Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Blind People Carry Guns In Public?  
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2809 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Alright, I have always agreed with not discriminating with those people who have physical handicaps. But good grief, Iowa is issuing gun permits to allow legally blind or completely blind people to carry concealed guns in public. Should this be allowed in the interests of public safety?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/

(fair use excerpt)
"Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.


140 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

I am afraid the Second Amendment pretty much takes care of that fundamental right. I honestly believe there was a typo in the Constitution and it should have been "the Rght to Bare Arms". Anyway, we are stuck with it for now.
Next: The ADA will probably enforce the hiring of visually disadvantaged pilots - hopefully we can get those seeing-eye dogs up to speed quickly.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3990 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 1):
Constitution and it should have been "the Rght to Bare Arms". Anyway, we are stuck with it for now

For now? What other parts of the constitution should we invalidate, while we're at it?

[Edited 2013-09-09 06:21:42]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21798 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

This is one area where public safety interest would clearly override the 2nd Amendment (though I'm not even sure that's an issue here, as I don't believe it's ever been established that there's a right to a concealed weapons permit). If you don't have the visual acuity necessary to drive a car, you shouldn't be having a gun out in public.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8917 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

Quoting photopilot (Thread starter):
Alright, I have always agreed with not discriminating with those people who have physical handicaps. But good grief, Iowa is issuing gun permits to allow legally blind or completely blind people to carry concealed guns in public. Should this be allowed in the interests of public safety?

When a blind man goes on a shooting rampage (and manages to hit anything) then I agree we MIGHT have an issue. until then, it's a pointless discussion.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6844 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 1):
The ADA will probably enforce the hiring of visually disadvantaged pilots - hopefully we can get those seeing-eye dogs up to speed quickly.

Isn't that already the case ? I'm kidding, but it's a known fact European pilots that can't get a medical because of an eye defect (corrected of course) can get it in the US.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2809 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
When a blind man goes on a shooting rampage (and manages to hit anything) then I agree we MIGHT have an issue. until then, it's a pointless discussion.

So you're saying that Society (in general) should only be RE-active instead of PRO-active in preventing such an occurrence.

And of course, what happens when a blind person shoots and kills someone because "he thought he heard something" and it turns out to be the FedEx guy making a delivery? Ooooops.... sorry, just won't cut it.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10254 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
When a blind man goes on a shooting rampage (and manages to hit anything) then I agree we MIGHT have an issue. until then, it's a pointless discussion.

No, it's not, if people want to be proactive rather than reactive.

The issue isn't a shooting rampage. The issue is a blind person hitting whatever target they are attempting to hit, even if it's in self-defense.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 2):
For now? What other parts of the constitution should we invalidate, while we're at it?

It's not a new concept. The Constitution has had other parts invalidated in the past (like Prohibition).

I happen to generally support the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think it's a free-for-all.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3866 times:

Blind people can't fly. Carrying a gun is a far greater responsibility/liability than flying imo. Am I discriminating? Perhaps, but when someone who CAN'T SEE, tries to shoot someone, the chance of he/she hitting someone besides their target is far greater than someone with normal vision.


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3638 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3848 times:

Should people be able to do it? Sure. If you take the required safety classes, pass a background check, and follow local laws (no guns in bars, private businesses that don't allow it, while drinking, etc).

Do I think it's weird for someone to carry around town? Absolutely. I can understand it if you're making night deliveries in the Bronx but going shopping at Safeway in Dallas... not so much.

The only time I carry a weapon is when I'm going to the range. I used to take one when camping for bears/crazy people but quickly stopped after it was just dead weight.

[Edited 2013-09-09 09:15:27]

User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8706 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3836 times:

Quoting photopilot (Thread starter):
The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

IMO, it is no different from any other handgun permit.

There is no question that handguns diminish safety - both for the owner and the surrounding community. Arguably for LEOs as well.

The only question is rights. I say give the blind people their weapon. It is the same situation as any other person. Yes. It is unsafe. If we want to have the debate about gun safety, let's have it. But that's not on the table.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3823 times:

Can a completely blind person actually learn to shoot with any discernible level of accuracy? Honest question.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8917 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3817 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
So you're saying that Society (in general) should only be RE-active instead of PRO-active in preventing such an occurrence.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
No, it's not, if people want to be proactive rather than reactive.

Absolutely, society (and by that, we mean government) should be reactive. It is the traditional Progressive conceit that government employees are smarter than the rest of us, and that they should proactively guide the citizenry as to what they should or should not be allowed to do.

I have yet to see any indication of such intelligence on the part of government - indeed if we all ran our lives and businesses the way government is run, we would all be in prison.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21798 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Absolutely, society (and by that, we mean government) should be reactive. It is the traditional Progressive conceit that government employees are smarter than the rest of us, and that they should proactively guide the citizenry as to what they should or should not be allowed to do.

By that logic, we should not have driver's tests - everyone gets their license automatically, and only after they have demonstrated a lack of fitness to hold it (accident, driving drunk, etc.) would their license be subject to revocation. Of course, it's very possible that they'd kill or severely injure people demonstrating that lack of fitness.

This isn't economic stuff, this is public safety. It's not difficult to look at a situation, use some common sense, and say "that seems like it's just asking for trouble, maybe we should mitigate that risk".

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12851 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3768 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
When a blind man goes on a shooting rampage (and manages to hit anything) then I agree we MIGHT have an issue. until then, it's a pointless discussion.

Or we can wait for someone to notice the blind person has a firearm and 'rob them blind' and then shoot them with it...

Yeah, no problem here...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5600 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
If you don't have the visual acuity necessary to drive a car, you shouldn't be having a gun out in public.

I know 2 people who are legally blind that have been granted a driver's license with restrictions.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
The Constitution has had other parts invalidated in the past (like Prohibition).

Correct. Prohibition was (is) the only Amendment to the Constitution that directly restricted the rights of the people vs. restricting the rights of government. It was poison from the beginning and goes went directly against the very nature of the Constitution.

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 9):
The only time I carry a weapon is when I'm going to the range. I used to take one when camping for bears/crazy people but quickly stopped after it was just dead weight.

There is a quotation I read in a book about Vikings I read 15 (long before I started carrying a gun everywhere) or so years ago that stuck with me:
"Never walk away from your home ahead of your axe and sword. You can't feel a battle in your bones or foresee a fight" ~The Havamal

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 9):
Should people be able to do it? Sure. If you take the required safety classes, pass a background check, and follow local laws (no guns in bars, private businesses that don't allow it, while drinking, etc).

If a person can pass the requirements for carrying a firearm, I don't see how a state can deny the permit.

Now, that's not to say the state shouldn't visit the permit requirements and see if an additional, reasonable restriction is required.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):
Can a completely blind person actually learn to shoot with any discernible level of accuracy? Honest question.

I'm sure there are those who can...and those who can't. Like I said, I know 2 who are allowed to drive, with restrictions.

When given the chance, I've practiced shooting in extremely low-light conditions and did fairly well. Of course, I have a base of knowledge that a blind person picking up a gun for the first time (or hundredth time) does not have.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

I think the bigger problem is giving guns to people that can see.

User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
It is the traditional Progressive conceit that government employees are smarter than the rest of us, and that they should proactively guide the citizenry as to what they should or should not be allowed to do.

Agreed. But the lesson I take is that the people should guide their government to be proactive where it makes sense, via their elected representatives.

As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I think it's a mistake to suggest that the exercise of the RIGHT to bear arms shouldn't come with at least a cursory evaluation of a person's ability to shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with it. Issuing gun permits to blind people is to the Second Amendment what 'yelling "fire" in a crowded theater' is to the First.

Failure to exercise responsibility in bearing arms is what may some day result in that right going away - legally via our Constitutional amendment process when the people decide that they've had enough. As a gun rights supporter I don't see this as a 'win' for the Second Amendment...rather it's handing the other side a valid argument to undermine it.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8917 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 17):
As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I think it's a mistake to suggest that the exercise of the RIGHT to bear arms shouldn't come with at least a cursory evaluation of a person's ability to shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with it. Issuing gun permits to blind people is to the Second Amendment what 'yelling "fire" in a crowded theater' is to the First.

Oh, I agree that it is not a brilliant idea for a blind man to carry a gun. But when you are talking about a person's basic rights, we should be extremely careful about banning certain people from having them.

What if we banned stupid people from voting? Personally I like the idea, but would never propose it - it would be a goldmine for abuse.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

No so sure it matters....when I hear/read the news about how many rounds were fired by private citizens or LEO's...and nobody was killed....much less hit....

As for voting, I think one should have some kind of skin in the game...........



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8917 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3714 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 19):
As for voting, I think one should have some kind of skin in the game...........

Again, personally I agree. No right to vote unless you are a net taxpayer (rather than recipient), for instance. But it would be dangerous to propose. Dictatorship of the majority and all that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
By that logic, we should not have driver's tests - everyone gets their license automatically, and only after they have demonstrated a lack of fitness to hold it (accident, driving drunk, etc.) would their license be subject to revocation. Of course, it's very possible that they'd kill or severely injure people demonstrating that lack of fitness.

Perhaps you did not read the OP.

Quoting photopilot (Thread starter):
Iowa is issuing gun permits to allow legally blind or completely blind people to carry concealed guns in public.

I don't know the specifics for Iowa, but in each state that I've passed a CCW test there were classes and actual tests on a shooting range to show that you can a) manipulate a gun and b) hit a target. I think it's safe to presume that if you can't do those things, you can't get a license, just as you can't get a driver's license if you can't show you can't control a car reasonably well.

What we are talking about here is whether there should be a law, in black and white, that says, "People who are legally blind cannot carry a gun". Currently there is no such law, as it would clearly run afoul of the Disabilities Act, although effectively blind people are prevented from having a CCW simply because they can't pass the test, so having such a law would be a) pointless, and b) discriminatory to those people who are legally blind, but still have enough sight to pass the tests. I know a couple of people who are legally blind, but who actually do have some sight - One has quite good sight in the daytime, it's only at night he has a problem. It's like having a camera aperture stuck at f/28.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Currently there is no such law, as it would clearly run afoul of the Disabilities Act,

Just a thought, but why do we have rules on aircraft that stipulate that only able-bodied people may sit by the emergency exits? Is that not just as discriminatory as having a rule preventing blind people from carrying guns?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8706 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3702 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Or we can wait for someone to notice the blind person has a firearm and 'rob them blind' and then shoot them with it...

Of course. In some states, that would be legal.   


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8917 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3666 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
Just a thought, but why do we have rules on aircraft that stipulate that only able-bodied people may sit by the emergency exits? Is that not just as discriminatory as having a rule preventing blind people from carrying guns?

As I recall, that is a regulation, not a law. It would be interesting to see if it would pass muster if dragged before a judge.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5600 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
I don't know the specifics for Iowa,

The following is from www.handgunlaw.us :

Acceptable Training:
 Completion of any National Rifle Association (NRA) handgun safety training course.
 Completion of any handgun safety training course available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, community college, college, private or public institution or organization, or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or certain other firearms training certifying bodies (such as the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy).
 Completion of any handgun safety training course offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of a law enforcement or security enforcement agency approved by the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
 Completion of small arms training while serving with the armed forces of the United States as evidenced by any of the following:
1. For personnel released or retired from active duty, possession of an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions.
2. For personnel on active duty or serving in one of the national guard or reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, possession of a certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small arms training and qualification.
3. Completion of a law enforcement agency firearms training course that qualifies a peace officer to carry a firearm in the normal course of the peace officer's duties.


I suspect that most of these courses do have a range requirement to be granted a certificate...but I guess that depends on the course. Further, from the same website:

Range qualification may be part of a training program identified above; however, range qualification is not a mandatory element of training for initial issuance of a permit.

So, it seems that you don't have to prove you can hit a target. I am not really a fan of this. I do believe that firearm manipulation and a demonstration of skill should be a requirement before being granted a CCW permit.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
25 Post contains images Redd : In Iowa there is a law that an man with a mustache cannot kiss a woman in public, but a blind man can legally carry a firearm.... Funny place
26 Mir : If you read the attached article, you'd see that there is no accuracy/competency test to get a concealed weapons permit in Iowa. -Mir
27 Flighty : So is everything in the air AFAIK. Disobeying quoted FAA regs such as this amounts to "interference" which apparently the FAA itself can fine you for
28 dragon-wings : What good is going through safety courses if you can't see your intended target??
29 hoMsar : Totally false logic here. There is no such belief that government employees are smarter than others. What there is is a strong belief amongst a certa
30 DeltaMD90 : Hmm, tricky one. When I first read this I wondered why there was even a discussion about this, but I see the problem here. It appears that legally bli
31 Pellegrine : I could post a lengthy response to the problem, but in essence, is there any wonder why the USA has the highest rate of gun violence and deaths of any
32 Post contains links Fr8mech : Gun violence? Maybe. But overall violence and murder rate? No. Kates and Mauser An interesting read. But, I find it interesting that you're conflatin
33 cmf : For what? An example of cherry picking data and inconsistent application of logic based on what side of the argument it favors, maybe. As factual inf
34 Pellegrine : Ugh, meant "or so". This is a horribly prejudiced study. I'd like to know why you find that interesting. There is de jure discrimination in the USA a
35 Fr8mech : And, it is my opinion that that error should be visited by the legislature...as it should be in any state where the same is true. Because, as I state
36 kiwirob : To allow blind people to carry and safely use guns all citizens of Iowa will be issued with audible locator beacons.
37 Post contains images PhilBy : Surely licenses for concealed carry are a part of the gun control debate. In my opinion it would be more logical for the ability to correctly use a g
38 Post contains images Bongodog1964 : I'm rarely amazed by anything said by the US pro gun lobby, but in this instance I'm amazed at the degree of insanity exhibited by people thinking for
39 Post contains links pvjin : How would a blind person be able to handle a gun when gun owners who see perfectly fine just shoot first and ask questions later? http://www.dailymail
40 ALTF4 : A blind person carrying a gun would be stupid. We can't outlaw every case of stupidity, though. Maybe this is a good candidate - maybe not. I generall
41 pvjin : Or you could have just violated the traffic light and driven away without the guy being able to do anything. Shouldn't be a problem if you were indeed
42 PPVRA : There are obvious limitations, but that doesn't mean a blind person can't shoot a thug assaulting them at very close range. From what I understand the
43 Mir : When the disability prevents the person from competently using the weapon in question, the answer is very clearly yes. -Mir
44 Post contains links Fr8mech : As long as 'competent' is broadly defined, we are in agreement. In that case, I would suggest that a person arm himself with one of these. A less tha
45 ALTF4 : Which would have involved potentially running over him since he approached from the front, from the crosswalk directly in front of me. He still would
46 pvjin : Well if he got scared of a gun I would assume he would have avoided getting hit by a car too. But okay, I can surely understand why many Americans wan
47 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : It's pretty easy to look back at something in hindsight but it appears that ALTF4 actually had a legitimate instance. He didn't just take pot shots o
48 TWA772LR : I know in Texas in order to get your CHL, you have to show proficiency with a handgun, as well as attend a class. Wouldn't other states have the profi
49 DeltaMD90 : Every state is different. GA just needed your fingerprints and $75 (though that price may be higher nowadays) Yeah, not really a fan of that
50 Pellegrine : When a permitted, legally blind Iowan shoots and misses...and hits an innocent bystander...let alone a child.... We'll see how many people support thi
51 ALTF4 : And you're putting words into the mouths of many, many, many Americans. Very few people would argue anybody can use a firearm "as they see fit" - bec
52 Fr8mech : No, The Second Amendment gives the People the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government has seen fit to place reasonable restrictions on wh
53 PPVRA : I would not suggest a blind person own a firearm. And I think if you looked at the blind population, I doubt more than a very small percentage of the
54 Fr8mech : Ever take a shot? I have. I suspect that unless the person being hit is 'high' on something that suppresses pain to a great extent or the product is
55 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Depends. I've been hit a couple times by some pretty good stuff. Unless you get me in the eyes it doesn't affect me much at all. If it does hit my ey
56 Fr8mech : The biggest effect it had on me was the mucus membranes (nose and mouth). Got me coughing right away and could not catch my breathe. Screwed with my
57 PPVRA : Nope, thankfully. Questions: what happens if you don't hit the person on the face with the spray? Is it reasonable to expect someone to spray a gener
58 MD11Engineer : My experiences come with CS gas, which is sold in Germany as a self defence weapon (e.g. in spray cans). Unless you watch out from where the wind com
59 Post contains images Flighty : I dunno... a socialist revolution could kill billions...
60 PPVRA : Voting in all the criminals and officializing their actions doesn't decrease crime. Not really ideal for a blind person either, then.
61 Fr8mech : It really depends on the person. I'm sure a couple of good whiffs of the stuff would get me coughing, pretty quick.
62 Pellegrine : I'm a defender of freedoms across the world, so I don't know about your "erode" statement. In my 27 years, I've found that some gun rights people are
63 Pellegrine : To revisit this, a lack of adequate gun control laws in the US certainly has caused an increase in gun violence. The surfeit of guns on the streets l
64 iowaman : That is correct. A person can take an online "class" where there are modules to complete with videos and quizzes. Once a person passes the course, a
65 TheCommodore : How is that policed ? I'm thinking I could get anyone I know to complete an "online" course, and then take credit for it, once my certificate has arr
66 Post contains images ALTF4 : Simply speaking statements that I think we all find untrue (given the number of replies your reply garnered). That stirs the pot, creating additional
67 Pellegrine : I can't help it if I am controversial and popular. I have never shied away from controversy, nor those who want to engage me. Beating a dead horse is
68 cmf : Actually a.net has proven the exact opposite. That it is only by talking about things that people eventually change position.
69 Post contains links Fr8mech : Not if you make statements like: The implication is that you suggest pro-Second Amendment folks want no controls or restrictions. None of us want to
70 Post contains images ALTF4 : Then be truthful. Nobody is saying you can't speak your opinion, but when you start implying untrue things, it appears that you're simply trolling.
71 Cadet985 : If you're blind, then you shouldn't be ALLOWED to carry a gun, period. If you're blind, you can't SEE what you'd be shooting at. Marc
72 PPVRA : It's not that simple. . .
73 TheCommodore : Literally speaking, it is. If there are any issues with the eye sight of any individual gun owners, they need to be looked at thoroughly, and if ther
74 Fr8mech : Before I had LASIK surgery, I had absolutely no distance vision. I could barely make out shapes at 10 feet. In order to read, I had to hold a book 3
75 cmf : How many times did you hold your gun ready to shoot without your glasses?
76 Fr8mech : Never. Not even at the range. But, I never slept with my glasses either. I did get punched once in my teens and the first things lost were my glasses
77 cmf : The same as always. To make sure you do not harm innocent. Because when you hurt an innocent you're as bad as whoever attacked you. Possibly worse si
78 windy95 : Yes. Do they have less rights? Because you say so? You do not need to see when someone is on top of you or trying to rape you. All you need is the to
79 RussianJet : If someone's already on you, a gun is probably going to be of little use. No, they have less ability to see though. Being able to see where you're po
80 PPVRA : Just like they literally can't read, right? You are wrong. Handicap people adapt to their reality and the blind can adapt to this one, as well. Yes,
81 PPVRA : No, if you hurt an innocent in the process of defending yourself from an attacker you are definitely NOT worse than the attacker.
82 cmf : "Definitely NOT"??? Say someone attacks you with fists and you kill an innocent because you just shoot willy nilly.... I think you are definitely wor
83 Fr8mech : So, you're saying it would be ok to kill an innocent if you were being shot at? If someone attacks you with fists and you can't demonstrate that the
84 cmf : How do you get that? I'm saying that being attacked doesn't give you the right to shoot willi nilly. Being attacked doesn't mean you're free from con
85 Fr8mech : Actually, I was being flippant. You assume the use was 'willy nilly'. You assume I don't know how to use my weapon. What about the cops in NY that sh
86 cmf : If you shoot someone innocent, absolutely. If you do it because you shoot while not being able to see, double so. You think they did a good job? Cons
87 windy95 : It worked for George Zimmerman. You do not need to be able to see where you are pointing when yuo are being assualted. Even a shot into the air may b
88 Post contains links TheCommodore : Or send you to jail ! Wow. Do you realise how dangerous it is to shoot into the air ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire As far as I'm
89 Post contains links Fr8mech : No, actually I think they did a crappy job. I illustrate this incident to you so you see that even well trained (I'll assume that New York's Finest a
90 RussianJet : I don't have a gun. Nor do the vast majority of people I know. Are we all 'guaranteed' to become victims? It means you have severe limitations on the
91 Fr8mech : No, but you suggested that having a gun would be of little use when the assailant is "already on you". The Zimmerman case, for better or worse, prove
92 RussianJet : One case is hardly a decent statistical indicator, and I'm sure it would vary seriously depending on the exact situation and varying physical strengt
93 cmf : Glad we agree they did a crap job. Now take that people who had been trained did such a crap job and then image what people will less training will d
94 Fr8mech : You're correct, the last thing I want to do is get into any type of struggle, physical or not. But, we don't always get to choose if, how, when or wh
95 cmf : Considering we discussed shooting when not being able to see and hitting innocent I don't see how can be interpret any other way than I did. There ar
96 PPVRA : That's called an ACCIDENT and it's obviously not even remotely as bad as someone who chooses to kill another person. Intentions absolutely matter.
97 DeltaMD90 : Yes but there is definitely a difference between being reckless and an honest accident (where someone wasn't being reckless.) I consider myself to be
98 cmf : No, it is called being reckless. If you don't know what you will hit just assume it will hit your daughter between the eyes. Sure does. Again, you be
99 PPVRA : What's wrong with a blind person shooting, at point blank range, a mugger? While the mugger is touching the blind person or the blind person is actua
100 DeltaMD90 : I touched on that, and that is really the only way I'd entertain the thought of allowing the blind to carry. That is not the impression I'm getting f
101 cmf : Doesn't change the issue.
102 DeltaMD90 : For real. I wouldn't care if my wife was killed from someone who was premeditating it or from a blind person that accidentally shot her, it wouldn't
103 Post contains images windy95 : And I am sure these blind citizens would be touched that you blessed them to carry if they jump through your hoops Good thing your limits do not matt
104 DeltaMD90 : It's not a blind thing, it's a "can you use a weapon competently" thing. Kinda need to see to do that. I don't know what you're getting at, I'm very
105 Post contains images cmf : Why would we want people to be able to handle the tools they use? Much less the tools able to kill other people. When was the last time you let a bli
106 Post contains links pvjin : Wouldn't something like a taser or a knife be way more practical for a blind person anyway? If you are blind or nearly blind I doubt you would even no
107 Post contains images TheCommodore : This will be good......If you get an answer.
108 windy95 : Do you need to see to use a weapon competently. Can you not strip it down and rebuild it simply by feel? Can you not lead it simply by touch? They ca
109 TheCommodore : And its also about NOT putting others at risk. You want to shoot, go into a dark room with some of you'r friends and play guns then. Lets see how man
110 windy95 : We have police here shooting innocent people. Should we take away the guns from all them. Actually it would be your selfish attitude that keeps the b
111 tugger : Yes, you need to see to be able to reliably aim your weapon consistently. Especially in a public setting which is of course uncontrolled by its natur
112 DeltaMD90 : I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. Yes I think sight is very important in handling a weapon. And we can't have an optimal solution,
113 tugger : No, but they constantly have to undergo training and prove proficiency with their firearm or they do not get to have one. Police can and do get their
114 pvjin : In reality when it comes to actually blind people defending themselves a legit pistol and a water pistol are about as effective. If you are blind any
115 cmf : I'm glad most gun owners are far more responsible than many of the blind, pun intended, defenders we see here. It does however highlight why regular d
116 TheCommodore : If they are a danger to other people through incompetence, then yes, take the guns away. If they are weak already, they have NO business owning a fir
117 PPVRA : I'm not saying it's advisable. At least not most of the time. And I think even blind people would agree. Probably wouldn't make a difference if she w
118 Fr8mech : A simple robbery does not normally meet the bar for use of deadly force...just saying. Hell, I think the requirements here in KY are too easy. Someth
119 PPVRA : It's not about the stuff being stolen, it's about protecting yourself. Criminals are always cowards because they go after the weak. But to go after a
120 cmf : In public space to understand who is friend and foe and what the bullets will hit, sadly it does.
121 Fr8mech : Yes, but a simple robbery (outside the home) does not meet normally meet the criteria for use of deadly force. The victim has to be in a situation wh
122 RussianJet : This is pure hysteria. Do you know of a single example where a blind person fought off a rapist because they had a firearm? You seem to be working on
123 PPVRA : Still incorrect. What matters is proximity to your target, not the kind if space you are in. You can't defend yourself with a firearm from a robber i
124 pvjin : In close proximity knife is more effective than a pistol and in all other cases gun is plain useless to a blind person as he/she can't see where the
125 tugger : Actually "the kind of space you are in" is specifically what a concealed carry permit concerns. A CCP allows the holder to have the weapon in an open
126 cmf : How often do you think the attacker will be up against you and you will be able to access to your weapon? How often do you think the attacker will in
127 MD11Engineer : The question is: Would a reasonable blind person WANT to carry a gun? Ok, I know about this blind guy, who does target shooting with a rifle on a firi
128 cmf : Per the article in OP at least three legally blind people did. Don't know if they are sane but per the article they were not able to read or fill out
129 Post contains images tugger : You know I suddenly could help but think of Dave Chappelle's character Dave "Clayton Bigsby." Tugg
130 PPVRA : Question is, why do you insist on assuming a gun is useless to a blind person? Perfectly reasonable scenarios (and even some examples) have been desc
131 MD11Engineer : Up to a few years ago my friend, who has damaged optical nerves since birth, was still able to make out shapes and to distinguish bright and dark (sh
132 tugger : I have not been saying that a gun is useless to a blind person. What I have stated is that the danger to others is present and significant in many po
133 pvjin : Because to aim you need to see. If you are actually blind there's no way you are going to reliably hit even someone standing a couple of meters away,
134 Max Q : No, they should carry flamethrowers and small nuclear weapons. Who, other than blind people can make the instant assessment required for the use of th
135 cmf : Why do you keep looking at only one facet of a multifaceted problem? Not sure how this relates to your statement that no sane blind person will want
136 PPVRA : I wasn't responding to you when I said that. Yup, nothing wrong with that. Same would apply to a blind person. Not necessarily true at all, as some o
137 cmf : You're making up things, again.
138 pvjin : You need to know where the person you are shooting is to have chances of hitting the intended target instead of something else. Totally blind people
139 PPVRA : I think pulling a trigger is much more practical than trying to stab a person. Reliably, you have to be in close contact. Never made a claim to the c
140 Post contains images PhilBy : I believe that there was a case in the UK of a blind person flying a specially modified light ac in the 80's (accompanied). I don't remember if they
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Opposite Of Conn.? Classroom Guns In S. Dakota posted Fri Mar 8 2013 16:41:19 by CalebWilliams
Embarrassed To Be Shirtless In Public posted Mon Jun 18 2012 23:58:52 by rooty613
Wiretapping Laws And Recording In Public posted Wed Sep 1 2010 09:12:45 by ALTF4
Guns In The US - How Is It In Real Life? posted Tue Aug 10 2010 05:23:53 by AustrianZRH
DHS Officers Lose 200 Guns In Two Year Period. posted Thu Feb 18 2010 05:53:35 by fxramper
France Panel: Ban Burkas In Public Facilities posted Tue Jan 26 2010 10:02:23 by FuturePilot16
Running Into People You Know In Random Places posted Tue Oct 27 2009 16:30:41 by Texan
6 People Shot Dead In Washington State posted Wed Sep 3 2008 03:09:47 by BMIFlyer
People Still Stuck In The Stoneage In Kansas posted Wed Feb 13 2008 19:24:47 by Lobster
Gay Ettiquette In Public Gym Locker Room/sauna posted Wed Dec 5 2007 16:12:46 by Jmc1975