Guns and alchohol consumption - Poll

[JerryM]

I should not have read anymore on this thread, but the question, "Would you let your kids on a schoolbus if the driver had "only a few drinks"?" is so good that it must be enlarged to ask,

"Would you let your kids go the the range and use a gun if the instructors had just a few drinks?"

I am sure that the instructor would claim that he knew what his limit was and could safely teach your kids shooting after he had a couple of drinks.

What if you had a child who was of age to drink, would you permit him to go to the range after a couple of drinks with some teachers who had just had a couple of drinks?

Be honest, and you who claim that you can drink just a little and still be safe, answer that you would let your kids be taken to a shooting session by one or more instructors who had just one or two drinks. Should not those instructors know their limit?

The attitude of punishing the person after he has killed someone ignores the fact that when it can be done, prevention is the better choice.
It is small consolation for a parent or loved one who has just had their child killed by a drunk driver or a drunk CHL holder to be told that the killer will be punished.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Ed Ames]

Umm... Jerry... that's an appeal to emotion with some pretty basic flaws.

1) "Child who was of age to drink" ... doesn't exist in the USA. Legal drinking age is pretty much 21 everywhere (maybe some exceptions still exist but even those were 18) and 18 is the age of maturity. So the whole statement is nonsensical.

2) "Would you let your kids go to the range and use a gun if the instructors had..." How do you know what the instructors have had? If you are concerned about trusting the instructors it is your responsibility to observe or at least discuss the issues, explicitly, with the instructors. You can address the issue privately without the need for any laws and without any concern for what other people find acceptable. Just make it clear before you pay your money that you think alcohol is evil and if they laugh at you find another instructor.


As a practical matter: I have no idea whether an instructor has had a few drinks before the class. I'm not going to start carrying a breathalizer around and I've met enough people who thought they could spot drunks on sight to know it's a fool's game. So it's not something I'm going to consider.

Instead I observe instructors for general behavior. Poor speaking/communications skills? Bad. Racist comments? Bad. Sexual advances? Bad. Poor teaching technique? Bad. I've seen instructors that did stupid things. One was Mr. Muzzle Control with a real pistol but as soon as he picked up a dummy gun he was sweeping everyone and doing other dumb things. Yeah, it was a dummy gun. Yeah, the guy was sober. No, I didn't think it was a good way to teach gun safety. I wouldn't send anyone's child to him.

If someone met my criteria as a good instructor, by observation, and I later found out that they'd had pure vodka in the water bottle they were swigging from all day I would not care and it wouldn't influence my decision to send anyone to the class. Performance counts, everything else is BS.

Same goes for bus drivers, airline pilots, and everyone else.

Oh, and it's not at all about waiting until someone is killed. It's about judging based on real performance standards rather than assuming that an arbitrary amount of alcohol will render everyone a senseless and irresponsible idiot. Some people are senseless irresponsible idiots when dead sober and they are dangerous to be around no matter what they do. Avoid being around them. Period. Others are in control and behave responsibly with 0.1% BAC (or more, or less) and they shouldn't be penalized for behaving safely while having an arbitrary amount of alcohol in their blood.

 

[JerryM]

Hi Ed,

You cannot get off that easy,
"As a practical matter: I have no idea whether an instructor has had a few drinks before the class. I'm not going to start carrying a breathalizer around and I've met enough people who thought they could spot drunks on sight to know it's a fool's game. So it's not something I'm going to consider."

It is a "given" that they had been drinking. Now would you or not allow your children to go with them? No sense in trying to avoid the question. It centers around whether or not the drinker's judgment is good enough to determine whether he is impaired or not, and whether or not you believe that enough to trust your child with him on the shooting range.
Would you or not?

As to the child drinking and shooting with others who have been drinking, if you had the authority to permit or not would you permit your child to drink and go shooting with an instructor who had also been drinking? Do either have good enough judgment so that you would say OK? Don't try to dodge the issue of age to drink.

Or let us say that your wife wanted to go to the range and shoot. She had been drinking, and a best friend (whom you could trust with your wife) was going and he had been drinking also. Not a lot just a couple of drink, but he said he was mature enough to know his limit, would you approve your wife and he going to the range to shoot? They both know their limits do they not?

If you know your limit, then do not others know their limits so that you would trust them with your kids or wife?

["If someone met my criteria as a good instructor, by observation, and I later found out that they'd had pure vodka in the water bottle they were swigging from all day I would not care and it wouldn't influence my decision to send anyone to the class. Performance counts, everything else is BS."]
How about if they did not drink all day, but just at noon, and not the whole bottle, but just a third of it. Is that too much? Would you send the children the next time? You see you find out later and nothing happened, but if you knew ahead of time would you care? At that point you do not know if anything is going to happen. In that sense your reasoning is seriously flawed. 20/20 hindsight is not the same as not knowing ahead of timel.

PS I should have also asked if you have children or are married, as that changes one's outlook.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[44and45]

Has someone been nipping the Blackberry brandy, this drinking scenario is really getting to be pretty well potted, but I guess we'll be talking about pot now.

Would you allow your infant to smoke a joint, or be in the same room with a joint smoker...who has a gun.

Or a bus driver smoking a joint who has a gun.

Inquiring minds want to know????

Such discussions are frivolous...but carry on if you've got to, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Jim

 

[Jamie C.]

If you then want to measure people's behavior, it needs to be separate and specific.

Logical, it doesn't matter how the poll was worded or what questions are asked, there are always going to be people that stick their noses up in the air in "righteous indignation" at other people's answers. That's just an unfortunate bit of human behavior that can't be avoided.

And that's probably the only thing a poll like this is really good for.... showing who or how many people think/work that way.



J.C.

 

[Ed Ames]

Umm... that wasn't an avoidance, that was a general statement of logical principle.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Think about it.

Because you have no evidence they haven't drunk, go ahead and assume they have. Now it's time to face the real issue: are they behaving in a way you consider to be safe? If they are behaving in an unsafe way it doesn't matter if they are dead sober or three up. If they are behaving safely it doesn't matter either.

You know, people always told me "if you have _____ it changes your outlook" ... and when I got ______ I realized they were wrong... a rational outlook doesn't change just because your body chemistry has been altered by some biological or psychological event.

 

[GRB]

1) "Child who was of age to drink" ... doesn't exist in the USA. Legal drinking age is pretty much 21 everywhere (maybe some exceptions still exist but even those were 18) and 18 is the age of maturity. So the whole statement is nonsensical.

My children, the younger 18, the older now 23, will always be my children regardless of age. I think that maybe what was meant. Even if it was not, yu should have gottenn the idea, and you just twist it around. Switch loved one for child if it is that hard to understand instead of saying that Jerry is being nonsensical.

The question, and the point, I think was would you let a loved one (child or not) go to the range and sahoot after a few drinks, or would you let an instructor who you knew had a few drinks instruct your loved ones in how to shoot.

If you truly beleive this:

If someone met my criteria as a good instructor, by observation, and I later found out that they'd had pure vodka in the water bottle they were swigging from all day I would not care and it wouldn't influence my decision to send anyone to the class. Performance counts, everything else is BS.

You are ssking for trouble. I have seen plenty of drunks drive pretty well after getting sloshed, then the next time they drove they hit a tree/wall/house/cow/another car/person - whatever. Saying that it is okay to allow a drunk, or someone even just under the influence of alcohol or mind altering drugs, to give shooting instruction is, in my honest opinion, less than responsible, and less than smart. Then again it is your choice to make as to wether or not you endanger yourself, or allow others to endanger you - but I'll be damned if I knowingly shoot with a person who even thinks like you about taking such a chance.

Now as for this:

One was Mr. Muzzle Control with a real pistol but as soon as he picked up a dummy gun he was sweeping everyone and doing other dumb things. Yeah, it was a dummy gun. Yeah, the guy was sober. No, I didn't think it was a good way to teach gun safety. I wouldn't send anyone's child to him.

Do you even begin to proclaim to understand why instructors use so called "dummy" guns or red guns? The purpose of them, or one of the purposes of them, is to be able to safely point them at others during instruction periods. If you have a problem with red guns being pointed at someone, and if you think a lack of safety, do you also believe that using paintball rounds shot out of modified 'real' pistols to also be a safety violation. Ploice departments, federal agencies, the military, and private shooting schools all use these tools and techniques to teach tactical shooting; and guess what - plenty of the students get shot with the paint pellet rounds. You have a point to make, but seem to be stretching so far out of whack by giving these apparently non-informed responses to have defeated your own point.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Hoffy]

I chose never...and the exception below made the rule.

Several years ago a budy of mine and I were shooting informal skeet on another buddy's farm and beers were cracked...it really felt weird. After years of shooting and years of drinking, that was the one time it ever happened together.

 

[Ed Ames]

Glenn,

I'm not twisting, I'm simply pointing out that the entire question is so busted that it can't be answered. Your 18 & over offspring aren't subject to your control. Sorry. You can get into very serious legal trouble if you think you can deny them permission to do anything. More than one parent has found themselves on the wrong end of the criminal justice system because they didn't realize that their offspring are no longer their children. No more spankings. No more groundings. It's no longer your position to give or deny permission. Same goes for wives, husbands, sisters, parents, and everyone else. You have no authority to deny them permission to do anything. If you haven't conveyed whatever information they need to make their own decisions by the time they are 18 you screwed up and it's too late to change things. At that point the only thing you have a right to control is yourself.

You are ssking for trouble.

And you say I'm trying to twist! You have it backwards. You are assuming that sobriety=safety. I don't make that assumption. I have far higher standards than sobriety. I've met too many people I wouldn't want within 5 miles of me if they had a gun in their hands so I'm very picky. I'm also realistic enough to admit that I can't base my choices on unknowable variables. I can't tell if a person has had a drink within the last few hours, or has a brain tumor, or has just broken up with her husband, or any of a million other factors that may leave them operating at less than 100%. I can tell if they are being unsafe. I don't want to be around them if they are unsafe whether they are drunk or sober.

Do you even begin to proclaim to understand why instructors use so called "dummy" guns or red guns?

I have no problem with an instructor aiming a dummy gun at an assistant as part of a demonstration. That's what they are for...safely acting out a scenario that involves pointing a gun at a person. I have a serious problem with the same instructor unconsciously sweeping the class and otherwise violating safety rules with the same lump of plastic. Why?

Humans are social learners. That means we can pick up ideas and behaviors by observation. That's good when you are seeing proper technique which can include aiming a gun at a "perp". It is BAD when the instructor is demonstrating improper technique which can include sweeping the class and unconsciously aiming the gun at his own leg or fiddling with the trigger.

No instructor should EVER demonstrate bad technique. Not for firearms safety, not for flying, not for driving. A good instructor will demonstrate proper technique first and always. That's because of Primacy and repetition. Primacy is the idea that the first thing you learn is what you'll have the easiest time remembering. Repetition is the idea that what you see or practice most is what you'll retain best. A good educator will always start with the correct and if they give "don't do this" examples at all it will only be after the student has an idea of what is correct.

That's a great way of identifying an amateur educator by the way... those who start off a lesson by showing the wrong way don't know much about educating.

 

[mad hungarian]

Post #86 - 'Nuff Said.

MH

 

[XavierBreath]

Resurrection of old threads generally result in closure. Especially when the original poster resurrects them.

Ideally, polls should be constructed without response and non-response bias, but this was not a scientific survey anyway.