This is a discussion on Alcohol and Situational Awareness- Incompatible? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by hamlet I understand the point. I'm not worried about it - just discussing the topic. Respect....
Carrying needs to be taken seriously and alcohol should generally be avoided if one is serious defense, but nothing needs to be absolute.
As an aside, has anyone noticed that they get better at certain things (e.g. darts, pool) once they hit their sweet spot - usually 2-5 drinks? It is obviously due to the fact that these activities are almost always done while drinking, so maybe CCW's should hit the range after happy hour.
While on an operational exercise w/ other South American Navies, we made a port call to Rio de Janeiro Brazil and had a great time. Great culture too. However, one of our sailors got drunk in a bar and got his wallet and credit cards pickpocketed while in an inebriated state and socializing with a hooker. Situations like this goes to show why being sober is very important not only for situational awareness, but for your ability to run or defend yourself.
To insist that a drink does not potentially impair SA and the other core abilities that underlie our self-protection with a firearm is misguided; alcohol's effects are subtle but occur even at low doses. Legal or not (FL law does not preclude drinking while armed, just that one cannot be in a bar area), I would not want to have to defend myself, even successfully, and be found to a detectable BAC. I suspect this would drastically undermine a case for justifiable defense in all but the most egregious cases...and would also impact any civil suit.
BTW, the argument with regard to parents allowing access to alcohol and the role of age-limits on subsequent drinking patterns is being fought out continually between the law, the research community, parents and college administrators. Glad it worked out for you and yours, but it is always a tenuous proposition to generalize from one's own anecdotal data set to the world at large. For instance, some suggest that in cultures where minimum age requirements are not in place, problems associated with alcohol use are decreased, that making it available helps teach responsible use...the data do not always support this idea. As with most things, it becomes clear if it was a good idea or not after the fact.
"To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence." Friedrich Nietzsche
I also posted that alcohol is a dangerous drug. That's why we wanted our kids exposed to it and trained. Just like firearms. Would you buy your child a firearm and not train him/her in its function, safety, and maintenance? Why do some parents and most legislators think they don't need to do this with alcohol?
Here's another anecdote for you: just last week near where I live, a 16 year-old driving a Lincoln Navigator with his 13 year-old sister as a passenger killed a motorcycle rider by failing to yield at an intersection. Personally, I don't think 16 year-olds should be allowed to drive on any public roads.
Lots of interesting dialogue. As I think back over my vast experiences in life, I can't think of a single situation in which I ever thought, "Man, I'm glad I was drinking...that really made the outcome of this situation much better."
Just my personal observation.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
I have tried and not found a single case where this was true (I have found the opposite).
Just curious if you have any facts (data) to back this up.