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...:?