Shooting and Drinking at a BBQ?

[TimSr]

Behind every dumb intrusive law is a mere handful of idiots who acted irresponsibly and spoiled it for eveybody else.


I support the right to open carry, but get too obnoxious and push it too far and you will see new infringements.

I support your right to drink, but get too obnoxious and push it too far and you will see new infringements.

Everything carries political consequences. If you drink a few beers while shooting clays at your buddy's farm, thats your right, but if you are going to publically promote it, and post videos on youtube, prepare for the political consequences. If you can't convince fellow gun owners that holding a beer in one hand, and a pistol in the other is a golden image to promote the 2nd A, you need to be aware that you are posting the perfect ani-gun video, and you will see new infringements. Not because of you, but that one idiot out 50 people who will be at a 200 person public event.

 

[Sam1911]

People were basically arguing that possession of firearms at home shouldn't be allowed. I think that's an absurd message to allow unchallenged on a forum that wants to position itself as pro-RKBA.

Ok, wait, no. Nobody argued that. You brought that up as an extension, a reductio ad absurdum of the idea of guns and alcohol never being allowed to exist in the same place at the same time.

You can't say that people were "basically" arguing that position, when the thread is about a gun club serving/allowing alcohol during a shooting event.

It is a useful analogy to explore the extremes, but not THE SAME THING.

 

[Sav .250]

Hope it goes well but Guns and booze ----------don`t mix!

 

[grter]

Ok, wait, no. Nobody argued that. You brought that up as an extension, a reductio ad absurdum of the idea of guns and alcohol never being allowed to exist in the same place at the same time.

You can't say that people were "basically" arguing that position, when the thread is about a gun club serving/allowing alcohol during a shooting event.

It is a useful analogy to explore the extremes, but not THE SAME THING.

Agreed you are right it is not the same thing however I would not take it lightly either.

I can easily be legislated as being "The same thing" by some crackpot legislater seeking the votes of extremist if people are not willing to make sure the distiction is to be respected.

 

[Sam1911]

I think that's an extremely far reach. That's not universal background checks, or prohibitions on the sale of certain guns, or limits on features allowed to be sold, or any of the other common things that anti-gun legislators generally fight for (and fail to get, these days). This would be dictating that citizens could not be allowed to possess two perfectly lawful items at the same time, and it would be so incredibly intrusive and unprecedented as to be just beyond consideration.

Just because some "crackpot legislator" could possibly conceive and propose such a law doesn't mean it would stand a snowball's chance of being passed in any state in the union.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Just because you have a Right to do a thing does not mean it is the right thing to do. Few tasks require more mental acuteness for safety than the use of firearms. Society has laws regulating many of those tasks. I wonder if operation of firearms while impaired is not far behind in similar regulation by law.

 

[Hangingrock]

To Answer the Frank Ettin question from Post #114

I wonder if, in that case, the sportsman's organization still felt, when it was all done, that any upside was worth the downside. Might the management of that organization wish that they had implemented those stringent regulation/procedures regarding alcoholic sales and consumption before the incident?
__________________
The organization board of directors voted to maintain the serving of alcoholic beverages with restrictions; hired a bartender, maintained a log of individual members being served by membership card number, limited hours of operations, no happy hour, increased the cost of the alcoholic beverages to be more than the prevailing rate in the general metropolitan area, and excluded members guest from being served.

More or less the drinkers and semi drunks prevailed in keeping the bar in place with the previously mentioned restrictions.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think that's an extremely far reach. ...

Not so far a reach in my mind. Maybe it is growing up in California and watching the place turn.

"[2013 proposal] requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges."

http://patch.com/massachusetts/natick/rep-linsky-files-legislation-aimed-at-reducing-gun-violence


Yeah, Crackpot legislator, you said that, but the reality is that we are never more than two elections away from that stuff coming back into vogue. We have a window to normalize guns in society and make it less likely anyone will take such ideas seriously, but we are sending very mixed messages and that window is going to close.

And once they can categorize one weapon as too dangerous to keep at home, the rest is just haggling over price.


ETA: such legislation won't be "you can't have guns at home and alcohol", it will be " you can't have guns at home" and the argument for it will be "because of Alcohol and whatever else we can use to scare people with".

 

[TimSr]

People were basically arguing that possession of firearms at home shouldn't be allowed.

Can you point out which post is making that argument?

 

[oneounceload]

I'd still be more concerned about folks drinking after shooting and getting behind the wheel of the vehicle and driving than I would be about folks who had a few beers and then went and shoot a little more. Most folks who intend to shoot a little bit later know their limit and either won't drink of have 1-2. Folks done and settling down to a big bbq lasting for a while will tend to have more and then the alcohol will have time to enter the blood stream before they begin their journey home.
I haven't seen any articles about guns clubs and drunk shootings; but I see articles everyday about drunk drivers killing folks. Perhaps someone can provide me some links about those gun clubs please?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Most folks who intend to shoot a little bit later know their limit...

Most folks. So there are some who don't know their limits; and if there are problems, they're the ones who will most likely have caused them.

Most folks are not the issue. It's the few, and they can manage to wreak all the havoc we could want.

 

[Gun Master]

Most, except the mentally challenged, would agree that alcohol in any quantity, impairs judgement. "Having a few beers....." could cloud one's thinking of how much is enough, and what he/she is capable of doing at that moment. That includes (but not limited to) shooting, driving, drinking more, etc.......

Personally I will not attend a function where shooting and drinking occur.

 

[oneounceload]

Found this while looking at driven hunts in Europe:

Generally the first drive of the day commences at around 11.00am after which the game is collected and displayed, the majority of estates only count the dead. At this point your party will be served a light snack of local Hams Cheese Chorizo Sausage Wines and Sherry, possibly supported by a warm consume if the weather demands before commencing the next drive approximately an hour later.

Lunch can be expected at around 1.30 when weather permitting you will assemble around a roaring fire sharing spare ribs, local sausage and bacon with the now familiar tapas that visitors have come to love. In fact, each drive is punctuated with local produce including fine wines and beer with the estate I have visited most, La Castanar, named for the local chestnut trees in the foothills of the Toledo Mountains, also boasting its own vineyard where their full-bodied red is of an excellent quality and the perfect complement to the local cuisine.

And there are 4-5 drives each day.....OMG, folks are having wine on a break and then they'll be going back into the wild with loaded guns! RUN FOR HILLS! Oh wait, they ARE in the hills - enjoying a lovely day of driven shooting, fine wining and dining and no one kills anyone......

And this is typical in Europe, South America, etc. - and in most places, you have to buy shooter's insurance, but they have no problems. We here love to imagine the worst scenario, especially with guns (think of all of the threads about folks who won't even go to the bathroom without a gun). For folks who espouse freedom, to choose, it is sounding more like the socialists where you are free to choose, so long as it is the same as their choice.......

 

[oneounceload]

Most folks. So there are some who don't know their limits; and if there are problems, they're the ones who will most likely have caused them.

Most folks are not the issue. It's the few, and they can manage to wreak all the havoc we could want.

Then the nannies can convince them if they look hammered to not shoot.

 

[Aragon]

Drink ≠ Drunk

Everything else is just noise.

Define "drunk." Your comment was just more noise...

 

[Frank Ettin]

And this is typical in Europe, South America, etc. - and in most places, you have you buy shooter's insurance, but they have no problems....

First, as you point out, the participants in those hunts must buy insurance. Second, they are paying some fairly fancy fees to be allowed on these private hunting properties. Third, the number of participants is limited, and they are consistently under the watchful eyes of staff.

How many folks here would be agreeable to participating in their clubs' activities on similar terms?

 

[Nom de Forum]

First, as you point out, the participants in those hunts must buy insurance. Second, they are paying some fairly fancy fees to be allowed on these private hunting properties. Third, the number of participants is limited, and they are consistently under the watchful eyes of staff.

How many folks here would be agreeable to participating in their clubs' activities on similar terms?

Not me! Firearms are very unforgiving of momentary lapses in attention to safety. Alcohol unacceptably increases incidents of momentary lapses in attention. As far as all those Europeans and South Americans imbibing while hunting; I am sure they keep news of "accidents" very quiet. The Rich who can afford such hunts often have the means to keep news of the "unpleasant" from spoiling their fun. If I recall correctly there are incidents in European History of the aristocracy and nobility being killed by NDs while on similar hunts.

 

[Ed Ames]

Can you point out which post is making that argument?

This may not be a complete list, but: 1, 4, 6, 11, 20, 37, 40, 54....

To be pedantic they are not directly arguing for a restriction on guns in homes. Rather, they are making arguments which support such a restriction.

For example, in post 40 we see the exchange:

...Nor does it change the fact that saying gun owners can't be trusted if they have had a beer is damaging to the pro-RKBA cause.

And just what says that they CAN be trusted?????????

In other words: You, TimSr, cannot be trusted, in your home which has firearms, if you have had a single beer.

From there it is simple logic. If you believe all of the zero tolerance "guns and alcohol do not mix" posters, we have identified a problem and have a moral imperative to solve it for the public good.

As a country we have gone through the whole Alcohol Prohibition thing, and it didn't work out. As such, taking away the beer isn't an option. That leaves two possible solutions: take away the guns (even if they are locked; I'm sure we can establish that someone with a .02 BAC can defeat their own lock) or get rid of you. Well, we could do both, but that's a lot of work.

The UK and most of her former colonies have already gone down this path. At this point we may be the lone holdout. I know that things look good for gun rights in 2015 compared to 1989, but I plan on living another 50+ years and my concerns stretch beyond that. I'm looking at the long term.

 

[danez71]

Originally posted by Ed Amesbury

I think you have mistaken my argument with Frank for my point. That is a shame. My point, to repeat myself, is this:

"By arguing that your gun club's members cannot be trusted to act responsibly around guns and alcohol at the same time, you are making the argument that those people (and by extension all people) cannot be trusted to keep firearms at home. Homes generally have alcohol."

I get what you're saying Ed. And to some extent I can agree. When it's me and a couple close friends in the middle of no where... I wouldn't be the least concerned if someone grabbed a beer.

Btw, I hardly drink. I've had maybe 5 drinks this year... probably more like 2-3.


But I can't agree in the context/scenario of this thread.

It's established the people tend to drink more in a social setting that involves alcohol.

Adding in excitement and bravado elevates the tendency particularly with so many different personalities in close proximity.


Just about every pro sporting event (football baseball etc) has an alcohol related fight.


When I go to those sports events, Im more concerned about violence and dumb stuff spilling over to me because of what history has shown over and over.


You're saying that it's bad to not trust the attendees to control their drinking and shooting in that setting.... but the track record large #s of people just sitting, drinking, and watching a game isnt all that great.

 

[Ed Ames]

I get what you're saying Ed. And to some extent I can agree. When it's me and a couple close friends in the middle of no where... I wouldn't be the least concerned if someone grabbed a beer.

Btw, I hardly drink. I've had maybe 5 drinks this year... probably more like 2-3.

I am not much of a drinker myself, though I'm not morally opposed. I usually have better ways to spend my time and money.

You're saying that it's bad to not trust the attendees to control their drinking and shooting in that setting.... but the track record large #s of people just sitting, drinking, and watching a game isnt all that great.

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

You are talking about a sporting arena, I'm talking about gun owners. Yes, I realize many of the people in an arena own guns, but the point is that the group I'm talking about is defined by the trait of gun ownership.

And I'm not really saying trust them. There are plenty of individuals who happen to be gun owners that I wouldn't trust to put gas in my car.

What I am saying is that going on a public forum and saying that gun owners cannot be trusted with any amount of alcohol, and there should be rules (club rules or laws) against allowing ANY overlap between handling guns and drinking because it absolutely cannot be safe, is damaging to the RKBA cause. It is an argument for "common sense gun laws".

Beyond that...

The best thing you can say is that there's a lot of lousy information floating around in cyberspace, and people like Aragon, WNTFW, cdk8, et al are just adding more blather to the mix.

The reality is that those people love to pontificate in broad, general terms, to be contentious, and raise a ruckus. But when someone challenges their contentions...well, we can see from this thread what happens.

Where is the evidence that events like this must be conducted with a strict separation of alcohol and shooting?

Oneounceload has been providing evidence that combining activities is not an instant guarantee of mayhem. Seems like that alone is plenty to prove that those broad generalizations are wrong, yet they are still repeated as fact.

 

[danez71]

True. But.....

The fundamentalsame are the same (similar enough imo).

Competitive one-upsmanship with alcohol in a largish social event with many different personalities... the recipe is there whether is a sports arena or bingo.

I see your point that making it a 'shooting event' dependant argument is not exactly helpful.

But the recipe is there and the fact that it's a shooting event means the consequences could be much higher than, say, a bingo event.

 

[cdk8]

"2 beers in 15 minutes isnt even getting to the feel the effects of alcohol range."

Depending on the beer and the drinker, that can certainly be the case. It can also be very much the opposite (case in point, Spaten Optimator) in other cases.

I have to say it is quite entertaining to read peoples' perspectives on this topic; I had no idea the Prohibition Movement still had so much life left in it, but perhaps I shouldn't be in this day and age. For Pete's sake, we have people claiming the limit should be .02! Have fun sitting on your butt for an hour after a glass of wine at Olive Garden, fools. No, you won't be jetting off to see a movie afterward, too bad. Better hope that Breathalyzer is calibrated really carefully, too, if you do get pulled over even after waiting responsibly for your blood to get to .01%. It'll be practically impossible to disprove a cop who 'smells alcohol on your breath' with such a low threshold as well, so you just signed up for undisprovable convictions of DUI for yourselves and others.

1) Absolutist arguments ("no safe amount of alcohol," "drinking is by definition a lack of self-control")
2) Fear, worry, and doubt over the actions of others (slathered across every page)
3) Lack of concern for the desires and wishes of those who would be effected (or rather, a distinct animosity towards their desires & wishes)
4) Knee jerk remedies (assorted 'zero tolerance' rules) with zero accommodation to those who would be effected, and even less evidence of effectiveness (merely conjecture)
5) Lack of a real and pressing problem in the first place. Irresponsible use of alcohol and firearms may in fact go together, but they are hardly the root of serious causes for concern (a subset of a subset, assuming the irresponsibility at play was even the result of the alcohol in the first place)

How is this any different than the sheep led by the anti-gunners? I strongly suggest those who feel so strongly against drinking while shooting examine their feelings, and make sure something concrete is supporting them. Not feelings, not 'horse sense,' not anecdotes, but logical arguments why shooting cannot be done responsibly with alcohol present, or why the freedom to do so is morally inferior to the enactment of 'rules' which may or may not be enforced/ignored.

TCB

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/bac.html

Alcohol is a drug that causes impairment, and the facilities that alcohol affects are the same ones people use to safely operate a firearm. This is a fact...not some sort of reefer madness or wive's tale. It impairs motor coordination and causes psychological changes. Some people become rapidly impaired even at lower doses, where as others do not fit that bill. Most people manage its usage responsibly, but some people do not. Because of this, to me the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit of shooting and drinking simultaneously at an event.

You may be able to manage alcohol and guns responsibly on your own property (which you have all the right in the world.) However, believing that an event with 100+ people at it will be OK to do this is naive. Does that mean we need a law banning something? NO. Just don't serve people alcohol at a formal shooting event until the shooting is finished. We don't need more laws...but let's not encourage or enable.

Do you think that it is possible to shoot safety on a small amount of LSD, cocaine, or amphetamines? Would you go to an event that openly allowed it?

 

[oneounceload]

How many folks here would be agreeable to participating in their clubs' activities on similar terms?

I would in a heartbeat. I'd trust those folks in that scenario, even if that whole situation was done here locally. As earlier, in the old days, there were thermos' and flasks in every blind and stand with no issues. It's the nanny minded over the top paranoids I'm more concerned with - these folks will gave up liberty for safety, something Ben mentioned a few years back............

As Clint said: "A man has to know his limitations"..............

 

[Sam1911]

Would I attend such? I can't say for sure because I don't know anything about the people involved or the club's general demeanor. However, I probably would, assuming the cross-section of folks I see attend my club's events.

Would I approve such a thing if I was on a club board? No, almost certainly not. The physical risk to myself (which I'd expect to be very low, in reality, probably lower than on the car trip to the range) would not be even close to the primary risk I'd be worried about.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How many folks here would be agreeable to participating in their clubs' activities on similar terms?

I would in a heartbeat. I'd trust those folks in that scenario, even if that whole situation was done here locally....

I would too. I know people who have gone on those types of hunts. I have some idea of how they're run.

But I suspect that many people here would not. Not only would the cost be troubling to some -- a four day dove hunt in Argentina could run $3,000 to $6,000 a person plus airfare -- but they might find things a bit too regimented.

...in the old days, there were thermos' and flasks in every blind and stand with no issues....

I understand that things were different in the past. But you'd need to provide some solid evidence before I'd be willing to accept your claim that there were "no issues."

Would I attend such? I can't say for sure because I don't know anything about the people involved or the club's general demeanor. However, I probably would, assuming the cross-section of folks I see attend my club's events....

I'd tend to agree with Sam, at least with regard to one of the clubs I belong to. But if it's another club where I'm a member -- definitely not.

...Would I approve such a thing if I was on a club board? No, almost certainly not. The physical risk to myself (which I'd expect to be very low, in reality, probably lower than on the car trip to the range) would not be even close to the primary risk I'd be worried about.

I agree.