Having a drink ?

smellslikemichigan said:

but it's perfectly legal in indiana... just not in the michigan nanny state.

Click to expand...

Yep. MI gets a passing grade from the "Brady bunch". That should tell many just how much work needs to be done in favor of "rights" there. Love the people, but the leaders there are way out of touch with most of the population. IMHO.

FreeInAZ said:

Google Jim his number is listed. Again not going to argue with you. Do you tell your students it's a good idea to drink and carry? Never did answer, go figure?

Click to expand...

I did Google him. The first page had his name a lot; not the case.

You have a responsibility to cite a case if you use it; it's actually a rule on this forum. I even asked politely, sir. And I'll never roll my eyes at you.

I don't tell my students what is a "good idea." That's not my job. I tell them the laws. I also answer questions about what these laws mean. I also point to cases of real life and relate them and ask questions that make them think about the situation in ways that perhaps they haven't before. What is a "good idea" is for them to decide for themselves with their circumstances. Does this count as a sufficient "answer" to warrant a response to the questions I posed as a response that you did not yet consider to be an "answer?"

I realize it is illegal to carry and consume alcohol in a bar in AZ or even to OC at all in a bar in AZ. If you ever want to see it done, come on over to NV. I'll buy the beer, once I get to know you as a guy that can drink responsibly. There is a fantastic microbrewery restaurant in downtown Boulder City.

I'll pass. I don't drink. Thanks anyways.

Alcohol in any amount significant enough to intoxicate can impair your sympathetic nervous system to the point of it not properly activating in a life or death fight. This reason alone is a very good reason to not drink and carry. You may well be able to carefully drive, operate machinery, and do anything else that can be done with added caution including carrying a firearm, but if you can't properly process the adrenalin of a fighting situation and operate at the 200 miles an hour type of mode that it enables, you damn well shouldn't be carrying a lethal weapon because you won't be able to deploy it properly.

Laws aside, if you don't value your own safety and state recognized freedom, morally it's a bad idea because you could very well screw up and hurt someone else. In essence, my suggestion is don't do it.

FreeInAZ said:

Zig - it is extremely easy for prosecutor to paint a person carrying a gun as irresponsible and dangerous, no matter how good their reasons for shooting or even drawing their pistol. Don't take my word for it, ask Jim Makowski who has a former client sitting in Jackson State prison for simply drawing a pistol in self defense. Why? He drank "after" the incident, in his home before police showed up. Jury's today are borderline retarded often, sad but true.

Click to expand...

I know of the case, read it through.

He did more than just drink afterward.

zigziggityzoo said:

I know of the case, read it through.

He did more than just drink afterward.

Click to expand...

I pretty much had to assume that when FreeInAZ refused to cite the case, nor even answer most of my questions.

Michigander said:

Alcohol in any amount significant enough to intoxicate can impair your sympathetic nervous system to the point of it not properly activating in a life or death fight. This reason alone is a very good reason to not drink and carry. You may well be able to carefully drive, operate machinery, and do anything else that can be done with added caution including carrying a firearm, but if you can't properly process the adrenalin of a fighting situation and operate at the 200 miles an hour type of mode that it enables, you damn well shouldn't be carrying a lethal weapon because you won't be able to deploy it properly.

Laws aside, if you don't value your own safety and state recognized freedom, morally it's a bad idea because you could very well screw up and hurt someone else. In essence, my suggestion is don't do it.

Click to expand...

I will respectfully disagree. This is a lot of generalization about the dangers of multitasking.

Your advice sounds like it should end with: "And that's why you shouldn't drink, period."

If I thought I was going to be in a gunfight, of course I wouldn't drink (I wouldn't leave the house, either, but that is beside the point). But if I am going to have a drink, and let's assume that meant I would now only be 96% of fighting ability, how does that logic mean I should lock away the gun so that I can only be 5% instead?

Your logic would also support a notion that we should have competency tests for firearms carriers. Just because someone is not an expert does not eliminate their right to their best self-defense option even without having obtained expert status with it.

The vast majority of us wouldn't know how to "properly process the adrenaline" even without a drink. Indeed, one MIGHT be able to argue that a mild depressant might actually help.

As for "it's a bad idea because you could very well screw up and hurt someone else," we hear that all the time from people who tell us we shouldn't be carrying guns at all.

Mac, also respectfully, your comments lead me to believe that you are not as familiar as you should be with the natural fight/flight/posture/submit responses and conflict psychology. Unless I am missing something and we are both misinterpreting each others posts, I would kindly suggest looking into the writings and perhaps videos of Marc MacYoung and Dave Grossman.

Michigander said:

Mac, also respectfully, your comments lead me to believe that you are not as familiar as you should be with the natural fight/flight/posture/submit responses and conflict psychology. Unless I am missing something and we are both misinterpreting each others posts, I would kindly suggest looking into the writings and perhaps videos of Marc MacYoung and Dave Grossman.

Click to expand...

I am somewhat familiar with them.

Honestly, maybe we are.

I'm saying that if you should not drink because it lowers your ability to use a firearm in self-defense, than you should not drink even when unarmed because it still lowers your ability for self-defense. The gun is not necessary for your abilities to be diminished, so if even slightly diminished ability is your critical point, than drinking should be avoided at all times, not just when armed.

That said, some people should not chew gum and walk at the same time, too.

Ok thanks everyone. Please close thread, before it becomes a run away trainnnnnnnnnn.:lol:

MAC702 said:

I pretty much had to assume that when FreeInAZ refused to cite the case, nor even answer most of my questions.

Click to expand...

I chose not to feed your need to argue. If you think drinking is okay for you that's all that matters. It maybe. I choose not to because I'll take every edge I can get. I cannot site what was related to me directly in a conversation, as I did not transcribe it. I am sure zig has a link somewhere. I do not. Best of luck to you MAC, hope you never need it.

FreeInAZ said:

I chose not to feed your need to argue. If you think drinking is okay for you that's all that matters. It maybe. I choose not to because I'll take every edge I can get. I cannot site what was related to me directly in a conversation, as I did not transcribe it. I am sure zig has a link somewhere. I do not. Best of luck to you MAC, hope you never need it.

Click to expand...

You made an assertion with which I did not agree. I tried to politely show why I disagreed. I did my best to answer your questions in the process.

You have refused to cite a case you claimed was significant, breaking a forum rule.

You have not answered most of my questions, which were directly related to the questions you asked me and that I answered in good faith.

You now tell the world I have a "need to argue" as a reason.

Sir, I must say, I should take that as a personal insult.

So you can make claims, and anyone who disagrees, no matter how politely, has a "need to argue" and should therefore be ignored. How convenient.

But since I have a "need to argue:" If you cannot cite what was related to you in a conversation, how can you use what was related to you in a conversation as proof of something to someone else without personally verifying what was related to you?

I am unable to find a public listing of the case in question.

There is, however, more information here:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=183095