BAC when OCing vs. CCing

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

What it boils down to is this:

A few people on here believe that the carrying of a firearm while drunk shouldn't be a crime because it, in itself poses no harm to people.

The harm comes when the person decides to do *something*... anything, with that gun.

In this regard, I side with these people. Being a libertarian I believe that it is in society's best interest to live and let live, and it should only be a crime when someone else's freedoms infringe upon my own. So I propose that we make a law that simply states the following:

Anyone who commits a crime while impaired by drugs or alcohol shall have their fine or sentence multiplied by a factor of 1.75. That is to say, each crime carries a 75% longer sentence, a 75% greater fine, or both.

That way, the deterrent value of the law is there. But you have no less freedoms within the law.

I agree that drinking and guns, like drinking with cars, are things that shouldn't mix, but if it doesn't harm me (or anyone else) in any way, I see no problem with it.

 

[HankT]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Willfully carrying in such a state is, in my opinion aggressive.

Clearly, you view this to be as dangerous as firing bullets randomly in a populated area.

Straw man argument.

-2 points.

Obviously, DrTodd said no such thing.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

HankT wrote:

marshaul wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Willfully carrying in such a state is, in my opinion aggressive.

Clearly, you view this to be as dangerous as firing bullets randomly in a populated area.

Straw man argument.

-2 points.

Obviously, DrTodd said no such thing.

Nitpicking. DrTodd compared carrying a gun while drunk to shooting at someone and missing. He may not have literally said "is as bad as", but he described the former as an act of aggression, which was the position I proceeded to attack prior and subsequent to creating (and immediately abandoning) my "strawman".

When you point out fallacies, it's probably better to point out ones that have any effect on the argument, or any bearing on the discussion.

This one is quite irrelevant. I may have "put words in his mouth", but I didn't engage in the strawman fallacy because I argued against positions he did, in fact, take: namely carrying while drinking being an act of aggression. I never argued that one was not "as bad" as the other; instead I argued that one is an act of aggression and the other not.

Try again.

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

Here's what can happen when you mix alcohol and guns:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/05/ann_arbor_man_dies_while_playi.html

Ann Arbor man dies while playing Russian roulette after night of drinking, police say
by Jo Mathis | The Ann Arbor News

Wednesday May 13, 2009, 8:04 AM

Ann Arbor police say a 41-year-old man shot himself dead in what appears to have been a solitaire game of Russian roulette following a night of drinking with his friends.

Three friends of David Ryan told police they'd been drinking at The Blind Pig in downtown Ann Arbor Friday night and returned to the victim's house in the 1000 block of Westaire Way at about 2:30 a.m. Saturday.

They say they were sitting on the side porch of the house when Ryan, who was highly intoxicated, went to get his revolver. He stuck a bullet in the six-cylinder chamber and spun it around, then put the gun to his head behind his ear.

The friends told police they could see that the bullet was not in the firing position before he pulled the trigger. But then, with no explanation, the man pulled the trigger again and the gun fired, police said.

Detective Sgt. Richard Kinsey said alcohol and drugs were clearly a factor and are investigating how Ryan obtained the gun.

Lt. Mike Logghe said Ryan was kept on life support at University of Michigan Hospitals until Tuesday when his organs were donated to others.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Here's what can happen when you mix alcohol and guns:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/05/ann_arbor_man_dies_while_playi.html

Ann Arbor man dies while playing Russian roulette after night of drinking, police say
by Jo Mathis | The Ann Arbor News

Wednesday May 13, 2009, 8:04 AM

Ann Arbor police say a 41-year-old man shot himself dead in what appears to have been a solitaire game of Russian roulette following a night of drinking with his friends.

Three friends of David Ryan told police they'd been drinking at The Blind Pig in downtown Ann Arbor Friday night and returned to the victim's house in the 1000 block of Westaire Way at about 2:30 a.m. Saturday.

They say they were sitting on the side porch of the house when Ryan, who was highly intoxicated, went to get his revolver. He stuck a bullet in the six-cylinder chamber and spun it around, then put the gun to his head behind his ear.

The friends told police they could see that the bullet was not in the firing position before he pulled the trigger. But then, with no explanation, the man pulled the trigger again and the gun fired, police said.

Detective Sgt. Richard Kinsey said alcohol and drugs were clearly a factor and are investigating how Ryan obtained the gun.

Lt. Mike Logghe said Ryan was kept on life support at University of Michigan Hospitals until Tuesday when his organs were donated to others.

Sounds more like what happens when you mix idiocy with birth.

 

[HankT]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

HankT wrote:

marshaul wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Willfully carrying in such a state is, in my opinion aggressive.

Clearly, you view this to be as dangerous as firing bullets randomly in a populated area.

Straw man argument.

-2 points.

Obviously, DrTodd said no such thing.

Nitpicking. DrTodd compared carrying a gun while drunk to shooting at someone and missing. He may not have literally said "is as bad as", but he described the former as an act of aggression, which was the position I proceeded to attack prior and subsequent to creating (and immediately abandoning) my "strawman".

When you point out fallacies, it's probably better to point out ones that have any effect on the argument, or any bearing on the discussion.

This one is quite irrelevant. I may have "put words in his mouth", but I didn't engage in the strawman fallacy because I argued against positions he did, in fact, take: namely carrying while drinking being an act of aggression. I never argued that one was not "as bad" as the other; instead I argued that one is an act of aggression and the other not.

Try again.

...segueing to irrelevant thesis....

 

[marshaul]

imported post

So, basically, you're out of arguments. Got it.

 

[dougwg]

imported post

HankT,

Why do you feel the need to come into the Michigan forum and cause issues?

Not enough happening in your state?

 

[Veritas]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

What it boils down to is this:

A few people on here believe that the carrying of a firearm while drunk shouldn't be a crime because it, in itself poses no harm to people.

The harm comes when the person decides to do *something*... anything, with that gun.

In this regard, I side with these people. Being a libertarian I believe that it is in society's best interest to live and let live, and it should only be a crime when someone else's freedoms infringe upon my own. So I propose that we make a law that simply states the following:

Anyone who commits a crime while impaired by drugs or alcohol shall have their fine or sentence multiplied by a factor of 1.75. That is to say, each crime carries a 75% longer sentence, a 75% greater fine, or both.

That way, the deterrent value of the law is there. But you have no less freedoms within the law.

I agree that drinking and guns, like drinking with cars, are things that shouldn't mix, but if it doesn't harm me (or anyone else) in any way, I see no problem with it.

Pretty much sums up everything I've been trying to say. I'm Libertarian, too, by the way.

 

[Veritas]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Here's what can happen when you mix alcohol and guns:

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/05/ann_arbor_man_dies_while_playi.html

Ann Arbor man dies while playing Russian roulette after night of drinking, police say
by Jo Mathis | The Ann Arbor News

Wednesday May 13, 2009, 8:04 AM

Ann Arbor police say a 41-year-old man shot himself dead in what appears to have been a solitaire game of Russian roulette following a night of drinking with his friends.

Three friends of David Ryan told police they'd been drinking at The Blind Pig in downtown Ann Arbor Friday night and returned to the victim's house in the 1000 block of Westaire Way at about 2:30 a.m. Saturday.

They say they were sitting on the side porch of the house when Ryan, who was highly intoxicated, went to get his revolver. He stuck a bullet in the six-cylinder chamber and spun it around, then put the gun to his head behind his ear.

The friends told police they could see that the bullet was not in the firing position before he pulled the trigger. But then, with no explanation, the man pulled the trigger again and the gun fired, police said.

Detective Sgt. Richard Kinsey said alcohol and drugs were clearly a factor and are investigating how Ryan obtained the gun.

Lt. Mike Logghe said Ryan was kept on life support at University of Michigan Hospitals until Tuesday when his organs were donated to others.

Truly unfortunate story, but I don't see where it says he was carrying the gun on him while drinking. His gun was at his home, where he returned to after a night of drinking. So are we to accept some new law that says we must call the police to come to our home and seize all of our weapons if we decide to drink at home? All because someone made an error in judgment?

Not supporting this guy's decisions. Not saying it's wise to fetch a weapon while drunk. All I'm saying is that UNTIL a crime is committed, I don't see how it's fair to charge someone with a crime. There's going to be a few people out there who push the issue and make bad decisions, no doubt. But there's also plenty of us who won't... plenty of us who believe in freedom. If I have a glass of wine at dinner, I must disarm myself or face criminal charges. Think about that... seriously.

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Let me just bottom line my position before I call it quits on discussing it further:



2) If I'm carrying car keys in my hand on my way out of a bar, while stumbling towards my car, with every intent to get behind the wheel of that car and drive... have I committed a crime according to Michigan law? No.

The fact that you can carry car keys in your hand towards your car while drunk, but cannot carry an unloaded pistol in the same capacity, suggests that CONTROL is the issue... not safety.

FYI, people have been successfully prosecuted for having keys in possession whilst sleeping in an automobile... engine not running (not actually "driving", so your example, although expressed with conviction, may not be true.

See: http://www.startribune.com/local/41754752.html

and:

Camping Passed Out DUI

A man who was camping at a trailer park campground in Stillwater, New Jersey was found passed out in his car by police and charged with New Jersey DWI and careless driving. Roman Klisiewicz, 54, was discovered at 1:45 p.m. in the parking lot of a deli and pizzeria with a blood alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit of .08 percent. Klisiewicz failed field sobriety tests, was arrested and later released to family members, according to the Jersey Journal.
These examples are not all that rare. Depending on the particular state, the definition regarding the term "operating" can be used to successfully prosecute the individual in the example you cited.

 

[Rogue9er]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Let me just bottom line my position before I call it quits on discussing it further:



2) If I'm carrying car keys in my hand on my way out of a bar, while stumbling towards my car, with every intent to get behind the wheel of that car and drive... have I committed a crime according to Michigan law? No.

The fact that you can carry car keys in your hand towards your car while drunk, but cannot carry an unloaded pistol in the same capacity, suggests that CONTROL is the issue... not safety.

FYI, people have been successfully prosecuted for having keys in possession whilst sleeping in an automobile... engine not running (not actually "driving", so your example, although expressed with conviction, may not be true.

See: http://www.startribune.com/local/41754752.html

and:

Camping Passed Out DUI

A man who was camping at a trailer park campground in Stillwater, New Jersey was found passed out in his car by police and charged with New Jersey DWI and careless driving. Roman Klisiewicz, 54, was discovered at 1:45 p.m. in the parking lot of a deli and pizzeria with a blood alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit of .08 percent. Klisiewicz failed field sobriety tests, was arrested and later released to family members, according to the Jersey Journal.
These examples are not all that rare. Depending on the particular state, the definition regarding the term "operating" can be used to successfully prosecute the individual in the example you cited.

RRRRAAAGGGGEEE...

Maybe he was trying to drive an passed out. Maybe he wanted to sleep it off rather than drive while intoxicated and went for the only semi-secure place available. Again, it's a conviction for what he might have done. Sick.

 

[Veritas]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Let me just bottom line my position before I call it quits on discussing it further:



2) If I'm carrying car keys in my hand on my way out of a bar, while stumbling towards my car, with every intent to get behind the wheel of that car and drive... have I committed a crime according to Michigan law? No.

The fact that you can carry car keys in your hand towards your car while drunk, but cannot carry an unloaded pistol in the same capacity, suggests that CONTROL is the issue... not safety.

FYI, people have been successfully prosecuted for having keys in possession whilst sleeping in an automobile... engine not running (not actually "driving", so your example, although expressed with conviction, may not be true.

I've already agreed that I know this is true. However, I am not referring to being INSIDE the automobile. I am referring to someone walking towards the vehicle with keys in hand. They may have every intent in the world to drive, sleep, whatever... but until they do it, no crime has been committed.

 

[JeffSayers]

imported post

HankT wrote:

marshaul wrote:

OK, I actually agree with this completely. But isn't this just one example of why we have drunk in public laws? Which are, similarly, only ever enforced/enforceable when the person is obviously falling over drunk.

Once you've got the guy in the drunk tank, is it really necessary to have a weapons charge to threaten him with or even to take the plunge and ruin his life with by throwing it on top?

Sure. He's obviously not capable of making good judgments. If he's really wasted and is carrying a gun, he is committed to irresponsible behavior. Suspend/revoke his gun carry privileges immediately.

I would propose something like this:

Situation: Gun carrier, OC or CC is in public and intoxicated.Say, BAC of .14 and over.

Law: Would provide for immediate suspension of gun carrier's right/permit to carry a gun. Investigation wouldensue ofdrunken gun carrier's history, looking for signs of drug/alchohol abuse/dependence. If confirmed, cancel gun carry rights. If not, suspend carry rights for a reasonable time period.

Seems to me that drunken gun carriers are repeaters. Including the guys that wave the piece around. Like Phil Spector. He liked to drink and wave it around. He should have had his gun taken from him years ago. Before he put the barrel of the gun in the woman's mouth and pulled the trigger. Too late now. I guess that was a post-crime.

Great.

I thought it is a right. How about instead of stripping the person of their right (or priviledge as it is) if they are doing somethingso stupid as to be carrying when wasted, then bet them they can't shoot an apple off their own head without a mirror.We need to let Darwinism do what it is supposed to do. Get the morons out of the gene pool!

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Ouch. My issue with the "ounce of prevention" argument goes back to the whole "gray area growing" issue. If you REALLY want to ensure that some innocent person or kid doesn't end up with a big ole hole in their body, then the proper preventative measure would be the complete abolition and destruction of firearms.

Or the complete abolition and destruction of innocent persons or kids.

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

If a person is stone-cold drunk, and drives home and goes to bed, what is the harm to anyone?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

If a person is stone-cold drunk, and drives home and goes to bed, what is the harm to anyone?

RubberArm, this subject has been beaten to death over the last few years on many gun boards. There never seems to be a positive ending to any threads pertaining to this and I don't believe there will ever be one.

In regards to your question, the only thing I can add is: What will take place the next time someone chooses to do this?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

If a person is stone-cold drunk, and drives home and goes to bed, what is the harm to anyone?

Many times you hear/read where someone tosses out the question: What if I want a cold one with my burger for lunch or a drink with my dinner?

Personally, I don't see a big deal with either one. If a person, IMO, has a drink with their lunch or dinner and can't assume responsibility while carrying a firearm after doing so, then I think that person shouldn't be in possession of a firearm at all. But, again, that's just my opinion.

 

[jmlefler]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Who wants to be the test dummy?

As for me, I properly secure and stow my weapon when drinking. Even if it's just a can of beer. To tell the truth, I even get a little nervous when it comes to rinsing with mouthwash and carrying because of the implied consent laws. If an officer were to demand that i submit to a PBT, mouthwash could register as alcohol. Not only does it register, but if you have rinsed recent to the test, you will register at levels that should suggest fatal.

Of course, I would be arrested and then submit to the court-admissible test at the copshop... hopefully that machine would be calibrated to ignore mouthwash. But you never know... nor would I want to go through the hassle of finding out.

I'm thinkin' I would refuse the PBT, despite their 'demand' but submit to the Breathalyzer (sp?).

Carry on

 

[Veritas]

imported post

jmlefler wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Who wants to be the test dummy?

As for me, I properly secure and stow my weapon when drinking. Even if it's just a can of beer. To tell the truth, I even get a little nervous when it comes to rinsing with mouthwash and carrying because of the implied consent laws. If an officer were to demand that i submit to a PBT, mouthwash could register as alcohol. Not only does it register, but if you have rinsed recent to the test, you will register at levels that should suggest fatal.

Of course, I would be arrested and then submit to the court-admissible test at the copshop... hopefully that machine would be calibrated to ignore mouthwash. But you never know... nor would I want to go through the hassle of finding out.

I'm thinkin' I would refuse the PBT, despite their 'demand' but submit to the Breathalyzer (sp?).

Carry on

When you have a CPL and are carrying a concealed firearm, you have given implied consent to take a PBT. That's the only time I would ever submit to a PBT. If I'm carrying openly, or not carrying at all, then CPL or no CPL... I'd refuse.