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.
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.
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.