Should the blind be able to own firearms?

originally posted by: Bigburgh
Wow! OK.. sure. Point where the sound came from...

Next thing you know.. your hailing Stevy Wonder for a cab...
Everyone has a right to protect themselves...

But there needs to be some qualifications first... christ.. give the guy with Parkinson's access to the nuke button!

So a shotgun is useless to a blind person when defending their own home?

originally posted by: eisegesis
A question to all who think they shouldn't own a firearm...

What if their rights were limited to inside but not beyond the wall of their place of residence?

They are probably very acutely aware of their surroundings and could defend themselves quite well if they had the upper hand.

Intruders want to play with fire so...

My answer is still, "No." They cannot 'know' what is beyond their target. This is a violation of the basic tenets of discharging a firearm.

No ... no ... no!! LOL

originally posted by: Snarl
No.

Anything past that answer is simply making excuses.

Wow, I hope you don't live in United States. I would hate to see you involved in politics. Owning a firearm is an American Citizens right. All rights should be applied equally to ALL Americans and then it becomes the responsibility of the gun owner to act with due dilligence.

originally posted by: FireflyStars

originally posted by: DenyTreason
Why not ask if the the blind should be able to use appliances, or a pocket knife, or a tool of any sort.

Should the blind not operate a stove? Should they not be allowed to walk across a road? Or have a TV?

Very ignorant post.

None of those things launch deadly projectiles. Sorry.

Only criminals use firearms to launch deadly projectiles to harm others.

Are you suggesting that blind people are dangerous criminals?

a reply to: eisegesis

Statistics say that most shots fired miss their mark. And thats with eyesight and training.

But when they do fire, even at an armed suspect, there is often no one returning fire at the officers. Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time.

source

Theres a reason gun sights are so necessary.

a reply to: Snarl

No ... no ... no!! LOL

You said it. Its laughable to imagine a blind person banging away in their dark.

How about they have a right to own but not a right to discharge the firearm simply because they can not possibly do so safely.

eisegesis, simple experiment. Get a nerf gun, a volunteer, and a blindfold. Have fun.

The amount of training you need to hit a sound reliably is staggering and that is when you have no threat to contend with. Add a bloodstream surging with adrenalin and see how you go.

That is the real problem. I could defend myself with a 12 gauge. Enter the smallest bedroom in the house, close the door, point toward the door way and wait.

There are still a lot of things that can go wrong including the next person, say a Police Officer, checking the house.

Just too many things to go wrong. Too many ways for the bad guy to bluff. What do you do when someone yells out "Police."

How do you tell if it is the Police or if the bad guy is still there.

What if it is your child and you blast the sound, "mommy".

P

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: DenyTreason
Why not ask if the the blind should be able to use appliances, or a pocket knife, or a tool of any sort.

Should the blind not operate a stove? Should they not be allowed to walk across a road? Or have a TV?

Very ignorant post.

Cover your eyes for an entire day, no peeking, then come back and answer.

But hey, lets be PC and give em all cars and hey, why not pilot's licenses.

Ignorant? Hmm.

P

Are you suggesting that the blind should not have the right to defend themselves like the rest of us? If attacked in close quarters, they surely do not need eyes to protect themselves with a firearm. In addition, their heightened senses (from being blind) are much more accurate than the sight of those bodyguards and armed security of the gun grabbing politicians which we have today trying to disarm law-abiding citizens.

a reply to: DenyTreason

Accidents happen, and no it wouldn't make them criminals. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort and I won't engage in back and forth like that. I said once - I'm not ripping on anyone.

My response to you was a simple fact. Guns launch deadly projectiles. Tools and TVs don't.

The blind could not transition safely to gun ownership at this time. I encourage rational response to this opinion.

We are blinded by our "freedom". Freedom isn't irrational, it's a carefully maintained balance.

no.

originally posted by: FireflyStars
a reply to: DenyTreason

Accidents happen, and no it wouldn't make them criminals. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort and I won't engage in back and forth like that. I said once - I'm not ripping on anyone.

My response to you was a simple fact. Guns launch deadly projectiles. Tools and TVs don't.

The blind could not transition safely to gun ownership at this time. I encourage rational response to this opinion.

We are blinded by our "freedom". Freedom isn't irrational, it's a carefully maintained balance.

Cars are deadly projectiles as well. Should "stupid" people not own cars? Because stupid people can do a lot of damage and death with an automobile. there are a LOT of stupid people in this world.

Do you see the silliness of your resasoning yet? Or must we go on?

And cars are NOT a RIGHT for Americans, but firearms ARE A RIGHT for Americans.

Interesting video. They didn't seem to do very well. As for letting them own one, I think that would be scary. I'd let one shoot one. I'd let one drive, too. That is as long as we were in a place where the car couldn't run into anything.

That said, there are some blind people that might be able to pull it off:







They get by using a form of echolocation.

So, based on a lot of answers here: If you're blind, you loose your right to the 2nd Amendment.

So John Smith, law abiding citizen, who own legal fire arms, has an accident and becomes blind.

Now what? Now the police break down his door and take away his fire arms?

Should they take his car away too? A boat he might own?

I'm not sure if it's a good idea for a blind person to be using a fire arm. Then again, I'm not going to step up and say: "Hey, sorry. You're blind, so the constitution of the US no longer applies to you."

Start there and where does it stop? Take the car away because, you know, they might try to drive themselves instead of asking a friend to.

Better get that chainsaw too.

Seriously though, last I looked, the constitution doesn't mention an exception to blind people. Nor is being able to see a requirement here in my state in order to make a fire arm purchase.

a reply to: DenyTreason

You must pass a licensing test to legally operate a motor vehicle. To use your term "stupid" people with presumably low IQs shouldn't be allowed. Well, people suffering from a mental deficiency that would impair their driving in theory would not pass the exam. A blind person would not pass this test because they are IMPAIRED. That is reality. They cannot see where they are pointing things except under extraordinary circumstances like echolocation which has extremely limited range.

Cars were not designed to kill people. If we put violent crime perpetrated in a vehicle against gun violence the statistics are more realistic.

People kill people with guns, but that doesn't make guns safe for all.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Snarl

No ... no ... no!! LOL

You said it. Its laughable to imagine a blind person banging away in their dark.

Can you see in the dark? Bet ya they are better... I would go with a short 12 gauge...don't need to aim very much...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Seeing in the dark is not the same thing as legal blindness, not even close.

a reply to: eriktheawful

The question is, would they become collectables after the accident or would (I'm assuming) you still support their right to discharge one in self defense?

originally posted by: FireflyStars
a reply to: DenyTreason

You must pass a licensing test to legally operate a motor vehicle. To use your term "stupid" people with presumably low IQs shouldn't be allowed. Well, people suffering from a mental deficiency that would impair their driving in theory would not pass the exam. A blind person would not pass this test because they are IMPAIRED. That is reality. They cannot see where they are pointing things except under extraordinary circumstances like echolocation which has extremely limited range.

Cars were not designed to kill people. If we put violent crime perpetrated in a vehicle against gun violence the statistics are more realistic.

People kill people with guns, but that doesn't make guns safe for all.

Guns are not used by law-abiding people to "kill people", we have NO USE to do so in owning a firearm. Criminals use firearms to kill people and such felons are NOT legally able to purchase a firearm under the law.

And there are reasons for owning a firearm such as hunting, target practice, etc, etc, not for "killing people" as you think firearms sole purpose is for.

And again I am sure a blind persons heightened senses to protect themselves in close quarters exceeds that of the armed security of the damn gun grabbers that wish to disarm the American law-abiding public.

Would you like for blind people to also give up using steak knives too?

I would not care if they owned guns as collectors pieces, but I see that as a very small slice of this demographic and that would open the same can of worms.

A person who was a responsible gun owner before blindness will have a much better grasp on safely handling that item but I still do not advocate them firing.

A gun requires vision to safely use unless there are extraordinary circumstances or it is restricted to a safe, supervised area.

I would have to say, Yes, AS LONG AS they are not a danger to themselves or others.
That should cover it, sure!