Blind guy gets handgun permit. - Page 2

QKShooter · May 16th, 2007, 02:10 PM

I'm all for human beings with less than all 5 senses doing whatever it is they want to do as long as it's not a potential danger to other innocent persons.

So...my intention is not to "rock the boat" in this thread by voicing unreasonable concerns.

Hey I would be all for a person with no arm/hands using a firearm with his feet for self defense as long as he could identify his intended target and scope the environment.

Some things just require an acceptable level of eyesight - our most important sense. That's just the way it is for now until advanced technology might overcome that obstacle .

I have nothing personal against sightless folks but, I would not ever get operated on by a blind heart surgeon either - and no matter how great and sophisticated auto-pilot may be I would not fly in a commercial jet liner with a blind pilot and co-pilot.

Sorry - Call me a closed-minded mean guy...it's OK.

Bob The Great · May 16th, 2007, 02:10 PM

I'm interested to know what these special rounds that he uses are, and just what their limitations are. For now, though, I'll take them at face value, and assume that they are only lethal at contact ranges.

Quote:

McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters.

I have no problem whatsoever with a blind person utilizing lethal force to defend his life, as long as he understands the situations in which he may responsibly use it. This goes for any of us, btw; the only difference is that he has different requirements to ensure a good shoot.

Let's change the weapon a bit. Let's say that he chooses to carry a fixed blade fighting knife and trains to be competant with it. If he is responsible about his threat assessment, how would this be any different than a pistol using contact-range ammo?

QKShooter - Your example of the good samaritan can be applied to any one of us, if we're taken by surprise. Are you prepared to give up your right to defend yourself just in case you are surprised and make a bad call?

This guy is not Helen Keller. He has other senses, he's clearly intelligent and able to function in the world, and he should be allowed to protect himself using the most effective weapon he can responsibly use. Now, he absolutely does have different requirements than us. But if he can use his weapon responsibly, I see no reason for him not to carry it.

azchevy · May 16th, 2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rstickle

The only question I have right now is was he given a chance to show his skills on the range as required by the law?

Sorry, two questions......... How'd he do?

Answer those and then come back and discuss whether he gets a permit. I've seen blind folks do some amazing things using sound as a substitute.

Standing in front of a paper target that is a set distance away and discerning between a threat and an innocent in a slow motion, adrenaline pumping moment with no eyesight are two different things.

Captain Crunch · May 16th, 2007, 02:36 PM

I agree with QK and azchevy on this.

Life dealt Mr. McWilliams a bad hand by robbing him of his sight. That's unfortunate, but *stuff* happens, and we just have to accept it. Mr. McWilliams has obviously not come to grips with this fact.

Shooting a firearm, driving a motor vehicle and performing surgery all require visual acuity to be accomplished safely. A blind person cannot do these things. They say that loss of sight enhances & strengthens the other senses. Does Mr. McWilliams want us to believe he can identify a deadly threat by sound or smell?

Quote:

"The shooter at Virginia Tech had really good eyesight and he killed 32 people."

So what?

Quote:

"If I use a gun it will be at point-blank range, period,"

How will Mr. McWilliams know it will be at "point-blank" range? By hearing? By touch? By the BG's body odor?

Quote:

"It's nobody business that I'm blind,"

Oh, yes it is.

Quote:

"But never fear, with my extensive experience in firearms, I have take all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of others."

He's blind, and he takes "all reasonable measures" to ensure the safety of others? Oh, please.

No, Mr. McWilliams, you cannot, and should not, carry a firearm because you cannot do it safely and responsibly. You are deluding yourself by thinking you can.

Janq · May 16th, 2007, 02:53 PM

Agreed QK Shooter.
Common sense needs to prevail here, this is not about restricting peoples freedoms. It's a matter of public safety.
I'm sure he does not have a motor vehicle operators license either and that would be for good and plainly obvious reasons.

- Janq

QKShooter · May 16th, 2007, 02:58 PM

"McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters."

And what rounds might those be?

Sorry, but, it "feel good" sounds fantastic "on paper" but, just does not fit into the real world.

In the one scenario that I have presented above a sighted individual with any degree of decent situational awareness would (through sense of sight) auto-factor in the immediately transpiring events and that would be "key" to reacting correctly.

So you are saying that human beings take NO visual cues in reacting to a potential immediate deadly threat and vision is totally irrelevant and that positive target identification is totally unnecessary?

That's a new wrinkle on me.

PcMakr · May 16th, 2007, 04:20 PM

I'm afraid I have to go with the negative response with the permit also. Too much of our situational awareness is dependent upon visual as well audible clues. Granted he would probably best us in the audible and other senses such as smell. Years ago, I went to high school with a girl that was totally blind, and she could ride a bike down the street even avoiding cars parked along the curb. But she only rode in her neighborhood residential streets where others knew to watch for her as well. She did not go into busy areas.

I think that a much better alternative for this gentleman would be a stun gun for real close contact or a Taser for a little more distance. In most cases they aren't lethal but will stop the aggressor. If he misses, he will not injure or kill someone an unknown distance away. If he accidentally hits an innocent bystander, they will generally only experience a truly shocking experience.

Tom G · May 16th, 2007, 04:27 PM

The blind have other senses to rely on and this guy has taken a lot of precautions to make sure he dose not harm anyone by only shooting at very close ranges with reduced charges. If nothing else he can scare the BG off. I'm glad he got a permit From Utah.

peacefuljeffrey · May 16th, 2007, 05:02 PM

I'm with McWilliams. He seems to be giving proper assurance that he understands his limitations and would not be a danger to anyone just by having a gun and a permit to carry it.

I'll be he's real pleased about being in Bowling for Columbine, though. . .

Pete · May 16th, 2007, 05:11 PM

My guess is he'll never fire it, he'll brandish it.

Not a good scenario for anyone to be in but especially for him as he might stand more chance of having the gun wrestled off him.

But he still gets my vote for trying, I hope he has a long life and never hurts anyone who doesn't deserve it.

May 16th, 2007, 02:10 PM	#11
QKShooter Assistant Administrator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Off Of The X Posts: 19,810	I'm all for human beings with less than all 5 senses doing whatever it is they want to do as long as it's not a potential danger to other innocent persons. So...my intention is not to "rock the boat" in this thread by voicing unreasonable concerns. Hey I would be all for a person with no arm/hands using a firearm with his feet for self defense as long as he could identify his intended target and scope the environment. Some things just require an acceptable level of eyesight - our most important sense. That's just the way it is for now until advanced technology *might* overcome that obstacle . I have nothing personal against sightless folks but, I would not ever get operated on by a blind heart surgeon either - and no matter how great and sophisticated auto-pilot may be I would not fly in a commercial jet liner with a blind pilot and co-pilot. Sorry - Call me a closed-minded mean guy...it's OK. __________________ Support Our Military. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 16th, 2007, 02:53 PM	#15
Janq VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,882	Agreed QK Shooter. Common sense needs to prevail here, this is not about restricting peoples freedoms. It's a matter of public safety. I'm sure he does not have a motor vehicle operators license either and that would be for good and plainly obvious reasons. - Janq __________________ "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post

May 16th, 2007, 02:58 PM	#16
QKShooter Assistant Administrator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Off Of The X Posts: 19,810	"McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters." And what rounds might those be? Sorry, but, it "feel good" sounds fantastic "on paper" but, just does not fit into the real world. In the one scenario that I have presented above a sighted individual with any degree of decent situational awareness would (through sense of sight) auto-factor in the immediately transpiring events and that would be "key" to reacting correctly. So you are saying that human beings take NO visual cues in reacting to a potential immediate deadly threat and vision is totally irrelevant and that positive target identification is totally unnecessary? That's a new wrinkle on me. __________________ Support Our Military. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 16th, 2007, 04:20 PM	#17
PcMakr Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Kansas Posts: 90	I'm afraid I have to go with the negative response with the permit also. Too much of our situational awareness is dependent upon visual as well audible clues. Granted he would probably best us in the audible and other senses such as smell. Years ago, I went to high school with a girl that was totally blind, and she could ride a bike down the street even avoiding cars parked along the curb. But she only rode in her neighborhood residential streets where others knew to watch for her as well. She did not go into busy areas. I think that a much better alternative for this gentleman would be a stun gun for real close contact or a Taser for a little more distance. In most cases they aren't lethal but will stop the aggressor. If he misses, he will not injure or kill someone an unknown distance away. If he accidentally hits an innocent bystander, they will generally only experience a truly shocking experience.

May 16th, 2007, 04:27 PM	#18
Tom G Distinguished Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Orlando Fl. Posts: 1,309	The blind have other senses to rely on and this guy has taken a lot of precautions to make sure he dose not harm anyone by only shooting at very close ranges with reduced charges. If nothing else he can scare the BG off. I'm glad he got a permit From Utah.

May 16th, 2007, 05:02 PM	#19
peacefuljeffrey VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: south Florida Posts: 3,169	I'm with McWilliams. He seems to be giving proper assurance that he understands his limitations and would not be a danger to anyone just by having a gun and a permit to carry it. I'll be he's real pleased about being in Bowling for Columbine, though. . .

May 16th, 2007, 05:11 PM	#20
Pete Ex Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,572	My guess is he'll never fire it, he'll brandish it. Not a good scenario for anyone to be in but especially for him as he might stand more chance of having the gun wrestled off him. But he still gets my vote for trying, I hope he has a long life and never hurts anyone who doesn't deserve it.