I personally think they should be allowed, although they could have difficulty knowing their backstop. This picture, however, is just funny. He's aiming AWAY from the target.
Printable View
I personally think they should be allowed, although they could have difficulty knowing their backstop. This picture, however, is just funny. He's aiming AWAY from the target.
would they personally be "driving" to the gun shop?
Shotgun?? :blink:
I actually know someone who is legally blind that shoots guns. He is about 70% and can see out of the side of his vision.
I always wounder about that. My banks drive through has Braille too...Quote:
Originally Posted by MSGTTBAR
My instructor and owner of the company taught a blind man to shoot for self-defense purposes. While I don't know the details of how he did it, self-defense is in-close-and-personal so I think the concept was he wouldn't be shooting at distant noises. I don't have a problem with this.
I don't find anything wrong with it, fundamentally or morally. I think I would raise a stink if he was denied his right to own weapons.
I think there was a long thread on a similar article a ways back here somewhere...anyone care to help me out?
edit: Found it...I think:embarassed:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ighlight=blind
This older thread is closed now, but it should give you more insight into the discussion that raged on about a similar case.
I also feel the need to reference this video link(it should be kid-safe):
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/779704...o_of_the_year/
After watching the video...watch it again and pay particular attention to around the 15 second mark...what's the kid doing? HITTING EVERY MOVING TARGET in the room(among other things).
The Force is strong in this one !
Own guns for target shooting or other supervised things, sure. Concealed carry for protection, no way! No one should shoot if they can't obey the golden rules of shooting. If you're blind, you can't identify your target or know what's beyond it.
Of course! How else can they hunt?
BTW, there is a legal provision that passed in Texas this year to allow blind hunters to use laser sights IIRC, with sighted human guidance.
MI allows blind hunters to use a laser and a buddy to hunt as well.
Or is pummeling you to the ground I think even a blind man knows what and where his target is. Self-protection would of course have to be within arms length not long distance in this situation. Even the blind have a right to self-protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkvibe
Denying blind people the means of defending themselves is unthinkable. Period.
With regard to the "Golden Rules of Shooting", in this special, highly unusual case they can go to hell; the blind person in question would not be refusing to safely identify his target and what is beyond it, but unable to through no fault of his own. Provided such shooters receive as much training as possible and exercise good judgment in every way they can, they have as much right to attempt to defend themselves as anybody else.
If, God forbid, there were to be an incident where an innocent person was shot by a blind carrier trying to defend himself from a violent attack, the culpability of said carrier would be no greater than that of one of us missing an attacker in the course of fighting back and striking someone we couldn't see behind a bush, wall, curtain or other obtacle.
Whether the defensive carrier is blind or not, one is, or should be, expected to do one's very best not to harm innocent bystanders in the event of having to use the gun. It's simply that a blind person's "best" is not going to be nearly as satisfactory as a normal person's "best". However, this is no reason to prevent such citizens from carrying.
Not only could it be argued that blind people face many of the same threats that seeing people do, but it is a fact that a certain, putrid segment of the criminal population relishes victimizing the disabled - whether they are blind, mentally retarded (someone's going to ask me now if I support the mentally handicapped's carrying, I know it :rolleyes:), physically disabled or else. In this sense, I feel it is especially important that blind people have all the protection they possibly can. The more unpleasant surprises for the low end of the gene pool, the better.
Better check the definition of "legally blind"!
Here in MA (don't know if it's the same in every state), 20/400 or worse is "legally blind". That means that they still can have sight, but it may be poor.
We sighted folks think of "blind" meaning absolutely no sight at all, but that is not what it means in most cases.
And yes, as long as they can safely do so, they should have every right to defend themselves with a firearm.