It's a tough call.
With all due respect. When it's a tough call, you shouldn't be making it.
It's a tough call.
Quite simply, a good shoot is a good shoot and a bad shoot is a bad shoot. ...
I don't think the two are really analogous:
1. Keeping and bearing arms is explicitly a right. Driving a car is not. Driving a car is a privilege, subject to reasonable regulation by the State.
2. When bearing arms, 99.999999% of the time, the firearm remains holstered, and untouched by the bearer. Thus, carrying while under any level of influence of alcohol poses an extremely low risk of misuse of the firearm, or threat to bystanders. When driving a car, 100% of the time, the movement of several thousand pounds of mass and inertia are under the direct control of the driver. Thus, driving while under the influence of alcohol poses a risk of misuse of the vehicle, directly proportional to the degree of inebriation - and a commensurate risk of threat to bystanders.
3. The demonstrated public harm of driving under the influence of alcohol is orders of magnitude greater than the demonstrated public harm of misuse of firearms, whether under the influence of alcohol or not.
So it seems everyone agrees that drinking heavily and carrying is a bad idea..and irresponsible.
I still think someone full blown drunk has a right to defend himself , regardless of how well he will be able to do so.
just because someone made a decision to drink heavily doesn't mean they deserve to be a victim correct?
It's not that simple. Intoxicants affect your ability to perceive rule #4. What is a "good shoot" when you pull the trigger could turn into a "bad shoot" on the way to where the bullet stops.
When I am carrying, I typically don't seek out a drink, like with dinner, etc.
However if I am doing something social where drinks are being served I might have a single beer, but never a second or more.
I try to treat drinking while carrying like driving. If I'm not sober enough to drive, I'm not sober enough to carry. Both are lethal weapons that can be devastating under control of someone under the influence.
I cannot readily discern your "argument."And thus the circle is closed on my argument. That makes it a bad shoot then, right?
It is a question of specific intent.
You and the boys going to "drink" (especially if 25 and under), just leave the guns home.
Having a drink with dinner, no big deal.
To be completely safe, have a no booze when carrying policy.
I would say that the majority of us have trained for self defense situations to be the best that we can be in a SD situation. The bottom line is that my goal is to be faster and more accurate than the person that I am defending myself from. I will take every advantage I can get including alcohol impaired judgement on their part.
I cannot readily discern your "argument."
It's a bad shoot when your bullet hits those other than the aggressor attempting to harm. Be it a miss, through and through, AD, whatever, your good intentions are massively trumped by the bad end result of an innocent being harmed or killed by your action. Whether this poor result can be associated with intoxication is up to the jury to decide.
Being as how it is not illegal to drink and carry, could that be even allowed to be considered in a decision? He was robbed at gunpoint but he was drunk so let's convict.. I just see that making a difference?
Now if a by stander was injured.. Could there be some kind of negligence ... If it were illegal to be intoxicated while operating a firearm I could obviously see this argument but just curious from a legal standpoint.
As far as I can tell...at least from the deposition testimony, no one has ever had more than "a couple of beers".