Alcohol and Situational Awareness- Incompatible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hamlet

What kind of an argument is that? It's tolerable if inebriated CCWs kill some people because their numbers are less than inebriated car drivers?

Well, about time to get back to planet earth I think.........Ciao!

---

Er no.

My point is that you are worrying about something that is much less likely to occur. Alot less people CC than drive. Alot less people are allowed to carry in places where they serve alcohol (but most drove there). There are alot more irresponsible drivers than cc'ers (it's numbers, period), so that even if they are carrying and drinking, doesnt mean they'll screw up or go off.

On your planet the logic seems to be you shouldnt risk using the roads to go anywhere (if you were worried about legal gun carriers in bars being a danger).

On my planet, I weigh odds against things happening, my personal ability to react to things or be responsible for myself, and the risks to my freedoms. On this one, I'm thinkin' that preventing more limitations on my freedoms are more important than the likelihood of being shot by a drunk cc'er in a bar.



And just like anything else....true criminals will carry and do as they please.

I'm 32 and I no longer drink. Not against drinking.. just haven't. I'd never drink anywhere around guns either.

Hey CowboyKen: Scotch on the rocks and a cab and then you have an altercation that is clearly self defense. Maybe in Nevada, and in my state of SC, the smell of alcohol may cause a problem but probably not, particularly if you have creditable evidence and possibly witnesses to the altercation. There are jusrisdictions in this country, I would think, that are so inane, stupid and nanny-governed, that blood alcohol will go a long way to causing you a great deal of grief and money not mention civil complications. In SC, currently, I could not be in your situation because it is against the law to be CC in a restaurant that can allow me to imbibe on a scotch and a cab---thus I would have to explain why I broke the law in the first place before the altercation ever occurred--this leaves a big door open for civil problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

I certainly hope people don't get the idea that I am advocating getting drunk and carrying a gun or driving a car etc. To the contrary. However there are people in this world that don't instantly become stupid after one drink, and there will always be people who are stupid when stone cold sober. We should be able to separate them when talking about issues instead of thinking one size fits all.

---

It is really not about getting stupid (people hardly need alcohol for that). I hate to bring science into it, but there is plenty of evidence that even small amounts of alcohol sill impair judgment, reaction time, processing speed, and fine (if not gross) motor control. Alcohol is a depressant, even at doses that are not sufficient to induce intoxication. Small amounts influence the ability to focus attention and concentrate. It not only affects situational awareness, but also self-awareness, so one may become less aware of decrements in their own ability or performance. Inebriation is not required for these effects to emerge. And none of that is compatible with proper use of a firearm. Many different factors go into whether a given dose in a given situation will have certain effects - it is not a constant. So, yes, one size does not fit all, but one strategy likely will...in general it is simply wisest not to drink when armed.

:smile: Well said The Dark!

Well, here come all the Neo-Prohibitionists. Then the debate swings between the teetotalers, and the one glass of beer or wine with a meal gang. There is also the unspoken assumption that people who are "drinkers" are all slurring, falling-down-drunk roadhouse brawlers spring-loaded to snap into a fight at the least provocation.

There are many shades in between, and there's never a resolution to this debate.

I travel, and often entertain clients and friends in (usually) urban settings. No one is driving, and we enjoy a few drinks in the box at the football game, in a NYC tavern, a Las Vegas club, a London pub, a canal-side restaurant in Venice, a Nashville music venue, a golf clubhouse in Florida after a round, at a Texas barbecue, a hotel bar in San Diego, or a swim-up bar in an Arizona resort. I literally participate in at least 50 such events each year, and they could be anywhere around the globe.

I have great memories, and a sizable Rolodex. I've had to escort drunk friends back to their hotel room, or into a cab, and have even supported the arm of the CEO of a major US-based Fortune 500 company as he staggered up to his suite in a hotel.

I haven't seen a bar fight since I was a young guy in the military. Not one. I've been in the room where I've seen someone get angry over an issue (or a woman), but that's always the time I choose to leave the party.

Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but for some reason, our culture condones it while making intoxicants like marijuana illegal. The culture of alcohol is pervasive, and children need to grow up being shown responsible use of it. That's why my wife and I raised our children in the European tradition in regards to alcohol. My 19 year-old daughter would go out to the pub with us in London or enjoy a glass of wine in a Cote d'Azur open-air cafe, but couldn't legally sit with us in our own backyard and have a beer at the Memorial Day barbecue.

Laws about being 21 in order to have drink with your parents in a restaurant are simply ridiculous, and result in binge drinking and underground "parties" of underage boozers. My kids always knew if they wanted any alcohol, they could help themselves. Both used to tell us how silly they found it to see their high-school and college-aged peers getting sick by overindulging.

If you choose not to drink (for all the right reasons), that's good for you. But I certainly don't see how someone justifies a bunch of nanny-state laws around self-defense as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelcarry

Hey CowboyKen: Scotch on the rocks and a cab and then you have an altercation that is clearly self defense. Maybe in Nevada, and in my state of SC, the smell of alcohol may cause a problem but probably not, particularly if you have creditable evidence and possibly witnesses to the altercation. There are jusrisdictions in this country, I would think, that are so inane, stupid and nanny-governed, that blood alcohol will go a long way to causing you a great deal of grief and money not mention civil complications. In SC, currently, I could not be in your situation because it is against the law to be CC in a restaurant that can allow me to imbibe on a scotch and a cab---thus I would have to explain why I broke the law in the first place before the altercation ever occurred--this leaves a big door open for civil problems.

---

It would probably present a problem in my state also. The law states that it is unlawful to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence. That leaves the determination of "under the influence" to the investigating officer. Just to be safe, I don't drink at all while carrying. You can run into enough legal worries after a shooting incident without creating unnecessary problems for yourself. If it goes to court and evidence is introduced that you were drinking prior to the shooting, a lot of people automatically get the impression that you were drunk, especially members of the jury who might be teetotalers themselves.

You need to factor in the environment that you'll be in and the potential threat level.

And YES, :yup: already well understood that "Bad Things" can and DO happen everywhere and at any time.

Naturally & Of Course when I worked at PITT LOAN [pawn shop] (in a well known "not so great" area of the city)...I wouldn't be sitting in there drinking alcoholic beverages when really bad and possibly very dangerous folks were walking in the door almost minute by minute.
The threat level was always quite high from the moment the front door opened to the general public.
It was a risky environment in a terrible area.

That would be a far cry from me walking just down the street in my own neighborhood with a holstered firearm and having a beer at a Memorial Day block party picnic with neighbors and friends.
The last murder that happened in my area was over 50 years ago and that was domestic.
I'm not saying that I WILL have a beer, with my hot dog and burger & potato salad....I'm simply saying that if I felt like having one - the fact that I had a safely holstered firearm on my person wouldn't stop me.

Would I ever sit on a bench at that picnic with my belly hanging out of my Woman Killer Shirt and begin chugging down beer after beer, start burping out loud, get rowdy & obnoxious, slur out some dirty jokes and then finally stumble home and fall into bed?

Of course not.

There are degrees to which persons can become overly cautious to the point where life might not be worth the living.

I mean chunks of metal and blocks of ice really DO fall from airplanes many times a year ~ and to make matters even worse literally hundreds of tons of meteoritic material smashes through our atmosphere to hit the Earth every single day - so should we all wear hard hats and KEVLAR "shoulder pads" every time we go outside....or walk out the front door ~ just to be 100% safe? :biggrin2:

I do totally agree though that folks who cannot exercise basic adult, responsible, self-control or people who know that they have an inclination to over consume or folks that feel the effects of even one beer should never have one when they are carrying.

For certain we all need to know our own respective bodies and what we as individual human beings personally can and cannot tolerate but, do always keep in mind that you are not the same as everyone else and everybody is not the same as you with regard to body chemistry.

And...No, my implication is not that people absolutely need to drink a beer in order to enjoy life, just that people need to think of things with a broader perspective and put things (in general) into some sort of life perspective.
We use our common sense & brains to weigh & balance risk VS personal freedom & general enjoyment every day of our lives.
And it's a sad, pathetic, slippery slope to allow government to legislate and micro-manage our daily lives down to the sipping of a beer for a grown adult American citizen living in America.

You can plainly see where that eventually leads.
Now... Thanks to the Health Police ~ You cannot legally smoke a cigarette outdoors in NYC in a park or at the beach.

Next it will be illegal to grill a steak due to the dangers of charcoal pollution.

The posts are not against drinking, they are against drinking and carrying. I am hardly a "Neo-Prohibitionist" as I do ,on occasion , drink. I just don't drink and drive or carry. I also have never drank on the job or when involved in activities with my children. When you are facing responsibilities (driving, carrying and work are all responsibilities) IMHO you owe it to others to not be impaired (impaired not inebriated.) They pass the laws because of some of the attitudes voiced in this very thread. Mainly the misconception that if you are big physically or experienced in drinking that alcohol does not affect you adversely.
BTW, the argument "you don't know me, I can handle it, even if you can't" is one of the very first signs of alcoholism. I believe science. If I drink, I am most likely impaired. It isn't worth taking chances with other people's lives just to prove how tough I am. Laws are passed to control it because too many individuals don't.

If you drink, it will affect your mental state (kind of why people drink alcohol). It will impair your SA, decision making and reflexes. So if you want to always maximize your SA (god, that sounds so mall-ninja!) don't drink.

But I don't believe that you must give up the right to use a gun to defend yourself just because you have been drinking. All sorts of factors play into how impaired a person becomes when drinking - weight, food intake, alcohol intake, physical condition, time, other meds, experience, etc. I know that last one will make people angry, but the reality is you can know your limits for functioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wjh2657

The posts are not against drinking, they are against drinking and carrying. I am hardly a "Neo-Prohibitionist" as I do ,on occasion , drink. I just don't drink and drive or carry. I also have never drank on the job or when involved in activities with my children. When you are facing responsibilities (driving, carrying and work are all responsibilities) IMHO you owe it to others to not be impaired (impaired not inebriated.) They pass the laws because of some of the attitudes voiced in this very thread. Mainly the misconception that if you are big physically or experienced in drinking that alcohol does not affect you adversely.
BTW, the argument "you don't know me, I can handle it, even if you can't" is one of the very first signs of alcoholism. I believe science. If I drink, I am most likely impaired. It isn't worth taking chances with other people's lives just to prove how tough I am. Laws are passed to control it because too many individuals don't.

---

Yup - they passed laws. So that means law-abiding citizens are not carrying while enjoying a drink. That must mean politicians can prevent "bad things" from happening by coming up with bans and laws against certain behaviors that curtail our liberties.

It's like Representative Peter King (R-NY) who proposed a law after the shooting of Representative Giffords that no one could possess a firearm within 1000' of a Congressperson. Of course, the Congressperson, their staff, and their body guards would be exempt. Would that have prevented the Giffords' shooting (and killing of other people including a young girl)? No. But that didn't stop this lout from pushing a ridiculous prohibition that would only impact the rights of law-abiding people.

If they had passed that law, I would have demanded an iPhone app that tracks the GPS coordinates of each Congressperson 24/7/365 so I could be in compliance with the law. Do you think they'd go for it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunthorp

Somebody's got to be the designated shooter.

---

Yeah the problem with that is he is going to think the job entails shot glasses and whiskey! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Er no.

My point is that you are worrying about something that is much less likely to occur. Alot less people CC than drive. Alot less people are allowed to carry in places where they serve alcohol (but most drove there). There are alot more irresponsible drivers than cc'ers (it's numbers, period), so that even if they are carrying and drinking, doesnt mean they'll screw up or go off.

On your planet the logic seems to be you shouldnt risk using the roads to go anywhere (if you were worried about legal gun carriers in bars being a danger).

On my planet, I weigh odds against things happening, my personal ability to react to things or be responsible for myself, and the risks to my freedoms. On this one, I'm thinkin' that preventing more limitations on my freedoms are more important than the likelihood of being shot by a drunk cc'er in a bar.



And just like anything else....true criminals will carry and do as they please.

---

I understand the point. I'm not worried about it - just discussing the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QKShooter

Would I ever sit on a bench at that picnic with my belly hanging out of my Woman Killer Shirt and begin chugging down beer after beer, start burping out loud, get rowdy & obnoxious, slur out some dirty jokes and then finally stumble home and fall into bed?

---

Well that's the real crime here, isnt it? :blink:

Lord save us all and there's no laws against it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wjh2657

Laws are passed to control it because too many individuals don't.

---

This is a very frightening perspective.

IMO it doesnt even work, however it doesnt stop lawmakers from trying it.