Should blind people be allowed to buy guns?

I'm cool with it, but I'm cool with compulsory armament of the populace.
Who is more defenseless and in need of personal protection? What scoundrel would prevent a handicapped person, likely of low income and living in a less-than-genteel area, from being able to defend himself from thieves, rapists, murderers, pranksters?

How about if we issue them extremely low power, short distance range?

Also, as any reader of that "The Armed Citizen" collection of news stories in the NRA knows, in most cases the mere display of a firearm causes assailants to flee and no rounds need to be discharged.

Lastly, the blind have some sight. They are severely impaired but almost all have some degree of usable vision. They can make some things out. They are not in a world of total blackness.

I judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. We should empower them, not make them defenseless.
 
JimmyRustler said:
Blind is not a binary condition. Without my glasses or contacts I am "legally blind." The government has no business getting involved in this. I mean seriously, how many people have been killed by blind people wielding sniper rifles? Name 5 and I'll consider your proposal.

And no, I'm not going to read the article because the HuffPo is shit.
Click to expand...
You can still see. It's completely different than someone who cannot see, ever, under any circumstances.
 
Okay, since reading comprehension is a bit low here today, I'm going to have to admit that the PC term of visually impaired is actually more accurate.

Most blindos do not have missing eyes or disconnected optic nerves. Degenerative conditions mean that they can see to some extent, just not enough to really function well. They see with very little light getting in, hideously out of focus, with obstruction, etc. Few are at the state where you can go shining flashlights in their face and waving hands around without some visual input reaching them.

So anyway, you're in a dark room lit by a candle, and there's a lace curtain over your head. Do you think you could effectively use a sidearm against someone rousting you in this condition?
 
OfficePants said:
Solution here is to go fully automatic
Click to expand...
I'm thinking semi-auto at best. Preferably single shot.
250px-Musee-de-lArmee-IMG_1038.jpg
 
Is a quadriplegic prevented from buying and carrying firearms? Is a double amputee prevented from owning a gun?

From the outside looking in, what is to be gained by preventing blind Americans from owning and carrying firearms? You hold dearly to your right to bear arms even if it is a manipulation of what was originally set out by the founding fathers.

Surely there are other areas to focus on?

As JimmyRustler stated what numbers are we talking about in terms of the visually impaired accidentally shooting themselves or others?

Seems spurious to me
 
thruth said:
From the outside looking in, what is to be gained by preventing blind Americans from owning and carrying firearms...even if it is a manipulation of what was originally set out by the founding fathers.
Click to expand...
Surely the well-regulated militia has a use for the blind.
 
thruth said:
Is a quadriplegic prevented from buying and carrying firearms? Is a double amputee prevented from owning a gun?

From the outside looking in, what is to be gained by preventing blind Americans from owning and carrying firearms? You hold dearly to your right to bear arms even if it is a manipulation of what was originally set out by the founding fathers.

Surely there are other areas to focus on?

As JimmyRustler stated what numbers are we talking about in terms of the visually impaired accidentally shooting themselves or others?

Seems spurious to me
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but if you can't see where you're shooting, or even be able to hold a gun, then you should not be owning a gun. Why can't it be that simple?
 
So almost everyone can own a gun in America except people who break certain laws and this varies by state.

So every other upstanding American has "the constitutional right to bear arms" whether the constitution meant that or not.

Now some want to ban ownership because of a physical affliction in an otherwise law abiding citizen. First you have to round up every possible affliction and malady that might preclude someone from gun ownership.

So where is the cutoff. Legally blind or Stevie Wonder blind? What if someone has night blindness? Can they only own a gun during daylight hours?

Of course I am being facetious but I find it interesting that this debate would happen versus the one that could occur about the loophole allowing fully automatic weapons to be constructed by you if you just buy mail order parts and drill a few holes.

Gun debate is a no-win proposition. Those that want them badly enough will find a way to acquire then by any means no matter how stringent the regulations.

Focusing on low hanging fruit is pointless.

On one hand I can say that why would a blind person or a quad or a double amputee need a gun.

It is not a debate about need. Given your founding tenets it is about the right to own. It gets ugly after thatthat
 
Seems the NRA was trying to take down the video from their website. Odd that they'd want to scrap that.
 
Rambo said:
I'm sorry, but if you can't see where you're shooting, or even be able to hold a gun, then you should not be owning a gun. Why can't it be that simple?
Click to expand...
The blind can certainly unholster a weapon and point it. Law enforcement do low-light firearm training. This is not magic. Can you take a pen from your pocket, uncap it, and scrawl your name on something without looking? Of course.

If the blind want to do competitive shooting at a distance under controlled circumstances, that's the range's issue. Presumably this is for personal defense from an immediate threat. That means less than arm's length. Can you punch in the dark? Do it with a pistol in the hand and a finger on the trigger.

Let's pretend the two guys in that cement block video were not thieves but innocent blindos being assailed by ruthless droogs. You don't thing they could pull a gun and use it to their advantage?
 
Last edited:
JimmyRustler said:
Because the government shouldn't be passing laws that do not address an important societal need. As blind people are not shooting innocent people the law is unnecessary. Full stop.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if they're blind, how would they know whom they are shooting at?
 
Thanks JimmyRustler for reading those and seeing the hypocrisy.

The original Huff post article and the others referenced within play on "blind" but except for quoting Stevie Wonder, we are talking about visually impaired which is a continuum from mild to severe. But if you say legally blind, you don't have the same grab to your story. The writer wants people to believe that full on, sightless people will be making a run for the gun store causing panic in the streets. Same for the NRA who want to spin the story that upstanding, non-criminal, law abiding Americans will be stripped of their constitutional rights. Throw in the ADA, which basically forces society and companies to accommodate a whole range of fucked up maladies and you have a sensationalized story where there should not be one at all.

Whether you are for or against gun control, this kind of story treats people like idiots.

In the same breath, why are they not talking about taking guns away from people who already had them before visual impairment?

An idiot with a gun is an idiot with a gun. Having visual impairment doesn't raise the likelihood of gun mishaps or crime.

Either make it harder for everybody to get guns or shut the fuck up.

Canada spent $2B on a gun registry that was so fucked up that it was shelved. Of course the government did not destroy the data. When there was massive flooding in Alberta 2 years ago, the cops went house to house looking for stranded people. At homes where they knew there were guns, the kicked in doors, jimmied locks or brought in locksmiths to not only get inside but to open locked gun cabinets and removed the weapons for "public protection". They also lied and said all the weapons were just laying around unsecured.

No matter what stupid legislation is enacted anyone who wants a gun badly enough will get one
 
As much as I legitimately do think that even the severely disabled have a right to self-defense with deadly force, I must admit that this topic seems a bit like the outrageous demands of the Occupy Wall Street crowd: they are overstating their position in order not to get chipped away at with bargaining and compromise.
And seeing how I have no-faith that the anti-gunners* will ever be happy so long as a civilian has a .22 plinker locked away somewhere,I think one would be foolish to argue with them in good faith. They don't do it. They just chip away and always want more (well, less for you).

*Correction: I prefer the term civil rights violators or anti-constitutionalists.
 
I didn't realise there were stupid threads here that weren't about clothing. Tempting.
 
Anyway - I'd let Stevie Wonder have a gun. Mainly because of his services to music. I'd let him do anything. No one else though.

I'd be secretly hoping that Stevie would take the gun, loaded, along to some wankfest with Apple and U2. I'd be hoping U2 were standing close together and he could identify them by their accents or droning "music". I would not be all that disappointed if he afterwards opened up on the Apple executives.
 
Truly amazed this thread developed legs, and even moreso that there was some actual debate.
 
The title should really be "have" and not "buy" guns.
I doubt many blindos are seeking out firearms, but the real question is, at what point in a person's debilitation does some self-righteous authoritarian elitist do-gooder feel entitled to infringe on his civil liberties and personal safety because the gun-grabber was denied the chance to shoot as a child and is thus a-scared of the big bad mysterious guns?
 
No, the premise was always "buy". If a blind person gets a gun as a gift, then so be it. But if the walk into a store to purchase one and tell the clerk "I'm legally blind and cannot see" then there should be something going on.
 
Ultimately, isn't this sort of a variant on dram shop law where one could hold the seller responsible if proven that they provided for a thoroughly incapacitated person and this proved reckless?

I mean if blindo comes stumbling through the store and walking into walls, nobody should sell to him. If a slowly doddering cane gent can make his case and present himself as a responsible and capable person that can be trusted to work a dangerous tool, one should be able to use their judgement in selling to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom