It is the primary extra cost. As for me claiming it could prevent any liability, nope, didn't happen.
Right, so someone else posted this.
Ed Ames said:
...the primary cost of implementing a system which will prevent *you* from ... being liable for their actions, is a rubber stamp.
Second, you didn't say the "primary extra cost", whatever that means. You said it was the "primary cost", which it is not. Your system (which you now apparently agree won't prevent liability) requires the hiring of a bartender (which will cost more than a rubber hand stamp) and a rubber stamp. Therefore the primary cost is the bartender, not the cost of the rubber stamp.
Who said otherwise? You are setting up a straw man, and arguing against imagined positions as though they are mine.
You said otherwise and your quote is above to refresh your memory.
1. If you are using standard words (like 'primary') with non-standard definitions then you might want to define them to avoid confusion.
2. If you can't remember what you posted and/or won't stand behind it once the errors are pointed out, I submit that you are wasting everyone's time including yours.
I will say that the exceptions aren't meaningful.
What else would anyone reading this thread expect you to say? It's amusing that you spent so much time on the topic given the completely bankrupt nature of your original claim. The idea that the only, or even the main, or primary, or by far the most common, reason for hiring a bartender is to limit liability is a fiction you invented and haven't even attempted to support with anything approaching logic or facts.
Here's the problem: We aren't making "claims" here.
Well, that is a real problem because the statement reveals that you don't know what a claim is. You've made a number of claims, including some that you're trying to backtrack on at this point.
But I do agree with you on one point. You have been stating opinions, not facts. The problem is that you are only now admitting that they are only opinions. By the way it's not quite "according to Hoyle" to dodge out of a losing position when asked to support it with logic and facts by saying that none of your statements were actually claims, they were only statements of opinion. It's very frustrating to those who took your claims seriously, not particularly satisfying for you unless you're an unusual sort, and not particularly good for your own reputation.
"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."
First of all, I'm not arguing that at all, and as Sam 1911 correctly points out nobody else was either.
What I'm arguing is that the liability exposure is too great. As TimSr very aptly pointed out, "If any accident happened at this event, the alcohol would be blamed, even if it was not a factor." Adopting a policy that openly allows mixing alcohol and shooting creates a situation where the club's liability is unacceptable.
Second, it is not true that a club policy automatically implies that what is unacceptable at a club is also unacceptable at someone's home.
1. What a person chooses to do at home and the consequences thereof have no bearing or impact on the liability of any shooting club. Club officers are responsible to try to keep a club functioning, what the members do at home is totally independent of that effort.
2. For any number of reasons, one person engaging in a particular activity, even one with some level of risk, while alone and in their own home/on their own property, might be perfectly acceptable (to that person, at least) while engaging in it in a group environment wouldn't necessarily be prudent or acceptable to others. For example, a person might, after drinking, get in their farm truck and drive out on their own property to the north forty to check out a problem. It might be perfectly safe and acceptable to do so even though society would likely frown on the person driving on public roads.
In other words, there is a larger issue at hand than the immediate liability of the club.
In terms of the club officers' responsibility, that unquestionably incorrect.
It's one thing to use an opportunity to make a public statement when the potential repercussions only affect you. It's quite another to use a position of responsibility as a soapbox to air personal views or make public statements about how things should be in the ideal case at the possible expense of those who put you in position to protect their interests.
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.
This is a weak argument. Does the person who argues against drinking and driving send a mixed message about the safety of cars and driving? Hardly. Would it have been impossible to "normalize cars in society" when they were first becoming popular without staging public activities combining drinking and driving?
The vast majority of people have no trouble at all grasping the concept that just because two activities are safe in and of themselves doesn't automatically imply that it would be a good idea to mix them. Or, by extension, that two activities that shouldn't be mixed may be perfectly safe if performed without the other activity being involved.
