View Poll Results: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    23 37.10%
  • no

    30 48.39%
  • not sure

    9 14.52%
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105

Thread: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

  1. #91
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    I agree with you on the argument, except for the part where you call the difference "substantive and substantial". The only logical reason to carry a gun in public is in order to use it in the event of an emergency. Carrying a gun in public implies the willingness to fire / discharge the gun if deemed necessary or appropriate. So while one can carry a gun without discharging it, one can not discharge a gun without carrying it. Therefore, one implies the other, and they cannot - imo - be separated distinctively.
    Honestly I am at a loss for words that you would not be able to see the differences between someone carrying a gun in your direction and someone firing a gun in your direction as quite considerable. In my mind the two are not the same--they are quite different situations.
    But, there are all types of people in the world.
    So if you say that you would just as soon have someone shoot a gun in your direction as have someone carry a gun in your direction, I have no reliable source to gainsay you.

    Please accept that the law and many other people see the difference between carrying a firearm and firing a firearm as real and meaningful. When carrying a gun toward someone is contrasted with firing a gun toward that same someone, the someones I know have a marked preference for one situation over the other. Present company excluded of course.

    I see a substantial and substantive difference between someone in my house carrying a gun and someone in my house firing a gun.
    I see a substantial and substantive difference between someone carrying a gun in random directions in a crowded public place and firing a gun in random directions in a crowded public space.
    I am not sure how to get past those sorts of niggling details.

    The law also draws a very large distinction between carrying a weapon and discharging a weapon. So I know I am not alone in seeing the difference between firing and carrying as a real and meaningful difference.

    If you doubt that people besides myself would rather be carried at than shot at, I'd be happy to start a poll to gather some DP data.
    We can see if anyone else is as indifferent as you about whether someone is toting a gun toward them or firing a gun toward them.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Not in all circumstances, ok. But, in my point of view, in the majority of circumstances, and this is exactly where regulations and laws come into play. No regulation can be perfect for each and every single case, therefore the best approach is to implement rules and regulations that cover the majority of situations, risks, etc. Does that mean some people are suffering from a regulation while they would not need to ? Yes, but that's just how it is, and what being part of a societal contract means.
    In the majority of situations where someone is carrying a weapon, they do not fire that weapon.
    So it seems the legal philosophy you described above wouldn't produce the results you're advocating. The laws would be designed around the vast majority of situations where people carry without shooting.


    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    I am sure we can find people who - after drinking 3 beers and having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit - can still operate a car very safely, with no impairment on their skills compared to being sober. They might even have better reflexes and judgement in traffic situations than other, less well versed drivers when completely sober. But that does not give them an exception from the law, and they have to follow the same rules, or risk to be penalized for violating it, even if they have not hurt or injured anyone or anything.
    You couldn't get away from argument by analogy if it were killing you, could you? It's an inherently flawed technique, imho. Analogies work better as explanations for people who already agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    I agree that being legally blind does not make someone more prone to err on the decision when to fire a gun or not. That is a complete different topic, if or if not a proper judgement is applied by any individual in such cases.
    Just like a reasonable sighted person, a reasonable legally blind person will not fire until the risks of not firing outweigh the risks of firing.
    A legally blind person has an additional, persistent set of circumstances to account for in the decision making. Legally blind folks know that they have visual issues and they are quite capable of taking the circumstances related to those issues into consideration.
    There is a smaller set of circumstances where a reasonable legally blind person should fire their weapon than there are for a sighted person.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Yet, when deciding that it IS appropriate to discharge the gun, i go back to my former argument, the risk for a legally blind person to have less control over where that shot goes is imminent, and justifies imo to ban them from carrying guns in public.
    Legally blind people can be trusted to factor their relative visual acuity into their decision making about whether or not to fire a weapon.
    I may be wrong.

  2. #92
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    03-02-15 @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Please accept that the law and many other people see the difference between carrying a firearm and firing a firearm as real and meaningful. When carrying a gun toward someone is contrasted with firing a gun toward that same someone, the someones I know have a marked preference for one situation over the other. Present company excluded of course.
    The only valid reason i see for people to intentionally carrying a gun in public, is to use it when necessary in am emergency situation.. or worst case scenario, to use it intentionally as an offense. That is my point.
    The risk for a legally blind person to fire a gun and hurt innocent bystanders is higher than for someone without visual impairment. That is my opinion.

    And none of that is degraded by the fact that guns are not always fired when carried.

    This is not a discussion on the legality of legally blind people carrying a gun in public, but if it's something that "i personally do support". And i don't.
    You couldn't get away from argument by analogy if it were killing you, could you? It's an inherently flawed technique, imho. Analogies work better as explanations for people who already agree with you.
    Of course i will not get away from arguing by analogy... why should i ? Because you don't like it ? What kind of rule is that ?
    And i don't see it a very strong argument on your end to simply ignore it, except for pointing out that such style resonates more with people who already agree with me.
    The only reason i can see to have this as the only rebuttal, is that the analogy actually is a strong argument.

  3. #93
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    The only valid reason i see for people to intentionally carrying a gun in public, is to use it when necessary in am emergency situation.. or worst case scenario, to use it intentionally as an offense. That is my point.
    So that means that you do see the difference between carrying a weapon and using that weapon?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    The risk for a legally blind person to fire a gun and hurt innocent bystanders is higher than for someone without visual impairment. That is my opinion.
    This is only true if they are taking the same shot. A legally blind person could easily choose to only fire when the chances of hurting bystanders are the same as those for sighted people.
    Blind people don't have to take the same shots that a sighted person takes. A legallyblind person could be aware that they have visual perception issues and choose to only shoot when it is appropriate.
    At least I think that they are capable of making that sort of a decision.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #94
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    03-02-15 @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    So that means that you do see the difference between carrying a weapon and using that weapon?
    Of course there's a difference. I am discussing the risk of firing a gun (and to do so, you have to carry it in the first place). A gun does not impose a life threatening risk to anyone ever if not fired.

    This is only true if they are taking the same shot. A legally blind person could easily choose to only fire when the chances of hurting bystanders are the same as those for sighted people.
    Blind people don't have to take the same shots that a sighted person takes. A legallyblind person could be aware that they have visual perception issues and choose to only shoot when it is appropriate.
    At least I think that they are capable of making that sort of a decision.
    Maybe i can put it this way (mindgame):
    You are given an exclusive, mandatory choice to position yourself right next to a target someone else is aiming at. There are 2 targets, and 2 individuals who will fire a shot on the target, one legally blind, the other visually unimpaired. The distance for both is where the legally blind is confident to be able to hit the target clean.
    I am convinced above any doubt, that if honestly answered - without any bias or attempt to support a specific stand - just by intuition, weighing the risk, the vast majority of all people would choose to stand next to the target the visually unimpaired will shoot at.

    And that would be in a controlled environment, with no hasty decision to make by the shooter, no immediate threat that requires a sudden shot, which would impact the accuracy for both, the legally blind and the one with clear sight if it were so.

  5. #95
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Of course there's a difference. I am discussing the risk of firing a gun (and to do so, you have to carry it in the first place). A gun does not impose a life threatening risk to anyone ever if not fired.
    Imho, that's a substantive difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Maybe i can put it this way (mindgame):
    You are given an exclusive, mandatory choice to position yourself right next to a target someone else is aiming at. There are 2 targets, and 2 individuals who will fire a shot on the target, one legally blind, the other visually unimpaired. The distance for both is where the legally blind is confident to be able to hit the target clean.
    I am convinced above any doubt, that if honestly answered - without any bias or attempt to support a specific stand - just by intuition, weighing the risk, the vast majority of all people would choose to stand next to the target the visually unimpaired will shoot at.
    And that would be in a controlled environment, with no hasty decision to make by the shooter, no immediate threat that requires a sudden shot, which would impact the accuracy for both, the legally blind and the one with clear sight if it were so.
    If tried your experiment but substituted women for the visually impaired people and men for the sighted people and we the results were a profound preference to stand next to men's targets, should we remove women's 2nd Amendment rights on that basis?
    If not, why should we use that test to take away the rights of the visually impaired?

    Or would the results of your thought experiment not actually be relevant enough to use when making those sorts of decisions?
    I may be wrong.

  6. #96
    Sage
    JumpinJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-12-17 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,628

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    I'm torn on this one. On one hand if they qualify they should be able to but on the other hand, c'mon your BLIND! You want to drive too?

    "According to Prof. David Kopel of the University of Denver's Strum School of Law, in the past 25 years, 42 states have made similar alterations to their laws, changing the language to state that a sheriff "shall issue" (instead of "may issue") firearm permits to applicants without a felony record. According to Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, sheriffs may reject a permit application based on the applicant's behavior in the previous two years.
    "We don't think being legally blind is a behavior," Dorr says"

    .Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public? - Crimesider - CBS News
    Absolutely NOT! In one's own home? Maybe. But in public? Absolutely NOT! One person's rights has to weighed against another person's rights (not to be accidentally shot). He's BLIND. Sight is required to safely shoot a gun in public.

    Some limitations must be acknowledged with the loss of the senses. Sight is required to do certain things in public, so as not to endanger others. That includes driving, riding a bike on a busy city street, shooting a gun, and using a bow and arrow.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Just to note, again, as I did earlier.... LEGALLY blind does not necessarily mean "actually unable to see at all". Some people who are legally blind can see well enough with glasses to shoot accurately at typical self-defense ranges (ie rarely over 7 yards). I know such a person.


    In SC, we give them the range test. If they can shoot the required score, they get the permit. Seems fair.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #98
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    03-02-15 @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    If tried your experiment but substituted women for the visually impaired people and men for the sighted people and we the results were a profound preference to stand next to men's targets, should we remove women's 2nd Amendment rights on that basis?
    If not, why should we use that test to take away the rights of the visually impaired?

    Or would the results of your thought experiment not actually be relevant enough to use when making those sorts of decisions?
    I very much doubt that in your experiment there would be a similar as high tendency towards one over the other - and i will tell you soon why i think it wouldn't - but if it were like that, then of course this result should be used in the exact same way, and ban women from carrying guns in public.

    Now, as promised, here's where your experiment does not fit in the same way as mine does (and i think it's funny - somewhat - that YOU now are the one who argues with comparison, something you told me i should not do, except when i try to convince people who are already on my side :-):
    In my thought experiment i would expect the outcome to be realistically skewed towards the visually unimpaired, as mentioned in the previous post. And for that, i accept women and men equally as those who have to position themselves. I also would accept legally blind and visually unimpaired equally, even ONLY legally blind as the ones who have to make that choice. And i deem that in any such scenario, most people, significantly, would chose to stand next to the target of the visually unimpaired.

    Your thought experiment would only present such a clear skewed outcome, if the majority of people, based on whatever personal opinion or experience, would deem a man more likely to hit a target than a woman. i don't see any reason for this.
    One could say that men probably tend as such, for sure. (You could have - if it were only to make your point - just as easy have the women be the chosen ones in your fictive scenario. But, you had the men being more trusted. Sub-conscience ?).
    But then, if there were an equal amount of women in that sample, they would not have that bias, and would most likely then trust "their" own gender more, and select to stand next to the women's target.

    You did not even say if you agree or disagree with my predicted experiment's outcome, honestly, and unbiased.. you only changed it to something else. Why's that ?

  9. #99
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    I very much doubt that in your experiment there would be a similar as high tendency towards one over the other - and i will tell you soon why i think it wouldn't - but if it were like that, then of course this result should be used in the exact same way, and ban women from carrying guns in public.
    Imho, that's not reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    (and i think it's funny - somewhat - that YOU now are the one who argues with comparison, something you told me i should not do, except when i try to convince people who are already on my side :-):
    I was trying to point out that you suggestion as absurd.
    Apparently we have drastically different ideas about people, rights, and reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    In my thought experiment i would expect the outcome to be realistically skewed towards the visually unimpaired
    The point is that the set up you suggested relies upon the arbitrary emotional biases of humans rather than rational adjudication. I thought that re-presenting the scenario with different participants would highlight that and make it apparent to you.
    Either I failed in that regard or you find arbitrary prejudices acceptable grounds for adjudication and legislation.
    w/e. You're free to think as you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    You did not even say if you agree or disagree with my predicted experiment's outcome, honestly, and unbiased.. you only changed it to something else. Why's that ?
    Because I found it to be silly on its face.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #100
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    First this . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    why not let a blind member respond
    Then this . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I am legally blind. But I can see well enough to hit your body mass. So, in theory, I should be allowed a gun. I happen not to want one but......

    I don't think anyone should be allowed to carry a gun unless they have been qualified to do so. I personally might, or might not, be able to see the qualifying target and hit it. Or I might not. Simple to determine really.
    And ya'll wonder what brings us to this site.

    (Thanks, Speckle.)

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •