Shooting and Drinking at a BBQ?

[OH_Spartan]

I dont have a problem with alcohol and guns at the same event. I have a backyard range and get-togethers often involve shooting. That said, after I remind people of the four safety rules, I always add one more......when youve taken your first drink, youve fired your last shot. I have never gotten any guff from this rule or had anyone try to skirt the rule. I have, had people bring their alcohol down to the range but they just hang back from the firing line and enjoy the conversation

 

[armoredman]

I catch 10 kinds of grief every time I post this, but I don't care. I've known many people who love going out shooting with a couple of cases of beer out in the desert. So be it, do it away from me...WAY away from me. Your life is your own, live it your way. Not only will I not shoot after a beer, I will not do any reloading activities until the alcohol has left my bloodstream. That's me. You do as you wish, and I wish you the best. Please read the words on this poster carefully to see the exact point I'm making.



On a purely personal note, yes, I can now afford better beer than the Beast.

 

[yugorpk]

I have found that Milwaukee's Best is pretty good on a hot day. Shake it up for a few seconds after it warms up and it blows up nicely when shot.


Luckily most of my friends figured out they werent very good at drinking and doing anything a long time ago and gave up the pursuit.

 

[vamo]

Personally I have no problem with someone having 1-2 beers and shooting well below the legal limit of intoxication. If someone wakes up on a Saturday has a beer or 2 while mowing the lawn then decides to go shooting later then w/e they likely haven't had anywhere near enough to cause a problem.

However, I can see such a gathering being an issue if someone clearly has had more than 1-2 and wants to shoot. Some people might take no for an answer, but it would look really bad and be uncomfortable for everybody involved if someone caused a scene.

 

[George Dickel]

Utter non-sequitur, in no way analogous to anything in this thread.

The only thing you are "proving" is that your memory of "WKRP in Cincinnati" is deeply, deeply flawed. As a hint: "The Doctor" was the air name of a DJ, in that episode he demonstrated that his performance in fact improved, and it was fiction, a TV sitcom.

That's alright Ed, continue to allow booze drinking at your shooting events. Everything will be OK, everyone knows their limit.

 

[JTHunter]

Ed Ames said:

There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street.

Sorry but I beg to differ. Drinking and driving is illegal in Illinois (and probably the other 49 as well) and just a dangerous (and stupid) as mixing alcohol and firearms.

 

[vamo]

There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street.

Sorry but I beg to differ. Drinking and driving is illegal in Illinois (and probably the other 49 as well) and just a dangerous (and stupid) as mixing alcohol and firearms.

Theres a difference between a beer and drunk driving/shooting.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

My private club doesn't mind if you bring a cooler and have a few. That said they do mind if you have a few and then go to shoot. They tell you to do your shootin first, and then you can have some. Obviously getting tanked is frowned upon. Now if it were up to me? My own personal land, whatever the case. I see no harm in having a couple beers and shooting a gun. We all know our limits (at least we should). Responsibility and moderation are always the cornerstones.

 

[Ed Ames]

That's alright Ed, continue to allow booze drinking at your shooting events. Everything will be OK, everyone knows their limit.

I guess my reply to you is, "While we are talking about your drinking, have you stopped beating your boyfriend?" Hint: I said nothing about my shooting events, you know nothing about them, you are demonstrating nothing but ignorance.

If you'd like, you could realize that you have totally missed the point. Realize that this has nothing to do with drinking or people knowing their limits. It has to do with some posters considering it impossible for responsible adults to come up with a sensible way of having both.

Or don't, I don't really care. But your sneering underhanded attempt to paint me as doing something irresponsible simply because I am pointing out that you are actively aiding the enemies of freedom is pretty pathetic.

A few people have said they have events with both, and have rules like, "first drink = last shot" ... I'm not calling them out. Can you figure out why? Because those people are doing just fine. They have found a balance. They aren't feeding lines to our foes.

You, on the other hand, are implying that laws requiring firearms be stored at shooting ranges, or disassembled, are reasonable because most houses have alcohol and in your world there is no room for alcohol and guns to coexist.

See the difference?

Try hard, this is actually important.

 

[Ed Ames]

Ed Ames said:

Sorry but I beg to differ. Drinking and driving is illegal in Illinois (and probably the other 49 as well) and just a dangerous (and stupid) as mixing alcohol and firearms.

You don't understand the laws.

Most states have laws against driving with open containers of alcohol in the vehicle. That wasn't the scenario I described.

Most states have laws against driving impared, and/or with a blood alcohol level of more than 0.08%. My scenario involved "a beer", which will cause a BAC level of about 0.02%, well below the legal limit. Most people are not measurably impared at that level.

You are not breaking the law by having a beer before driving.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...considering it impossible for responsible adults to come up with a sensible way of having both......

Responsible adults no doubt can. But I think it's fatuous to assume that in any random group of persons over the age of majority every one of them is necessarily deserving of the appellation "responsible." I'm sure most of us have known one of more adults who had demonstrated themselves to be irresponsible consumers of alcohol.

A few people have said they have events with both, and have rules like, "first drink = last shot" ...

Which is how we've always handled things at several clubs which serve alcohol.

 

[Wishoot]

Hold my beer and watch this!

Famous last words.

Guns and booze just don't mix.

 

[medalguy]

I also believe that *most* people can have one beer, maybe two, and know their limit, and stop drinking before reaching their limit to continue shooting. But everyone? No. And since your RSO has indicated he does not "want to play cop", who is going to insure that no one exceeds their limit? THAT is what I have a problem with.

I would skip the event. Not worth the risk IMO.

 

[Ed Ames]

Responsible adults no doubt can. But I think it's fatuous to assume that in any random group of persons over the age of majority every one of them is necessarily deserving of the appellation "responsible." I'm sure most of us have known one of more adults who had demonstrated themselves to be irresponsible consumers of alcohol.

I hope it is fatuous to assume that the membership of a private gun club is a "random group of persons over the age of majority". I suspect we are talking about dues paying, bylaws following people vetted by a membership committee and with social capital on the line. Maybe I'm giving the club (which I know nothing about except they are having a BBQ) too much credit.

Which is how we've always handled things at several clubs which serve alcohol.

In 2010 I pulled my motorcycle into a motorcycle dealership parking lot in Colorado. As I walked towards the front door a dealership employee threw a can of beer to me, unasked.

I normally follow an "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule when it comes to operating high risk vehicles (motorcycles, airplanes), but I drank the beer anyway. Then I grabbed a soda from one of the open coolers.

Question: were they taking any steps to ensure that motorcyclists who stopped at their dealership could both have a beer and continue their ride responsibly?

 

[jcwit]

That does not change the fact that consuming a beer does not suddenly rob you of all inhibitions and make you into an uncontrolled menace. Nor does it change the fact that saying gun owners can't be trusted if they have had a beer is damaging to the pro-RKBA cause. ]

And just what says that they CAN be trusted?????????

Our local TV station did a study regarding drinking and driving a few years ago. It was found that 2 beers changed ones ability to drive safely. But granted that did not put one over the legal limit.

Study was done by WNDU, Ya that one, Notre Dame.

Same holds true for gunpowder. IMO

 

[JohnKSa]

By arguing that your gun club's members cannot be trusted to act responsibly around guns and alcohol at the same time, you are making the argument that those people (and by extension all people) cannot be trusted to keep firearms at home. Homes generally have alcohol.

The issue is liability, more than it is whether members can be trusted at home or at the club. If someone accidentally shoots a family member at home while handling a gun inebriated it doesn't reflect on the club at all and the club can't be held responsible.

If someone does that at a club event or meeting, the inevitable resulting lawsuit will likely close the club down. At the VERY least, the insurance company will increase rates and force the club to enact new rules to help prevent a recurrence.

The people responsible for keeping the club operating have to consider issues like liability and should take steps to limit it when it's reasonable to do so. If they don't, they aren't doing their job.

I suspect we are talking about dues paying, bylaws following people vetted by a membership committee and with social capital on the line.

I belong to a private range like that and all of the caveats you listed apply. And yet the people still break the club rules, destroy club property and do things that put the future of the club at risk.

The people responsible for running the club need to be careful not to fall prey to the logical fallacy of assuming that the way things OUGHT to be is really the way things ARE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
Humes Law.

You have an excellent grasp of the way things OUGHT to be and I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, having been the president of a gun club for a number of years, I have to tell you that things are not how they ought to be and assuming that they are is a huge mistake that creates a tremendous potential for negative outcomes.

 

[cdk8]

I think ideally the best way to deal with this is to not serve alcohol until AFTER the shooting is completed. If this is a large gathering, there is no easy way to enforce a rule if shooting is concurrently happening with serving alcohol.

In reality, I think the large majority of gun owners are well aware of the dangers of alcohol and they exercise prudent judgment so that they do not mix drinking and shooting. Unfortunately, it only takes one idiot to turn a fun event into a living nightmare.

The idiot who will ruin this will likely greatly overestimate their functional state while consuming alcohol. This happens often with driving with certain individuals, some on an almost chronic basis. These people are not necessarily dangerous because of the impairment, but rather they are dangerous because they do not believe that they are impaired, and then they perform a certain action that everyone else avoids because everyone else is aware that their impairment greatly increases the potential dangers. Someone with this mindset may very well feel they are fine to shoot after consuming some alcohol, and then disregard any rules because, "alcohol doesn't impair me like it does everyone else, and therefore I am safe to _______."

And it only takes 1 person who operates under that reasoning for things to go south really fast...

 

[Aragon]

Thanks for all the comments -- even the more creative ones. My focus was this: If someone got injured, my comments about not shooting after having consumed alcohol and the RSO's retort would come to light in court and the club would be (rightly or wrongly) crucified.

I don't expect a single person to get inebriated at this event -- I haven't witnessed it in years past -- not even close. But allowing people to drink and then shoot brings our commitment to safety to question in general in my opinion.

 

[Aragon]

FWIW, the land the range is located on is owned by the State of California and the club insures its operation through the NRA...

 

[hso]

around guns and alcohol at the same time

No, he's saying consuming alcohol and shooting, not being around it. Others have said, don't have any and there won't be an issue.

It is possible to have wine/beer present and consumed before and after shooting, but no firearms use should take place unless the requisite time has passed to ensure blood alcohol levels have dropped before shooting. It may be too much bother to monitor the consumption of alcohol and ensure competency before shooting so the easy route may be to be more restrictive, but that shouldn't be required if everyone gets a warning that they're responsible to ensure their competency and any failure to do so will result in the individual having to leave (and all the resultant embarrassment that would cause).

 

[Frank Ettin]

I hope it is fatuous to assume that the membership of a private gun club is a "random group of persons over the age of majority". I suspect we are talking about dues paying, bylaws following people vetted by a membership committee and with social capital on the line....

Which in my experience can reasonably be called a "random group of persons over the age of majority." I'm a member of two private gun clubs whose members are "vetted" by a membership committee. The process can be considered "vetting" only in the most charitable sense; it is at best perfunctory.

Furthermore, I've been professionally involved as a lawyer with some organizations doing very rigorous vetting -- physician credentialing committees which decide whether a particular physician will be allowed to practice as a member of the medical staff of a hospital or a health plan. Because of the public interest, the risks associated with substandard medical care, and the nature and extent of potential liability, these committees take their responsibilities quite seriously and conduct detailed, in depth, and often intrusive inquiry into the professional qualifications and personal character of physicians seeking to participate. Furthermore, such committees have access to a national database containing information on physician complaint and misconduct histories.

Even with those resources, a certain percentage of physicians will be removed from hospital medical staffs and health plans for misconduct, including drug or alcohol abuse, incompetence, fraud, or sexual misconduct with patients.

So no vetting process can be considered perfect.

 

[DeepSouth]

It seems just plain stupid to be concerned about safety and liability while allowing people to drink and then shoot. What do you all think?

I think statics would indicate that your more likely to be harmed on the way to that event than while your there.

Having a beer of two while shooting isn't a big deal, obviously being drunk and shooting is an entirely different manner. Some people can't seem to tell the difference, to each his own.

 

[yugorpk]

I think statics would indicate that your more likely to be harmed on the way to that event than while your there.

Having a beer of two while shooting isn't a big deal, obviously being drunk and shooting is an entirely different manner. Some people can't seem to tell the difference, to each his own.

I think the statistics would definitely show you are more likely to get harmed on the way home from the event you were drinking at.

I'll be on a 80,000 Acre wheat farm tomorrow shooting, barbecuing, and having two beers and a bunch of cokes before I go home late in the afternoon. The "range" means different things to different people.

 

[gamestalker]

Aragon, I too opine that alcohol and firearms are as bad a combination, as drinking and driving. But in Az., it's perfectly legal to shoot while drinking alcohol, that includes even if intoxicated. So as long as the inebriated individuals are not acting in such manner that they present an active and ongoing threat to the safety and welfare to their self or others, they are acting within the limits of the law.

For the longest time I simply wouldn't shoot at public ranges, and not just because of the alcohol and firearm thing, but simply because I'm uncomfortable around a bunch of people of whom I know nothing of their firearm competency. But over the last several years I started using public ranges more often, I just keep an eye out for the incompetent types, and when I spot one, I just go find a another place to go shoot.

As for your situation, at the risk of helping to unintentionally aid the efforts of the anti's. I would probably just actively maintain a heightened level of awareness. If things start getting out of hand to the extent you become uncomfortable, just leave. But I sure wouldn't publicly address this concern. we already have enough problems with keeping the anti's off our backs.

GS

 

[Aragon]

I think the statistics would definitely show you are more likely to get harmed on the way home from the event you were drinking at.

I'll be on a 80,000 Acre wheat farm tomorrow shooting, barbecuing, and having two beers and a bunch of cokes before I go home late in the afternoon. The "range" means different things to different people.

So?