Carrying by the legally blind?

WalkingWolf said:

Let me make this crystal clear, I am not talking about infringing on rights, I am talking strictly personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

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.)

WalkingWolf said:

If a blind person unjustly kills a innocent person, would you give them a pass on the jury?

Click to expand...

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

WalkingWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Remember that a significant reason to impose punishment is to deter others from similar conduct. I don't believe every honest mistake warrants criminal sanctions. But at some point recklessness and negligence warrant some level of punishment if for no other reason than to send the message to others that some minimum level of diligence is required. Really, even if the motive is outright malice, we impose punishment partly as deterrent to a repeat of the conduct either by the individual or by others.

Where the line should be drawn is the difficult thing. To look at areas other than firearms: a homeowner who diligently secures his swimming pool should not be held to account because some kid climbed over his 6 foot fence to go pool hopping and ending up drowning. Frankly, anyone who can reliably climb a 4 foot fence should know better than to do so and be held to account for himself. Does a single instance of forgetting to lock the gate rise to the level of criminal? Probably not. But what about a well known pattern of leaving the gate unlocked? Or refusing to fence the pool at all? Sure, nobody should trespass. But "attractive nuisance" is not an unreasonable legal concept.

Citizen said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece. When it comes to self-defense one shouldn't need a host of legal advice or calculations to know where reasonable man limits are. Any mature adult with a functioning moral compass should understand pretty well where legal limits ought to be when it comes to use of deadly force.

Is a person legitimately, reasonably in fear for his life or limb? Is the threat imminent? Can he respond with deadly force in self-defense without creating an excessive risk to others? Moral men understand the difference between self-defense in the moment and vigilantism.

Moral men don't shoot someone over simple, peaceful, trespass. They don't use deadly force over stolen lawn ornaments. And they don't hunt someone down to impose "justice" (so called) for some past offense or perceived future offense.

There are some jurisdictions with requirements on use of deadly force that grossly exceed what a man's good sense and conscience might tell him. A duty to retreat from one's own abode is such a law. Gun registration or carry permits are others. These laws need to be repealed, juries need to nullify. But these laws do not change a man's moral obligation to limit his use of deadly force to those times when it is truly, morally, required.

If a man is malicious, if he is grossly negligent or reckless, then punishment is warranted to encourage both him and his fellows to avoid such conduct.

The criminal justice system is far from perfect; mistakes get made. But I don't see that elimination of the system is going to be better than what we have, and certainly not better than what we can have with continued efforts to improve legislation.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

SNIP Remember that a significant reason to impose punishment is to deter others from similar conduct.

Click to expand...

Goodness gracious. Now, when I wrote that post, I figured that the next paragraph would pretty much take care of the question of deterrence. I figured most readers would look at things in the next paragraph like government not educating people on the details of justified lethal force, and the police giving out misleading information about justified lethal force when they explain away a police officer's shooting by saying he made a split-second decision, and/or "feared for his life"...I figured that most readers would understand that atmosphere would pretty much undermine deterrence since deterrence requires knowledge. But, I can see I was wrong in figuring that.

So, I can see I will have to add to the non-deterrence angle.

We don't see many cases where a defender mistakenly shoots an innocent. In fact, I went most of my adult life not knowing the details of justified lethal force. I didn't turn up almost any of my knowledge on the subject until after I decided to carry. How various cases prior to that were supposed to deter me from making a mistake is beyond me. I didn't learn about the possible mistakes until I started reading on the subject. On my own sense of personal responsibility, thank you very much. Prior to that, the only thing I had that could be confused with deterrence was gun safety from a Boy Scout class I took as a kid. And, even that was not deterrence--I already didn't want to accidentally kill parents or a buddy, whether by reckless gun handling or anything else. And, that class did not include anything at all about being prosecuted for recklessness if I accidentally shot someone for a reckless violation of the safety rules. Being a minor or otherwise.

So, there is hardly any effective deterrent against mistakenly shooting an innocent. Certainly not anywhere near the common knowledge that stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, arson is wrong. In fact, I would stretch a little further, perhaps erroneously, and suggest the only deterrence is being applied to the people who don't need it--the people who already felt enough responsibility to learn from the past mistakes of others and learn the fine points of legally justified lethal force--ability/opportunity/jeopardy-intent, imminence of threat, disparity of force, and so forth--by going out and looking it up.

utbagpiper said:

SNIP I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece. When it comes to self-defense one shouldn't need a host of legal advice or calculations to know where reasonable man limits are. Any mature adult with a functioning moral compass should understand pretty well where legal limits ought to be when it comes to use of deadly force.

Is a person legitimately, reasonably in fear for his life or limb? Is the threat imminent? Can he respond with deadly force in self-defense without creating an excessive risk to others? Moral men understand the difference between self-defense in the moment and vigilantism.

Moral men don't shoot someone over simple, peaceful, trespass. They don't use deadly force over stolen lawn ornaments. And they don't hunt someone down to impose "justice" (so called) for some past offense or perceived future offense.

Click to expand...

So, I'm not a reasonable man for thinking beyond the superficial?

Am I not moral for recognizing there is much greater depth to the question?

Am I immoral for recognizing that I have a responsibility to get it right when it comes to judging another and punishing him for a mistake about justified lethal force?

Taken altogether your post sounds like a man trying to defend his position when I didn't even attack it. I made it very clear that my questions and attitude were for myself, things I had not yet fully decided. There is not one ounce of criticism of other posters ideas of responsibility/accountability except what you read into that post yourself.

Citizen said:

So, I'm not a reasonable man for thinking beyond the superficial?

Am I not moral for recognizing there is much greater depth to the question?

Am I immoral for recognizing that I have a responsibility to get it right when it comes to judging another and punishing him for a mistake about justified lethal force?

Taken altogether your post sounds like a man trying to defend his position when I didn't even attack it. I made it very clear that my questions and attitude were for myself, things I had not yet fully decided. There is not one ounce of criticism of other posters ideas of responsibility/accountability except what you read into that post yourself.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing context here, but I see nowhere that Charles attacked you or accused you of being unreasonable, inmoral, etc-

I didn't read it that way. More like a different angle to the question.

As far as the OP goes, I've actually had the same question.

I'm inclined to agree with some here, that while those of us that are not blind may not realize it, or understand, a blind individual has increased other senses, such as hearing and proprioception, etc.

I see no moral reason that a blind person cannot carry a firearm. If anything, I would think a blind individual would be more at risk than anyone else. And when someone attacks you, a person to person conflict may take away any need to have sight when you are in physical contact with the person. Sure, they may not know what is beyond their target, but I don't see any moral reason as to why they should NOT.

That being said, if I were blind, I would likely go with a good combat/pocket knife for hand to hand combat.

J_dazzle23 said:

Maybe I'm missing context here, but I see nowhere that Charles attacked you or accused you of being unreasonable, inmoral, etc-

Click to expand...

So, you didn't see the criticism on my libertarian anarchistic attitude? And, don't bother trying to ameliorate his comment. I made almost no comment about government--he clearly brought that concept to this table from another thread:

"I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece." (emphasis by Citizen)

I say again, he sounds like a fella defending a position I did not criticize. I made it very clear in those earlier posts I was speaking about my own attitude; he brought to the table himself (he read it into my post himself) anything more.

Citizen said:

So, you didn't see this criticism on my libertarian anarchistic attitude? And, don't bother trying to ameliorate his comment. I made almost no comment about government--he clearly brought that concept to this table from another thread:

"I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece." (emphasis by Citizen)

I say again, he sounds like a fella defending a position I did not criticize. I made it very clear in those earlier posts I was speaking about my own attitude; he brought to the table himself (read it himself into my post) anything more.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Well I didn't really see it as attacking- perhaps a bit of an assumption of your stance based on earlier exchanges.

Either way- I don't think his actual contribution to the thread was meant to attack you. I could be wrong.

Citizen said:

So, you didn't see the criticism on my libertarian anarchistic attitude? And, don't bother trying to ameliorate his comment. I made almost no comment about government--he clearly brought that concept to this table from another thread:

"I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece." (emphasis by Citizen)

I say again, he sounds like a fella defending a position I did not criticize. I made it very clear in those earlier posts I was speaking about my own attitude; he brought to the table himself (he read it into my post himself) anything more.

Click to expand...

I respect you a lot, but it appears you have not learned what UT agenda is. I will never, ever respond to one of his mullet fish on a hook again.

J_dazzle23 said:

Gotcha. Well I didn't really see it as attacking- perhaps a bit of an assumption of your stance based on earlier exchanges.

Either way- I don't think his actual contribution to the thread was meant to attack you. I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Alright. I can see thinking that.

I would invite you to read again the second part of his post #26.

For convenience, here it is again:

I'm afraid that your view of government is coloring your view to the extent you are missing a simple but critical piece. When it comes to self-defense one shouldn't need a host of legal advice or calculations to know where reasonable man limits are. Any mature adult with a functioning moral compass should understand pretty well where legal limits ought to be when it comes to use of deadly force.

Is a person legitimately, reasonably in fear for his life or limb? Is the threat imminent? Can he respond with deadly force in self-defense without creating an excessive risk to others? Moral men understand the difference between self-defense in the moment and vigilantism.

Moral men don't shoot someone over simple, peaceful, trespass. They don't use deadly force over stolen lawn ornaments. And they don't hunt someone down to impose "justice" (so called) for some past offense or perceived future offense.

There are some jurisdictions with requirements on use of deadly force that grossly exceed what a man's good sense and conscience might tell him. A duty to retreat from one's own abode is such a law. Gun registration or carry permits are others. These laws need to be repealed, juries need to nullify. But these laws do not change a man's moral obligation to limit his use of deadly force to those times when it is truly, morally, required.

If a man is malicious, if he is grossly negligent or reckless, then punishment is warranted to encourage both him and his fellows to avoid such conduct.

The criminal justice system is far from perfect; mistakes get made. But I don't see that elimination of the system is going to be better than what we have, and certainly not better than what we can have with continued efforts to improve legislation.

Click to expand...

Now, I've already addressed the fact that his opener, "I'm afraid your view of government is..." is a criticism. But, also look at his closing sentence, "but I don't see that elimination of the system we already have..." No where in this thread did I mention we should do away with the existing system, certainly not in the part he quoted. Where in the hell did that come from? Why, he brought it to this thread himself from another thread, of course.


The crux is Utbagpiper's comment about the reasonable man standard. By saying in so many words that I was not including it in my calculation (because of my attitude toward government), the logical extension of his argument is that I myself am not being reasonable in reasoning further beyond the reasonable man standard he introduces but does not particularly define. While I myself expressly explore, with reason thank you very much, very detailed points about holding another accountable.

And, of course, his assertion about morality. By offering contradictory commentary, he strongly implies that my questioning aloud whether it is moral for me to hold another accountable under the circumstances I describe falls short of his vague description of morality into which he does not go into detail. He resorts to generality without refuting or repudiating my detailed points.

So, while I do understand how a fella could walk away from his post with the impression he wasn't criticizing my position (that I expressly made very clear applied to myself), I would invite you to read his post #26 again and evaluate it for why he was saying it, what he said, and what he could have said but didn't.

WalkingWolf said:

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?

Click to expand...

I do apologize, I didn't realize that until after I had already posted.

What I would say is that whatever is the case, it should apply equally to all persons. LEOs, citizens, both with and without handicaps...

If a blind person unjustly killed an innocent person, and I was on the jury for their trial, I can't imagine just giving them 'a pass.' They should be held accountable and to the same standard as others, I believe. I think, perhaps, a person's basic responsibilities do not increase or decrease depending on physical handicaps, just what their efforts must be in order to meet those responsibilities. Obviously it may be more challenging for a handicapped person to handle a firearm responsibly. I don't believe they should necessarily to absolved of their responsibility just because they have a physical handicap. I also don't believe it should be assumed that they can't handle the responsibility just because they have a physical handicap.

Hopefully this post is more on point than my previous one. It still probably doesn't offer any original insight, but since I was already apologizing for missing the point initially I figured I'd just jabber a bit on topic.

Citizen said:

So, I'm not a reasonable man for thinking beyond the superficial?

Am I not moral for recognizing there is much greater depth to the question?

Am I immoral for recognizing that I have a responsibility to get it right when it comes to judging another and punishing him for a mistake about justified lethal force?

Click to expand...

I said NOTHING about you personally except your view of government.

My point is that I don't think mature, moral men need the formal education you claim government must provide before government can justly impose punishment for grossly negligent, reckless, or malicious behavior.

Citizen said:

Taken altogether your post sounds like a man trying to defend his position when I didn't even attack it. I made it very clear that my questions and attitude were for myself, things I had not yet fully decided. There is not one ounce of criticism of other posters ideas of responsibility/accountability except what you read into that post yourself.

Click to expand...

And the only thing I criticized of your post was the conclusion you drew about government having some responsibility to educate the populace about proper use of deadly force before imposing criminal penalties. Minus grossly unjust laws limiting rightful self-defense, decent men KNOW what is proper and what isn't relative to use of deadly force just as you recount you largely knew instinctively, long before you studied laws.

Please stop assuming that every disagreement with your views is a personal assault on your honor.

When I call you a liar, or a troll, (as several folks have taken to doing to me recently), or tell you your position is morally reprehensible, then I am attacking you and your honor. I don't believe I've ever done any of these things to you; and most certainly not in this thread.

Deepdiver read my post correctly.

Charles

Citizen said:

... government not educating people on the details of justified lethal force, and the police giving out misleading information about justified lethal force when they explain away a police officer's shooting by saying he made a split-second decision, and/or "feared for his life"...

Click to expand...

Several folks want to lump cops and LACs together and threat them exactly alike. While I agree that bad cops too often get protected behind the thin blue line and qualified immunity, I have to point out again that LACs are not cops.

We are encouraged to run away from trouble. Even here among ourselves, we are encouraged to de-escalate and retreat from any and every situation that might turn violent if we reasonably can.

We don't get sent out to arrest violent men who really don't care to show up for court. We don't arrest "suspects"; we are thrilled if bad guys leave us alone or if they quickly flee should they make the mistake of starting something.

We don't investigate crimes and gather evidence that violent men would really rather not have gathered.

We don't make routine traffic stops or even have any job description to stop to help a stranded motorist, in the middle of the night, 100 miles from the nearest town where the guy behind the wheel might be wanted felon who really doesn't intend to go back to jail.

Cops shouldn't get a pass on bad conduct or negligence. But--lack of requirement to provide protection to any specific individual notwithstanding--their job description pretty much requires them to get into situations that most LACs prudent avoid. That has to be taken into account somehow.

Charles

WalkingWolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2EXWzMV18

google "blind golfer." http://www.blindgolf.com/

The responsibility falls squarely on the citizen to exercise his right to self defense (RKBA?) so that that citizen mitigates, to the maximum extent possible, the potential of causing harm to innocents. Physical ability to effective employ a firearm is increased with training.

Separately, Consider the use of the below:

"Any mature adult with a functioning moral compass should understand..."

"Moral men understand the difference between..."

"Moral men don't shoot someone over simple, peaceful, trespass. They don't use deadly force over stolen lawn ornaments. And they don't hunt someone down to impose "justice" (so called) for some past offense or perceived future offense." (Rooted in the Individual rights v. government intervention thread.)

Many of utbagpiper's posts devolve to the use of these phrases when he believes he has suffered a slight. The use of "moral" and "mature."

I don't know about anyone else, but I know a insult when I read one...even when directed at another citizen.

OC for ME said:

Separately, Consider the use of the below:

"Any mature adult with a functioning moral compass should understand..."

"Moral men understand the difference between..."

"Moral men don't shoot someone over simple, peaceful, trespass. They don't use deadly force over stolen lawn ornaments. And they don't hunt someone down to impose "justice" (so called) for some past offense or perceived future offense." (Rooted in the Individual rights v. government intervention thread.)

Many of utbagpiper's posts devolve to the use of these phrases when he believes he has suffered a slight. The use of "moral" and "mature."

I don't know about anyone else, but I know a insult when I read one...even when directed at another citizen.

Click to expand...

I'm going to walk off topic for this post and hope that Grapeshot will indulge me this once:

I think there is a degree of "look for the insult and you will find it" occurring. I don't have a dog in this fight in that yes, there are certain posters I enjoy reading more than others but there are few I generally dislike but even they, on occasion, offer a perspective of value if for no other reason than they cause me to examine my personal biases. But we are all adults and have to stand by or take the consequences for what and how we post. I have been on OCDO since near the beginning and have never blocked any member (not that I have not been tempted). I have never been personally insulted by anything Piper has posted. I have disagreed but I have never read/taken him to be generally insulting to OCDO members. Piper and a few other members I really enjoy have gotten sideways several times. I try to stay out of those incidents which is sometimes difficult because I often see them as talking past each other instead of to each other but how does one defend both sides without appearing as an appeasing tool.

There isn't anyone posting in this thread who I find to be a jerk poster. For a few examples: I often find myself in agreement with both Piper and Citizen to varying degrees - go figure. One is more pound the historical record and the way it should be the other is more working within the existing framework but I know from posts and PMs that they both love freedom and are here for the same reasons most of us post and both have made me think and pursue more knowledge. I suspect Walking Wolf and I, in person, would exchange pleasantries and expletives, but I would love to meet the man and hear his passion face to face and am sure I would leave a wiser man.

I'm not saying "can't we all just get along" but am suggesting that if we seek out the insult, we will find it whether intended or not. /off topic

OC for ME said:

Many of utbagpiper's posts devolve to the use of these phrases when he believes he has suffered a slight.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

OC for ME said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I know a insult when I read one...even when directed at another citizen.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know an insult; or are overly sensitive. When I take to insulting Citizen, nobody will have any room to question whether it was or wasn't an insult. Others read my post correctly as the non-insult it was intended to be. It wasn't an insult.

Charles