in those competitions the legally blind has audio guides that tell him how he's positioned towards the goal he's trying to hit... that's a silly reference to advocate for legally blind people running around with guns in public. The blind archer would not know if someone is standing between him and the "artificial", already dead sports target he's trying to hit, for a start.
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?:lol:
"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
If you were suddenly struck blind, would you still be as sane and responsible as you are now?that's a silly reference to advocate for legally blind people running around with guns in public.
Ftr, argument by analogy is often only useful or compelling to people who already agree with you. Otherwise, pointing out the differences between the actual case and the analogous case is all that is needed to refute the argument by analogy.It seems to be completely "normal" for everyone, that blind people should not drive cars, because it would be way too dangerous, to themselves, and more so to others.
So finish up and explain about how it is that blind folks are not able to be trusted to behave responsibly.
You are saying that there are no possible situations wherein a person with limited visual perception could use a firearm responsibly?They are well aware that their physical impairment does not allow them to handle a gun in a controlled manner in an uncontrolled environment (which, an immediate threat situation would represent).
Which brings us back to the question of whether or not blind people are as responsible as sighted people. I won't deny that some blind people are irresponsible. But in my experience, so are some sighted people. Unless there is some reason to find that blind folks are not as responsible as sighted folks, they should enjoy the same rights as their sighted counterparts.The question if there's need for regulation to officially ban legally blind people from doing so (carrying guns in public), addresses the irresponsible gun owners, those who do not judge properly the danger they put others into.
Unless there is some reason to find that blind folks are not as responsible as sighted folks, they should enjoy the same rights as their sighted counterparts.
Ftr, argument by analogy is often only useful or compelling to people who already agree with you. Otherwise, pointing out the differences between the actual case and the analogous case is all that is needed to refute the argument by analogy.So why again do blind people usually don't drive cars on public streets ?
Do you need me to point out differences between driving and carrying a weapon? Or can you come up with some on your own?
What I wrote reads as more harsh than I intended. Sorry about that.No need to be condescending, i assume both of us educated and intelligent enough to see the obvious differences between the 2 activities.
Being visually impaired does not increase the risk associated with carrying a weapon. Lack of visual perception only increases risks in regard to firing the weapon.In both cases, the visual impairment is an added risk when performing either activity.
Being visually impaired does not increase the risk associated with carrying a weapon. Lack of visual perception only increases risks in regard to firing the weapon.
It's obvious that the differences between carrying and discharging a weapon are substantive and substantial. Let me know if you disagree.
Diminished visual perception does not increase the risk of shooting in all circumstances--e.g. when the muzzle in contact or nearly in contact with the target.
For certain people who are legally blind [see definition upthread] the range where there is no extra risk extends beyond point blank range.
Thus there exist legitimate and reasonable situations where someone with limited visual acuity could responsibly pull the trigger.
There has been no reason presented to believe that people who are legally blind are more prone to err than people who are not legally blind when making the decision to fire or not.
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.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.
In the majority of situations where someone is carrying a weapon, they do not fire that weapon.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Legally blind people can be trusted to factor their relative visual acuity into their decision making about whether or not to fire a weapon.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.
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.
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 ?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.
So that means that you do see the difference between carrying a weapon and using that weapon?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.
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.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.
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.So that means that you do see the difference between carrying a weapon and using that weapon?
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.
Imho, that's a substantive difference.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.
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?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.
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?:lol:
"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
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?
Imho, that's not reasonable.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.
I was trying to point out that you suggestion as absurd.(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 :
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.In my thought experiment i would expect the outcome to be realistically skewed towards the visually unimpaired
Because I found it to be silly on its face.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 ?
why not let a blind member respond
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.