NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/guns/20514

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-29 | 10.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!michael.apple.com
From: [e-mail] (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: hand shake
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:10:57 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California
Lines: 227
Approved: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Sorenson) writes:

A very good article with which I mostly agree.

I'm going to take a Really Radical position here.  I find nothing at
all wrong with shooting after having had one or two drinks.

NOTE CAREFULLY:  I would not, under any circumstances, presume that
that rule which holds for me would be at all applicable to someone
else.  Every metabolism is slightly different.  You must know your
own limits!  I might not be safe at three, and would certainly be
unsafe at 5+.  I have a high tolerance.  I know folks who would
be 'under the table' at 3 ...

In low doses it can and does improve performance.  It has been
well demonstrated that the consumption of one or two drinks
improves ones foreign language skills.  Why?  It reduces slighly
the inhibitions that cause hesitancy and panic/tension in the
use of a foreign language.  But if you have too much, you lose
the mental edge that is needed to perform.  There is a 'proper dose'.
(and it is small.)

(For what it is worth, I've never shot after consuming alcohol.  I
HAVE run power mowers and circular saws and done a dozen other
things as hazardous with <3 in me with no imparement. >4 I start
to get performance drops. 3 seems to be a break even point.)

#[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
#
##A slowing of reaction time can be
##fatal in a car, and can ruin a round of skeet, but for the 5 shots
##in 10 minutes crowd, it's not a handicap. What may be dangerous,
##however, is the loss of good judgement that alcohol brings along.
#
#    Quite right.

Note quite exactly right.  Right as far as it goes.  Alcohol is
an 'irregularly decending depressant' that is also an anesthetic.

This brings with it some special effects.  First off, there are
times, places, and metabolic states where too little 'anesthesia'
is a problem.  If you look at SCUBA divers, they suffer nitrogen
narcosis at depth due to the anesthetic effect of nitrogen at
pressure.  Yet at very great depths, when using helium or hydrogen,
they must blend SOME nitrogen back in to regain proper balance,
since the pressure/anesthesia curves of helium and hydrogen are
not sufficient at great pressue (i.e. negative slope compared
with nitrogen)  to maintain normalcy.

What does this have to do with booze before shooting?  Simple.
If you have a metabolic state that is slighty displaced AWAY
from normal and AWAY from the direction that anesthetics move
the metabolism, some slight anethesia will make you more 'normal'.

ALL anesthesia is realated to a physical change in the cell membrane.
Anesthetics disolve in the cell wall changing the thickness.  (I
think it makes the wall thicker ... it was in a Sci. Am. a few
years back).  If your cell walls are two thin, you twig out, too
thick, you twig out.  If, for example, it is the 'morning after',
your body has adapted to alcohol content.  But the alcohol is now
gone.  Having some of 'the hair of the dog' puts the cell wall
back where it belongs and gives more time to re-adapt to a
lower blood alcohol level.  If an individual has the wrong basal
state cell wall thickness, some alcohol can restor normal state
AND normal function.

NOTE CAREFULLY:  I'm talking about alcohol as a medicinal anesthetic
here, NOT use as a recreational drug.  The difference is in the
intent.

A person with tremmors is displaying some of the same symptoms
as a person with the 'wrong' cell wall thickness.  If a small
degree of alcohol ingestion cures the tremors and restores
better function overall, there is little reason to reject the
MEDICAL TREATMENT due to the drug having recreational uses as well.

##I would contest most strongly your contention that the person
##under the influence is the best judge of his mental state. That's
##obviously not true or there wouldn't be so many drunk drivers
##killing people on the roads. When a person who's falling down
##drunk thinks he's competent to operate a motor vehicle, his
##judgement of his own mental state must be suspect.
#
#    And here is the crux of the point I'd like to contest.  In
#my opinion, if you can't judge for yourself that you are unsafe,
#who do you expect to do it for you?  I, at least, don't need sober
#friends to tell me I'm slow on my reactions and shouldn't be shooting
#or riding/driving.

I agree with this.  No one can be responsible for you.  The problem,
though, is the 'irregularly' part of 'irregularly decending'.  That
means that it takes out brain functions from the 'top down' ('highest'
functions first ... i.e. judgement before motor skills) and does
so in a non-linear way.  What this means, in practical terms, is
that a little bit of booze can reduce {tensions, tremors, fears}
just enough to improve your shooting skills.  A little bit more
starts to impair your judgement about having a little bit more
and starts to impair your ability to judge your own competency.
Even more and you are drunk and dangerous. It is a slippery slope.

Most folks don't get to experience that first stage much, 'cause
most folks don't stop at one drink for an hour or so!  They go
right to stage two (impared judgement) and then decide to head
on over to stage three 'cause stage two sure felt nice ...

People (at least SOME people) learn to stop at stage two only
after visiting stage three too many times ;-)  and the fact
that stage two is too far along for shooting or driving causes
folks to toss stage one in the forbidden behaviour bucket due
to proximity to stage two.  It need not be so.

...
##I believe the only safe rule is that gunpowder and alcohol do
##not mix.
#
#    I too believe this to be a good rule to follow, and you'll
#notice that my two most feared/respected toys, so to speak, get
#equal treatment under this guideline.

I think it is a very safe and appropriate rule, but would argue
that it not be universally enforced against folks who do have
the need and capacity to use a very small measured dose of
alcohol has a medial treatement for tremmors.  (or other
symptomolgy that it might cure.)

The key words here are 'measured dose' and 'medical'.  I would
re-word the rule to 'gunpowder and recreational alcohol or
more than 1 oz of medical alcohol per hour do not mix.'.

I know, a nit that is not worth harvesting in most cases... but
a point that should be remembered non-the-less.

Why bother?  Because folks are almost as impaired on the morning after
a big drunk as they were the night before.  For them, a medicinal dose
of alcohol can restore SOME of the lost function and safety.  To
forget this fact is to lose a valuable tool... and DECREASE safety!

(As a footnote, I'd also vote for a rule of 'no shooting on a morning
after a big drunk.)

#However, I also recognize
#that individuals will be different in their reactions to various
#drugs and should act accordingly.

This is key.  I KNOW my capacity.  At a recent party I was being
careful to limit my intake to small amounts.  (Less than 5 beers
over a few hours.  Something I can do with no visible impairment.)

I learned a valuable lesson at this party:  'Alcohol may intensify
this effect' works both ways.  I was taking some anti-histamines.
Mix in 'small' dose (for me) of alcohol.  I was *LOOPED*.  I now
know to be very careful of anti-histamines and shooting ...

Should there be a rule to ban shooting during hay fever season?
I'd rather teach people to be sensitive to their state than to
promulgate an every widening maze of rules...

##Since alcohol dosage is time critical, I don't think
##there's a safe way to use it as a method of improving shooting
##ability.
#
#    There are at least two people, my roomie and a poster, who
#have indicated that it can be done.  The time critical part is, I
#think, the key element.

It is also rather easy to define.  Take a look at any OTC medicine
in your cabinet.  It says something like 'take 2 every 4 hours'.
For me, for alcohol, if I 'take one every 2 hours' I can stay
in a safe zone, yet still be more relaxed than when taking zero.
Every person would, though, need to find their own limits.

As a starting point, most DUI guidlines state you will metabolize
one drink per hour for a normal adult male.  Given ONE as a starting
maximum, you should not need more than 1/hour... and probably less.
Few people every consume this low.  It tends to be zero, or much more.

#At some point in the intoxication process,
#the shooter/rider/driver needs to tell himself, "Time to stop/ride
#pillion/call a cab."  If you can't do this, then frankly you should
#not be trusting yourself to use potentially lethal objects.

Here here!  And further, if you are at all close to the intoxicating
dose, you are way too far along dose curve.  There is a MAJOR difference
between 1 oz in 2 hours and an intoxicating dose (for me, about 4
drinks/hour for 2 hours).
...
#    Drunken drivers can't be trusted to assess themselves.  They
#should have handed over the keys an hour or more ago.  The same goes
#for shooters, riders, or whomever.  As I told Dan, I'm trusting him
#to make the assessment, and to err on the conservative side if at all.

This paragraph sums it all up.  If you have reached the state of
intoxication you are so far removed from a medical dose for
reducing tensions that it isn't at all the same experience.  Folks
who cannot tell the difference should either not drink or not
indulge in dangerous pastimes.

#    Then again, I trust people -- the first time.
#
#    Please don't take this as some sort of minor flame.  It's not.
#I just feel that my position needed a bit of further clarification.
#If you don't feel comfortable drinking a beer last week and shooting
#today, I certainly won't tell you differently.  I just find it rather
#ludicrous to think that alcohol is some sort of wonder drug that
#reduces people to homicidal maniacs when Hy-Vee Cold Relief Tablets
#are taken each morning by drivers and are, to me, more intoxicating.

Major Dittos!  It is far more important to control the persons
behaviour than to control the object (sound familiar?)

If I learn to recognize minor imparement and stop doing dangerous
things, it doesn't matter if it is {booze, cold pills, a virus,
too early in the day, age,...} and { shooting, driving, mowing, ...}.
I'm still safe.  If I learn to depend on someone else putting
rules in place and locking up objects to keep me safe from myself,
down that path is ruin...

--

E. Michael Smith  [e-mail]

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.