didnt make it clear ...It was a restored ww2 vintage aircraft,flying under the "experimental" category..IE the least restrictive category of getting somthing airworthy certified by the FAA.

There were lawsuits - one because the pilot had loaded the aircraft incorrectly, putting the center of gravity beyond the aft limit for the aircraft (something you learn in flight school very very early on) and the aircraft stalled on takeoff and crashed, killing the pilot. They lost the case, btw.

Not in the least bit surprised.

Another because the pilot (whose licence was not current and who shouldn't have been flying the cub apparently) mounted a great big feck-off video camera (this was back when those weren't tiny things built into your phone) and took off to do aerial photography, only to find that the camera meant he couldn't see forward, which is important for flying. Thing is, when he went to taxi out to the runway, the airport manager saw him and parked a van on the runway to stop him taking off (apart from not being current on the cub, he also had some unpaid airport bills) But with the camera, he couldn't see the van, flew into it and was killed because he'd also taken off the shoulder harness (the plane's version of a safety belt) to fit the camera. They won the case, and Congress thought it so ridiculous that they could that they changed the law (which stopped a rash of liability lawsuits that were destroying the light aviation industry in the US at the time). Mind you, Piper had no liability insurance, so it pretty much kicked the carp out of them anyway...

That was one of them I rememberd in flight training school in the 90s..it was so ridicilous that it even got to a court.But it still shows how litagatious they are on the most no hope case.

Don't throw rocks, we've taken a case to the Supreme Court where the plaintiff was basicly arguing that he should be allowed to have a licence for a pistol because all his mates had one!

But we havent managed to take one yet trying to sue the gun maker because we shot somone with a gun,as we didnt know it is a dangerous item..I mean I thought I could use my Glock to hammer in nails too...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

EireIceMan

Longranger wrote: »

my missus shot countless clays while expecting our kids and found it to be great to relieve the stress. All of our children are perfectly healthy and, maybe cos of this, are not bothered in any way by loud noises!

Gun shyness sorted. Im going to fire off a few shots of 00 semi magnums beside my springer when shes pregnant:D:D

hedzball

Hoy...

No need to drag mc donalds coffee into this!!..

Try those "slip in" machines in some deli's...



"eh sorry, yer coffee machine is from the 90's"..






'hdz

bazza888

grizzly i bet you would sue them if you dropped the coffee in your lap and got 3rd degree burns on your nob!!!:D