NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/guns/20029

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 5.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!iastate.edu
From: [e-mail] (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: hand shake
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:08:25 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 93
Approved: [e-mail]

{NOTE: the following is, as I understand, within the charter and is
certain to garner loads of responses.  If you see this, the moderator
has deemed it reasonable to post.  I'll let him decide if this
response is best dealt with elsewhere. -- Dan Sorenson}

[e-mail] (Daniel Carroll) writes:

#   What would you experrts out there recomend to someone with a slight
#shake in their hand.I myself suffer from this inheireted disease and i
#would like to know if there is a way of increasing the accuracy of
#my shot.

    We're all responsible adults, right?  That being said, I've a
good friend and roommate with a similar disease.  In short, his hands
shake and it's not caffeine overdose.  What to do?  A doctor said there
was a drug that would stop it, but that the cost was roughtly $70/week.
Too much for a college student.  Now for the dangerous part.

    He drinks a beer.  That's it.  While your disease may not be the
same as his, we've found that a glass of brew settles his nerves, so to
speak, and does not produce intoxication.  Check yourself at the pub,
not at the range with a gun, to see if this is a viable option.

    I realize I'm opening myself to serious flamage here.  I have
two points I'd like to make before my shorts are toasted.

    1) a drink does not mean intoxicated, and like any other drug
the effects of alcohol need to be monitored and dealt with.  I'm in
the middle of a homebrew right now.  I would drive a car now, but
wouldn't handle a firearm or ride my motorcycle.  The latter two
require much better reactions than the former, and while I believe I
can competently do the former, I don't trust myself to do the latter.
Note that I didn't say I couldn't, but that I don't trust myself to.
I'm more awake than I am within three hours of getting out of bed, but
I have to draw the line somewhere.  If I lived in California and would
be driving in 70mph bumper-to-bumper, the car is out too. (I make a
fairly impotent homebrew.)  Just as I won't ride or shoot while taking
anti-histamines because I feel my reactions are slowed too much, I
feel alcohol is no different in its effects and that each individual
needs to assess for himself the impairment in safety this causes.
I do not advocate drinking and driving/shooting/riding.  I merely feel
that the person under the influence is best able to judge how under
the influence he/she is and act accordingly.  These are dangerous
things we play with, and we should accept the responsibility of a
cautious and very conservative approach in this matter.  Frankly,
if you can't tell your reactions and act accordingly then I have to
wonder how responsible you really are, and if being drunk is an excuse
for irresponsible behavior for you.  It is certainly not for me.

    2)  I note that drunken driving and killing sprees are not
given the same slant in the media.  The former is something that is
normal and beyond the control of the driver, while the latter (even
if on drugs) is always a tragedy.  The penalties for each underscore
this.  In my view, each is certainly a case of irresponsible behavior
and deserves the same penalties.  "I was drunk."  Gee, what an excuse.
No, one should always be responsible for his own actions, and if that
glass of beer or that Tylenol tablet interferes with your judgement
you are the one best able to tell.  I'm trusting Daniel to be able to
best ascertain this, not my grandmother who thinks Prohibition was a
Good Idea because she liked it.  While I mention that a chemical
that slows nervous response is a possible fix for his problem, I
fully expect Daniel to be able to say, "It doesn't work for me, and
isn't worth the slowed reactions," or even, "Like Dan S. when he is
just waking up, I don't trust myself in this state."

    Frankly, my first impulse was to suggest that Daniel get a
.22 rifle and live with his shakes, but after being exposed to
responsible people who know when to say, "I'm not comfortable with
handling a firearm at this point," and "I'm fine -- the shakes are
smaller, and I'm not under the influence to any unsafe degree," I
feel there is no inherent danger from one chemical over another so
far as safety is concerned, and that we must all take responsibility
for our actions no matter what drug is involved.

    In short, using the drug doesn't mean abusing it, and I hope
I've made this point sufficiently clear with regards to Daniel's
problem.  I would have just e-mailed this, but I wanted the readers
to make their own judgements on my drug position and reply to this.
Daniel, I'm trusting you to make the judgement.  Don't let me down.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 [e-mail] [e-mail] >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

[MODERATOR:  *whew*   This *IS* a touchy one.  I'm pretty inclined to
advocate strict adherence to our usual convention "don't mix guns and
drugs in any way."  But I think Dan has done a thoughtful job of expressing
that there may be a circumstances --- for others if not for me --- where we
can at least think about this.  I'm not going to can this note.... it DOES
open a can of worms, potentially, but we are still the kindler and gentler
news group, capable of hashing this out in a civil fashion ... (that's a
big hint, groupies  ... :-) ]