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?
