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, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3943 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, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3918 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, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3893 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, 21564 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3869 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, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3827 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, 6606 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3818 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, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3788 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, 9939 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3790 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.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3769 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, 3620 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3751 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 offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3739 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, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3720 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, 21564 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3679 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, 12448 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3671 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, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3666 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 (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3656 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 (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3654 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, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3643 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, 966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3640 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, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3617 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, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3605 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, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3569 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, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3551 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.
User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

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 

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21564 posts, RR: 55
Reply 26, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
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.

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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
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.

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 (civil penalty). The maximum penalty is $25,000.

Realistically, you get arrested by police when this occurs...

Of course, assaulting a crew member in any way, or endangering anyone would be a federal crime.


User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3982 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

What good is going through safety courses if you can't see your intended target??


Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3481 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.

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.

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 certain segment of the population (and that "segment" could be a handful of people, half the population, or 80% of the population, depending on the issue) that certain policies or standards should be enacted, and by the nature of our society, the only realistically orderly way to enact and enforce those policies/standards is through government (by passage of laws), which we direct through popular election of representatives who then vote on whether or not to pass such laws. At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory.

But then we have folks that like to set up straw man arguments such as this mythical claim that progressives think government employees are smarter than other folks, and from that false logic, it is not really possible to actually debate the issue at hand.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

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 blind people are able to satisfy the requirements to get a permit so after all that, denying them a permit because they are blind would be illegal. I think a law saying blind people are banned from carrying would be illegal, but if they have a requirement for weapon competency (something I think all states should have in addition to other simple but responsible and effective laws) and all blind people just so happen to fail, I think it's an ok test as long as the intent is to prove competency, not just "ban blind people."

So to answer the OP's question: under the legal framework in place, yes. But what do I think? I think there should be reasonable measures out there that would stop incompetent people from carrying. That includes visually impaired... I don't mean incompetent in a derogatory way but unfortunately if you aren't really able to identify a target and if you can't accurately hit it, I don't think you should be carrying a gun, and a common sense prevention like that doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 24):
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.

Agreed. I believe the right to bear arms is a great responsibility and people should be able to demonstrate an ability to handle that responsibility. I don't think many rules like basic firearm training, proper storage, etc infringes on any rights. It's just a reasonable limit... reasonable limits exist for basically every amendment in the Bill of Rights



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

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 developed country per capita?

LOL AFAIK, there are only 10-20 are so countries in the entire world with higher rates of (non-war) gun violence. Developed or developing. Most of them are in Central/South America, some of those...drugs...poverty. Guess where the drugs are going?



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 31):
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 developed country per capita?



Gun violence? Maybe. But overall violence and murder rate? No.

Kates and Mauser

An interesting read.

But, I find it interesting that you're conflating a discussion about whether or not someone who is legally blind should be granted a permit to carry a concealed firearm and gun violence in the US. The two issues are only tangentially related...in that they both deal with firearms.

This isn't a discussion about gun control, it is a discussion about whether or not someone wiith a disability should be disqualified from obtaining a carry concealed weapon permit.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 32):
Kates and Mauser

An interesting read.

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 information in the gun control debate, not at all.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 31):
there are only 10-20 are so countries

Ugh, meant "or so".

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 32):

Kates and Mauser

An interesting read.

This is a horribly prejudiced study.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 32):
But, I find it interesting that you're conflating a discussion about whether or not someone who is legally blind should be granted a permit to carry a concealed firearm and gun violence in the US. The two issues are only tangentially related...in that they both deal with firearms.

I'd like to know why you find that interesting. There is de jure discrimination in the USA all the time. Felons can't vote with any frequency. That is discrimination. Some people decided way back when that felons (depending on the state and circumstance) lose their right to vote. People registered as a sex offenders cannot live anywhere they choose. That is discrimination. Both of these principles have reasoning behind them, even if I, nor anyone else agrees with them.

Maybe I can pique your interest. My reason for conflating the issues is this: The United States, descriptionally as that...a union of states, is rather peculiarly concerned with individual gun ownership rights to a fault. That Iowa has issued, and under the law, will issue permits allowing ***people who cannot see to drive, or fill out the application forms for said permit*** to carry guns in public is the ultimate in hilarity and tragedy.

A Shakespearean broadway play is in order.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 34):
That Iowa has issued, and under the law, will issue permits allowing ***people who cannot see to drive, or fill out the application forms for said permit*** to carry guns in public is the ultimate in hilarity and tragedy.


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.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 34):
I'd like to know why you find that interesting.


Because, as I stated, the thread is not about gun control, per se, but about this gap in Iowa's concealed carry laws. In fact, I find flaw in the fact that Iowa (and some other states) do not require range time prior to issuing a permit to carry concealed.

I'm not exactly sure why you brought up sex offenders and felons.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 34):
My reason for conflating the issues is this:


But, gun violence has zero to do with Iowa's lapse.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 34):
This is a horribly prejudiced study.


Why?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7277 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting dragon-wings (Reply 28):
What good is going through safety courses if you can't see your intended target??

To allow blind people to carry and safely use guns all citizens of Iowa will be issued with audible locator beacons.


User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 36):
Because, as I stated, the thread is not about gun control, per se, but about this gap in Iowa's concealed carry laws. In fact, I find flaw in the fact that Iowa (and some other states) do not require range time prior to issuing a permit to carry concealed.

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 gun to be verified before ownership is permitted with an additional course/training/check on the responsability/sanity of the owner before a concealed carry is allowed. This would of course raise the question as to whether it is prefereable for the average gun carrier to be an excellent shot who shoots at the slightest excuse or an acceptable shot who only shoots in an extreme situation   

But, on topic, some 'legally blind' people have quite good vision in some situations and there have been cases of them being quite good in paralympic type shooting events. I've known some 'legally blind (visually impaired)' toxophilites who were better shots than me.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3570 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

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 even one microsecond that a blind person with a gun is acceptable. Chances are that the inevitable outcome will be a blind person shooting a close relative as they enter a room because they thought it was an intruder. Not only shouldn't they be able to bear arms in public, they shouldn't bear arms at all.

The right to bear arms needs to be balanced against the right to not be shot by your husband/wife oblivious to your presence.

Presently the paralympic runner Oscar Pistorius is awaiting trial for shooting his girlfriend, his alibi is that in the dark of the night he misidentified her as a burglar. To a blind person the darkness is permanant thus greatly increasing the chances of such an incident.

The lunatics really have taken control of the asylum in Iowa   


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

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.co.uk/news/arti...riend-jumped-closet-scare-him.html

I just read this article where this woman decided to scare her friend by hiding in a closet and jumped out from there when the guy arrived and got shot by him.

It seems like some of these American gun owners seem to think whenever something unexpected happens and they get scared it's okay to shoot first even if you can't see the person you are shooting at properly and ask questions later.

Is American society really so messed up that your average Joe would need a gun to defend himself or is it just attitude thing?



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 40, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

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 generally believe that the fewer laws we have the better, except for that protect life, liberty, and property. Preventing blind people from carrying guns might protect life. The real question, however, is would any blind people carry and actually fire a weapon? Being blind, I would be afraid of going to jail for a very long time by not being in 'the right' for firing the gun. People seem to forget that you can't always fire a weapon whenever and wherever you damn well please and not have consequences.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
It's not a new concept. The Constitution has had other parts invalidated in the past (like Prohibition).

While not new, the flippant nature of some people's approach to claiming parts of the constitution should be removed is concerning, to me. I'm not implying you are/were being flippant, just that there is a general attitude towards that. Again, in my opinion (can't be too careful not to piss somebody off these days).

Quoting pvjin (Reply 39):
It seems like some of these American gun owners seem to think whenever something unexpected happens and they get scared it's okay to shoot first even if you can't see the person you are shooting at properly and ask questions later.

Is American society really so messed up that your average Joe would need a gun to defend himself or is it just attitude thing?

No, American society is not that messed up. People blow this stuff out of proportion. Sure, I see people carrying all the time (I can usually spot a concealed gun fairly easily) - but that doesn't make things unsafe. That person is not just going to pull the gun out and shoot the gas station up rambo style for no reason. If somebody were to do that, they probably have either already done that and are now dead or locked up or in hiding, or would do something equally disturbing even without a gun.

And yet, I have personally have drawn my weapon once when somebody attempted to carjack me. It was at night, I was the only car around and stopped at a traffic light. Some guy rushed my car with a window breaker - I pulled my gun out and he did a 180 when he saw it.

But yeah, you're right. Next time I'll get out of the car and take a bow as he drives off.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

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 only car around there.


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 42, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

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 there have been guns designed for very close range, close enough as in you can touch your target.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21564 posts, RR: 55
Reply 43, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 32):
This isn't a discussion about gun control, it is a discussion about whether or not someone wiith a disability should be disqualified from obtaining a carry concealed weapon permit.

When the disability prevents the person from competently using the weapon in question, the answer is very clearly yes.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 44, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 43):
When the disability prevents the person from competently using the weapon in question, the answer is very clearly yes.

As long as 'competent' is broadly defined, we are in agreement.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
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 there have been guns designed for very close range, close enough as in you can touch your target

In that case, I would suggest that a person arm himself with one of these. A less than lethal option that may provide an adequate response and allowing for a margin of error. The 2 shots is troublesome, but the expanded cone of coverage helps out a little.

Of course, there are some localities where pepper spray of this sort is as illegal as a gun.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 40):
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 generally believe that the fewer laws we have the better, except for that protect life, liberty, and property

I suggest that the various states simply modify their CCW laws to add range qualification to their minimum requirements.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 40):
Preventing blind people from carrying guns might protect life.

This discussion has been limited, for the most part, to whether a blind person should be allowed a CCW permit. Let's expand it a small bit: should someone who is incapable of qualifying at a range (such as a blind person) be allowed to own a gun at all? Keep one in his home?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 41):
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 only car around there.

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 have been close enough to smash my window. I don't know the dynamics of smashed car windows, but I would imagine having glass explode 6 inches from my face might result in injury to myself.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

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 want to keep their guns when crazy stuff like that happens, some random stranger trying to rob a car at traffic lights (or really any car with someone inside it) is pretty much unheard of around here.

Still I believe the best way to approach this all would be fight against inequality and social problems & crime it creates, maybe then people wouldn't feel they needs to carry a gun around in their daily life anymore.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 47, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 46):

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 want to keep their guns when crazy stuff like that happens, some random stranger trying to rob a car at traffic lights (or really any car with someone inside it) is pretty much unheard of around here.

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 or anything, I don't really see a problem but in addition to reasonable gun control.......

Quoting pvjin (Reply 46):
Still I believe the best way to approach this all would be fight against inequality and social problems & crime it creates, maybe then people wouldn't feel they needs to carry a gun around in their daily life anymore.

      This would solve a lot of the problem, not only the gun violence problem, but many many other social problems.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3064 times:

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 proficiency law too?

Obviously a legally blind person would have a harder time showing proficiency compared to someone with 20/20 vision, but they still have an equal chance to prove themselves.



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 49, posted (11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 48):
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 proficiency law too?

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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

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 this type of legislation.

Too bad it always has to be like that in the US. Reactionary versus proactionary. People would rather defend a 222 year old piece of paper...and pretend that they know what they're talking about...than have common sense.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the US hardly gives all persons the right to own and use a firearm as they see fit.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 50):
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the US hardly gives all persons the right to own and use a firearm as they see fit.

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" - because all of the mass shootings, the person shooting was using it "as they saw fit".

But it's ok. You can keep putting in sly remarks to try to erode freedoms, because after all, you are allowed to say just about whatever you damn well please. I bet that's one thing you wouldn't want taken away, though, right? Because then you could speak things that aren't quite true, just to stir the pot!



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 52, posted (11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 50):
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the US hardly gives all persons the right to own and use a firearm as they see fit.

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 who can own firearms and the types of firearms that can be owned. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the restrictions are reasonable and, like all our other freedoms, rights affirmed under The Second Amendment are not unrestricted.

I fail to see where any credible person has suggested that all persons should be allowed to own a gun or use it as they see fit.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 53, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2877 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 44):
In that case, I would suggest that a person arm himself with one of these. A less than lethal option that may provide an adequate response and allowing for a margin of error. The 2 shots is troublesome, but the expanded cone of coverage helps out a little.

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 them would ever consider a firearm.

That said, pepper spray may only piss off the attacker even more. A blind person can't effectively run or move in self-defense, they need to put an effective end to it the first try. Kinda hard to rape or mug someone after being shot.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 53):
That said, pepper spray may only piss off the attacker even more.

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 of questionable strength or quality, the person will become largely ineffective for several minutes. The product I linked was recommended to me by a good friend that's a police officer and a member of the department's SWAT. It is what he carries off duty and what his wife carries.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 53):
A blind person can't effectively run or move in self-defense, they need to put an effective end to it the first try. Kinda hard to rape or mug someone after being shot.

What would your suggestion be?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 54):
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 of questionable strength or quality, the person will become largely ineffective for several minutes. The product I linked was recommended to me by a good friend that's a police officer and a member of the department's SWAT. It is what he carries off duty and what his wife carries.

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 eyes, it doesn't really bother me much, I just can't open my eyes (which accomplishes the intended goal.) But I can definitely see other people not knowing what they're doing and spraying in an attacker's general direction and not doing very much besides piss them off. I was the minority in my group though, most people hated it, it just made me squint a bit and not cough until it got in my eyes (which blinded me)

(and no, I've never been hit because I was doing something wrong or breaking the law   )



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 56, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
Unless you get me in the eyes it doesn't affect me much at all. If it does hit my eyes, it doesn't really bother me much, I just can't open my eyes (which accomplishes the intended goal.)

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 eyes a bit, but I was able to blink through it.

Bottom line was, that I was much more concerned with continuing to breath than anything else I was doing at the time (which was standing there watching others get hit by the stuff). I can't imagine getting hit while breathing hard...you know, like when under stress.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 57, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 54):
Ever take a shot?

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 general area without getting any on their own face?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14000 posts, RR: 62
Reply 58, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 57):
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 general area without getting any on their own face?

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 comes, it might get blown right into your own face. Inside closed rooms it will affect everybody, including the person using it (when I was in highschool some %&§$% thought it funny to empty such a can into the locker room while we had sports class. We had to go into the contaminated room to collect our clothes).

I have heard of a blind guy in the US who is into rifle target shooting and had developed a special target and sight attached to his rifle, which lets him aim according to accoustical signals.
I might ask my blind friend what she thinks about this debate. While she is very much into trying out everythiong sighted people can do and is very adventurous and fit, I doubt that she would be interrested in guns, not even mentioning carrying one.

Jan

[Edited 2013-09-12 14:55:47]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
This would solve a lot of the problem, not only the gun violence problem, but many many other social problems.

I dunno... a socialist revolution could kill billions...   


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 60, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 46):
Still I believe the best way to approach this all would be fight against inequality and social problems & crime it creates, maybe then people wouldn't feel they needs to carry a gun around in their daily life anymore.

Voting in all the criminals and officializing their actions doesn't decrease crime.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 58):

Not really ideal for a blind person either, then.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 57):
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 general area without getting any on their own face?

It really depends on the person. I'm sure a couple of good whiffs of the stuff would get me coughing, pretty quick.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 51):
But it's ok. You can keep putting in sly remarks to try to erode freedoms, because after all, you are allowed to say just about whatever you damn well please. I bet that's one thing you wouldn't want taken away, though, right? Because then you could speak things that aren't quite true, just to stir the pot!

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 just crazy, so I usually choose to disengage. We're not going to change either of our opinions here. If you read my post with a clear mind, nowhere in it am I trying to take your guns.

I shoot handguns and rifles from time to time myself.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 52):
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 who can own firearms and the types of firearms that can be owned. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the restrictions are reasonable and, like all our other freedoms, rights affirmed under The Second Amendment are not unrestricted.

I fail to see where any credible person has suggested that all persons should be allowed to own a gun or use it as they see fit.

I fail to see the reason for your post at all, except for being contrary. We are actually in agreement.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2704 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 35):
Because, as I stated, the thread is not about gun control, per se, but about this gap in Iowa's concealed carry laws. In fact, I find flaw in the fact that Iowa (and some other states) do not require range time prior to issuing a permit to carry concealed.

I'm not exactly sure why you brought up sex offenders and felons.

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 leading to violence is one point that proves this.

Insinuating discrimination as a motive to further a gun rights agenda is not valid, never has, never will be. There are litmus tests that one has to go through, depending on the state, to prove fitness for gun ownership.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4390 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2700 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 24):

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.
Quoting Mir (Reply 26):
If you read the attached article, you'd see that there is no accuracy/competency test to get a concealed weapons permit in Iowa.

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 certificate is mailed and can be taken to the local Sheriff's department to apply for a CCW. A background check is required along with a restriction on not allowing certain crimes such as domestic violence and felons of course.

Supposedly only a small percentage (I want to say 11% but not sure on that) of people are 100% blind. I would hope the people that are more towards the "completely blind" end wouldn't attempt to carry a firearm. None the less I do not think someone who can not accurately fire a handgun should be carrying one. What if the person is in a public area and starts shooting? Will they see the risk of cross-fire or the person in their peripheral vision running across? The law is too loose and vaguely put together in my opinion.

[Edited 2013-09-12 19:52:32]


Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 64):
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 certificate is mailed and can be taken to the local Sheriff's department to apply for a CCW.

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 arrived, I go done to the local cops with it proudly under my arm for the CCW

Quoting iowaman (Reply 64):
The law is too loose and vaguely put together in my opinion.

Now that's an understatement !

Quoting iowaman (Reply 64):
I would hope the people that are more towards the "completely blind" end wouldn't attempt to carry a firearm.

But that's a big "hope" isnt it, because it the law allows it, then.....you got a whole group of blind people (varying degrees) walking around armed....yikes !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 62):
so I don't know about your "erode" statement

Simply speaking statements that I think we all find untrue (given the number of replies your reply garnered). That stirs the pot, creating additional sentiments against gun owners. It might not do much, but it does erode.

Anyway, I can agree to disagree. A.net has proven time and again we can't solve collective differences on gun ownership or political ideas in a heated thread.  



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 66):
Simply speaking statements that I think we all find untrue (given the number of replies your reply garnered). That stirs the pot, creating additional sentiments against gun owners. It might not do much, but it does erode.

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 always a waste of time though.

If I am interested in the topic, I have no problem presenting unpopular, yet truthful statements that may garner any number of negative replies.

Stirring the pot is the whole point of a discussion forum.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 66):
A.net has proven time and again we can't solve collective differences on gun ownership or political ideas in a heated thread.

Actually a.net has proven the exact opposite. That it is only by talking about things that people eventually change position.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 69, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 62):
We are actually in agreement.

Not if you make statements like:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 50):
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the US hardly gives all persons the right to own and use a firearm as they see fit.

The implication is that you suggest pro-Second Amendment folks want no controls or restrictions. None of us want to be allowed to use a firearm as we see fit. We want to be allowed to own and use firearms within the bounds of the law.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
a lack of adequate gun control laws in the US

Opinion.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
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 leading to violence is one point that proves this.

Do you have a citation for that?

Violent crime and gun violence have been on the decrease for 20 years. Though, to be fair, there may be an uptick for 2012, according to the preliminary FBI data. But, the overall trend has been a downward one.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...n-violence-in-america/gun-crime-2/
http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

You know what else starting happening 20 or so years ago? States began easing restrictions on gun ownership and when and where someone is allowed to carry a gun.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
Insinuating discrimination as a motive to further a gun rights agenda is not valid, never has, never will be.

I have no idea where you find I am insinuating any sort of discrimination in the furthering of Second Amendment rights.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
There are litmus tests that one has to go through, depending on the state, to prove fitness for gun ownership.

I agree. There are tests at the federal level. They are found in 18USC922 and just about every state has some hurdles to jump before you can own a gun and usually a couple of more hurdles before you can carry a gun, concealed or open.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 67):
yet truthful statements that may garner any number of negative replies.

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.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 69):
The implication is that you suggest pro-Second Amendment folks want no controls or restrictions. None of us want to be allowed to use a firearm as we see fit. We want to be allowed to own and use firearms within the bounds of the law.   


  



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

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


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 72, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 71):
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.

It's not that simple. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 72):
It's not that simple. . .

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 there is ANY doubt what so ever, no license should be forthcoming.

Why take the chance otherwise ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 73):
If there are any issues with the eye sight of any individual gun owners, they need to be looked at thoroughly, and if there is ANY doubt what so ever, no license should be forthcoming

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 or 4 inches from my face.

With corrective lenses, I was corrected to 20/20, but without, I was essentially blind.

Yet, I was allowed a CCDW (no vision test) without restriction.

It really isn't that 'simple'.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):
With corrective lenses, I was corrected to 20/20, but without, I was essentially blind.

Yet, I was allowed a CCDW (no vision test) without restriction.

How many times did you hold your gun ready to shoot without your glasses?


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
How many times did you hold your gun ready to shoot without your glasses?

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.

My point is, that while I was wearing corrective lenses, had I been the subject of an assault and lost those lenses...what are my responsibilities as someone who carries a firearm? Lay down and take the attack that may have resulted in great bodily harm or death, or respond with the firearm and fire at a 'fuzzy blob'?

My permit did not say 'corrective lenses only', like my drivers license did.

As I recall, the definition of blind is someone who can't reach a visual acuity of 20/200 with corrective lenses. I really don't recall where my vision was without lenses, but my contact lens diopter was -7.75.

If I were to lose my lenses in a struggle, I was effectively blind.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 76):
what are my responsibilities as someone who carries a firearm?

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 since it is questionable if the injuries you would receive are equal or worse to the injuries you cause to another innocent. Not to mention it doesn't guarantee you're home free.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 76):
My permit did not say 'corrective lenses only', like my drivers license did.

Considering the requirements in most states to carry in public that really doesn't surprise me. Comes back to that showing proficiency should be a requirement.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 76):
If I were to lose my lenses in a struggle, I was effectively blind.

And should adjust your use of weapons to that situation. Again, carrying a weapon comes with responsibility how it is used. It isn't a tool to transfer harm to other innocent people.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting photopilot (Thread starter):
Should this be allowed in the interests of public safety?

Yes. Do they have less rights?

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.

Because you say so?

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 71):
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

You do not need to see when someone is on top of you or trying to rape you. All you need is the to feel them or hear them.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 79, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 78):
You do not need to see when someone is on top of you or trying to rape you. All you need is the to feel them or hear them.

If someone's already on you, a gun is probably going to be of little use.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 78):
Yes. Do they have less rights?

No, they have less ability to see though. Being able to see where you're pointing a gun really ought to be a prerequisite for being allowed to use it. Not because I say so, but for obvious common sense's sake. I have poor eyesight, but want to fly people around in jets. Why shouldn't I be allowed to?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 80, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 73):
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 there is ANY doubt what so ever, no license should be forthcoming.

Why take the chance otherwise ?

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, blindness is very limiting to shooting and there is little that can be done about it. But just as they can avoid obstruction when walking, just as they can find objects, they can find their targets.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 81, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Because when you hurt an innocent you're as bad as whoever attacked you. Possibly worse since it is questionable if the injuries you would receive are equal or worse to the injuries you cause to another innocent.

No, if you hurt an innocent in the process of defending yourself from an attacker you are definitely NOT worse than the attacker.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 81):
No, if you hurt an innocent in the process of defending yourself from an attacker you are definitely NOT worse than the attacker.

"Definitely NOT"??? Say someone attacks you with fists and you kill an innocent because you just shoot willy nilly.... I think you are definitely worse in that case. Dead is dead no matter if it was reckless or intentional.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
"Definitely NOT"??? Say someone attacks you with fists and you kill an innocent because you just shoot willy nilly.... I think you are definitely worse in that case. Dead is dead no matter if it was reckless or intentional.

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 attack was sufficient to put a reasonable person in fear for his life, then you may well be, and probably should be be prosecuted.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 79):
If someone's already on you, a gun is probably going to be of little use.

Wrong, this is when the gun is most useful. That time may well be the last chance to use the gun, just ask George Zimmerman.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
It isn't a tool to transfer harm to other innocent people.

No, it s tool that is used to equalize a situation. It is a tool used to stop an attack. Let me tell you something: if I am in a fight for my life (or a family member's life) I hope I will not hesitate to use a gun if the situation warrants it. I rather take my chances with a judge and jury than take my chances that my attacker will be satisfied with just 'hurting me real bad'.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 83):
So, you're saying it would be ok to kill an innocent if you were being shot at?

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 consequences of what happens when you fire the weapon you carry. Really don't understand how you can make what I said into that I think it is OK to shoot innocent.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 83):
If someone attacks you with fists and you can't demonstrate that the attack was sufficient to put a reasonable person in fear for his life, then you may well be, and probably should be be prosecuted

And as we saw with Zimmerman all you need to make sure is that the person attacking you doesn't survive and you're home free because no evidence is enough to show you overreacted or if you caused the event.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 83):
No, it s tool that is used to equalize a situation. It is a tool used to stop an attack. Let me tell you something: if I am in a fight for my life (or a family member's life) I hope I will not hesitate to use a gun if the situation warrants it. I rather take my chances with a judge and jury than take my chances that my attacker will be satisfied with just 'hurting me real bad'.

You want to tell me something. No, you go to the poor mother of the kid you shot because you don't know how to use your weapon and tell her why her son had to die because of your excessive fear and willy nilly shooting.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 85, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
How do you get that?

Actually, I was being flippant.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
You want to tell me something. No, you go to the poor mother of the kid you shot because you don't know how to use your weapon and tell her why her son had to die because of your excessive fear and willy nilly shooting.

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 shot 9 people while trying to take down a shooter? Were they shooting 'willy nilly'? Did they not know how to use their weapons?

As for facing up to the consequences of my actions: I have absolutely no problem with that. If that means trying to explain to a mother why her child got shot because I was defending myself or my own...or her child...that's just something I would have to do. I pray I am never, ever in that situation. I pray that my gun never leaves its holster.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
And as we saw with Zimmerman all you need to make sure is that the person attacking you doesn't survive and you're home free because no evidence is enough to show you overreacted or if you caused the event.

The defense should that Zimmermann acted as any other reasonable person would given the same circumstances and the letter of the law. Or, more to the point, the prosecution failed to prove that Zimmermann acted unreasonably.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 85):
You assume the use was 'willy nilly'. You assume I don't know how to use my weapon.

If you shoot someone innocent, absolutely. If you do it because you shoot while not being able to see, double so.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 85):
What about the cops in NY that shot 9 people while trying to take down a shooter? Were they shooting 'willy nilly'? Did they not know how to use their weapons?

You think they did a good job?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 85):
I pray that my gun never leaves its holster.

Considering how flippant and how little respect you show for causing innocent harm I would much rather see you never carried a weapon in public.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 85):
The defense should that Zimmermann acted as any other reasonable person would given the same circumstances and the letter of the law.

No, the defence did not show that. That is the pro-gun rewrite. All that was shown was that there wasn't enough to find him guilty for the charges made. The messages we got from the jury indicated that they did not find that he acted reasonably. Just not bad enough for the charges and evidence they were allowed to consider.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 87, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 79):
If someone's already on you, a gun is probably going to be of little use.

It worked for George Zimmerman.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 79):
No, they have less ability to see though. Being able to see where you're pointing a gun really ought to be a prerequisite for being allowed to use it.

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 be enough to scare them away or bring you help. Stopping them from having it will guaranty that they become a victim.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 79):
Not because I say so, but for obvious common sense's sake

Sorry but common sense says that being blind does not stop you from being able to defend yourself.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
"Definitely NOT"??? Say someone attacks you with fists and you kill an innocent because you just shoot willy nilly.... I think you are definitely worse in that case. Dead is dead no matter if it was reckless or intentional

How do you know that they are just going to nicely hit you a few times and leave you alone? It only takes one hit to kill you.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 88, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 87):
Even a shot into the air may be enough to scare them away or bring you help.

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

Quoting windy95 (Reply 87):
Sorry but common sense says that being blind does not stop you from being able to defend yourself.

As far as I'm concerned it does if there is a gun involved.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
You think they did a good job?

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 are well trained) can screw up royally even if they do things as right as they could. The world is not a text book.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Considering how flippant and how little respect you show for causing innocent harm I would much rather see you never carried a weapon in public.

You know absolutely nothing about me and the respect I show for my firearm, my abilities and my limitations in the use of that firearm.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
No, the defence did not show that. That is the pro-gun rewrite

You did read the other part, didn't you?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 85):
Or, more to the point, the prosecution failed to prove that Zimmermann acted unreasonably.
Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
The messages we got from the jury indicated that they did not find that he acted reasonably.

Then they should have convicted. Ref Florida Statutes:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


Emphasis mine

But, this discussion has digressed. I'll just recap my opinion on the Iowa law, so as to drag this discussion back on track. I think the Iowa law is deficient in that Iowa does not a CCW applicant to prove proficiency in handling and firing a firearm. The Iowa legislature (and any other affected) should rectify this deficiency.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 88):
Do you realise how dangerous it is to shoot into the air ?

But, isn't that what Vice-President Joe Biden wants us to do? To be fair, he does say "through the door". Hmmm, how is that different from someone who is legally blind taking a shot? Shooting through a door is essentially shooting blind...isn't it?

[Edited 2013-09-15 16:50:29]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 90, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 87):
Stopping them from having it will guaranty that they become a victim.

I don't have a gun. Nor do the vast majority of people I know. Are we all 'guaranteed' to become victims?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 87):
Sorry but common sense says that being blind does not stop you from being able to defend yourself.

It means you have severe limitations on the safe use of a gun.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 87):
It worked for George Zimmerman.

Is Zimmerman now the benchmark for everything then?

Edited for syntax.

[Edited 2013-09-15 16:56:48]


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 90):
Is Zimmerman now the benchmark for everything now then?

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, proved that a gun can be of use in that situation.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 92, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2267 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 91):
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, proved that a gun can be of use in that situation.

One case is hardly a decent statistical indicator, and I'm sure it would vary seriously depending on the exact situation and varying physical strengths and so on. Surely the last thing you want when using a gun as a deterrent is to get into an actual physical struggle. If that's not right, please explain why, using examples other than Zimmerman.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2259 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
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 are well trained) can screw up royally even if they do things as right as they could

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 do.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
You know absolutely nothing about me and the respect I show for my firearm, my abilities and my limitations in the use of that firearm.

I know what you post here. That if attacked you will shoot and trust the judge.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
You did read the other part, didn't you?

I disagreed with your double talk.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
Then they should have convicted. Ref Florida Statutes:

You just pick and stick together. You're missing that they had to attach it to the charges they could consider.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
The Iowa legislature (and any other affected) should rectify this deficiency.

On this we agree.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 89):
But, isn't that what Vice-President Joe Biden wants us to do? To be fair, he does say "through the door". Hmmm, how is that different from someone who is legally blind taking a shot? Shooting through a door is essentially shooting blind...isn't it?

You think that is a good example to bring up for proper gun handling...

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 90):
Is Zimmerman now the benchmark for everything then?

Probably, Maher called USA the George Zimmerman of the world.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 92):
Surely the last thing you want when using a gun as a deterrent is to get into an actual physical struggle.

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 what kind of struggle we may get into. I do know that just about any firearm's self-defense course covers close contact shooting where the gun may be in physical contact with the assailant. Basically, they talk about th pros and cons of a semi-auto vs. a revolver.

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
That if attacked you will shoot and trust the judge.

That is quite a stretch from what I said here and what I've said in other threads.

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
You think that is a good example to bring up for proper gun handling...

No, I brought it up because the face of the Obama Administration's gun-control agenda is a moron...at least when it comes to firearms.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 95, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 94):
That is quite a stretch from what I said here and what I've said in other threads.

Considering we discussed shooting when not being able to see and hitting innocent I don't see how

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 83):
I rather take my chances with a judge and jury

can be interpret any other way than I did.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 94):
No, I brought it up because the face of the Obama Administration's gun-control agenda is a moron...at least when it comes to firearms.

There are many shortages in it. Not as crazy as the NRA agenda but even so I agree with some things NRA propose and do.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 96, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 81):
No, if you hurt an innocent in the process of defending yourself from an attacker you are definitely NOT worse than the attacker.

"Definitely NOT"??? Say someone attacks you with fists and you kill an innocent because you just shoot willy nilly.... I think you are definitely worse in that case. Dead is dead no matter if it was reckless or intentional.

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.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 97, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
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.

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 pretty pro gun but I'm shocked at the amount of people that don't see an issue in this. It seems to me that the non-carrying citizens are being more responsible than supposedly responsible gun owners. I mean, maybe, just maybe, I can see some extensive specialized training that would allow blind people to carry and use under certain circumstances (I'd probably still disagree) but this willy nilly attitude of being so uncareful and going against all common sense is really pissing me off.

Some of the worst enemies of gun ownership seem to be gun owners IMO. We aren't policing ourselves and we are often very irresponsible and we're just pissing off the rest of the population, the VOTING population that is just gonna get fed up and ban everything. We need to be the leaders of gun safety and regulation and police ourselves or I'm telling you, it's not gonna end well at all, and I can hardly blame the general population



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
That's called an ACCIDENT and it's obviously not even remotely as bad as someone who chooses to kill another person.

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.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
Intentions absolutely matter.

Sure does. Again, you better know what you will hit before you pull that trigger. If you pull the trigger just hoping to hit something then it is recklessness, not an accident. That you're being attacked doesn't mean you can for all practical purposes attack other innocent people. It is not a dog on the cat on the rat game.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 99, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 97):

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 actually touching the mugger and the blind can actually feel the location of the target? The blind puts the barrel of the gun on the mugger's body and pulls the trigger.

I don't expect the blind to shoot at a distance, pretty much ever. That would almost certainly be reckless under most circumstances. It is not, however, inconceivable to come up with a scenario that even at a certain short range, a blind person could fire at a target, even if "spraying bullets".

Gun owners with perfect vision are not prohibited from firing their weapons in a pitch black night with no light source.

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
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.

Even recklessness isn't as bad as premeditation.

[Edited 2013-09-16 14:38:27]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 100, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
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 actually touching the mugger and the blind can actually feel the location of the target? The blind puts the barrel of the gun on the mugger's body and pulls the trigger.

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 from many. I can see it getting out of hand extremely quickly too, it's too hairy for me IMO, I personally draw limits somewhere



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
Even recklessness isn't as bad as premeditation.

Doesn't change the issue.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 102, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
Even recklessness isn't as bad as premeditation.

Doesn't change the issue.

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 matter in the slightest



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 103, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
I touched on that, and that is really the only way I'd entertain the thought of allowing the blind to carry.

And I am sure these blind citizens would be touched that you blessed them to carry if they jump through your hoops  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
, it's too hairy for me IMO, I personally draw limits somewhere

Good thing your limits do not matter.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 102):
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 matter in the slightest

Do you care that the blind lady has to be subjected to being raped because you think it would be to" hairy for you" for her to have a conceal carry. I guess the blind man should just go ahead and get mugged and beaten becasue you and CMF do not feel "comfortable" with them carrying. What a joke.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
And I am sure these blind citizens would be touched that you blessed them to carry if they jump through your hoops  

It's not a blind thing, it's a "can you use a weapon competently" thing. Kinda need to see to do that.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
Good thing your limits do not matter.

I don't know what you're getting at, I'm very pro-gun. I think being able to see what you're shooting at is a pretty reasonable hoop

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
Do you care that the blind lady has to be subjected to being raped because you think it would be to" hairy for you" for her to have a conceal carry. I guess the blind man should just go ahead and get mugged and beaten becasue you and CMF do not feel "comfortable" with them carrying. What a joke.

Give me a break. I guess the 4 year old walking around should get her brains blown out because a blind person can't, uh, see. Why aren't you "comfortable" with people carrying M60s? We all put limits and we all are trying prevent tragedies. You're doing the same thing I am, doesn't make me a liberal loon



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 105, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
I guess the blind man should just go ahead and get mugged and beaten becasue you and CMF do not feel "comfortable" with them carrying. What a joke

  
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 blind person drive your car? What would you do if you sat on a plane and saw the pilots walk in with blind canes? Calling being able a joke...


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

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 notice being attacked until the attacker is within very short distance from you, in such a short distance a gun would be quite useless compared to a knife for example.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 99):
The blind puts the barrel of the gun on the mugger's body and pulls the trigger.

In half of the time it would take from a blind person to pull out a gun and shoot the attacker would have already killed or fatally wounded that blind person even with a cheap kitchen knife.

Just see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpcrDzy344

[Edited 2013-09-17 14:36:20]

I can't even understand why any sane person would support giving blind people access to guns.


[Edited 2013-09-17 14:38:26]


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 107, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
When was the last time you let a blind person drive your car? What would you do if you sat on a plane and saw the pilots walk in with blind canes?

This will be good......If you get an answer. 



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 108, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
It's not a blind thing, it's a "can you use a weapon competently" thing. Kinda need to see to do that.

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 can be more competent handling a gun that someone who can see. If they use it for the purpose they want it for then they should have that right. Once again you are taking away their right to self defense and that is not right.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
Give me a break. I guess the 4 year old walking around should get her brains blown out because a blind person can't, uh, see.

Blind people and others with handicaps are already targeted as being weak by bad people. You continue to use the excuse that their might be a another victim but you have no problem at all with them being one. Being blind does not take away your right to self defense. If they want to use a gun, taser or mace it is their choice.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
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 blind person drive your car?

You are saying they cannot handle the tool which is wrong on your part. And comparing driving a car to having a self defense weapon is idiotic and childish.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
Being blind does not take away your right to self defense. If they want to use a gun, taser or mace it is their choice.

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 many come out unscathed

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
You are saying they cannot handle the tool which is wrong on your part.

No, hes saying the risk involved is too great, as you might hit innocent people....

But I suppose you don't care about that minor fact, as long as you have the right to possess a gun, everyone else can go to hell. Selfish attitude.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
And comparing driving a car to having a self defense weapon is idiotic and childish.

But but but.... I can use me car as a self defense weapon too, if I choose cant I ?
Or is that not my right ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2722 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 109):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
You are saying they cannot handle the tool which is wrong on your part.

No, hes saying the risk involved is too great, as you might hit innocent people....

We have police here shooting innocent people. Should we take away the guns from all them.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 109):
But I suppose you don't care about that minor fact, as long as you have the right to possess a gun, everyone else can go to hell. Selfish attitude

Actually it would be your selfish attitude that keeps the blind from defending themselves and guaranteeing that they will be visitms. The weak are already at the top of the list to be targeted by criminals and you just want to guaranty that they become a victim. All over your dislike of guns.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5512 posts, RR: 8
Reply 111, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
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 can be more competent handling a gun that someone who can see. If they use it for the purpose they want it for then they should have that right. Once again you are taking away their right to self defense and that is not right.

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 nature. Tearing apart a weapon is not the same as using and aiming a gun. A gun is a distance weapon, designed to take out a target beyond "arm's reach" range.

No one taking away any right to self defense, there are simply limits to all that anyone does based on the physical and mental abilities they poses. It is not that complicated.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):
Blind people and others with handicaps are already targeted as being weak by bad people. You continue to use the excuse that their might be a another victim but you have no problem at all with them being one. Being blind does not take away your right to self defense. If they want to use a gun, taser or mace it is their choice.

So you believe that mentally incompetent people should also be able to own guns? Mentally disturbed people? I am sure they are targets as well and if blind people can use a gun I am certain that a mentally "impaired" or disturbed person could also use one. And if not that why not? What handicap precludes gun ownership?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 112, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 108):

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, I think the danger of having blind people using weapons is greater than them not being armed with guns. Blind people can do amazing things but I don't think even the most competent blind people are going to have a good grasp of what is going on if they are all of the sudden rolling around on the ground, and when you have a piece of metal flying out in some direction, no bueno.

Again, I'm almost willing to entertain the thought of specialized training for anyone not able to meet some kind of requirement. Believe it or not, I am a big supporter of self defense and had a carry permit myself (I'm in residential limbo now and don't have one, but that is another story.) I think that EVERY citizen should get good training (among many other rasonable measures,) and I don't want a person's disabilities to preclude them from something. There may be a good way, but as another said, sometimes you just can't do things because of a disability, unfortunately. You cannot drive with vision below a certain threshold, like cmf said



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5512 posts, RR: 8
Reply 113, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
We have police here shooting innocent people. Should we take away the guns from all them.

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 gun taken away if they are not responsible with it and demonstrate such regularly.
Are you saying that should be a standard for everyone?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 114, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
Actually it would be your selfish attitude that keeps the blind from defending themselves and guaranteeing that they will be visitms. The weak are already at the top of the list to be targeted by criminals and you just want to guaranty that they become a victim. All over your dislike of guns.

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 criminal that isn't a complete idiot should be able to rob you no matter if you have a pistol or not, if you are blind how on earth would you even know you are being robbed before the attacker has already committed his attack, let alone defend yourself?

What blind people need is either a society which isn't so messed up that they are in danger of getting robbed any time or alternatively someone to guard them. If you can't see you can't really defend yourself properly either no matter what weapons you have.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

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 display of proficiency is so important.

User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
We have police here shooting innocent people. Should we take away the guns from all them.

If they are a danger to other people through incompetence, then yes, take the guns away.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
The weak are already at the top of the list to be targeted by criminals and you just want to guaranty that they become a victim. All over your dislike of guns.

If they are weak already, they have NO business owning a firearm. Period!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
You cannot drive with vision below a certain threshold, like cmf said

We are still waiting for an answer on that one.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 114):
If you can't see you can't really defend yourself properly either no matter what weapons you have.

Beautifully put !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 117, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
I can see it getting out of hand extremely quickly too, it's too hairy for me IMO, I personally draw limits somewhere

I'm not saying it's advisable. At least not most of the time. And I think even blind people would agree.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 102):
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 matter in the slightest

Probably wouldn't make a difference if she was hit by an asteroid, either. Dead is dead.

From a legal perspective, it matters.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 106):
In half of the time it would take from a blind person to pull out a gun and shoot the attacker would have already killed or fatally wounded that blind person even with a cheap kitchen knife.

What if the mugger is not going to kill the blind person? Being blind is a serious disadvantage in all circumstances relating to personal security, no doubt. I don't want to make it even worse for them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
When was the last time you let a blind person drive your car? What would you do if you sat on a plane and saw the pilots walk in with blind canes?

Being blind completely precludes you from driving or flying. It does not preclude you from operating a simple tool called a fire arm. It does severely limit its use, but not totally.

[Edited 2013-09-17 18:01:47]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 118, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1871 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 114):
rob you

A simple robbery does not normally meet the bar for use of deadly force...just saying.

Quoting cmf (Reply 115):
It does however highlight why regular display of proficiency is so important.

Hell, I think the requirements here in KY are too easy. Something like 11 out of 20 rounds have to be on the target. And, there is no requalification requirement.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 119, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 118):
A simple robbery does not normally meet the bar for use of deadly force...just saying.

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 handicap person, frankly, it's even more repugnant.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1852 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 117):
It does not preclude you from operating a simple tool called a fire arm.

In public space to understand who is friend and foe and what the bullets will hit, sadly it does.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 121, posted (11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 119):
It's not about the stuff being stolen, it's about protecting yourself.

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 where a reasonable person would be in fear for his life or of great bodily harm. The wording probably varies a bit from state to state, but the you get the point.

Now, I can see where a blind person being in a situation such as this may make the leap quicker...and a jury agree with the leap...I still caution that robbery in-of-itself is not sufficient to apply deadly force.

And, what about a blind person mistakenly escalating a non-violent situation because, due to lack of sight, he misunderstood what was going on around him?

Look, I'm all for more people carrying guns. But, those people need to be qualified to carry them...and one part of qualification needs to be a proficiency exercise.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7701 posts, RR: 21
Reply 122, posted (11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
Do you care that the blind lady has to be subjected to being raped because you think it would be to" hairy for you" for her to have a conceal carry. I guess the blind man should just go ahead and get mugged and beaten becasue you and CMF do not feel "comfortable" with them carrying. What a joke.

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 the logic that if blind people don't get guns they're definitely going to be raped or assaulted. It seems far more likely that if a blind person tries to fight off an attacker by shooting at them that they'd be at least as likely to kill someone coming to their aid as they would the actual assailant.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 123, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
In public space to understand who is friend and foe and what the bullets will hit, sadly it does.

Still incorrect. What matters is proximity to your target, not the kind if space you are in.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 121):
I still caution that robbery in-of-itself is not sufficient to apply deadly force.

You can't defend yourself with a firearm from a robber if he knows that you will never use the weapon.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 121):
And, what about a blind person mistakenly escalating a non-violent situation because, due to lack of sight, he misunderstood what was going on around him?

His action, his responsibility. No different than if that happened to any other person, handicap or not.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 124, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 123):
Still incorrect. What matters is proximity to your target, not the kind if space you are in.

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 attacker is coming from.

Why do you insist blind people should be allowed to carry guns when they clearly are no use whatsoever to them? With same logic should blind people be allowed to carry rocket launchers in case someone tries to drive over them?

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:02:25]


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5512 posts, RR: 8
Reply 125, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 123):
Still incorrect. What matters is proximity to your target, not the kind if space you are in.

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 and uncontrolled public space. This means with a CCP that weapon is likely to be used where other people are around, and that is an important aspect of the situation.

Owning and using a gun is one thing, you can use it in controlled and authorized areas, you can use it in yuor home for self defense, etc. But when you are out in public with a gun you must be able to demonstrate that you can accurately and consistently locate and hit your intended target and only your intended target.

That is a very different situation. We are not just talking about one person and their "self" alone, you are dealing with the person with the firearm and all the people that may be around them and the uncontrolled situations they may be in.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 123):
Still incorrect. What matters is proximity to your target, not the kind if space you are in.

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 instead kill you because you showed a weapon you can't aim?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14000 posts, RR: 62
Reply 127, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1719 times:

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 firing range using special targets and a sight which converts deviation in aim into sound. But this is a special situation on s especially equipped shooting range with special protections in place, not in public.

A very close friend is blind since birth (and she is American as well). I never asked her, but adventurous as she is, I could imagine that she would want to try out shooting under supervision and with guidance on a shooting range, just to know how it feels to shoot (knowing very that she wouldn´know what she would hit). She told me that she would like me to let her drive my car under supervision e.g. on a large, empty carpark, just to know how it feels to drive a car (and she dreams of fully automatical cars, so that she can also participate in individual transport and does not have to rely on public transport or on expensive taxis all the time).
But knowing her, she would never want to carry a gun and she would never drive on her own unless there is a way for her to safely navigate it.

I doubt that there will be any sane, blind person wanting to carry a gun, not at home and defintely not in public. They know their limitations well enough.

Jan


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 128, posted (11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 127):
I doubt that there will be any sane, blind person wanting to carry a gun, not at home and defintely not in public. They know their limitations well enough.

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 the form...

I have no doubt blind people are able to to shoot but there is a big difference between doing it under controlled conditions and the kind of situations brought up here.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5512 posts, RR: 8
Reply 129, posted (11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1705 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 128):
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 the form...

I have no doubt blind people are able to to shoot but there is a big difference between doing it under controlled conditions and the kind of situations brought up here.

You know I suddenly could help but think of Dave Chappelle's character Dave "Clayton Bigsby."  

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 130, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 124):
Why do you insist blind people should be allowed to carry guns when they clearly are no use whatsoever to them?

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 described in this thread.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
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 instead kill you because you showed a weapon you can't aim?

A robber pretty much always has to be close to you, if you are out and about in the streets. As to deciding when it's a smart idea to pull out a gun (or a knife or a punch) it will depend on the situation. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should start shooting, blind or not.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14000 posts, RR: 62
Reply 131, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 128):
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 the form...

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 (she was born as a premature baby and received an overdose of oxygen while in the incubator, which irreparably damaged the nerves between her eyes and her brain, something which happened quite often back in the 1960s, when neonatal medicine was still in it´s infancy) . E.g. when she once visited my place when we were still in highschool, she could point where the window was and she could make out enough to avoid people or trees in the street. Of course she could not read a printed paper without technical help (a machine called "Optacon", which would use a small, handheld camera to convert printed letters into tactile signals, which she would read with her index finger).
There are also visually impaired people, who are essentially extremelly far sighted. They can never read a form, but they can see objects in the distance. Blind isn´t just blind.

Jan


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5512 posts, RR: 8
Reply 132, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
Question is, why do you insist on assuming a gun is useless to a blind person?

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 possible/probable situations where a CCP would be needed.


Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
it will depend on the situation. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should start shooting, blind or not.

However there is a very true axiom: If you draw your gun you must be ready to use it.

A key thing relating to a blind person using a gun in a public situation is that they will not have all the information needed to know whether or not to shoot it.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
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 described in this thread.

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, the only case where a blind people could use a gun and actually hit the intended target would be if the attacker has already hit and is in the immediate proximity of that blind person. In that case a knife wish both way more effective and safer defense.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4457 posts, RR: 19
Reply 134, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

No, they should carry flamethrowers and small nuclear weapons.


Who, other than blind people can make the instant assessment required for the use of these ?


Let Freedom roll..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
A robber pretty much always has to be close to you, if you are out and about in the streets. As to deciding when it's a smart idea to pull out a gun (or a knife or a punch) it will depend on the situation. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should start shooting, blind or not.

Why do you keep looking at only one facet of a multifaceted problem?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 131):

Not sure how this relates to your statement that no sane blind person will want to carry a gun?


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 136, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):

I have not been saying that a gun is useless to a blind person.

I wasn't responding to you when I said that.

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
However there is a very true axiom: If you draw your gun you must be ready to use it.

Yup, nothing wrong with that. Same would apply to a blind person.

Quoting tugger (Reply 132):
A key thing relating to a blind person using a gun in a public situation is that they will not have all the information needed to know whether or not to shoot it.

Not necessarily true at all, as some of the examples given above point out.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 133):
Because to aim you need to see.

You don't need to look through crosshairs to shoot while also knowing what you're shooting.

Quoting cmf (Reply 135):
Why do you keep looking at only one facet of a multi-faceted problem?

LOL says the one who dismisses blind people ONLY because they can't see.

We do have a multi-faceted problem here, and that is exactly why the answer isn't as simple as "duh, they can't see".

[Edited 2013-09-19 12:23:30]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 136):
LOL says the one who dismisses blind people ONLY because they can't see.

You're making up things, again.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1249 posts, RR: 3
Reply 138, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 136):
You don't need to look through crosshairs to shoot while also knowing what you're shooting.

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 obviously can't know where exactly the target is unless he/she is actually having a physical contact with the attacker. That's why a gun is way less safe practical to a blind person than a knife would be.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 136):
Not necessarily true at all, as some of the examples given above point out.

Can you list some examples where a blind person would be able to reliably hit the intended target without having a physical contact with the target? I don't bother going through all the nonsense to find those examples given somewhere above according to you.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8958 posts, RR: 40
Reply 139, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1591 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 138):
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 obviously can't know where exactly the target is unless he/she is actually having a physical contact with the attacker. That's why a gun is way less safe practical to a blind person than a knife would be.

I think pulling a trigger is much more practical than trying to stab a person.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 138):
Can you list some examples where a blind person would be able to reliably hit the intended target without having a physical contact with the target? I don't bother going through all the nonsense to find those examples given somewhere above according to you.

Reliably, you have to be in close contact. Never made a claim to the contrary. From a distance, some scenarios can be imagined but they are pretty extreme (say, you're home in a hallway and the attacker is down the hall, and you live by yourself).



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 117):
Being blind completely precludes you from driving or flying.

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 obtained a license or not.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 124):
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 attacker is coming from.

This must be grounds for introducing concealed carry permits for combat style knives for the visually impaired. To pass the test thay must be able to correctly identify internal organs by touch and smell.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 127):
They know their limitations well enough.

They may be sufficiently responsible (just like every other gun owner) to only use a weapon when they have assessed that, given the situation and their level of competence, the level of risk to the general public is acceptable and the use of deadly force reasonable.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 131):
Blind isn´t just blind.
  
This debate seems to be mostly based on 'Legally blind people have zero vision'. This frequently isn't the case and without a clearer description of what level of visual acuity they may have a vital component of reasoned debate is missing.


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