• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    47
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

You could make lines all day but the blind could not see them! Warning; do not mess with that old blind guy,,he will start shooting!
 
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.
 
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.

Now tell me,,should the blind not vote too? I know about blind archers,,,,OK! Now,,on to protecting our lives here? The blind have no less rights afforded by the document than anyone else! If HE/SHE chooses to purchase and carry or have it in their home? Now tell me? Would you TELL THEM THEY CANNOT HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SEE?
 
As a starter: the question was: should blind people be allowed to carry guns "in public" ?

Then, i don't think ANY private person should be allowed to carry a gun in public.
Neither do i believe that the 2nd amendment does provide that right to anyone... and it actually never did, prior to 2008, when the current SCOTUS in a controversial 5-4 landmark decision changed the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it stood in the 200 years before that ruling.
And i don't understand why people always freak out when other people talk about "regulating" the right to bear arms - as it is literally stated in the 2nd amendment - and see that as an attempt to take guns away from them.
Regulating the issuance of guns / gun permits is - imo - a very reasonable and logical thing to do, as a lot of other things are regulated on a federal level. The 2nd amendment explicitly gives that right to bear arms to "a well-regulated" militia... without even arguing that barely anyone who's carrying a gun does so for that "militia reason"... to have that right "well regulated", should not be deemed unconstitutional by anyone.

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.
When one starts making the same argument when it comes to the carrying - and potential usage - of a gun... it's an infringement on their constitutional rights, their freedom, and their equality.
So yes, i would ABSOLUTELY tell them they cannot have a gun because they cannot see.
 
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 understand the definition the question often doesn't apply.
 
that's a silly reference to advocate for legally blind people running around with guns in public.
If you were suddenly struck blind, would you still be as sane and responsible as you are now?
 
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.
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.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that a blind person cannot be trusted to behave responsibly enough to use a firearm when the risks of using the firearm outweigh the risks of not using one. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that a blind person would use a gun when it was not appropriate to do so. But, you're not making the necessary compelling argument for this premise. You seem to be asking us just to assume this with you.
But in my anecdotal experience, blind people are not any more likely to be reckless than sighted people.
A compelling case you may be able to make is presenting data which shows that blind people are more irresponsible or more reckless than the general population. Otherwise, it seems "completely normal" to assume that blind people understand the inherent risks of a firearm combined with poor visual acuity.
Do you have some reason to think that blind people are confused about or unaware of the risks of being blind and having a gun?
You seem to make the case that these risks are painfully obvious. Yet, you may also be saying that blind folks cannot see these risks.
So finish up and explain about how it is that blind folks are not able to be trusted to behave responsibly.
 
So finish up and explain about how it is that blind folks are not able to be trusted to behave responsibly.

My argument is is that blind people who do behave responsibly, would not even consider to carry a gun in public. 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). They are able to distinguish the use of a sports gun for target shooting in a controlled and secured premise, for sports and recreation purposes, from the grave danger that a loaded gun, activated for use in public, puts bystanders into in general, and even more so if you do not see where you're pointing you're gun at.
For the same reason they would not consider, as responsible individuals, to drive a car in public, they would not carry a gun in public either.
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.
 
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).
You are saying that there are no possible situations wherein a person with limited visual perception could use a firearm responsibly?

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.
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.
 
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.

So why again do blind people usually don't drive cars on public streets ?
 
So why again do blind people usually don't drive cars on public streets ?
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.

Do you need me to point out differences between driving and carrying a weapon? Or can you come up with some on your own?
If you can come up with some,please do. That's all it takes to overcome argument by analogy.

If you find carrying a weapon to be identical with driving, let me know, and I will offer up some differences for you.
 
Do you need me to point out differences between driving and carrying a weapon? Or can you come up with some on your own?

No need to be condescending, i assume both of us educated and intelligent enough to see the obvious differences between the 2 activities.

For the argument's sake, the "overlapping" entities of both are the ones prevailing. In both cases, the visual impairment is an added risk when performing either activity. So in both cases, the activity should be banned in support of the overall safety of society, or should be allowed in either case, since it's deemed either not a high enough risk, or an unfair restriction of rights for the legally blind.
And while for the activity of driving a car, banning this for the legally blind is - or at least seems to be - a shared concept, you think this safety concept should not be enrolled towards the handling of a loaded gun in public. I think it should be.
 
No need to be condescending, i assume both of us educated and intelligent enough to see the obvious differences between the 2 activities.
What I wrote reads as more harsh than I intended. Sorry about that.

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.
Without reason to believe that people who are blind are more prone to err in this decision, the case has not been made that there is an increased risk with blind people carrying a firearm.
It stands that people who are legally blind are just as capable as sighted people of making the decision about whether or not shooting is appropriate in a given set of circumstances.

Discharging a firearm is not an explicitly protected Constitutional right.
There are already along list of laws and restrictions on discharging a firearm.
These laws, rules and regulations already apply to legally blind folk.
In civil matters, there already exist mechanisms for considering the extra liability / recklessness of discharging a weapon in circumstances where visual perception is limited.
Further legislative action in regard to people who are blind carrying firearms is unnecessary.
 
I voted "no" based on these simple assumptions.

If you're carrying a gun then the assumption is you'll use it if the "need" arises.

If you can't tell what's on the other side of your target, you shouldn't be shooting at anyone.

So yes - a legally blind person might be able to "see" their target if the target is with some defined distance, but they sure as hell can't tell what's just beyond that distance.

Therefore - my vote is "no".

I will say I'm not educated on the exact definition of "legally blind" and I would consider a case-by-case basis for some situations, but as a broad and open rule I'm comfortable with my vote.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
 
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.

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.
:shrug:

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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'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

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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.

(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.

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.

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.
:shrug:
 
First this . . .

why not let a blind member respond;)

Then this . . .

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.)
 
Back
Top Bottom