TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:This thread is still going?

I have found that people will come up with a variety of creative justifications and rationalizing to support their drinking habits. My family has a long history of alcoholism. I drink fewer than 4 drinks per year and have made a deliberate effort to ensure it doesn't ever become a habit. I am 5'11 and 195 lb from a family of heavy drinkers, and I can tell you that I feel impaired after only one beer. My personal belief is that people who claim not to be impaired or to not recognize any impairment after x number of drinks are simply desensitized to the sensation of impairment. Of course you will never convince a drinker to consider this kind of argument, because like I said, people will engage every order of denial and rationalizing in order to defend their drinking habits.

The libertarian in me loathes the 51% law and the drunk driving laws as well. They are examples of laws that have sacrificed our liberty in favor of an illusion of safety, and the drunk driving law is used to allow all kinds of abridgments of our freedoms by the police.

Don't debate drunks.

A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the
license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is
concealed

A law which completely prohibits the carry of a handgun is on it's face unconstitutional in the wake of the Heller decision.

That would include the 51 per cent law.

Anyone who thinks Texas bars are gun free zones needs to catch a ride back home on the next turnip truck.

Count wrote:

mr.72 wrote: Are you replying to my post above?

Yes.

Well, your argument is flawed in logic and also an apples-to-oranges comparison. Your point doesn't even make sense for the case of diabetes, and even if it could be made to make sense, it would not apply at all to the case for alcohol. But, as I said, it is nearly impossible to communicate rationally about this with people who already think that they can drink without being impaired.

I believe you when you say you have a family history of alcoholism. I believe you when you admit you're impaired after one drink.

However, that doesn't mean everybody has a family history of alcoholism, nor the same reaction to alcohol.

Count wrote:I believe you when you say you have a family history of alcoholism. I believe you when you admit you're impaired after one drink. However, that doesn't mean everybody has a family history of alcoholism, nor the same reaction to alcohol.

I don't think the people who can drink responsibly are the ones in denial.

I think everyone is impaired after one drink, or more precisely, I think everyone is equally as impaired after one drink if it is the first day in their life that they try a drink, or if they have been heavy drinkers for 20 years. I don't believe that over time you gain a tolerance to the impairing effects of alcohol. I think that over time you simply are desensitized towards your awareness of your degree of impairment.

I never suggested that everyone has a history of alcoholism, and this is where you are making a logical fallacy. I suggested that even though I have a family history of alcohol, including the experience of being around heavy drinkers most of my life, I still contend that those who drink without thinking they are impaired are deluded or in denial. This comes from a great amount of personal experience observing people who drink. I can always tell if someone in my family has had at least one drink, even if they claim that they are not impaired after only having one drink.

And yes, I do think that anyone who thinks they can drink and not be impaired is in denial. However I think that some people (including myself) can drink responsibly. Drinking responsibly includes being aware that you are impaired, and making certain that you do not endanger others as a result of your drinking. So if you think going out and drinking "a few beers" will not result in any impairment, then you are indeed in denial and you are absolutely not drinking "responsibly".

You know I've seen investigation of shootings where the shooter had been drinking. While it was touched on it was not as big a deal as some of you guys think it would be. If it's a good shoot there is no reason for them to get your waitress and make her testify. Some people on here really over analyze how the legal system works and I honestly think walk around with the feeling that they can get in trouble at the drop of a hat. While yes you can I just don't want to go through life afraid of everything (like having a beer an hour before I had to use my wepaon). Some people will call me careless but I'm not. I just don't want to live in fear of every little thing that some big mean DA can do to me. The argument of two beers with dinner to me sounds way too much like the other stupid arguments I hear. Will hollow points get me in trouble? What about a trigger job? How about my night sights and laser? If someone is attacking you and you are fear of you or someone elses life that's it. I'll worry about that all of that stuff later.

Sorry I know I will get flamed and I'm probably not going to respond to this thread again. Not because I find it annoying but just because I think we are going back and forth about the same stuff. If you don't want to drink at all and carry fine. If you think two or one drinks is ok then fine to that too. I think we can all agree that being drunk with a gun on your hip isn't too smart. Aren't we just all saying that same thing over and over again here guys?

gregthehand wrote:[quote="WildBill"Your experience with hunters is contrary to what I have observed.

Me too![/quote]

gregthehand wrote:You know I've seen investigation of shootings where the shooter had been drinking. While it was touched on it was not as big a deal as some of you guys think it would be. If it's a good shoot there is no reason for them to get your waitress and make her testify. Some people on here really over analyze how the legal system works and I honestly think walk around with the feeling that they can get in trouble at the drop of a hat. While yes you can I just don't want to go through life afraid of everything (like having a beer an hour before I had to use my wepaon). Some people will call me careless but I'm not. I just don't want to live in fear of every little thing that some big mean DA can do to me. The argument of two beers with dinner to me sounds way too much like the other stupid arguments I hear. Will hollow points get me in trouble? What about a trigger job? How about my night sights and laser? If someone is attacking you and you are fear of you or someone elses life that's it. I'll worry about that all of that stuff later.

Sorry I know I will get flamed and I'm probably not going to respond to this thread again. Not because I find it annoying but just because I think we are going back and forth about the same stuff. If you don't want to drink at all and carry fine. If you think two or one drinks is ok then fine to that too. I think we can all agree that being drunk with a gun on your hip isn't too smart. Aren't we just all saying that same thing over and over again here guys?

I'll give you this, your consistent. Heck...have a beer in my name some day.

mr.72 wrote:

Count wrote:I believe you when you say you have a family history of alcoholism. I believe you when you admit you're impaired after one drink. However, that doesn't mean everybody has a family history of alcoholism, nor the same reaction to alcohol.

I don't think the people who can drink responsibly are the ones in denial.

I think everyone is impaired after one drink, or more precisely, I think everyone is equally as impaired after one drink if it is the first day in their life that they try a drink, or if they have been heavy drinkers for 20 years. I don't believe that over time you gain a tolerance to the impairing effects of alcohol. I think that over time you simply are desensitized towards your awareness of your degree of impairment.

I never suggested that everyone has a history of alcoholism, and this is where you are making a logical fallacy. I suggested that even though I have a family history of alcohol, including the experience of being around heavy drinkers most of my life, I still contend that those who drink without thinking they are impaired are deluded or in denial. This comes from a great amount of personal experience observing people who drink. I can always tell if someone in my family has had at least one drink, even if they claim that they are not impaired after only having one drink.

And yes, I do think that anyone who thinks they can drink and not be impaired is in denial. However I think that some people (including myself) can drink responsibly. Drinking responsibly includes being aware that you are impaired, and making certain that you do not endanger others as a result of your drinking. So if you think going out and drinking "a few beers" will not result in any impairment, then you are indeed in denial and you are absolutely not drinking "responsibly".

What I find humorous is they prove your point with every post proclaiming alcohol doesn't affect them. Just one drink...LOL. But I'm different...I can drink two beers with dinner...LOL. I think the translation get's lost in the definition of intoxicated. A whole lot of regular drinkers think being able to walk to the car and stick the keys in the ignition means they are sober. The reality is that they are kidding themselves. Being able to function does not equate to being unaffected.

Oldgringo wrote (a few days ago):

Alcohol does not mix well with either gasoline or gunpowder.

That's my story and inasmuch as no one has convinced me otherwise, I'm stickin' to it.

03Lightningrocks wrote: What I find humorous is they prove your point with every post proclaiming alcohol doesn't affect them. Just one drink...LOL. But I'm different...I can drink two beers with dinner...LOL.

Ironic isn't it?

I think the translation get's lost in the definition of intoxicated. A whole lot of regular drinkers think being able to walk to the car and stick the keys in the ignition means they are sober. The reality is that they are kidding themselves. Being able to function does not equate to being unaffected.

Well the point is that impairment from alcohol is a matter of degree. But there is no zero unless you have not been drinking at all. So really if you drink at all then whatever you do after doing so will be done with some degree of impairment. The question is, how does this impairment affect the activity? For driving, it results in lots of problems. I would think your impaired judgment could really increase your risk of a shooting going very badly if you happen to be carrying... Or it would for sure increase your reaction time and perhaps make it more likely for you to be ineffective with a weapon. Or maybe it is bad enough to ruin your ability to aim or identify your target. These are Very Bad Things.

What cracks me up is saying "drinking and guns don't mix", so you leave the gun at home. Ha. Maybe leave the drinking at home! I think that right there is a lapse in judgment but what do I know? I don't really drink.

maybe I can make a smiley formula for it... + =

Aren't we just all saying that same thing over and over again here

If a law is illegal, anything you cut it amounts to pushing a string. Uphill.

Matthew 7:3

If a law is illegal, anything you cut it amounts to pushing a string. Uphill. [/quote]



What does this mean? If a law is illegal.

Ok, I have the solution to this thread. A concern is you will not have "normal" judgment and reflexes after consuming alcohol. So, just make sure you're always drinking to maintain a constant BAC of .12 and that will be the norm for you.