QKShooter

Oh so we should all wear Kevlar Helmets and Body Armor so that sightless people can defend themselves out in public with firearms?

Remember the old saying:
Your constitutional right to swing your arm ends exactly when your fist contacts my face.


"Strictly speaking, eyesight is not required to use a gun."

I know and that is why some of the worlds very best Skeet, Trap, IPSC and Biathlon shooters are all totally blind.

Oh wait a minute...Why are there no blind competitive firearm shooters?....because....because...they simply cannot tell...and have absolutely no control over where their fired projectiles are going to go.
They cannot aim at anything.

That is reason enough for me to say no sightless folks on the public streets with firearms for self~defense.

__________________

Support Our Military.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

azchevy

I don't care who you are, you cannot properly identify threats and non threats if you are blind. This guy isn't the daredevil. If he wants protection get a big dog and have a family member who carries with you in public.

__________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke

ccw9mm

The BG is the one knocking you about the ears. Up close and personal, it's hard to mistake the BG, blind or not.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

BIG E

Sorry, I can't get on board with this. Why would we be happy that a blind man has a permit to carry? A blind man is the last person that I would want to see carrying... ok well second to last. First is a BG.

Maybe I am wrong here, but the whole "trust me I will be shooting at point blank range" just doesn't do it for me.

Kinda like saying "I am blind, but I will only be driving to the store and back... it's real close to my house".

IMHO.

__________________
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!

-- Theodore Roosevelt --

azchevy

If the BG is close enough to knock you about the ears you are already doomed, especially if you are blind.

__________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke

ccw9mm

Well, for someone who's blind, that's the choice. I'd think of knife would be far more appropriate, given the reach/range and related issues (yeah, like bystanders such as me). But I'd much prefer someone with close-quarters competency to be armed than be denied the right to self-defense.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

me

See Rule #4
Where is your target? Did I hit you then move are you gonna shoot grandma who bumped into you cause she was rude and you cant tell the difference between that and an impending attack.

NO WAY. This is bad for the safety of all. This guy would end up killing someone he should not... just wait and it will happen.

__________________
Mark

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

-James Earl Jones

stanislaskasava

Touche. However, this isn't a 'smart contest' and I stand by my post.

Hmm, I think you are making my point for me, even if inadvertently. This blind guy should have the right to 'swing his arm', i.e. shoot a gun to defend himself.

He doesn't have the right to shoot innocent bystanders, but neither do you or I. That would be the 'fist contacting your face.'

If he shoots and hits the bad guy then hopefully all is well. If he hits nothing then at least he tried. If he hits granny then he has some explaining to do.

He has to play by the same rules as everyone else. The difference is... there are only a very few situations in which he may feel confident in shooting. If someone is stabbing him in the stomach, I say he has the right to grapple with them and shoot them point blank. I would not recommend that he shoot unless he is sure of his target and feels the need to defend himself.

Enough wisecracks about alcoholic skeet shooters. He's not drunk and he isn't trying to shoot IDPA or bullseye.

I'm not trying to be a troll. My point is that he has the right to carry a firearm only to use in the very rare circumstance in which he could use it with certainty. I don't think he's planning on shooting at the sounds of danger like Danny Glover in 'The Color Purple'.

Are you really so afraid of a blind man that you would maybe change the 2nd Amendment to '...shall not be infringed, unless you are blind'?

Our God given rights should not be bent so easily.

ccw9mm

Only at distance, and I'd hope anyone with limited vision would be waiting for the BG to be right there, given the realities.

But, at close-quarters / contact distances, grappling, knife-work or a gun will be just as risky as with anyone else. At that point, under such tight circumstances, speed and violence of response will weigh very heavily in the fight.

The risks are clear. Anything beyond contact distances is a huge risk for bystanders, sure. Not in question. All in all, I'd think someone with limited vision would find a knife acceptable. But then we're speaking of rights, here. I'd prefer the gov't not being able to disapprove of someone having a gun simply because of this. The fact is, if shot at any distance and someone got hurt, that person would be on tap for a whole truck load of trouble. As it should be. There's the built-in limiting factor.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

rfurtkamp

"..shall not be infringed."

Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

We're talking about denying this man his *rights* here.

If he does a bad shoot, he's liable, same as any of us.

I'm not going to take his rights away because of fear of what he *might* do - or else I might as well be in bed with Sarah Brady.

__________________
Driver carries less than $45 worth of remorse.