imported post
cscitney87 wrote:
Largest increase in abusers; middle aged women.
Very pertinent information to the conversion.
CS, you're really starting to confuse me here. Why is that pertinent information to the conversation? What doesthat demographiceven have to do with the conversation?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to make conversation. But I gotta be honest that some of these posts sound like you are posting ridiculous scenarios, trolling to feed an obsession with all things gun related. I'll indulge you, though.
No, I don't consume much alcoholand I avoiddrugs. I hate even taking ibuprofen. Beyond how it interferes with my faculties, I just don't care to participate in the overdiagnosed, overmedicated society that leads to the prescription or OTC abuse you refer to. That's whether I'm carrying or not. Even if I'm not carrying, I need to be "on my game" if something happens. Whether it's an attack that I need to defend myself, an accident that I need to offer assistance, or some other emergency, I don't want my conciousness inebriated the slightest bit that I can't do what needs to be done.
There's an OTC allergy medication that I HATE taking for that reason. It's my absolute last resort and I usually only need to go to it once every couple of years. My wife hates it too. I've passed out on the couch and she practically has to beat me with a broomstick to get me to go to my bed. It scares the hell out of her that the house could catch fire while I'm on that and she wouldn't be able to move me.
Why would someone need to "make the decision to get drunk and lock up" their weapon? There can be only two reasons for someone doing that. They either think the DA is going to knock on their door and search the house to see if they're over the limit and there is access to firearms, or they don't trust themselves to not go to their safe and start playing yippie-ki-yai after they've had a few. Are you really asking if that's what people are doing?
How does it play into other inebriants? The law looks at it the same way. If you get stoned off OTC allergy medicine and drive around town with your toes on the steering wheel, neither the LEO nor the judge is going to say, "Oh, it wasn't alcohol, so we won't charge you."
If people are consuming to a point of inebriation, WTF is wrong with you? Would you talk on your cell phone at the range while trying to tighten your shot grouping? Then why carry? You won't be able to use the weapon if you need to with any assurance. It will be more of a danger to you than a sober attacker. And you won't be able to use judgement to rationally discern whether the use of the firearm is justified. Of all the good reasons to carry while sober and able to use your firearm, not a one applies while inebriated. I don't care about feeling judged. I'm more concerned with not DYING.
I'm going to again give you the benefit of doubt that by "zero problem with a person drinking and driving" that you meant up to a limit. The problem with inebrients is that
You. Have. Zero(0). Discretion. It's a biological fact. You can't hit your target with a firearm and you can't control a vehicle if your BAC is over a certain point.
A few years ago, my wife and I were stopped at a light on 120th Ave. The speed limit there is 55 MPH. I turned to say something to my wife and the next thing I remember is pulling my face out of the airbag. We had been sandwiched between two SUVs when a drunk driver plowed into the back of us, most likely speeding and not even seeing the red light. I got out of the car to hear people tell me that the person that hit us took off. Reading the report later, herAIRBAGS DEPLOYED and she stilldrove off.During the aftermath about half an hour later, she actually returned and while barely able to stand said, "Um, I 'think' I was in this accident."
She had a cow killer on the front of her car to protect her preciousLexus. The crumple zones in our small car did theirjob, as did the airbags and we made it throughwith little injury. But if we were in a less capable car? If we had been hit from the side? We would be
DEAD.
Your statement makes me blame you for our would-be death. That attitude is part of the problem. I can't not be angry at you for that statement. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she left the bar too drunk to drive. You trusted this woman to be responsible when you were her friends who didn't stop her from driving. You trusted this woman to be responsible when you overserved her at the bar. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she didn't see the light. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she drove away with deployed airbags. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she
KILLED my wife and I. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she was another drunk driver and
KILLED me being another father and husband to two daughters. You trusted this woman to be responsible when she was another driver who
KILLED all four of us.
And your answer to trusting this woman and causing so many deaths? "If she wrecks, the judge will punish her." Tell that to your mother, father, wife, sister, daughter, brother, son, when you are killed by a drunk driver. Tell it to yourself when any of them are killed. Tell them, "At least we trusted the driver's judgement and the judge will sentence him."
Of COURSE it pre-emptively punishes people. Itpunishes them for engaging in reckless behaviour that pre-empts
KILLING someone. We're not talking about handling a firearm in a safe, legal manner. We're talking about driving a 2000 pound bullet around. Would you instead do away with all speed limits and safety laws and only punish people when they have committed vehicular homicide?
Up to a certain BAC, I agree with you. You know you're a lightweight. I'm only slightly bigger than you and I can rarely finish
A drink. Not because it puts me out, I just lose my taste for it. But BAC isn't time or size based in a vacuum. It's metabolism based. At that BAC
You. Do. Not. Have.Rational. Discretion. You are physically, biologically incapable of making that decision. Much less controlling a vehicle or your firearm.
What sort of system do you propose? The one you describe is not logically possible. You can't take away the BAC level and then authorize a LEO to "use discretion if they're blowing over", because the BACwould not be therefor the driver to blow over. Would you raise the BAC? Do you really want to give a LEO so much power to use their personal discretion? Would you give them that power for any other law? What if they had that power of personal discretionto charge you with causing a public disturbance for legally OCing?
The key thing is that the law regarding firearms and being under the influence doesn't specify a level like driving does. If this is a legal question, we're just mentally diddling until we look at actual cases of when it's been prosecuted.A better question may be "when do you feel you are to impaired to have access to your firearm". I would say as soon as I feel it, which with my metabolism is pretty darn little and pretty darn quick. Hence, I don't have even a sip if I'm carrying, nor do Itake allergy meds. Makes outdoor range trips in late summer problematic.
To add another layer to this issue, I sleepwalk. Usually I just babble, but on occassion I've been in a "walking dream" where I couldn't make myself rationalize that my roommate/wife was who they were. One part of my brain knew who they were, but another was dreaming and thinking they were someone else. It gives me pause about having easy access to a bedside firearm. It runs in my family. My stepfather said to my mother that he used to think tales of somna-homicide were entirely fanciful until he married her. Now he sees it easily plausible.
The way I describethose semi-lucid states reminds my wife of how she feels when she is in diabetic hypoglycemia. She says she can understand what is going on but she just can't make her brain do anything about it. I have seen her do things while hypo that would make a fall-down drunk seem downright rational. She keeps an emergency supply of candy in her car and her purse. It's purposefully her least favorite varieties to make sure she doesn't snack on it. What happens if she's somewhat hypo and is attacked? If she's carrying and fumbling for her firearm, it becomes more of a liability against her than a defense weapon.
