Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Carrying by the legally blind?

  1. #1
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279

    Carrying by the legally blind?

    I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

    This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?

    Not to mention how urine poor their situational awareness would be.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-28-2015 at 10:37 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    sorry couldn't read your post...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...blind/2780303/

    On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities

    On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn't issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.
    First off, let's deal with "legally blind" and what that really means. http://www.visionaware.org/info/your...criptions/1235 Legally blind folks can see - just not as well as the rest of us.

    Why do you believe their situational awareness is poor? Or are you relying only on sight to tell you what is going on around you?

    While you are on the subject, what about folks who are not legally blind but do not have perfect vision? Or folks who can achieve perfect (20/20) vision with correction, but because of that correction are able to clearly see their sights or the target, but not both at the same time?

    As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...blind/2780303/



    First off, let's deal with "legally blind" and what that really means. http://www.visionaware.org/info/your...criptions/1235 Legally blind folks can see - just not as well as the rest of us.

    Why do you believe their situational awareness is poor? Or are you relying only on sight to tell you what is going on around you?

    While you are on the subject, what about folks who are not legally blind but do not have perfect vision? Or folks who can achieve perfect (20/20) vision with correction, but because of that correction are able to clearly see their sights or the target, but not both at the same time?

    As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

    stay safe.
    Some cannot see facial expressions, or things in the distance, there is at least one that I know of that can't see his hands in front of his face with a CHP. A comb may look like a knife, a wallet a gun. A child pointing a finger. I am against any law limiting their rights, I am asking about responsibility. I agree with you about NYPD, apparently some of their officers are legally blind, or just incompetent.

    Let me put it another way, blind as a bat with a gun.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

    stay safe.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    And yea officers who shoot innocent people should lose the privilege of carrying a firearm while on duty.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

    This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?

    Not to mention how urine poor their situational awareness would be.
    Good questions. Here's where I landed on it. First, a couple points, then the analysis.

    I think "legally blind" is less than total blindness. Also, I think the exact characteristics vary, for example, for some it may be dusky dimness in broad daylight, or maybe the brightness is there, but way, way out of focus.

    As for situational awareness, I had the opportunity to talk with a totally blind person. Her situational awareness was pretty danged high--hearing. Based on stuff I've read casually over the years, I understand the fully blind are very attuned to the sounds in their environment. I'm guessing--only guessing--that people whose sight is dramatically diminished probably do similar.

    Whether the legally blind, or even totally blind, carry is a question of personal responsibility. By which I mean, I think we really need to leave it up to the sense of responsibility of each blind person.

    For example, I could not deny the right to self defense to even a totally blind person in their home. If they live alone, and have a burglar at 3am, when the bedroom door opens, or even if the door knob turns, that is a very narrow field of fire, and the blind person will know exactly where that door is spatially. Even if they miss, that burglar is gonna be gone lightning fast.

    And, if they live with others, they can take the same precautions sighted people do: let the family know to knock first on the bedroom door, that there is gun at hand, that the blind person will call out "who is it?" before firing, etc.

    In public, a totally blind woman may still need that gun for a contact shot against, say, a rapist.

    And, I think those points would still hold true for a legally blind person.

    I think it really boils down to trusting the blind person to be responsible; meaning trust them to have a sense of personal responsibility to shoot within their limitations.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Bearing arms is an inherent right independent of one's need or ability to deploy that firearm for any particular purpose. Bearing arms need not be justified by reason that the arm is being borne so that it can be deployed in self-defense, and one's ability to deploy that firearm in self-defense is thusly quite irrelevant. Even if it would be criminally negligent to attempt to use the firearm, the right to bear the arm is not negated by the bearer's inability to use the firearm effectively.

    Likewise, I don't believe one's property rights are precluded by an inability to ensure withstanding an arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression, so I don't believe there would be any merit to a claim that they should be prohibited from possessing the firearm at all due to them being potentially unable to secure it against that arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression.

    ETA: I guess this doesn't actually answer the OP's question about how responsible it is. On that, I concur with Citizen.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-28-2015 at 01:42 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Should they be afforded the same leeway a LEO gets if they shoot an innocent person. Because they most likely would believe that their life is in danger, even if the teenager is only holding a model of the millennium falcon. Or should they be treated the same way the rest of us are.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Results of Quick Experiment

    I just tried a quick experiment.

    I walked around in my living room, periodically closing my eyes and pointing my "gun" (classic kid's finger/raised thumb) at the front door.

    I was off by at least two feet every time.

    However! I then went to the location where I practice dry-fire. I stood in my usual location and my usual distance, but with my back turned to the target location. I closed my eyes, turned, and aimed my "gun". Damn! I was only off by maybe three inches from the center of the target. And, that was 21 feet away.

    My point here is that, whereas I was only spatially familiar with the dry-fire target location, I'll bet blind people know way better where most of the stuff in their home is spatially. I'll bet they could shoot close enough to either hit or scare the beejeezus out of the home invader.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I just tried a quick experiment.

    I walked around in my living room, periodically closing my eyes and pointing my "gun" (classic kid's finger/raised thumb) at the front door.

    I was off by at least two feet every time.

    However! I then went to the location where I practice dry-fire. I stood in my usual location and my usual distance, but with my back turned to the target location. I closed my eyes, turned, and aimed my "gun". Damn! I was only off by maybe three inches from the center of the target. And, that was 21 feet away.

    My point here is that, whereas I was only spatially familiar with the dry-fire target location, I'll bet blind people know way better where most of the stuff in their home is spatially. I'll bet they could shoot close enough to either hit or scare the beejeezus out of the home invader.
    But you are still in the home, and you have the option of checking your aim with good vision. I am talking about semi crowded, and crowded public places, where a person might encounter things they perceive as a threat, that may not be a threat at all. And I still think that it is a personal responsibility, not the role of government, but it should be discussed.

    Blind people have other options also we do not. A blind person can take a service dog into a business that we cannot, the dog has to be trained for a service the person cannot provide for themselves, such as personal defense. To be honest I would rather have the trained dog over a handgun if I only had one for a choice. A police officer was recently dragged into the woods by three criminals, possibly to kill him. He was not saved by his handgun, he was saved by his trained police dog. So the blind are not without options to protect themselves.

    Kinda hijacking my own thread, but the effectiveness of a trained dog is hard to beat.

    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-28-2015 at 02:04 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Bearing arms is an inherent right independent of one's need or ability to deploy that firearm for any particular purpose. Bearing arms need not be justified by reason that the arm is being borne so that it can be deployed in self-defense, and one's ability to deploy that firearm in self-defense is thusly quite irrelevant. Even if it would be criminally negligent to attempt to use the firearm, the right to bear the arm is not negated by the bearer's inability to use the firearm effectively.

    Likewise, I don't believe one's property rights are precluded by an inability to ensure withstanding an arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression, so I don't believe there would be any merit to a claim that they should be prohibited from possessing the firearm at all due to them being potentially unable to secure it against that arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression.

    ETA: I guess this doesn't actually answer the OP's question about how responsible it is. On that, I concur with Citizen.
    Let me make this crystal clear, I am not talking about infringing on rights, I am talking strictly personal responsibility. If a blind person unjustly kills a innocent person, would you give them a pass on the jury?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Should they be afforded the same leeway a LEO gets if they shoot an innocent person. Because they most likely would believe that their life is in danger, even if the teenager is only holding a model of the millennium falcon. Or should they be treated the same way the rest of us are.
    No. But, my reply is a bit complicated, and, as you will see, I haven't really got to the bottom of it myself yet.

    First, cops enjoy far, far too much latitude on being held accountable. I know, I know, some cops get figuratively hanged even for justified shootings (read Mas Ayoob's writings). But, those are often political situations where the department or prosecutor responded to public outrage. At the other end of the spectrum, cops are professionals. And, they work for the state aka government. If they shoot an innocent person, the least they've shown is that they cannot be trusted in their job--they might shoot another innocent again in the future. I consider that at a minimum, they need to be fired and forever barred from being a cop. Or, I suppose, maybe reassigned to a job with a very low likelihood of encountering an armed criminal--desk job, etc. The city can pay the victim damages.

    As to citizens, I am torn. Can I really blame someone for being human? Meaning, if a citizen defender accidentally shoots an innocent. Can I really blame him for being too fearful to shoot straight?

    Remember, too, all the reasons government prosecutes citizen defenders--political, anti-gun prosecutor, career enhancement, etc. Although "the law" is held to be majestic, and to ensure justice, etc., it sure doesn't seem to be used that way very often against citizen defenders.

    I realize an argument can be made that the shot innocent deserves compensation for medical bills, loss of quality of life, etc. But, I'm not sure the blame should attach to the inaccurate defender who was just human and missed. I've never really been able to draw the line. Should the intended target (the criminal) pay? Who pays if he doesn't have the money? Etc.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    There are none so blind as those who will not see, "shall not be infringed." The blind are as liable as a citizen is for a wrongful death. Maybe they should have qualified immunity.

    On my submarine we blacked-out an air-fed respirator mask and had to make our way through the engineroom. And I'm 6'2"
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But you are still in the home, and you have the option of checking your aim with good vision.
    Yes. But, I think my earlier point still holds; I think we have to trust the visually impaired to have enough sense of personal responsibility to shoot within their own limitations.

    I've already planned that. For example, I know I miss the headshot on the Mozambique Drill a certain percentage of the time at 30' unless I go slower than I expect combat conditions would allow. So, no Mozambique Drills for Citizen unless there is nothing but an empty brick wall behind the attacker. I think the visually impaired can do the same--plan to shoot only within their own limitations.

    As to being able to check my aim with good vision, that occurred to me while I was writing the experiment post. But, I was looking at it from before the shot. How would a visually impaired person learn to shoot with enough accuracy in the first place? I realized that all it would take is a laser and a friend. If I can learn to point very close to the target (so-called muscle memory), then the visually impaired can do the same.

    And, none of that precludes the visually impaired waiting for a contact shot.

    I really do think it comes down to trusting the visually impaired to only shoot within their personal limitations.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 02:33 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    But along those lines, how to we as a society deal with injuries from mistakes that are directly related to the disability? I want it to be clear it is their responsibility, but as a society we may have to deal with it at some point. Would you give a pass to a blind shooter that kills a innocent victim by mistake?

    Another question, if a person is blindly aiming a gun in your direction, or family, will you hold back if you think they are blind?
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-28-2015 at 02:40 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But along those lines, how to we as a society deal with injuries from mistakes that are directly related to the disability? I want it to be clear it is their responsibility, but as a society we may have to deal with it at some point. Would you give a pass to a blind shooter that kills a innocent victim by mistake?
    I'll answer your question in a moment.

    First, though, I think the question is changing. That's not necessarily a bad thing; happens all the time as threads evolve. I just want to make sure we understand it/don't overlook it. In the OP you questioned the level of responsibility to merely carry. Have the replies so far satisfied you that mere carry alone is not automatically irresponsible?

    Reply to whether I would give a pass to a blind shooter who kills an innocent victim by mistake:

    That is a pretty broad question. For example, you also mentioned mistaking a comb or something for a knife. Lets recognize/stipulate for a moment just for the sake of discussion that the elements of justified lethal force are sufficient in number and situations varied enough that we could spend all day specifying the variables in order to just figure out whether a mistake was made. So, within that context,

    Yes, I would give the visually impaired and even the fully sighted a pass. But, only because I have not yet myself concluded that I can justifiably blame the defender, which is to say, the deeper I dig into the question, the more complicated it seems to become; and, at this exact moment in time, I cannot relate the complexities one to another, assign them what I consider correct relative importance, and arrive at a conclusion. Could I later not give a mistake-killing defender a pass? Sure.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 02:59 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    SNIP Another question, if a person is blindly aiming a gun in your direction, or family, will you hold back if you think they are blind?
    Hey!?! No fair adding a question while I'm busy replying to the post as it appeared before your edit!

    But, to answer your question, I guess it really depends on the situation.

    If anybody is pointing a gun a me or mine, there is going to be some sort of response from me. If they're holding a red-tipped cane or a seeing-eye dog's specialized harness, I would probably just yell, "Everybody down, the blind man has a gun." Then, try to talk that person into putting the gun away.

    On the other hand, if they've already fired a shot at me or mine, mistaking one of us for a criminal, I might just shoot to eliminate the threat.

    Why did I say "might shoot" instead of "would shoot"? It goes back to post #17 about situations being so varied. It really comes down to exactly what is happening in that moment I make the decision to not shoot/shoot.

    For example, if the visually impaired person is shooting toward me, as in firing repeatedly to eliminate the threat about which he is mistaken, then, yeah, I'm probably going to shoot back.

    Alternatively, if he fired one shot mistakenly at me or mine and is just standing there trying to evaluate the situation even while still pointing the gun, I myself would probably try to communicate to de-escalate the situation.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 03:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    I may have drifted a tad, but I am not concerned with infringement, I am only concerned with responsibility. Which is in the hands of the carrier, until they use the firearm. And with that comes ramifications, where it becomes OUR responsibility how we handle the aftermath.

    I think if we can access what a gay, or a black should do, wear, hair color, even though it does not mean a hill of beans, we can discuss responsibility for actions. Every person who carries should/must take their responsibility into account. It is on them, until we are called for jury duty.

    I can see a defense lawyer using the disability to make an argument to get their client off. In some cases such as the weak when there is a clear threat is acceptable. But if that disability is used like a LEO's qualified immunity, I have a big problem with that.

    I forgot to answer one of your questions, YES, ohhh hell yes. If the disabled person cannot perform safely a task, in no way would it be responsible for them to do it anyway.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-28-2015 at 03:47 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Of course, there is a whole other dimension to who is responsible if the blind defender's mistake is something like mistaking a comb for a knife.

    What on earth was the comber doing scaring the beejeezus out of the blind person?

    Who would be making a blind person, or anybody, so uncomfortable that a comb would then be mistaken for a knife in the AOJ* triad? Was the comber teasing the blind person? Just plain dumb and didn't see the fear in the blind person's stance and face?

    At some point, the innocent person in such a scenario may share causation for getting himself shot.



    *Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy/Intent. Three very necessary elements that must be present on the part of the attacker before the defender is legally justified in using lethal force. If you carry a gun and don't know about these three elements, you need to put finding out about them at the top of your list.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 05:55 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf
    Carrying by the legally blind?
    I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

    This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?
    There's a huge difference between being legally blind and being totally blind. "Legally blind" is a standard that prevents people from driving without vision correction and is applicable to disabilities. Medically, 20/200 vision is "legally blind".

    20/20 "Normal Vision"



    20/200 "Legally Blind"
    As one can see, although inconvenient it's not exactly a disability. One can walk around all day while being "legally blind" and not suffer unduly.


    Some cannot see facial expressions, or things in the distance, there is at least one that I know of that can't see his hands in front of his face with a CHP. A comb may look like a knife, a wallet a gun. A child pointing a finger. I am against any law limiting their rights, I am asking about responsibility. I agree with you about NYPD, apparently some of their officers are legally blind, or just incompetent.

    Let me put it another way, blind as a bat with a gun.
    I might mistake a comb for a knife, I might mistake a knife folded up in cardboard for a letter, but it you make stabby-stabby motions at me you're going to experience the joys of a sucking chest wound. (The editorial 'you', not you, of course)

    And bats have quite good vision, but their primary diet is crepuscular so they have to adjust.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 05-28-2015 at 04:15 PM.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Let me make this crystal clear, I am not talking about infringing on rights, I am talking strictly personal responsibility.
    That's good. I've recently read that when it comes to choosing how to exercise rights: "In his opinion for HIM, he does not get the choice to decide for others, opinion or not."

    It might be hard to imagine how a blind person safely uses a gun for self defense out in public. But it is hard for me to imagine how a blind person manages to navigate a busy city without getting lost or run down in traffic.

    Likewise, it is hard for me to imagine how a deaf person properly handles a manual transmission in the absence of a tachometer. I shift largely by engine sound. But the deaf manage to drive manual transmissions without tachs quite well. I imagine they are more sensitive to the engine vibrations than I am. Or maybe they manage to memorize the proper speed to up and down shift in each gear. However they do it, they manage quite nicely and it certainly isn't my place to tell them they must drive only automatics.

    (On a side note, while most of us adults figure loss of eyesight would be far more difficult to deal with than loss of hearing, I'm told that when it comes to learning in youth, lack of hearing is far more difficult to overcome than is being blind. We learn with language and our language is far more verbal/auditory than it is visual. Most of us learn letters and words through sound. To the deaf, without the connection to a sound, those letters and words are just so many scribbles on a page. Braille is a replication of printed English. ASL, in contrast, is its own language, with its own syntax. Hence, the deaf are much more a separate culture than are the blind. The blind speak English (in this country) while the deaf are much closer to speaking English as a second language.)

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    If a blind person unjustly kills a innocent person, would you give them a pass on the jury?
    I would hold them to the same standard I would hold anyone else to: Reasonable Man Standard.

    By that, I mean that if an LAC is being assaulted and takes a reasonable shot to defend himself against an actual crime that permits deadly force, but that shot misses or over penetrates and kills an innocent person, the homicide is legally and morally on the head of the criminal who caused the shot to be justifiably fired against him: felony homicide.

    If an LAC takes a shot when it is not reasonably justified (comb in hand rather than knife and totality of circumstances do not justify a reasonable man fear for life/limb), he is guilty of some crime such as negligent homicide or perhaps worse.

    So what is reasonable? Well, if a person can't see beyond 5 feet he best not be taking a shot at targets farther than that away.

    I recently went shooting with a church group. One member of the group couldn't hold the gun steady. He suffers from some form of tremors. Would I ban him from carrying a gun? No. But he best not attempt a defensive shot much beyond 5 feet because that is about the maximum range at which he can reliably hit a human sized target given his disability. For him, pepper spray may be a better self-defense option than a firearm. But he has to make that choice.

    Ditto for the blind person. Or the person who is deaf. Or the person who was tired and hungry.

    I don't drink. I know a lot of gun owners who do drink, but who won't imbibe a single drop while carrying. Utah law permits a person to drink while carrying so long as they are not over the legal limit for intoxication (0.08% BAC). I support both Utah law in this regard AND those who make a personal decision to err on the side of caution and not have a drop while carrying. If someone wants to have a drink with dinner while legally armed, I believe that is their right. While I recognize that some (cops, prosecutors, and potential jury members) might give that great weight if the person is ever involved in a questionable shooting, I'm personally not going to give it much weight so long as the person is below 0.08.

    In each case of actual or potential disability I think individuals need to weigh their relative risks and options carefully. Not everything should be dictated by law. But if I'm called on to judge a shooting, I'm going to apply a standard reasonable man test. No penalty for being disabled, but not a pass either. If the conduct would have been within reasonable bounds for a typical person exercising reasonable care, then it passes the test. If the conduct fails that test, then it fails. That still leaves the question of motive. Negligence is difference than malice.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I may have drifted a tad, but I am not concerned with infringement, I am only concerned with responsibility. Which is in the hands of the carrier, until they use the firearm. And with that comes ramifications, where it becomes OUR responsibility how we handle the aftermath.

    I think if we can access what a gay, or a black should do, wear, hair color, even though it does not mean a hill of beans, we can discuss responsibility for actions. Every person who carries should/must take their responsibility into account. It is on them, until we are called for jury duty.

    I can see a defense lawyer using the disability to make an argument to get their client off. In some cases such as the weak when there is a clear threat is acceptable. But if that disability is used like a LEO's qualified immunity, I have a big problem with that.

    I forgot to answer one of your questions, YES, ohhh hell yes. If the disabled person cannot perform safely a task, in no way would it be responsible for them to do it anyway.
    Regarding responsibility of the blind defender, I'm thinking we would need to separate responsibility into component parts.

    Now, responsibility as causation, yes, the defender fired the shot that killed the innocent. Clearly, unarguably, his bullet killed the innocent. The defender caused it.

    In regards to responsibility as accountability or blame is where I think the distinction lies.

    Now, this will probably be a bit controversial, but, I'm not so sure I have a responsibility/obligation or even a right to automatically insert myself into a situation involving a dead innocent and mistaken defender. Bear in mind I am a libertarian anarchist, so I question the power of the state to hold accountable a mistaken defender. About as far as I can go is to say that at some point it might be in the best interests of myself or others to protect ourselves against a mistaken defender shooting another innocent mistakenly at a later time. Exactly how to define that point, or how to go about reducing the risk of a recurrence, I cannot say at this point in the evolution of my thinking.

    Otherwise, in regards to accountability or blame, I can only elaborate on the complexities I mentioned at the end of post #17 above.

    For example, if a citizen makes an honest mistake simply by being human (too fearful to shoot straight), is it just to hold him accountable by punishing him? Or, does it simply double the tragedy--one dead, another's life ruined after being punished/held accountable? At this point in time, I'm inclined toward punishment being a doubling of the tragedy for a couple of reasons. First, if the mistaken defender is any kind of a decent human being, he's going to feel really, really bad about killing an innocent; and, he's going to carry that with him the rest of his life. Even if he's a gruff, I-don't-care, highly selfish sort of person, he's trapped himself in a sort of emotional hell because he can never rise above that point mentally without admitting to himself that he killed an innocent. Also, he has to spend the rest of his life expending a good bit of mental effort suppressing the anguish, avoiding the regret, I don't care how tough he talks outwardly. Second, we as a society really have no reliable way to determine whether the mistaken defender is anguished "enough" to need/deserve more punishment. Meaning, we have no reliable way to determine whether his anguish is enough to reduce the risk of recurrence. And, if we automatically punish them all, including those whose anguish is "enough", we also double the tragedy.

    Another complexity: we live in a society where government goes out of its way to claim it knows what is best for us and is the most important social institution, claiming even the right to mold behavior with tax breaks and disincentive taxes, yet it does not educate citizens on something as important as personal responsibility regarding justified lethal force. Can I really blame someone for miss-estimating his personal responsibility given the government climate on guns? Can I really blame someone for being human and not thinking through in-depth on the equation? And, none of that even explores the vast amount of wrong information out there, sometimes imparted by someone the defender respected. For example, grandpa's comment about shooting the bad guy in the yard, then dragging the body in the house. I know a blind person wouldn't do that, but you get what I mean. Maybe a better example, is police comments in the news about split-second decisions and an officer fearing for his life, without going into further detail. People are expected to hold the police in high regard. So, along comes a newscast where the department spokesman justifies the police shooting by saying the officer feared for his life. And, our blind person picks up on that, less as an explanation for that shooting, but as an explanation of the legal requirement for justified lethal force. Can I really blame the mistaken defender when government itself presents misleading justifications? And, how would I ever sort out whether the mistaken defender was telling the truth about thinking it was OK because that's what police do, even assuming he remembered getting the idea from police ten years ago, and testified to it in court?
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 05:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Both the totally blind, and the totally deaf, and those who are both, don't need "situational awareness" to tell them that someone's hands are around their throat. And in those circumstances, they don't need to be able to see the sights, nor the attacker, in order to apply muzzle to belly and pull the trigger.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I also don't see a problem with them carrying, although CC would likely be a better choice in many circumstances.

    I don't have to put up my sidearm and quite carrying if I'm walking in through an unlit park on a moonless night. At that point few people are going to have any more advantage than someone who is blind or nearly so. Also, anyone who has taken a night shooting class knows that after that first shot you are essentially blind for a bit.

    Anyone who carries and encounters a need to engage with their sidearm has to do so in a reasonable, legal and safe manner. No different if the carrier is in a wheel chair, using crutches or can't see because of a physical condition or bad lighting.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •