Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.

[SuperNaut]

No John, not drunkeness, there's that fallacy of division again. The argument is that ANY AMOUNT causes impairment.

 

[Tacbandit]

Excellent post, Fiddletown. Responsibility is the key, for sure...

And Larry.......yes, it is safety above all...That's also why we carry...and with that, comes
the requirement of taking responsibility...using GOOD judgement. These are just my opinions, and yours are yours...

 

[Sam1911]

...The gun is a tool....

But it's not just any tool. It spits death and destruction at a distance. Once it is discharged, the projectile can not be called back. It requires care, attention, presence of mind and physical coordination to manage safely. Just ask Plaxico Burress.

Still just a tool. Misused however often, it is the best for its job. It requires care in its application, but when it is needed, the need is IMMEDIATE and IMPERATIVE. Misuse by others is in NO way an acceptable reason for restrictions on my rights, nor is it an indictment against my ability to use it properly.

So....if he was out in public he should...what? Die?

No -- just don't drink if you're carrying a gun.

WHAT? That's no answer at all! He said he was enjoying a drink at home and would defend himself if attacked. You suggested that being at home was different than being in public. I asked what you would have him do --if attacked in public, then, DIE?
So he's had some drinks. Someone attacks him. WHAT SHOULD HE DO? DIE? You've given him few and relatively ineffective options if you say he can't be armed. So, what is it to be? To enjoy a drink in public is to acquiesce to violent death if it comes? Surely you can't think so!

But I, at least, have not been convinced that it can be considered a responsible practice to drink any alcohol when carrying a gun in public. Of course no one has to care what I think. But that doesn't change my opinion.

No, that's true, but we're debating whether the law should disarm the law abiding folks who would enjoy a drink. To that end, your opinion (vote) matters.

Never forget, though, the ONLY folks who will be disarming are those who would have harmed no one in any case.

-Sam

 

[JohnKSa]

I've not made the claim nor have I seen evidence that supports the idea that ANY amount, no matter how small, causes impairment, however there is lots of evidence to support the idea that a person is typically a very poor judge of how badly that they are impaired.

At any rate, your point is certainly valid. The same standards should apply to ingesting any substance known to impair judgement or coordination when firearms are (or could become) involved.

 

[SuperNaut]

Yep, that would include blood thinners, allergy medications, inhibitors, steroids, mood levelers, cold medications, etc.

 

[inSight-NEO]

This thread (although having been covered before) has provided many interesting viewpoints, some useful "food for thought" and of course, its share of arguments. This is all well and good. However, it seems as if we are beginning to complete that proverbial circle (round and round it goes). In addition, subjectivity seems to be vastly outweighing objectivity.

It all seems similar to the debates one may find when arguing politics and religion.

So it goes....

 

[SuperNaut]

Nope, you can't call it done just when I start asking the hard questions.

 

[Sam1911]

I hope you apply the same standard to your prescription meds.

While it's uncommon for prescription medications to be prescribed at levels that would result in symptoms of drunkenness, you are correct that a person needs to be responsible in how/when they use prescription medications that can impair judgement and coordination.

They should also be aware that if they are using prescription medications that are known to impair judgement and coordination it may very well become a factor in the legal aftermath of a shooting. It won't simplify things.

I've made this point elsewhere and it's a GOOD one:

I've been so tired that I could hardly keep my eyes open. I've been too sick to stand. I've been on medications that had strange side-effects (though admittedly never anything hallucinogenic or psychotropic). I've been so cold that I lost motor control of my hands.

But I've never given up my right to armed self-defense because of those issues. And it would be a STRANGE day indeed for someone, especially here on THR, to claim that I should be legally bound to do so.

Of course, any of those issues COULD come up in a trial. Or any of 1000 other issues that the prosecutor could try to make appear influential to the incident. Just as could be with a few drinks in my system. But that doesn't reduce or eliminate my right and responsibility to defend my life or those of loved ones.

And it is inconceivable that we would accept a LAW that does so, either!

-Sam

P.S. -- Whew, it's almost 10:30. You all have fun, I'm going to bed. I'll check back in at 6:00 when I get to work. See ya then!

 

[9mm+]

I am SURE that somebody in this long thread has said this already, but drinking + CCW is a ticket straight to jail here in North Carolina. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

 

[inSight-NEO]

I've made this point elsewhere and it's a GOOD one:

I've been so tired that I could hardly keep my eyes open. I've been too sick to stand. I've been on medications that had strange side-effects (though admittedly never anything hallucinogenic or psychotropic). I've been so cold that I lost motor control of my hands.

But I've never given up my right to armed self-defense because of those issues. And it would be a STRANGE day indeed for someone, especially here on THR, to claim that I should be legally bound to do so.

Of course, any of those issues COULD come up in a trial. Or any of 1000 other issues that the prosecutor could try to make appear influential to the incident. Just as could be with a few drinks in my system. But that doesn't reduce or eliminate my right and responsibility to defend my life or those of loved ones.

And it is inconceivable that we would accept a LAW that does so, either!

Agreed. But, why abuse the rights you have? Why make stupid or in the very least, less than wise decisions just because you can? This is only opens the door to governmental mandate(s). Give someone enough rope....so the saying goes.

I guess what Im saying is...if you want to maintain certain uninhibited "rights," then why treat them in ridiculous and potentially harmful ways? Be smart and try not to give "the powers that be" any reason to step in and make things worse. I mean, dont many, many out there hate guns enough? Why add fuel to the fire through irresponsibility? It makes no sense.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yep, that would include blood thinners, allergy medications, inhibitors, steroids, mood levelers, cold medications, etc.

It probably includes SOME drugs from each of the very broad groups you mention but it certainly doesn't include all of them.

The bottom line is that if you are under the influence of any substance (legal, illegal or prescription) that affects judgement and/or coordination then it is up to you to be responsible in what sort of activities you engage in.

More to the point, if you are involved in a shooting incident, you may very well to get the chance to see if a jury of your peers agrees with your definition of responsible.

 

[SuperNaut]

But we are really talking about impairment, right? Otherwise we are just stigmatizing one very specific type of behavior while pretending that all other types are okey-dokey. Impairment isn't limited to people who drink, there are a whole host of things that can cause impairment, some not even related to intoxicants of any kind. I'm okay with those who think that ANY AMOUNT of alcohol causes impairment as long as they apply that same standard to whatever it is they may be taking.

 

[JohnKSa]

Personal and social responsibility demands that we restrict what we do while we know we are impaired.

But that's not the whole story. If you are involved in an incident, you will not be the one who decides if your decisions about whether or not you were impaired were responsible ones or not. It will be a jury of your peers. Some of whom may very well "stigmatize one very specific type of behavior".

So it's not as simple as just saying: "I'm not impaired so it's not an issue." If you are involved in an incident while using a substance that is known to impair you won't get to to make the final decision as to whether or not it's an issue, or whether or not you were impaired for that matter. The legal system (criminal AND civil) will get the final word.

 

[SuperNaut]

Ah yes, the statistically remote incident.

Just as the jury of your peers will decide if that over-the-counter cold medicine you took because you were feeling a little sniffly (the one that states "do not operate heavy machinery" on the package) affected your decision-making capability or impaired your judgement in any way.

At least it wasn't alcohol!

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Yep, that would include blood thinners, allergy medications, inhibitors, steroids, mood levelers, cold medications, etc.

As a Student pharmacist, I facepalmed when I read this.



comparing OTCs and alcohol is like comparing apples and papayas

 

[Leper Khan]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this thread is ultimately about whether or not possessing a firearm while under the influence (from 1 or 100 drinks) should be the subject of legislation or a moral decision that each individual would have to make. I can easily see both sides of the argument, but I abhor the thought of people making decisions for me from afar, when I am perfectly capable of making them myself.

Maybe narrowing the argument to whether it should be illegal or not would add more clarity to the topic. I just read through all of the posts so far and there is quite a bit of discussion about whether or not you personally would or if it's right or wrong to carry while under the influence. No legislation should be enacted on anyone's personal preference.

Having said that, I have seen plenty of normally responsible (and many not so responsible) people become dangerous, incoherent baffoons when under the influence, so I can certainly respecting anyone having concerns when combining two potentially dangerous elements. Just my $.02 from a long time lurker/noob poster.

 

[SuperNaut]

As a Student pharmacist, I facepalmed when I read this.

Educate me.

All of those warn against using while operating heavy machinery, or are you thinking "drunk" as well.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ah yes, the statistically remote incident.

I have made no claims or implications of the statistical probability of such an incident.

If you decide that there's no way it can happen to you or that the likelihood is sufficiently small then it's not an issue for you. It has happened to others and it was an issue for them--that's all I'm saying.

Just as the jury of your peers will decide if that over-the-counter cold medicine you took because you were feeling a little sniffly (the one that states "do not operate heavy machinery" on the package) affected your decision-making capability or impaired your judgement in any way.

Yes, exactly. Although, as you point out, you may find persons on your jury who, as you put it, "stigmatize one very specific type of behavior". This thread and some of the responses on it should be MORE than adequate evidence of that.

Assuming a person makes the correct call and his judgement and coordination are unimpaired then the risk is all on his side. He can ignore it if he wishes. Of course things are very different if it turns out he really is impaired. Then his decision is no longer purely a personal one since it has real potential for negatively affecting others.

All of those warn against using while operating heavy machinery.

No. As I pointed out, SOME of the drugs from the very broad groups that you listed have the potential to impair a person and carry appropriate warnings. Certainly not "all".

 

[SuperNaut]

The same argument was used by some in the "Punisher Grips" thread John, I didn't find it compelling there either. I totally get your point though.

 

[SuperNaut]

No. As I pointed out, SOME of the drugs from the very broad groups that you listed have the potential to impair a person and carry appropriate warnings. Certainly not "all".

Change it to "many" then, since it doesn't affect my point.

 

[Maverick223]

I am SURE that somebody in this long thread has said this already, but drinking + CCW is a ticket straight to jail here in North Carolina. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

I eluded to it earlier...we have some pretty stupid firearms laws here in NC. Being legally drunk and carrying a firearm is poor judgement, but IIRC the law states that any amount of alcohol is considered a felony when carrying. You also cannot carry in any establishment that serves alcohol (including a fine dining restaurant), whether or not you are engaged in consuming alcohol at that location. That law is beyond my comprehension.

 

[unloved]

Agreed. But, why abuse the rights you have? Why make stupid or in the very least, less than wise decisions just because you can?

How does one abuse rights? "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose." If my behavior-any of it-infringes on the rights of another, then I do not have a right to engage in that infringing behavior. I don't see how it's possible to abuse rights.

I guess what Im saying is...if you want to maintain certain uninhibited "rights," then why treat them in ridiculous and potentially harmful ways?

What is ridiculous or potentially harmful about drinking responsibly while armed? Exercising my rights while engaging in perfectly legal behavior which harms no one? That's ridiculous?

This is only opens the door to governmental mandate(s). Give someone enough rope....so the saying goes.

Be smart and try not to give "the powers that be" any reason to step in and make things worse. I mean, dont many, many out there hate guns enough? Why add fuel to the fire through irresponsibility? It makes no sense.

The law in Pennsylvania has been what it is for at least twenty years. I say "at least" because I don't know what the law said prior to 1989. As far as I know, it has never been illegal to drink while armed in Pennsylvania. That doesn't bode well for your argument that the the powers that be are waiting like vultures for us to hang ourselves.

I hear a similar argument regarding open carry all the time. "People will get upset, and they'll vote to change the law and make open carry illegal.Don't rock the boat. You're going to ruin it for everyone. Why do you have to go around abusing your rights, rubbing people's faces in it?"
Here in PA, exactly the opposite has happened. In fact all Pennsylvania LEOs have been made aware, through their annual training update, that open carry is legal, and that they are not to harass those citizens that choose to "abuse" their rights.

 

[rbernie]

But I, at least, have not been convinced that it can be considered a responsible practice to drink any alcohol when carrying a gun in public. Of course no one has to care what I think. But that doesn't change my opinion.

The fundamental question isn't a degree of responsibility - it's a question of legality.

I believe that it should be legal to carry in bars. In looking at the crime data for states that allow such things, I cannot see how allowing that behavior causes undue burden on society. Conversely, I cannot see how restricting it accrues any measurable, verifiable benefit.

I don't generally drink and carry. That's my choice. But it should be legal for me to stop and have a beer and not be forced to disarm while doing so.

 

[bob.a]

Quote:
Yep, that would include blood thinners, allergy medications, inhibitors, steroids, mood levelers, cold medications, etc.

As a Student pharmacist, I facepalmed when I read this.



comparing OTCs and alcohol is like comparing apples and papayas
__________________

I've found over the years that taking chlortrimeton for my allergies dries up my nose, but makes me mean as a snake. I've stopped using it for that reason, and I am certain that I could be provoked into a very ugly situation were I to be taking this med while armed.

Maybe as a student you'd find it worth considering that all side-effects are not necessarily listed in the formulary. Maybe as a student you might consider you still have something to learn?

 

[unloved]

comparing OTCs and alcohol is like comparing apples and papayas

Why? OTCs can't impair people? I never take anything that contains dextromethorphan if I'm going to be leaving my home that day. Why not? The recommended dosage messes me up. 2-3 beers or glasses of wine with dinner doesn't mess me up.