• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Should blind people be able to carry concealed firearms?

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

uncoolperson wrote:
whilea blind person with a gun is not an active threat...
But what if someone bumped into them? The gun could "just go off"! :quirky
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

Anyone ever see 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico'? Johnny Depp manages to shoot quite well with his eye balls missin!

onceupon.jpg
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

HankT wrote:
uncoolperson wrote:
i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however...
Right


uncoolperson wrote:
kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.

Wrong.
i was basing that off the few i've know... why spend a couple hundred on a tv, when you can get a radio that pics up tv?


again though it is a right, so they should get to decide for themselves... my mom doesn't carry, she likes her guns, but she doesn't think carrying one herself would be the best idea.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

uncoolperson wrote:
it's been shown that driving is not a right, it's a privilege...

also a blind person driving a car is an active threat to everyone, whilea blind person with a gun is not an active threat...

i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however... kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.
Who says driving is a priviledge? That state, of course. Big surprise... they tax the hell out of this activity.

Driving is no more a priviledge than riding a bike or skating or walking down the street. They are all means of transportation. Any activity that does not infringe on the rights of another is a right.

I don't think the analogy of blind driving is relavent to blind self-defense.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

Think about this:

What organizations exist that can trample your rights?

Once we exclude the government (lawmakers, courts and law enforcement), what's left?

Medical.

They can emergently confine you against your will for 72 hours for evaluation "for your safety" using a complicit judiciary.

They can take away your right to freedom, guns, etc. with a medical proclamation of "mental unfitness."

They can force you to take mind altering drugs and submit to psychological "re-education."

Does anybody believe that a Doctor could be found to say a visually impaired person is "physically and otherwise unfit" to own firearms?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Who says driving is a priviledge? That state, of course. Big surprise... they tax the hell out of this activity.

Driving is no more a priviledge than riding a bike or skating or walking down the street. They are all means of transportation. Any activity that does not infringe on the rights of another is a right.

I don't think the analogy of blind driving is relavent to blind self-defense.

'Driving,' the activity, is not yet taxed, though I understand Oregon is moving towards a tax on auto mileage. The impact on others is taxed and regulated, fuel consumption and hazarding others.

Here we see the divide between (paleo) conservatives and liberaltarians. The Right enumerated in the BOR, granted by our Creator, is to "peaceably assemble."

It is not peaceable to hazard another's well-being as non-motorist users of the roadway are by motorists. Motor-operators are licensed and their vehicles regulated to minimize the risk to others. The First Amendment does not say "shall not be infringed."

Damn the League of American Bicyclists for allowing this bicyclist inferiority superstition to gain currency. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. League of American Bicyclists -->LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
imported post

blind people's gun rights set presidence for all others, either they have them and we are afforded less fear of loosing ours, or they don't and we have a couple new rules that could take ours.
 

Toad

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
387
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

I think a blind are fully capable of using handgun. Could they not be effective using one as a gut gun? There is no reason to limit their rights. I remember an article a long time back of a blind guy that passed the Michigan CCW course to include the range test. To deny people their rights because of physical and/or mental attributes or deficiencies is completely wrong. Who would be next? People with Parkinson’s? How about stroke survivors? Or amputees?
Common sense is letting people make their own decisions and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of those decisions. Common sense dictates the need to continually fight the government, goups, individuals, etc that desire so deeply to disallow people from doing just that.
 

acrimsontide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
325
Location
, ,
imported post

uncoolperson wrote:
blind people's gun rights set presidence for all others, either they have them and we are afforded less fear of loosing ours, or they don't and we have a couple new rules that could take ours.
Not to say that a blind person should not have the "right" to own or carry, but would it be "responsible" for a person who could not see the target, or what is behind the target, or what is between him/her and the target to fire a weapon? What about the rights of the innocent bystanders, if any are near, to live? This is a very touchy subject. What would we, as gun rights supporters, feel if we saw a person with a seeing eye dog or red tipped cane pull a firearm from their holster and point it at someone if we were behind the target? I know that I wouldn't want to be in that position. Take this a step further and ask, would we fire a weapon in our dark bedroom if our child was sleeping in the next room directly behind our target with nothing but dry wall between us? I doubt that we would !!! Someone wrote that a blind driver was a threat to others but that a blind person carrying a weaponn might not be a threat. Well I guess that's true IF the blind person did not discharge his/her weapon but if the weapon were fired, then that person who was blind and could not clearly see his/her target would defintely be a threat. MAYBE,one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

acrimsontide wrote:
...but if the weapon were fired, then that person who was blind and could not clearly see his/her target would defintely be a threat.

And if they hurt someone, they would be punished. It is THEIR decision whether they want to take that risk or not. Aside from discharge laws in some areas, you have every right to stand outside and shoot a bullet into the air. If it happens to come back down and kill someone, though, then you are responsible.

It is their right to have every means possible to defend themselves, period.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

The only arbiter of responsibility is the tyrant. Who is the arbiter of the 'reasonable man' element of common law?

On responsibility, H. G. Rickover wrote:
Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere within a single individual.

You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished.

You may delegate it, but it is still with you.

You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest youself of it.

Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it.

If the responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else.

Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.

This also apropo re the recent USS Hampton incident.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

DreQo wrote:
Aside from discharge laws in some areas, you have every right to stand outside and shoot a bullet into the air. If it happens to come back down and kill someone, though, then you are responsible.

It is their right to have every means possible to defend themselves, period.
It is easy to demonstrate the less than 2.5 x 10^-7 (one in four million) chance of an un-aimed shot striking a human at a reasonable range. It is less easy to demonstrate that a bullet at terminal velocity is not lethal.

But during hunting season the gallus-snappers and blue-hairs wear blaze-orange, fearful of their peers and progeny.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

acrimsontide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
325
Location
, ,
imported post

DreQo wrote:
acrimsontide wrote:
...but if the weapon were fired, then that person who was blind and could not clearly see his/her target would defintely be a threat.

And if they hurt someone, they would be punished. It is THEIR decision whether they want to take that risk or not. Aside from discharge laws in some areas, you have every right to stand outside and shoot a bullet into the air. If it happens to come back down and kill someone, though, then you are responsible.

It is their right to have every means possible to defend themselves, period.

DreQo,

While I frimly believe the Founding Fathers intended thatwe have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't think any of them would think it logical that someone who could not even know what they are shooting at should fire a firearm unless in a controlled situation with someone who could see if they were firing safely. To me this would be somewhat kin to the right to free speach. We have the right to free speach but that does not extend to shouting FIRE in a theater. Also although we have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't know that we have "have every right to stand outside and shoot a bullet into the air".

This touchy issue of the blind carrying firearms is probably one on which it is best that you and I agree to disagree.
 

GunnyG

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Grapeview, Washington, USA
imported post

Been there, hit that...

56.4% NO 42.8% YES

I voted "yes".

If you lose your sight, should a state that requires permits to merely possess (like NY) be able to take away your private property? It's a felony to possess an unregistered handgun in NY. The permit to carry is also the permit to possess. NY does have a premises only permit, but that won't allow you to take it to the range, etc.

If a person loses their sight, they might (if anyone bothers to tell the DMV)lose their license to operate a car on a public street, but they can still keep their car. A 100% blind Jay Leno could drive any car inhis extensive collection all over his private property and there isn't anything the state could/should do about it.
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

acrimsontide wrote:
uncoolperson wrote:
blind people's gun rights set presidence for all others, either they have them and we are afforded less fear of loosing ours, or they don't and we have a couple new rules that could take ours.
Not to say that a blind person should not have the "right" to own or carry, but would it be "responsible" for a person who could not see the target, or what is behind the target, or what is between him/her and the target to fire a weapon? What about the rights of the innocent bystanders, if any are near, to live? This is a very touchy subject. What would we, as gun rights supporters, feel if we saw a person with a seeing eye dog or red tipped cane pull a firearm from their holster and point it at someone if we were behind the target? I know that I wouldn't want to be in that position. Take this a step further and ask, would we fire a weapon in our dark bedroom if our child was sleeping in the next room directly behind our target with nothing but dry wall between us? I doubt that we would !!! Someone wrote that a blind driver was a threat to others but that a blind person carrying a weaponn might not be a threat. Well I guess that's true IF the blind person did not discharge his/her weapon but if the weapon were fired, then that person who was blind and could not clearly see his/her target would defintely be a threat. MAYBE,one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

And HankT wrote:

One of the complicating issues that always comes up in the "Should blind guys carry a gun? discussion is what the definition of "blind" is.

Unfortunately, some people are called "blind" who still have some amount of vision.

So, it's important to make the distinction between people who are "blind" meaning they have no visual perception at all (are 100% blind) and those who are "legally blind" who have only a low amount of remaining vision.

Someone who is 100% blind should not carry a gun out in public. Not because they are blind, but because they are incompetent to use it accurately and safely in almost all situations.

Like Glen Beck said on his show today, that doesn't mean a 100% blind person can't own guns. But he's gotta keep 'em at home.

I came up with a novel solution for this dilemma (disabled person who is incompetent to deploy a gun but who still, of course, has a RKBA). A person who is disabled (i.e., 100% blind) should and who wishes to defend himself or herself should have an armed attendant asssigned to him or her for this purpose. This would be similar to other government programs for and regulations regarding disabled people. If they cannot perform certain tasks and operations that are part of their daily life, they will get assistance to do those.

Currently, there are many people who are incapableof excercising their RKBA beause they are disabled. Everyone, including the pro-gun community, simply ignores those people. It's an anamoly for the pro-gun rights side. We simply ignore them. Very ironic...



It sounds to me like some people are saying that losing one's sightequates to losing ones sense of responsibility. Surely the blind could be trained to use low-velocity ammo at contact range only (i.e. muzzle touching target:head, torso, etc.). But it seems I am hearing that because there are disabled people who can't be trusted to be responsible, we shouldn't trust any of them.

Now, where have I heard this (il)logic before...:?
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Maybe someone who holds this view could explain the position that the blind shouldn't be allowed to carry on the street, but only be allowed to be armed in their home? To me this view seems illogical, in circumstance A (the street) the blind are incompetent or too unsafe to defend themselves but in circumstance B (the home) they are competent or safer? Doesn't make sense to me.
 

GunnyG

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Grapeview, Washington, USA
imported post

For the record, I wasn't, and am notsaying that blind shouldn't be allowed to carry on the street. I never took my arguement that far. I didn't think it was necessary.

In WA, there isn't a shooting test for a CPL. In NY, there isrequired training to get licensed, but no formal shooting requirement (my instructor there had us using pellet guns in his basement). If the instructor was willing to sign off, I'm sure a blind person could be licensed. Howmany states actually make visual acuity a part of the the process to legally purchase firearms?

A more likely situation would be a licensee who loses his sight later: Does the state take away his pistol(s) because he can't use them? If NY placed a vision requirement on their carry permit process, they could revoke that permission (and force the gunowner tolegally dispose of his pistols)if the permit holder's vision degrades below an arbitrary level.

In any case, if a person uses a firearm, and injures or kills someone, they will, except inexceptionally rare instances,be taken to court. If the grand jury says it's a good defensive shoot, they get to walk free. Visual acuity won't make a difference.

It might make a bad shoot even harder to defend, but to accept thatrisk is the decision thatgunowners must decide for themselves.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

PavePusher wrote:


And HankT wrote:

One of the complicating issues that always comes up in the "Should blind guys carry a gun? discussion is what the definition of "blind" is.

Unfortunately, some people are called "blind" who still have some amount of vision.

So, it's important to make the distinction between people who are "blind" meaning they have no visual perception at all (are 100% blind) and those who are "legally blind" who have only a low amount of remaining vision.

Someone who is 100% blind should not carry a gun out in public. Not because they are blind, but because they are incompetent to use it accurately and safely in almost all situations.

Like Glen Beck said on his show today, that doesn't mean a 100% blind person can't own guns. But he's gotta keep 'em at home.

I came up with a novel solution for this dilemma (disabled person who is incompetent to deploy a gun but who still, of course, has a RKBA). A person who is disabled (i.e., 100% blind) should and who wishes to defend himself or herself should have an armed attendant asssigned to him or her for this purpose. This would be similar to other government programs for and regulations regarding disabled people. If they cannot perform certain tasks and operations that are part of their daily life, they will get assistance to do those.

Currently, there are many people who are incapableof excercising their RKBA beause they are disabled. Everyone, including the pro-gun community, simply ignores those people. It's an anamoly for the pro-gun rights side. We simply ignore them. Very ironic...



It sounds to me like some people are saying that losing one's sightequates to losing ones sense of responsibility. Surely the blind could be trained to use low-velocity ammo at contact range only (i.e. muzzle touching target:head, torso, etc.). But it seems I am hearing that because there are disabled people who can't be trusted to be responsible, we shouldn't trust any of them.


Nah, you're reading it wrong.

It's not a question of responsibility. The operative variable is not responsibility. It is competence. A 100% blind person cannot consistently, safelyand accurately determine threats, analyze self-defense situations, or target threats. Of the four rules of gun safety:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II:
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY


RULE III:
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV:
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

the person who is 100% blind cannot possibly consistently follow Rules II and IV. It's impossible for them to do itexcept in a few very restrictedsituations. The world is a bad place and certainly is a lot more complicated than the few very restricted situations that a 100% blind person might be able to handle.

A 100% blind person is simply not a safe entity in ordinary public spaces. Too much complexity exists.

Same as a100% blind person is not capable of driving a school bus full of children on a suburban school route. It's not bad, or anything. Just the way it is.

Would you send your kid off to school in a bus driven by a100%blind person? No?How'd you like to have your daughter, mother or sisterget shot in the head from a stray bullet fired by a 100% blind person who was "defending" himself against a bad guy or a perceived bad guy?



longwatch wrote:
Maybe someone who holds this view could explain the position that the blind shouldn't be allowed to carry on the street, but only be allowed to be armed in their home? To me this view seems illogical, in circumstance A (the street) the blind are incompetent or too unsafe to defend themselves but in circumstance B (the home) they are competent or safer? Doesn't make sense to me.
The view, as you describe it is quite illogical. But I don't think anyone has expressed that illogical view here. Who do you think has proferred that view, longwatch?
 
Top