Corporal punishment & guns in a household

[One of Many]

silliman89 had this to say:

Now, of course, everyone will get silly under the influence of alcohol. People will slur their words and laugh at stuff that probably isn't really that funny. Some people get loud. They may stumble and fall down, and will usually then laugh. I agree that these and other things should not be done in front of your children.

I object though to your characterization of the effects of alcohol as "loosing control". By depriving your brain of oxygen, alcohol impairs your coordination and thinking. Alcohol does not force you to loose control. It merely provides an excuse for people who wanted to loose control in the first place.

Your idea of loosing control seems to allow for a lot less control than I consider normal. Not being able to speak clearly, falling down, and getting silly due to alcohol consumption is certainly a loss of control; it seems to be a matter of degree to you, as though you have not lost control until you pass out cold on the floor. Alcohol is the tool by which people deliberately surrender control over their own mind and body; that they do it deliberately does not make it any less a loss of control.

 

[Biker]

I teach guitar. In my experience, some students require a different approach. My goal is to make sure the lesson is learned and as McArthur(sp) said:

"I will use any and all means at my disposal to inflict the maximum amount of death and destruction upon my enemy in the shortest possible period of time".

Different teachers have different methods of teaching. There is no effective cookie-cutter approach.

Biker

 

[gezzer]

Corporal punishment with more than the hand ie: belt, electric cord, stick, yard stick,cane, pipe, bat, hokey stick etc is ABUSE plain and simple, I don't care if your parents did this to you or not it is ABUSE. Stop the chain of abuse.

 

[NineseveN]

In this thread, MY post was the only reference I saw concerning use of alcoholic beverages in proximity to firearms. That is why I assumed you were responding to my post. If you were commenting on postings made in a different thread, then my assumption was incorrect.

Honestly, that was my fault, I failed to clarify and left any reasonable reader to come to the same conclusion you did, honestly, I apologize.

I had grandparents that were killed in an automobile "accident", caused by a drunken driver coming around a curve on the wrong side of the road, hitting them head on and killing both almost instantly. He survived, and also was acquitted in court on a manslaughter charge, even though he was proven to be drunk at the time of the "accident". I have family that is alcoholic, and had several accidents from driving while drunk. I have been in the company of people that were drunk and had to help subdue them, because they were violent when drunk. These are all cases of drunken people in the Public arena, not confined to the security of their own homes.

Please try to really read what I am writing here, because this is not meant to offend you: Before I start, I am truly sorry to hear of such tragedies no matter who the story comes from, my personal feelings on your beliefs does not change that, I am sorry for your losses.

First, a little background on this…

The absolute biggest challenge I think the RKBA faces is what I see as self-centric gun owners that want to be in for a dime but not the whole dollar. The right to keep and bear arms is not only the cornerstone of what amounts to the right to defend oneself and thus the right to life, it is also both the embodiment and the guarantor of liberty in this country. I see two types of gun owners these days.

There are the gun owners that support liberty in all aspects, and would support the RKBA even if they personally hated firearms due to their allegiance to the concept of liberty. These are the gun owners that will go to the mat for the RKBA time and time again, these are your more politically active gun owners, but they are also the minority as ignorance is bliss and personal bias is more popular than liberty these days.

Then there are the self-centric gun owners that only support the RKBA because they own guns, they like guns, it’s their hobby, passion, sport or obsession, thus their support of the Second Amendment is completely and ultimately about the ownership of guns, more specifically, their ownership of guns. These are the same folks that don’t want felons to resume their right to keep and bear arms once they have served their debt to society, they’re the same folks that want mandatory training for firearms ownership or concealed carry permits, they’re the same folks that support the entire permit system in the first place, they’re the same folks that always find a group of free adults in society that they don’t want to see have access to firearms (felons, non-military or non-LEO), and they’re the problem.

They’re the problem because they argue against the gun control rhetoric of others using the very same arguments and tactics used against them by the anti-gun crowd to turn around support their own gun control rhetoric. For example, they say that banning firearms doesn’t keep criminals from getting firearms, the bans only hurt law-abiding citizens, but in the same breath they will turn around and say that criminals should not be legally allowed to own firearms. The ill-logic here is that if they admit that laws against owning guns don’t keep criminals from getting guns when they affect all citizens and in fact, they increase the defenselessness of the law-abiding citizen and thus they increase the likelihood of crime (i.e. a total ban); then logically for a gun owner to turn around and say that criminals should not be permitted to own guns has no basis or root in logic. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. The bad people will still get guns, the good people will suffer. There are plenty of folks that get caught up in crime, make a mistake and then turn their life around, and to many gun owners, that doesn’t matter, being a criminal once apparently removes the retention of the basic human right to be able to defend oneself.

This is totally against the concept of liberty; liberty means the free individual (i.e. not incarcerated) is given the benefit of the doubt until they break the trust of society. Once that trust is broken, a punishment is given to help pay their debt to society for breaking that trust. Some crimes can never be repaid in any one lifetime, Hence the death penalty or life sentences; but the flip side to that is that some crimes have shorter sentences, and once repaid, the individual should regain their liberty otherwise we have a system that lets criminals out of jail but continues to punish them for life, giving no possibility for repayment of that debt, making any incarceration illogical and making the prison term a life sentence for every felony, no matter how benign or small, and no matter what portion of a person’s life is spent repaying that debt inside a concrete cell because once they’re set “free”, they’re still in chains and they have no liberty, because the cornerstone and the embodiment of liberty is denied to them based on irrational fears (the same fears the anti-gun lobby uses to try and ban all guns) and illogical arguments (the same arguments the VPC uses to lobby for tighter gun controls).

The right to keep and bear arms does not begin nor does it end with firearms, it begins and ends with liberty, and gun owners with the same attitudes about other subjects (marijuana, alcohol, ex-cons with guns, women with guns, guns without training) that the anti-gun crowd has about guns is simply bad for the movement. If you’re in for a dime, I want to make sure you’re in for the whole dollar. And if that means calling a spade a spade and telling someone that they’re using anti-gun rhetoric to make a point arguing for diminishing, restricting or removing another free person’s liberty, well, they’re just gonna have to take their lumps or the MODs here are gonna have to ban me.

There is nothing to stop a drunken individual from getting in a car and driving, or from unlocking their gun safe and going on a shooting spree, if no other adult is there to intervene. You can not expect children to intervene with a drunken parent, and stop them from reckless or dangerous activities that they may attempt in their drunknness.

There is nothing to stop me from drawing my 1911 and shooting the snobby guy in the BMW that just cut me off in traffic in the face for calling me an ******* either…oh wait, there is, it’s called responsibility. That same responsibility is what keeps me from yanking out the FAL and lighting the night sky up with fire for effect when I’ve had 15 or 16 Coronas. To make the correlation that alcohol drives someone to do something they otherwise would not do is not supported by any fact that can be corroborated. Alcohol loosens the responsible grip on inhibitions, things that folks would normally want to do or would normally have a propensity to do but would otherwise be afraid to. Alcohol does not turn responsible people into lunatics, irresponsible people do bad things with or without alcohol, the alcohol is not to blame. If the act itself is something that someone would desire to do, only they decide not to do so out of fear and only come to be able to commit said act when drunk, the fault does not lie with the alcohol any more than the fault lies with the gun that someone uses to commit suicide with.

The Christian Bible clearly states that drunkenness is a sin; it is immoral based on the word of the God many people worship.

Not everyone goes to your church.

Drunkenness is considered by most societies to be immoral, and in most it is also considered to be a crime when an individual is drunk in public.

Sorry, that’s just not correct. America is well-known to be more uptight when it comes to alcohol as compared to the rest of the world where the legal drinking ages are lower and alcohol does not carry the same stigma that it does here. Tell me which societies you are talking about, I will guarantee that if here are any that you can name and show some proof of in their daily lives and social norms, the total number of those examples will be nowhere near 51% of known and current societies.

I do not believe that the Bible condemns moderate use of alcoholic beverages; it condemns drunkenness, and the loss of self control that results from imbibing in excessive quantitries of alcoholic beverages.

Your relationship with your religion and your god is your own, and it begins and ends at that exact line. Judge not my friend…remember that?

When people decide to set their own standards for what is considered immoral, they can justify to themselve all sorts of actions that society at large disapproves of. You have made it clear that your moral standards are lower than those I am accustomed to, and that you see nothing wrong with drunkenness, even though you yourself do not engage in drinking yourself into a state of alcoholic intoxication.

Your standard is based on religion, mine is based on liberty, there’s on difference, I don’t love liberty enough to force that standard upon what you do, yet your religious belief is enough for you to try and judge others based on your own standard. I have news for you, you’re in the minority in this country despite the fact that your voice is louder, prohibition did not work, neither has censoring Marilyn Manson or sex on TV; because that’s what the majority wants believe it or not (and you won’t most likely). The advertising revenues from ads run during racy TV don’t come from the minority, otherwise they’re would be less money in it than wholesome programming. This is the free market working, morals that solely come from religious views are only the majority in a census where adherence doesn’t get counted.

In many states, a parent that is a chronic drunk will have their children placed in foster homes, because the children are considered by the State Child Welfare Agency to be endangered by the parent that can not control themselves and their consumption of alcohol.

There is a difference between getting drunk on occasion and being a “chronic drunk” just as there's a difference between corporal punishment and “child abuse”. Your personal feelings on the issue are giving way for you to make the irrational leap between the two simply to make your point because your point cannot be made any other way.

I am not the only person that thinks children being exposed to the drunkness of their parents is a problem, and a bad example for children to emulate. I can not provide you with the proof that you want; I am not in the business of collecting case studies and statistics to justify what most people understand by common sense. Maybe common sense is becoming less common in this time, than it was a few decades ago.

This is a non-argument, if you can’t back it up, don’t make the claim. This is the same type of rhetoric we saw when Texas had the CCW laws on the table. We heard the VPC state that it was common sense that more guns would equal more gun uses and thus more loss of life and thus more crime (i.e. blood in the streets) and when asked for proof, they simply went silly in their logic and said more guns equals more gun uses equals more gun deaths and that it was commons sense. The truth was, they had no statistics because none could be found because their assertions simply were not true and simply based on their own fear and personal dislike of firearms…which is exactly akin to your personal feelings on the consumption of alcohol.

People that are anti-gun are people that don't believe in personal responsibility.

Agreed on general principles.

People that regularly drink alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication also don't believe in personal responsibility; they do things while in a state of intoxication, then try to blame it on the fact that they didn't know what they were doing, since they were drunk.

Gross generalization, subtract 5 points form your overall score please.

It’s actually you that does not believe in personal responsibility. Instead of admitting that the problem is the irresponsible person that abuses alcohol by actually doing something wrong while using it (whether intoxicated or not), you blame the booze and the consumer for merely consuming alcohol in a way you don’t personally like despite whether or not their conduct is perfectly safe and legal based on your own personal fears and bad experiences and the rationalization that if one consumes too much alcohol they will ultimately commit said acts.

Just as the VPC blames the gun and the gun owners for merely owning or possessing firearms for reasons they don’t personally like despite whether or not the conduct of the gun owner is perfectly safe and legal based on their own personal fears and bad experiences and the rationalization that if one owns guns they will commit crimes and are thus inherently dangerous. Same logic, same argument, neither are a friend to liberty.

That is why drunkenness is a bad example for children; it tells the children it is OK to do bad things as long as you can make an excuse, and blame someone or something other than oneself. Teenage children getting drunk and having sex - getting pregnant and not even knowing who the father is; getting drunk and stealing a car for a joyride - smashing into trees and bridge abutments. But they didn't know what they were doing because they were drunk, and that makes it OK - NOT.

The argument was never that said irresponsible acts were okay, only that drinking to the limit one is personally comfortable with is okay so long as they do not commit said acts…you’ve skipped a step as if being drunk automatically makes one an irresponsible person that will be promiscuous, hurt or kill someone and they shirk the responsibility of the actions…where have we heard that kind of rhetoric before? Check the VPC’s website.

You may be pro-gun, but perhaps that only because in your own selfish pursuit of the hobby you think it’s okay…what happens if you decide you don’t want to own guns anymore?

I don’t like homosexuals, the sexual acts they commit gross me out, but I would fight hard (and have) for the very liberty that is given to them by birth to do so, despite my personal feelings on the issue…

I don’t particularly care for organized religion, the double standards and exclusionist attitudes that it breeds often sicken me but I would fight hard (and have) for the very liberty that is given to them by birth to do so, despite my personal feelings on the issue…


If I did not own guns, I would still fight for the right to keep and bear arms, because at its core, it’s not about the guns, it’s about freedom, and that’s what liberty is all about. You’re either in for the whole dollar or you’re not paying your dues. Which is why your near-prohibitionist attitude (and the others that I mentioned) relates to the right to keep and bear arms and civil rights. If we’re ever going to live in a state of true liberty and regain our rights by birth, especially the right to keep and bear arms, gun owners are going to need to open their eyes and minds and start walking the walk on every street, not just talking the talk on the corner of The High Road when the subject of guns comes up.

 

[asknight]

gezzer said:

Corporal punishment with more than the hand ie: belt, electric cord, stick, yard stick,cane, pipe, bat, hokey stick etc is ABUSE plain and simple, I don't care if your parents did this to you or not it is ABUSE. Stop the chain of abuse.

Uh, say what? Ever heard of the Biblical reference to "spare the rod and spoil the child?" How is spanked with a belt or paddle abuse? I was "paddled" in public school. The paddle was a 1"x4"x36" or thereabouts on most occasions. I was whipped with my father's belt when I needed it. I grew up, earned an education, and don't have a criminal record. Sorry bro, children have been administered corporal punishment with paddles and belts for thousands of years. You're just a tad late with your diatribe. :banghead:

 

[NineseveN]

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

I realize that it would be difficult to remove all mention of religion in this discussion since that is where some of the viewpoints are coming from (religious views), just keep the above rule for THR in mind and maybe we can avoid getting this thread locked...I'm sure they're watching it closely enough as it is.

 

[silliman89]

I almost argued that we were using our terms differently, because I think we are, but I think our difference of opinion goes deeper than that.

One of Many -- #51
Your idea of loosing control seems to allow for a lot less control than I consider normal. Not being able to speak clearly, falling down, and getting silly due to alcohol consumption is certainly a loss of control;

This is a straight up difference in terminology. Drunks have lost fine motor control, yes, but they have not necessarily lost control of their actions. When you say someone walking across the room who falls down has lost control of themselves, that's the same as saying someone who swings a bat at a baseball and misses has lost control of themselves. Both failed in their intended goals. Both lacked the required physical coordination to achieve their goals. Both might or might not do better on a second attempt. To say either one is out of control is poor use of the English language. They'd be out of control if they tried to punch the people around them who laughed at them. Both drunks and ballplayers have been known to do that, but it's a function of their personality.

it seems to be a matter of degree to you,

It's a matter of degree with everyone. You yourself said you didn't have a problem with moderate consumption. The very first sip starts to affect you though. It's all just a matter of degree.

as though you have not lost control until you pass out cold on the floor.

Actually I would argue that you are the most controlled when you are passed out. You aren't doing anything then, certainly nothing dangerous to others around you. Remember that you're the one who's arguing that drunks are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in the same house with guns.

Alcohol is the tool by which people deliberately surrender control over their own mind and body; that they do it deliberately does not make it any less a loss of control.

In my opinion it's not control they are surrendering, but ability. What I think you should be arguing is that "Alcohol is the tool by which people deliberately surrender their human dignity, and since human dignity was granted to us by the creator, this is a sin which should be avoided in yourself and condemned in others." That is at least internally consistent. If I ran across that opinion I would just shrug and move on.

Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there. If I put on my pop psychologist hat, I would look at you and say you want to do dark and terrible things but you constantly stop yourself. You're afraid that alcohol would inhibit your ability to stop yourself, and then these dark and terrible things would happen. Therefore you're afraid of alcohol. Since I don't know you at all, who am I to say whether you're right or wrong. Most people behave just the same under the influence of alcohol though. They're just happier about it.

 

[sparx]

Corporal punishment with more than the hand ie: belt, electric cord, stick, yard stick,cane, pipe, bat, hokey stick etc is ABUSE plain and simple, I don't care if your parents did this to you or not it is ABUSE. Stop the chain of abuse.

Sorry geezer. Perhaps when I mentioned in my post that my mom used to use whatever was handy, be it a fly swatter, yard stick or clothes brush, I guess I should have also included that she was 4'11"/98 lbs. and every one of her "spankings" always brought more relief (and sometimes a few snickers, too) than waiting for "dad to get home". She never hit us with the "instruments" anywhere but on the butt, so it's not like she was beating us over the head, arms, back, legs or such. The punishment she dealt out was NOT abuse, by any means or standards, and was always deserved.

Perhaps it's due to my age, but I also got swats in every grade through school, from 2nd to 12th, too. Were they deserved? Yes, all but one (in my mind, but getting it certainly didn't cause irreparable mental harm or psychological problems), but for as many times as I used to get them (mainly for being a cut-up in class, not for doing really "bad" things), I should expect that to happen. And, every one of those swats in high school were given with a wooden paddle, whether it be two ping-pong paddles taped together with a spacer between the handles so the swats sounded louder and more fierce than they actually were (2nd grade), to a 5/8" slice out of the center of a baseball bat with holes drilled in the paddle-end that really stung but good (6th grade). Did I consider them abuse then? No. Would I consider them abuse now? No. I was one of those people that would see just how far I could get away with something, and if I had just been "talked to" or "reasoned with", I would have laughed all the way and who knows, perhaps I would have later become a statistic when I took it even farther because I would have suspected that nothing more than "talk-talk" would be the worst that I would have to face. If not that, then I know I surely would have grown up to become one of the most spoiled and disrespectful brats that "gets away with just about anything" that there are already plenty of anyway.

Now, if she had drawn blood, broke bones, or flew off the handle and hit us for no reason, then THAT could be considered abuse. I should know, I was the one that got the swats. Not you, with your personal ideals of what abuse is/should be. Any swats given out from my mom were perhaps the farthest thing from abuse I could ever imagine, so who the heck are you to say that she was abusive for having a yard stick in her hand when giving the swats, and should be considered a criminal for doing so?

So please, if you want to consider using anything but your hand when giving a swat to a child "abuse", then so be it in your family, but don't attempt to "make it law" and have the same ideals pushed onto others that might need to use something a little more firm to get the point across to their children.

 

[SteveS]

There is a difference between getting drunk on occasion and being a “chronic drunk” just as there's a difference between corporal punishment and “child abuse”.

So, where do you draw the line? I have worked in the children's mental health system for the past 10 years and have some opinions on this subject.

 

[NineseveN]

So, where do you draw the line? I have worked in the children's mental health system for the past 10 years and have some opinions on this subject.

Draw the line on what? The drinking or the child abuse? I'll tell you up front, I am not about to get into a stupid debate about "what exactly is child abuse" when it is generally readily apparent if you exercise a little common sense (aside from the fringe examples that may exist which we couldn’t use to define the terms anyway).

Try Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically speaking most punishments, whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice is generally held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the subject. The physical and psychological effects of certain severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are more or less indistinguishable from those of torture. (NineseveN note: these severe and/or prolonged punishments would most be considered abuse- i.e. using a cat-o'nine tails which leaves wounds and physical scarring or burning one with a hot poker; also beatings that last more than a few smacks go beyond the "limited" intention to enforce discipline).

As for the chronic drunk versus occasional drunkenness, look up the definitions of "chronic" and "occasional" and there ya go.

 

[SteveS]

Draw the line on what? The drinking or the child abuse?

Sorry I wasn't clear, the drinking.

As for the chronic drunk versus occasional drunkenness, look up the definitions of "chronic" and "occasional" and there ya go.

I don't think it is that simple. There are plenty of studies that will show that many children that grow up with one or both parents as alcoholics suffer some type of harm. I think it is also fair to say that children that grow up with parents that are moderate or occasional drinkers don't suffer harm. IMHO, alcohol use is on a continuum, with most people being somewhere in the middle ranges.

My question was at what point to do you think alcohol use by a parent becomes harmful to a child? In my practice, I only see children of full-blown alcoholics, so I really don't know the answer.

Personally, I don't plan on getting drunk around my kids. I remember the one and only time my father was drunk in front of me and he acted so silly, incoherent, and stupid that I lost some respect for him and still remember exactly what happened even though it was 20 years ago. This only applies to me and I am not suggesting that everyone follow this. You do what you think is best for your own children. It is not my place to tell you how to raise them, since you are in a better position to decide what is best.

 

[NineseveN]

I don't think it is that simple. There are plenty of studies that will show that many children that grow up with one or both parents as alcoholics suffer some type of harm. I think it is also fair to say that children that grow up with parents that are moderate or occasional drinkers don't suffer harm. IMHO, alcohol use is on a continuum, with most people being somewhere in the middle ranges.

Sure it’s that simple:

Alcoholism is a disease, the trait for the predisposition towards that disease can be passed genetically from parent to child. Even if the trait lies dormant in the adult (i.e. they’re a carrier but they’re not an alcoholic), the child may end up with an active case of alcoholism. The trait that makes one susceptible to alcoholism is in the same family of traits for substance abuse issues and other chemical imbalances (possibly bi-polar and other disorders) so it serves to reason that, of course, children of alcoholics are very likely to end up with some harmful condition or experience some harmful event (physical, mental or emotional trauma are all included) during the course of their exposure to the parent/s with the substance abuse problems because alcoholics and substance abusers lack the control that normal drinkers, even heavy drinkers, possess and this often leads to terrible consequences (verbal or mental abuse, physical abuse, negligent acts which result in physical or financial harm etc…).


There are functional alcoholics and there are non-functional alcoholics.

Functional alcoholics differ only from occasional drinkers or moderate consumers in that they have a physical, mental and emotional need invested into their drinking and thus they cannot control their abuse whereas occasional or moderate drinkers both drink and stop at will. None of these types of drinkers are the types that get visibly drunk in front of others, in fact, it is very difficult for one to tell a functioning alcoholic from an occasional drinker or even someone that doesn’t drink at all.


A very good description with some examples can be found at the following link: http://www.lowefamily.org/interviews/sep01_p2.html


Non-functioning alcoholics are the opposite of the above types in that they are often visibly drunk; they lose control and drink to the point of complete intoxication at any opportunity. They are similar in appearance to chronic drinkers with the only real difference is the nonfunctioning alcoholic’s near insatiable need to drink without limit whereas the chronic drinker makes the choice (albeit, possibly a bad choice) to do so each and every time and to what limit. Chronic drinkers can stop using a little will-power if they wanted to, for nonfunctioning alcoholics things are a lot more complicated and it takes more than a desire to quit, it takes recovery.

You cannot diagnose alcoholism by appearances, by frequency of alcohol consumption or quantity of alcohol consumed.

My question was at what point to do you think alcohol use by a parent becomes harmful to a child? In my practice, I only see children of full-blown alcoholics, so I really don't know the answer.

That’s a complex question, on the surface I would say at exactly the point that the child suffers damages due to the drinking or events that occur during the drinking that are not part of some underlying issue present within the child (that would likely find another avenue to manifest itself into the child’s behavior or thoughts).

A child being sensitive or embarrassed about Dad getting tanked watching the football game and harboring that issue to the point to where it manifests into resentment, fear or anxiety is not directly a symptom of the father’s drinking, it is a symptom of an underlying issue or even disorder with the child. A father getting tanked up and smacking the wife around in front of the child does damage to a child in a variety of ways that I am sure we’re all familiar with. Do you see the difference?

Personally, I don't plan on getting drunk around my kids. I remember the one and only time my father was drunk in front of me and he acted so silly, incoherent, and stupid that I lost some respect for him and still remember exactly what happened even though it was 20 years ago. This only applies to me and I am not suggesting that everyone follow this. You do what you think is best for your own children. It is not my place to tell you how to raise them, since you are in a better position to decide what is best.

I don’t know the details of this event and I won’t breech the boundaries of what is fair game in these discussions and even begin to analyze or take wild guesses on it.


What does this all have to do with firearms and guns? Motor skills are diminished with even one drink, that suggests that it is a poor choice to use or handle firearms when drinking; however, simply being drunk inside of a home with firearms does not constitute handling and to bring about a negligent event in this second scenario, it would require an overt act to get the firearm into the drinker’s possession which alcohol will not compel one to do, nor will it make such an act desirable for a person that did not already harbor such a desire before the alcohol was consumed, which makes the individual, and not the alcohol in and of itself, dangerous.

 

[One of Many]

NineseveN had this to say:

To make the correlation that alcohol drives someone to do something they otherwise would not do is not supported by any fact that can be corroborated. Alcohol loosens the responsible grip on inhibitions, things that folks would normally want to do or would normally have a propensity to do but would otherwise be afraid to. Alcohol does not turn responsible people into lunatics, irresponsible people do bad things with or without alcohol, the alcohol is not to blame. If the act itself is something that someone would desire to do, only they decide not to do so out of fear and only come to be able to commit said act when drunk, the fault does not lie with the alcohol any more than the fault lies with the gun that someone uses to commit suicide with.

This is exactly the type of loss of self control that excessive use of alcoholic beverages enables. That is why people that normally are not violent become so when drunken, and I have known (and helped subdue) such violent drunks. People that are very friendly and helpful when they are sober, and wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, until they become drunk. These people should never be allowed to touch a gun when they are drinking. They are far more dangerous than the "happy drunk" that just curls up and goes to sleep.

What about the drunk that decides to clean his guns, and has lost his fine motor control; he fumbles his weapon and shoots someone in the process. That person never intended to hurt anyone, and the alcohol didn't lower his inhibitions in that regard, but he just wasn't capable of judging his ability to control his own muscles.

These are the examples of loss of control, that responsible gun owners hope to never see publicised. The damage done to the pro-gun movement due to the inappropriate mixing of firearms and alcoholic beverages is just as bad, if not worse, than that done by people that only want to save "their own" guns and allow all others to be outlawed.



You seem to try to determine peoples motives from their statements, and then to attack their arguments based on assumed motives, rather than what was actually said. I would prefer to leave motives out of this discussion, and I sincerely doubt that you have the ability to read my mind, any more than I can read yours.

You attack people because they use the same methods that anti-gunners use, and then you turn around and use the same methods yourself (case in point - the reference to common sense - you attack me for referring to common sense, but do it yourself when responding to SteveS regarding child abuse).

You have gone way off the point of my post concerning the danger of mixing firearms and excessive alcohol consumption, and diverted into a discussion on LIBERTY, so you can rail against anyone that isn't "pure" enough to suit you (read this as - doesn't agree with you 100 %). This is one of the techniques used by the anti-gun crowd, yet you scold me about using "anti-gun" tactics.

Another tactic of the anti-gunners that you have used is the reversal of the stated position. Case in Point - You say this:

It’s actually you that does not believe in personal responsibility. Instead of admitting that the problem is the irresponsible person that abuses alcohol by actually doing something wrong while using it (whether intoxicated or not), you blame the booze and the consumer for merely consuming alcohol in a way you don’t personally like despite whether or not their conduct is perfectly safe and legal based on your own personal fears and bad experiences and the rationalization that if one consumes too much alcohol they will ultimately commit said acts.

Just as the VPC blames the gun and the gun owners for merely owning or possessing firearms for reasons they don’t personally like despite whether or not the conduct of the gun owner is perfectly safe and legal based on their own personal fears and bad experiences and the rationalization that if one owns guns they will commit crimes and are thus inherently dangerous. Same logic, same argument, neither are a friend to liberty.

My argument has been that excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages (abuse = drunkenness) is irresponsible behaviour when guns are present, and under the control (or lack of control due to consumption of alcohol) of someone that has their judgement and/or muscle control severely affected.

The argument was never that said irresponsible acts were okay, only that drinking to the limit one is personally comfortable with is okay so long as they do not commit said acts…you’ve skipped a step as if being drunk automatically makes one an irresponsible person that will be promiscuous, hurt or kill someone and they shirk the responsibility of the actions…where have we heard that kind of rhetoric before? Check the VPC’s website.

You may be pro-gun, but perhaps that only because in your own selfish pursuit of the hobby you think it’s okay…what happens if you decide you don’t want to own guns anymore?

What I stated that I have a problem with, is drunks that are in (supposedly) control of firearms. If the firearms are removed from their control, by having them locked away and the key in the possession of a sober person (and that person is unlikely to be overpowered by the drunk), then they can drink till they puke for all I care. Drinking to the point of drunkenness is somewhat akin to playing russian roulette; it is gambling that you will survive with no adverse affects to your self. Ever wonder why very few sober people actually play russian roulette?

I don't have a problem with someone that wants to have a single beer or glass of wine with a meal, or take a shot of whiskey at bed time to help them sleep. None of those cases will result in someone doing something irresponsible due to the consumption of alcohol. I do take issue with people that overindulge in alcohol, to the point that they do injury to themselves, their family, and to the general society.

Is the increased likelyhood of injurious action due to excessive consumption of alcohol a good reason to pass laws that state a blood alcohol content of .02 is a crime for someone in possession of a firearm (as it is in Michigan for CPL holders in the public areas)? Why does the NRA and other organizations promoting firearm safety say that mixing guns and alcohol is dangerous? Is it because each and every time someone gets drunk and has control of a firearm they will injure or kill someone? Common sense says that is not the case, but there is evidence that there is an increased risk of injurious action when someone is under the influence of alcohol, and they have unrestricted access to firearms.

Regardless of my personal opinions or religious beliefs, the facts support the case that drunkenness and access to firearms, increases the risk of injury or death to those in proximity to the drunk with a gun. You can talk about personal liberty until you turn blue, but that liberty does not allow a person to be careless and reckless when it comes to the liberty of someone else to continue living in a safe and sound manner. Your liberty to possess a gun is not a liberty to endanger me by irresponsible use or abuse of that gun. Your liberty to get drunk and obnoxious is not a liberty to cause me alarm by waving the muzzle of your gun in front of my face. The same goes for the liberty of the family and friends that may be in the home of the drunk with a gun.

 

[SteveS]

NineseveN, I did a year in a substance abuse unit as an employee, so while I would certainly not put myself out as an expert, I know some of what I talk about. I have some problems with the disease model, but that is outside of the scope of this thread that has already gone way off topic. I appreciate the thoughfullness of your response, but I think it still isn't that simple. There are still harmful actions by drunks that don't quite rise to the level of abuse, but may cause resentment.

I had a client tell me about the Christmas Eve where his mom had him call the bar to tell dad to come home because she knew that he wouldn't listen to her. I certainly don't think that this is as harmful as watching your mom get beat up, but I wasn't surprised to find out that this client viewed his father as somewhat of a jerk (this wasn't the only incident) and wasn't all that close to him.

I agree with your assessment of being drunk and having guns in the home. The only people I worry about are the ones that get drunk and want to "play" with their guns.

 

[silliman89]

I'm leaving town for the weekend, so I'm just going to throw a few closing thoughts out there real quick.

Someone mentioned that they lost some respect for their Dad when they saw him act drunk. I couldn't agree more. Parents are supposed to be authority figures. If they act like silly kids, or drunken idiots, or however you want to call them, that diminishes their authority. It's only natural for kids to respect them less in that case.

Firearms are dangerous. Even while cleaning, it's possible to make a mistake and have an ND. Firearms should never be handled while drinking, as a general rule. I couldn't agree more.

But lots of things are dangerous. Driving a car is probably the most dangerous because more people do it every day. And no one should drive while drinking, but people do. Should people not be allowed to have a car at their home when they're drinking?

Alcohol doesn't force people to unlock their gun safe, take out a gun and do anything dangerous with it, any more then it forces them to go drive drunk for no good reason.

 

[One of Many]

silliman89 -- #57 had this to say:

This is a straight up difference in terminology. Drunks have lost fine motor control, yes, but they have not necessarily lost control of their actions. When you say someone walking across the room who falls down has lost control of themselves, that's the same as saying someone who swings a bat at a baseball and misses has lost control of themselves. Both failed in their intended goals. Both lacked the required physical coordination to achieve their goals. Both might or might not do better on a second attempt. To say either one is out of control is poor use of the English language. They'd be out of control if they tried to punch the people around them who laughed at them. Both drunks and ballplayers have been known to do that, but it's a function of their personality.

When I say that someone who falls down as a result of drunkenness, has lost control of themselves, that is an accurate use of the English language (assuming that they walk well when sober). If someone is capable of hitting a thrown baseball when they are sober, and can not when drunken, that is a loss of control due to drunkenness; if the person could not hit the ball while stone sober, and still can not when drunken, no loss of control can be inferred from that example.

Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there. If I put on my pop psychologist hat, I would look at you and say you want to do dark and terrible things but you constantly stop yourself. You're afraid that alcohol would inhibit your ability to stop yourself, and then these dark and terrible things would happen. Therefore you're afraid of alcohol. Since I don't know you at all, who am I to say whether you're right or wrong. Most people behave just the same under the influence of alcohol though. They're just happier about it.

You are making unfounded assumptions regarding my mental state and stability, as well as whether I indulge in the use of alcohol now, or ever have.

I am not afraid of the moderate use of alcohol, and I have personal experience with alcohol, that did not result in my going berserk and performing dark and terrible deeds. In my youthful college days, I was drunk on a few occasions, and it did not make me feel good, happy, sad, angry, or enraged and violent. It did however adversely affect my judgement, and my control over my physical state, including my speech and ability to walk among other things. It also made me violently ill, to the point of parking myself on the toilet with a bucket in front of me. I had absolutely no control over my stomach or bowels due to the influence of alcohol.

I do not indulge in alcoholic beverages now, for two very good reasons - I use several prescription medications, and do not want to have an adverse reaction between the drugs and alcohol - I have other more useful things to spend my limited money on, rather than buying liquid forgetfulness, or courage in a bottle.

I do not understand why two posters in this thread have decided to try to psychoanalyze me from long distance. Both have tried to attribute to me unfavorable and unseemly personality flaws. This attack on my character is unwarranted. Please refrain from further attacks of this nature, and keep the posting about what I said, instead of what you think I meant, or why I said what I said.

My reasons for stating my thoughts on the subject of safety with firearms and alcohol, are not important. The matter of safety is important, and alcohol increases the risk of unsafe behavior.

 

[NineseveN]

This is exactly the type of loss of self control that excessive use of alcoholic beverages enables. That is why people that normally are not violent become so when drunken, and I have known (and helped subdue) such violent drunks. People that are very friendly and helpful when they are sober, and wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, until they become drunk. These people should never be allowed to touch a gun when they are drinking. They are far more dangerous than the "happy drunk" that just curls up and goes to sleep.

But you’re blaming the drinking instead of the individual, which flies in the face of your supposed support of individual responsibility. It’s not the booze that makes someone violent, they’re already violent by nature, they just have not acted on those impulses in your presence apparently. There is no scientific data or evidence that suggests or proves that non-violent people go from Jekyll to Hyde due solely to alcohol consumption. No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. You have no substance to back this up. And again, this flies in the face of personal responsibility, do you even now what those words mean? You’re blaming the alcohol use for “making” the person violent and thus saying that alcohol consumption past the point you are comfortable with is bad…that is not agreeable to any notion of “personal responsibility”.

Alcohol is not a mind control device; it does not make anyone do anything they would not normally have it in their character to do. If you want to argue this, prove it, because no fact exists to back you up.

What about the drunk that decides to clean his guns, and has lost his fine motor control; he fumbles his weapon and shoots someone in the process. That person never intended to hurt anyone, and the alcohol didn't lower his inhibitions in that regard, but he just wasn't capable of judging his ability to control his own muscles.

Ah, but that’s not the alcohol’s fault, nor is it simply drinking in a house that contains firearms. That’s handling firearms while drunk, which is not what this conversation is about. You can make all kinds of what-if statements and they do not prove your point. This is exactly what the anti’s do”.

”If guns aren’t dangerous, what about the guy who carries a gun and his wife threaten a divorce and then he shoots her in a fit of rage?”

That’s the exact same type of argument you’re using when you bring up the red herring of someone cleaning their guns while drunk, no one was discussing such a thing. A person being irresponsible enough to do this does not make the gun or the alcohol dangerous, nor does it make either of them at fault for any harm or damage caused through such a negligent act, it is the person’s individual responsibility to not become negligent. Drinking in and of itself is not negligence as no harm is committed by drinking alone, acts committed while drinking that cause harm can be negligent, again, that’s the drinker’s fault, not the fault of all drinkers and not the fault of the booze or any instrument used while committing a negligent act. This is personal responsibility, you use the term, but you just don’t get it.

These are the examples of loss of control, that responsible gun owners hope to never see publicised. The damage done to the pro-gun movement due to the inappropriate mixing of firearms and alcoholic beverages is just as bad, if not worse, than that done by people that only want to save "their own" guns and allow all others to be outlawed.

Which are not the fault of the neither the alcohol the guns, such things are the fault of the negligent individual, and nothing you say in your attempt to appease your anti-alcohol campaign will change that.

You seem to try to determine peoples motives from their statements, and then to attack their arguments based on assumed motives, rather than what was actually said. I would prefer to leave motives out of this discussion, and I sincerely doubt that you have the ability to read my mind, any more than I can read yours.

When all you offer is conjecture, hypotheticals and a religious bit, I have nothing else to discuss…if you would be so kind as to offer facts with your rant, I will gladly argue those.

You attack people because they use the same methods that anti-gunners use, and then you turn around and use the same methods yourself (case in point - the reference to common sense - you attack me for referring to common sense, but do it yourself when responding to SteveS regarding child abuse).

You have gone way off the point of my post concerning the danger of mixing firearms and excessive alcohol consumption, and diverted into a discussion on LIBERTY, so you can rail against anyone that isn't "pure" enough to suit you (read this as - doesn't agree with you 100 %). This is one of the techniques used by the anti-gun crowd, yet you scold me about using "anti-gun" tactics.

Come again? You’re trying to push your fears, ignorance and morality onto others who have committed no crime, have harmed no one in the process of their actions all in order to stave off some imaginary tragedy that you act as if is certain to happen if alcohol and guns are in the same house and completely bypass the individual…it’s for the children…like the VPC.

I diverted that discussion so that you would understand my comments about the whole ‘anti-gunner and prohibitionist’ comment I made…since you lack any argument and apparently the fortitude to examine your own behavior, you pull a silly “I know you are but what am I” defense. I did not say you were an anti-gunner, only that the reasons and foundations behind your arguments are based on misinformation, your own personal choices and fears and seek to restrict the personal, 100% legal conduct of someone else based on what you feel is personally right…again, that’s the foundation of all anti-gun arguments, misinformation, personal choices and fear that cause one to seek to restrict the personal, 100% legal conduct of someone else based on what they feel is personally right.

Another tactic of the anti-gunners that you have used is the reversal of the stated position. Case in Point - You say this:

My argument has been that excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages (abuse = drunkenness) is irresponsible behavior when guns are present, and under the control (or lack of control due to consumption of alcohol) of someone that has their judgment and/or muscle control severely affected.

Who says “abuse=drunkenness”? Who hired you as the authority to proclaim that? So far your only backing is that God told you so, which is thin. And don’t go off into the laws against public drunkenness because the law does not prohibit being drunk, only being drunk in public to the point of being disorderly, which is not the argument…the argument is being drunk in the home with firearms but not laying one hand on them…you say this is wrong, why? Because being drunk is wrong, you answer…according to who, I ask? The bible? You’re going to have to do better than that.

What I stated that I have a problem with, is drunks that are in (supposedly) control of firearms. If the firearms are removed from their control, by having them locked away and the key in the possession of a sober person (and that person is unlikely to be overpowered by the drunk), then they can drink till they puke for all I care.

No, you did not. Read your own words.

I am concerned that someone who owns firearms seems to be undisciplined enough to become drunken, and do so in the presence of children (nothing about handling firearms there). It is certainly a bad example to children, to show them that surrendering self control is acceptable, whether it be in the form of alcoholic beverages, smoking pot, crack, meth or any other mind altering substance (not one thing about firearms there). The man has firearms, for which he has control (or should have), and there should never be a mixing of firearms and loss of control due to alcohol (ambiguous, does not specify “handling” though it does say “in control”, but you cannot possibly be suggesting that all firearms in every home need to be physically in possession of the owner at all times, right?) l. I am not saying that moderate use of alcohol (remaining sober) should be prohibited, but drunkeness is asking for trouble when firearms are available (ah, “available”…do you know what that word means? It doesn’t mean control, it means, “Capable of being gotten; obtainable, accessible” which denotes that if something is available to you, it is generally not yet in your physical possession)

So, we’re back to:

1. Either you’re saying booze is bad if one gets drunk (none of your business what someone else does no matter what you think, you do not hold a monopoly on morality, and if you believe in liberty then you should know your rights end where someone else’s begin)

2. Or you’re saying that booze is bad if one gets drunk and has firearms in the home (yet not in their possession) which is nonsense.

3. Or you’re saying that booze is bad when one gets drunk and handles a firearm, which non one in this thread has argued aside from the fact that if you believe in personal responsibility, it’s not the booze’s fault, it’s not the guns, it’s the human being that uses or abuses these things.

Drinking to the point of drunkenness is somewhat akin to playing russian roulette; it is gambling that you will survive with no adverse affects to your self. Ever wonder why very few sober people actually play russian roulette?

Facts? Have any? Or does your model only come equipped with hypotheticals and conjecture?

I don't have a problem with someone that wants to have a single beer or glass of wine with a meal, or take a shot of whiskey at bed time to help them sleep.

This is exactly why I have labeled you a prohibitionist. It’s none of your damn business what others do, got it? It’s called, “freedom”…say it with me now nice and slow, ‘ffffrrrreeeeedommmmm’. If you don’t think it’s right for you, great, don’t do it, but again, you sound like Sarah Brady

I don’t mind people that want to hunt and keep shotguns for hunting, it’s those people with assault weapons and criminals that I’m against…

…which is why she wants to infringe on your rights through a smear campaign filled with little to no fact and try and make the decision for everyone else what they can and cannot own and cannot do regardless of whether or not their conduct is 100% legal and in accordance with the rights we hold from our first breath.

No, you’re not an anti-gunner (I think), you’re a prohibitionist…neither is a friend to liberty ether way.

None of those cases will result in someone doing something irresponsible due to the consumption of alcohol. I do take issue with people that overindulge in alcohol, to the point that they do injury to themselves, their family, and to the general society.

Just like most gun control, it’s always to save the children, or the individual, or society…doesn’t matter if it infringes on liberty or someone’s right to be left the hell alone by would-be nannies.

Is the increased likelyhood of injurious action due to excessive consumption of alcohol a good reason to pass laws that state a blood alcohol content of .02 is a crime for someone in possession of a firearm (as it is in Michigan for CPL holders in the public areas)? Why does the NRA and other organizations promoting firearm safety say that mixing guns and alcohol is dangerous? Is it because each and every time someone gets drunk and has control of a firearm they will injure or kill someone? Common sense says that is not the case, but there is evidence that there is an increased risk of injurious action when someone is under the influence of alcohol, and they have unrestricted access to firearms.

The argument and topic was not having a firearm under your direct control and in your direct possession out in public while drunk, stick to the argument at hand. I can understand how difficult that must be because the argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Regardless of my personal opinions or religious beliefs, the facts support the case that drunkenness and access to firearms, increases the risk of injury or death to those in proximity to the drunk with a gun.

Source? You haven’t offered any facts, how can you claim that they support your conclusion if you don’t offer them in the first place? Again, are we talking guns in the home while you are drunk, or guns in your possession? There’s a difference, clarify. If you are saying in your possession (which is not the argument you initially made) then I have no argument, it does indeed raise the risk the same as operating farm machinery or motor vehicles…and kitchen appliances and…so what? You want to outlaw the use of stoves while drunk, or just being drunk, or alcohol altogether? It’s none of your business what goes on behind the closed doors of someone else’s home until you are injured or you have a legal interest in an injured party…and not a moment before.

You can talk about personal liberty until you turn blue, but that liberty does not allow a person to be careless and reckless when it comes to the liberty of someone else to continue living in a safe and sound manner.

There is no right to feel safe or to be free from perceptions of danger. None. Period. End of story.

Your liberty to possess a gun is not a liberty to endanger me by irresponsible use or abuse of that gun. Your liberty to get drunk and obnoxious is not a liberty to cause me alarm by waving the muzzle of your gun in front of my face. The same goes for the liberty of the family and friends that may be in the home of the drunk with a gun.

A person owning guns, having them stored in a home while drinking alcohol is not “using” or abusing a gun, nor is it having a gun in one’s possession…

No one here said anything about waving a gun in your face, that would be brandishing, threatening or some form of assault…all of which are illegal, none of which have anything to do with alcohol, none of which are sufficient reason for you or anyone else to make the case that alcohol is bad and that someone should reserve the right to limit the freedom of someone else to consume alcohol simply because they own guns regardless of whether or not they ever touch the guns while consuming alcohol.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN, I did a year in a substance abuse unit as an employee, so while I would certainly not put myself out as an expert, I know some of what I talk about. I have some problems with the disease model, but that is outside of the scope of this thread that has already gone way off topic. I appreciate the thoughfullness of your response, but I think it still isn't that simple. There are still harmful actions by drunks that don't quite rise to the level of abuse, but may cause resentment.

I had a client tell me about the Christmas Eve where his mom had him call the bar to tell dad to come home because she knew that he wouldn't listen to her. I certainly don't think that this is as harmful as watching your mom get beat up, but I wasn't surprised to find out that this client viewed his father as somewhat of a jerk (this wasn't the only incident) and wasn't all that close to him.

I can agree with that, but I still ting the fact that this was not the only incident constitutes prolonged and possibly a "chronic" pattern of the issue, and not an overreaction based on a single incident.

I know I did oversimplify things a bit, but I still think the majority of the issues you and I could discuss would mostly fall into the middle rather than on the fringes...if the discussion wasn't so off-topic that is.

I agree with your assessment of being drunk and having guns in the home. The only people I worry about are the ones that get drunk and want to "play" with their guns.

In my experience, those are the same folks that want play with them even when they're not drunk...and yes, they're my concern as well.

 

[f4t9r]

Hawkmoon , I agree with what you said !!!!!!

Times have really changed since I was young and thankfully my son and daughter have turned out to be great adults. I used the same rules that have worked for years and do not know why we ever got away from that.

 

[Biker]

I wonder why no one has broached the subject of packing or driving while under the influence of prescription painkillers such as Vicodin?
Both alcohol and Vicodin produce similar results but one is demonized while the other is ignored. How many here are willing to fess up to driving or packing while using a drug with a 'do not operate while' label on the bottle. Hmmmm?

Biker

 

[torpid]

Whatever side of the fence you fall on in this discussion, I think most of us here would agree that the folks who do get drunk and then handle their firearms wouldn't bother with this discussion thread in the first place.

.

 

[Biker]

Agreed Torpid. Personally, I don't like to get drunk, but I do like to drink. I do it quite well, actually. On the other hand, I'm very cautious about driving or handling guns if I'm forced to take pain pills. They really mess with me.
It comes down to 'Know thyself', ie, personal responsibility.

Biker

 

[NineseveN]

Agreed Torpid and Biker on all accounts.

 

[One of Many]

NineseveN had this to say:

But you’re blaming the drinking instead of the individual, which flies in the face of your supposed support of individual responsibility

Where did I say it was the FAULT of the alcoholic beverage? Where did I say that the beverage MAKES the individual become intoxicated. The issue of personal responsibility arises from the choice of an individual to consume alcoholic beverages, and the quantity is as much a matter of choice as is the beverage itself. Most people that drink alcoholic beverages know what the effect of that beverage is, and in what quantities, and rate of consumption it takes to become intoxicated. The choice to become intoxicated is a matter of personal responsibility; very few people have someone hold them down and stick a funnel in their mouth to force feed them alcoholic beverages.

The actions an individual performs when intoxicated, are their responsibility, because they chose to become intoxicated while they were sober. They made a decision to do something (get drunk) knowing that their judgement would become impaired, and they would have less ability to control their bodily functions. If they refused to take prudent precautions to limit the possible damages that they might cause while in a state of drunkenness, that is irresponsible on the part of the person doing the drinking.

this flies in the face of personal responsibility, do you even now what those words mean? You’re blaming the alcohol use for “making” the person violent and thus saying that alcohol consumption past the point you are comfortable with is bad…that is not agreeable to any notion of “personal responsibility”.

We differ in opinion of the meaning of personal responsibility; I believe that a person that KNOWS he will become violent when drunk, is irresponsible when he gets drunk in the presence of other people that may be injured due to his violence. It is irresponsible to knowingly endanger someone else, whether alcoholic beverages are involved or not.

Alcohol is not a mind control device; it does not make anyone do anything they would not normally have it in their character to do. If you want to argue this, prove it, because no fact exists to back you up.

You continue to dismiss statements that I make, on the basis that I do not provide "Facts" to support my assertations, yet you are guilty of doing the same. Some things are so commonly known and understood by the person of average intelligence, that they are known as "common sense", and are accepted on the basis of personal experience, and "anecdotal evidence" provided by others. We don't need rocket scientists to prove that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Someone on a different planet, would have a different opinion, and could correctly say that the sun does not rise at all.

I never said that alcohol controls the mind; my whole point has been that people have a loss of conscious mental control of their thoughts and actions, due to the effects of alcoholic beverage consumption. You seem to persist in attempting to twist my statements 180 degrees, so that the meaning is opposite to what I said. In fact, you seem to be a master of this art of deception.

Ah, but that’s not the alcohol’s fault, nor is it simply drinking in a house that contains firearms. That’s handling firearms while drunk, which is not what this conversation is about. You can make all kinds of what-if statements and they do not prove your point.

Since I am the person that initiated this topic of drunknness with access to firearms, how is it that YOU can tell me what the discussion is about? Is it due to your constant attempt to divert the subject into one where you think you have a superior argument? I have tried to respond to your attempted diversions, and get back to my original statement, but you persist in diversionary efforts.

What-if statements are used to draw a persons attention to their own personal experience and the use of logic, to analyze potential situations without the necessity of suffering the adverse effects of bad decisions. Everone goes through the what-if process on a daily basis; everytime they make a choice they are subconsiously using a what-if process. That what-if process does not prove any point, and is not intended to be a proof; it is intended to cause an intelligent person to consider points of view that may have been overlooked.

when you bring up the red herring of someone cleaning their guns while drunk, no one was discussing such a thing. A person being irresponsible enough to do this does not make the gun or the alcohol dangerous, nor does it make either of them at fault for any harm or damage caused through such a negligent act, it is the person’s individual responsibility to not become negligent. Drinking in and of itself is not negligence as no harm is committed by drinking alone, acts committed while drinking that cause harm can be negligent, again, that’s the drinker’s fault, not the fault of all drinkers and not the fault of the booze or any instrument used while committing a negligent act. This is personal responsibility, you use the term, but you just don’t get it.

So I am inserting Reg Herrings? That is what I thought you have been doing since your first response to my original post.

Personal responsibilty requires that someone who intends to get drunk, take steps to prevent themselves from acting, while drunken, in any manner that results in injuring themselves, someone else, or property while they are drunken and not in complete control of their mental and physical functions. How does that differ from what you have stated?

Which are not the fault of the neither the alcohol the guns, such things are the fault of the negligent individual, and nothing you say in your attempt to appease your anti-alcohol campaign will change that.

I am not attempting to appease anyone; if I was I would not take the time to try to expose the fallacy of your arguments. I have no campaign to oppose alcohol; that is a figment of your imagination, based on your assumption that because I stated that their is a religious foundation for many people to be in opposition to drunkenness, that it is also my opinion that any use of alcohol is bad. Even though I have repeatedly stated that I do not object to moderate use of alcohol, you persist in trying to put thoughts in my head, and words in my keystrokes.

You’re trying to push your fears, ignorance and morality onto others who have committed no crime, have harmed no one in the process of their actions all in order to stave off some imaginary tragedy that you act as if is certain to happen if alcohol and guns are in the same house and completely bypass the individual…it’s for the children…like the VPC.

I diverted that discussion so that you would understand my comments about the whole ‘anti-gunner and prohibitionist’ comment I made…since you lack any argument and apparently the fortitude to examine your own behavior, you pull a silly “I know you are but what am I” defense. I did not say you were an anti-gunner, only that the reasons and foundations behind your arguments are based on misinformation, your own personal choices and fears and seek to restrict the personal, 100% legal conduct of someone else based on what you feel is personally right…again, that’s the foundation of all anti-gun arguments, misinformation, personal choices and fear that cause one to seek to restrict the personal, 100% legal conduct of someone else based on what they feel is personally right.

Once again you resort to personal attacks against anyone that dares to oppose your point of view. If I disagree with you, you say that I am ignorant, that that I am morally prudish, and I am fearful of imaginary threats. You keep asking me to prove my allegations, so how about you provide some proof of those accusations. You imply that my behavior is somehow suspect, and that I lack courage, because I disagree with your opinion and don't provide mathematical proof to support my opinion. Then you try to equate me with anti-gunners based on your claim that my statements and methodology are similar to what anti-gunners resort to in order to sway opinion. This seems to be a classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

the argument is being drunk in the home with firearms but not laying one hand on them…you say this is wrong, why? Because being drunk is wrong, you answer…according to who, I ask? The bible? You’re going to have to do better than that.

Being drunk with access to (control of) firearms is dangerous, whether or not the drunk actually decides to physically handle the firearm. The POTENTIAL for serious injury is increased tremendously in those circumstances, whether such injury occurs once in a million drunken episodes, or every other episode. My concern is not that a person chooses to get drunk, but what might happen when that drunk has access to firearms. I am similarly concerned about drunks that have access to automobiles, but that is not a gun related topic.

So, we’re back to:

1. Either you’re saying booze is bad if one gets drunk (none of your business what someone else does no matter what you think, you do not hold a monopoly on morality, and if you believe in liberty then you should know your rights end where someone else’s begin)

2. Or you’re saying that booze is bad if one gets drunk and has firearms in the home (yet not in their possession) which is nonsense.

3. Or you’re saying that booze is bad when one gets drunk and handles a firearm, which non one in this thread has argued aside from the fact that if you believe in personal responsibility, it’s not the booze’s fault, it’s not the guns, it’s the human being that uses or abuses these things.

Yes, I am saying that drunkenness is bad, but I also acknowledge that you have a Liberty to get drunk, and do stupid things as long as you do not endanger other people.

Yes, I am saying that getting drunk while at home, with access (control) of firearms is bad. I wouldn't say this if I thought it was nonsense; that is your opinion, which you are entitled to as a matter of Liberty.

Yes, I am saying that drunkenness and handling of firearms is dangerous. It is not the fault of the drink, that the person becomes intoxicated, nor is it the fault of the gun, that the person handles them dangerouly while intoxicated.

These are opinions that I hold to be truth, and the fact that you disagree is a matter of liberty, that I am not trying to remove. You can choose to hold a different opinion, while I am at liberty to profess a contrary opinion to your opinion.

That does not make me a tyrant, nor does it impugn my character as you have attempted so many times, nor does it make anything I have presented in this thread in any way support the anti-gun movement.

This is exactly why I have labeled you a prohibitionist. It’s none of your damn business what others do, got it? It’s called, “freedom”…say it with me now nice and slow, ‘ffffrrrreeeeedommmmm’. If you don’t think it’s right for you, great, don’t do it, but again, you sound like Sarah Brady

Perhaps you do not understand what prohibition means. It means NONE, ZERO; it does not mean some use, or use in moderation. What you are doing by trying to pin that lable on me, is exactly the same method the anti-gunners use to discredit their opposition (us gun owners).

You sound like you belong in a schoolyard, taunting the little kid that you perceive to be inferior to yourself ("say it with me now nice and slow, ‘ffffrrrreeeeedommmmm’").

For your information, this is NOT a FREE country, where everyone has UNLIMITED LIBERTY to do and say whatever they please, wherever they please, whenever they please. This is a counrty of laws and consequences for breaking those laws. Laws limit the liberty to express oneself in any manner one chooses.

Just like most gun control, it’s always to save the children, or the individual, or society…doesn’t matter if it infringes on liberty or someone’s right to be left the hell alone by would-be nannies.

You must be aware of the statement "your rights end where my rights begin". Your right to be drunk and stupid stops as soon as anyone else is injured by your actions, and the reason a lot of laws have been implemented, is because some people are not smart enought to know that their actions will injure someone else. We have safety rules and regulations, and some laws, to let people know that certain actions are unsafe and usually lead to avoidable injury.

It’s none of your business what goes on behind the closed doors of someone else’s home until you are injured or you have a legal interest in an injured party…and not a moment before.

When the injurious actions of a drunk person with a firearm, result in additional restrictions (anti-gun laws) due to the bad publicity such events always incur, then I and all other gun owners have been injured as well. So I do have an interest in what happens behind your closed doors. As long as you do nothing to injure my rights and liberties, I don't care how much you drink. I just ask that when you choose to get drunk, you make sure that you do not have access to firearms, on the chance that something bad may happen. It is a precautionary matter, not a matter of certainty. You wear seatbelts, and drive cars with airbags, as a precaution against accidental injury. I think that reasonable precautions are good. It is obvious that you disagree.

There is no right to feel safe or to be free from perceptions of danger.

If that is the case, then how can we have laws that prohibit "Brandishing" a firearm. That term has been used to prosecute and convict people for just having a holstered gun on their hip.

No one here said anything about waving a gun in your face, that would be brandishing, threatening or some form of assault…all of which are illegal, none of which have anything to do with alcohol, none of which are sufficient reason for you or anyone else to make the case that alcohol is bad and that someone should reserve the right to limit the freedom of someone else to consume alcohol simply because they own guns regardless of whether or not they ever touch the guns while consuming alcohol.

I do not believe that I have stated in any of my postings in this thread that I want laws and regulations to be implemented that would restrict the right of persons to get drunk in their home, when they have access to firearms. I think that it is a matter of personal responsibility for those people to limit their own ability to gain acess to those firearms while they are drinking.

There has been a long established and well recognized safety slogan, "Guns and Alcohol don't Mix". You seem to have a different perception than I do, of what constitutes "Mixing". My threshold of concern is obviously at a much lower level of alcohol tolerance than your's is.

 

[NineseveN]

The issue of personal responsibility arises from the choice of an individual to consume alcoholic beverages, and the quantity is as much a matter of choice as is the beverage itself. Most people that drink alcoholic beverages know what the effect of that beverage is, and in what quantities, and rate of consumption it takes to become intoxicated. The choice to become intoxicated is a matter of personal responsibility; very few people have someone hold them down and stick a funnel in their mouth to force feed them alcoholic beverages.

And the point is? How is the mere state of intoxication a bad thing if they don’t touch a gun and no harm comes of it? The OP never once said his dad would get hammered and clean his Mosins, so what was your point in posting that:

I am concerned that someone who owns firearms seems to be undisciplined enough to become drunken, and do so in the presence of children

There is nothing about handling firearms there, the OP never said dad would get drunk and handle firearms, only that he was never abusive when drunk. Your problem, as you stated yourself, is that someone that owns (not handles) firearms would get drunk at all, and even worse in front of his children.[

It is certainly a bad example to children, to show them that surrendering self control is acceptable, whether it be in the form of alcoholic beverages, smoking pot, crack, meth or any other mind altering substance

Not one thing about firearms there, this statement indicates that you have a problem with the kid’s dad being drunk at all, period.).

The man has firearms, for which he has control (or should have), and there should never be a mixing of firearms and loss of control due to alcohol (ambiguous, does not specify “handling” though it does say “in control”, but you cannot possibly be suggesting that all firearms in every home need to be physically in possession of the owner at all times, right?)

I am not saying that moderate use of alcohol (remaining sober) should be prohibited, but drunkeness is asking for trouble when firearms are available (ah, “available”…do you know what that word means? It doesn’t mean control, it means, “Capable of being gotten; obtainable, accessible” which denotes that if something is available to you, it is generally not yet in your physical possession)

So what is your point? Your words indicate that you have a problem with people getting drunk, especially in front of their kids. The OP did not make any mention of frequency (this could be something that has only happened five times in this kid’s life), he made no mention of firearms whatsoever past someone owning them and having them in the home. Your words indicate that you have a problem with people that own firearms getting drunk, regardless of whether or not the handle them. I say that’s your problem, not theirs. We can agree to disagree.

The actions an individual performs when intoxicated, are their responsibility, because they chose to become intoxicated while they were sober. They made a decision to do something (get drunk) knowing that their judgement would become impaired, and they would have less ability to control their bodily functions. If they refused to take prudent precautions to limit the possible damages that they might cause while in a state of drunkenness, that is irresponsible on the part of the person doing the drinking.

Again, no one in this thread is arguing that. Go back, reread your opening statement and if you mean something else, clarify it, because this is a much different statement than what is delivered by your initial post.

We differ in opinion of the meaning of personal responsibility; I believe that a person that KNOWS he will become violent when drunk, is irresponsible when he gets drunk in the presence of other people that may be injured due to his violence. It is irresponsible to knowingly endanger someone else, whether alcoholic beverages are involved or not.

No one is arguing that, and if that is what you meant, you should have stated that in the first place. You didn’t, or I missed it.

You continue to dismiss statements that I make, on the basis that I do not provide "Facts" to support my assertations, yet you are guilty of doing the same. Some things are so commonly known and understood by the person of average intelligence, that they are known as "common sense", and are accepted on the basis of personal experience, and "anecdotal evidence" provided by others. We don't need rocket scientists to prove that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Someone on a different planet, would have a different opinion, and could correctly say that the sun does not rise at all.

I never said that alcohol controls the mind; my whole point has been that people have a loss of conscious mental control of their thoughts and actions, due to the effects of alcoholic beverage consumption. You seem to persist in attempting to twist my statements 180 degrees, so that the meaning is opposite to what I said. In fact, you seem to be a master of this art of deception.

Intoxicated people do not lose conscious mental control, but perhaps this is semantics. They are still very much in control, but their threshold of their inhibitions does indeed consciously change.

Since I am the person that initiated this topic of drunknness with access to firearms, how is it that YOU can tell me what the discussion is about? Is it due to your constant attempt to divert the subject into one where you think you have a superior argument? I have tried to respond to your attempted diversions, and get back to my original statement, but you persist in diversionary efforts.

What you’re saying now is not what you originally said.

Personal responsibilty requires that someone who intends to get drunk, take steps to prevent themselves from acting, while drunken, in any manner that results in injuring themselves, someone else, or property while they are drunken and not in complete control of their mental and physical functions. How does that differ from what you have stated?

It doesn’t, but that’s a different argument than you started with.

Once again you resort to personal attacks against anyone that dares to oppose your point of view.

Not once have I personally attacked you. If you say that all black people should be put into chains, you’re a racist, and if I call you that, it’s not an attack. If your argument is based upon a lack of knowledge on the effects of alcohol, your argument is ignorant. Claiming someone’s ignorance is not a personal attack, your argument, as I see it, is (or was because you seem to be saying something a little different now) based upon faulty information on the effects of alcohol, that’s ignorance. The whole “nanny” comment was out of line, and upon realizing the way I wrote that, I can apologize, that was out of line.

Being drunk with access to (control of) firearms is dangerous, whether or not the drunk actually decides to physically handle the firearm. The POTENTIAL for serious injury is increased tremendously in those circumstances, whether such injury occurs once in a million drunken episodes, or every other episode. My concern is not that a person chooses to get drunk, but what might happen when that drunk has access to firearms. I am similarly concerned about drunks that have access to automobiles, but that is not a gun related topic.

But what good is this fear if it does not materialize in the real world? What is your point, that even though no damage can be done if one who uses alcohol never touches a firearm that alcohol and firearms being in a home where alcohol is consumed is still bad? Why? Because something “might” happen? Again, that’s the same fear tactic that the anti-gunners use…’yeah sure CCW holders don’t snap out and kill people in the street when they have a bad day, but the fact that they could and that it might happen makes CCW and guns bad’. Again, same argument. The truth is, neither is very useful because you’re making an argument based on something that hasn’t happened. If your argument is that handling firearms while drinking is bad, that’s fine, most will agree with you…but handling guns and having them in the same home is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Yes, I am saying that drunkenness is bad, but I also acknowledge that you have a Liberty to get drunk, and do stupid things as long as you do not endanger other people.

You think getting drunk is doing a stupid thing? That’s fine, that’s your opinion, and unlike you, I won’t cry about it being a personal attack as if you truly meant to insult me and call me stupid for getting drunk.

Yes, I am saying that getting drunk while at home, with access (control) of firearms is bad. I wouldn't say this if I thought it was nonsense; that is your opinion, which you are entitled to as a matter of Liberty.

Fine, your opinion is noted, I disagree…we can move on.

Yes, I am saying that drunkenness and handling of firearms is dangerous. It is not the fault of the drink, that the person becomes intoxicated, nor is it the fault of the gun, that the person handles them dangerouly while intoxicated.

No disagreement there.

Perhaps you do not understand what prohibition means. It means NONE, ZERO; it does not mean some use, or use in moderation. What you are doing by trying to pin that lable on me, is exactly the same method the anti-gunners use to discredit their opposition (us gun owners).

Thank you for clarifying that, it is appreciated. Yes, the label was incorrectly applied to you. Yes, I did it on purpose. Yes, it was wrong. It was used to illustrate a point that by my own fault, I failed to make at the time and has little to no use now, so I’ll give you that one. I should have said something a little more softcore, but I truly intended to make a point by deliberately using that term. All apologies.

For your information, this is NOT a FREE country, where everyone has UNLIMITED LIBERTY to do and say whatever they please, wherever they please, whenever they please. This is a counrty of laws and consequences for breaking those laws. Laws limit the liberty to express oneself in any manner one chooses.

There is no law against being drunk in your own home if you have firearms in that home, nor should there be. This country was intended to be a free country where free people could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted provided no one else’s rights were infringed by their actions and no harm was caused (and in may aspects, this is still true, and in some, unfortunately, that freedom has been eroded). Our founding fathers drank heavily and owned and kept firearms in their homes, where they drank. They even carried firearms while drunk.

You must be aware of the statement "your rights end where my rights begin". Your right to be drunk and stupid stops as soon as anyone else is injured by your actions, and the reason a lot of laws have been implemented, is because some people are not smart enought to know that their actions will injure someone else.

Agreed. Never intended otherwise.

We have safety rules and regulations, and some laws, to let people know that certain actions are unsafe and usually lead to avoidable injury.

What law prohibits drinking with firearms in the home?

When the injurious actions of a drunk person with a firearm, result in additional restrictions (anti-gun laws) due to the bad publicity such events always incur, then I and all other gun owners have been injured as well. So I do have an interest in what happens behind your closed doors.

No, you don’t have any business with what goes on behind my closed doors, I don’t care what your justification for it is. If you’re injured by my actions, make your complaint then, your fears of what might happen gives you no claim to my personal business. That is the crux of my complaint with you here.

As long as you do nothing to injure my rights and liberties, I don't care how much you drink.

Good, we agree there.

I just ask that when you choose to get drunk, you make sure that you do not have access to firearms, on the chance that something bad may happen. It is a precautionary matter, not a matter of certainty. You wear seatbelts, and drive cars with airbags, as a precaution against accidental injury. I think that reasonable precautions are good. It is obvious that you disagree.

I agree, reasonable precautions are good, but I disagree that not drinking past 1 drink because I have firearms in the home is reasonable. Fair enough?

There has been a long established and well recognized safety slogan, "Guns and Alcohol don't Mix". You seem to have a different perception than I do, of what constitutes "Mixing". My threshold of concern is obviously at a much lower level of alcohol tolerance than your's is.

Indeed. I am as against, if not more against “handling” firearms when drunk than even you may be…my thoughts on that can be found in other threads here. Having guns in the home does not equate to handling.


I'll bow out for right now, I think I've said enough already at this point...we'll see where this thread goes...