Jump to content

Legally Blind applying for CCL?


gregivq

Recommended Posts

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

 

 

How far was Martin from Zimmerman?

the last time I used a gun I was entirely in the air as I drew. I'd say he was closer he was in full mount.

 

That quote "your view of freedom is as pale as your skin" comes to mind. Very shortsighted :)

 

Safety is a momentary choice. Prior performance and certification are completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dog I owned for many years went blind and no one in the house realized he was blind.

 

Make a sound anywhere and his nose pointed to where the noise came from.

 

Many times when someone looses sight they somehow increase other capabilities.

 

I watched a lady (blind from birth) pick up a dress.

 

What a beautiful shade of green, I bet it will look great on me.

 

YES IT DID.

 

Darlene (the blind cousin) raised 6 children and they were always dresses correctly every day.

 

Don't ask me how she matched colored sox for 6 kids but she did.

 

If a blind person proves their capabilities why not, after all what will you do if your glasses are lost in a life pr death scuffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a huge misconception about "legally blind" as the thread title states, and the level of blindness some are inferring here.

 

Really anyone with an eyeglass prescription of -3.75 is (approximated) is at or below the vision capability of someone "legally blind" when they are not wearing their glasses or contacts.

 

The only difference is, the person with the eyeglass prescription may have a "corrected vision" at or near 20/20. While to be legally blind, one must have a "corrected vision" of 20/200 or worse.

 

There was another thread on this exact same subject, with much of the exact same points / counterpoints having been made.

 

" The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

-Steven Biko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

 

 

There's nothing in the FCCA that addresses the question. So we can fall back to the requirements of the law. If they can pass the required training course they can get their license. It couldn't be simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

Question for you, Dr. Rat. What makes a blind person's right to self-defense invalid? I would think a blind person's need for an effective means of self-defense would be even more acute, even though they would need to undergo more training to be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

Question for you, Dr. Rat. What makes a blind person's right to self-defense invalid? I would think a blind person's need for an effective means of self-defense would be even more acute, even though they would need to undergo more training to be effective.

 

 

Their right to self-defense is not invalid. The means by which they are allowed to exercise that right can and should be regulated. Of course they're more vulnerable, but if they can't identify the threat how can they deal with it?

 

I shouldn't have said it was a joke. It is an interesting question, but it just seems extremely unlikely that this is going to gain any traction with people in this state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

Question for you, Dr. Rat. What makes a blind person's right to self-defense invalid? I would think a blind person's need for an effective means of self-defense would be even more acute, even though they would need to undergo more training to be effective.

 

 

Their right to self-defense is not invalid. The means by which they are allowed to exercise that right can and should be regulated. Of course they're more vulnerable, but if they can't identify the threat how can they deal with it?

 

I shouldn't have said it was a joke. It is an interesting question, but it just seems extremely unlikely that this is going to gain any traction with people in this state.

 

If someone is trying to choke the life out of me, I don't need to see that someone in order to stop the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Question for you, Dr. Rat. What makes a blind person's right to self-defense invalid? I would think a blind person's need for an effective means of self-defense would be even more acute, even though they would need to undergo more training to be effective.

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

 

 

Their right to self-defense is not invalid. The means by which they are allowed to exercise that right can and should be regulated. Of course they're more vulnerable, but if they can't identify the threat how can they deal with it?

 

I shouldn't have said it was a joke. It is an interesting question, but it just seems extremely unlikely that this is going to gain any traction with people in this state.

 

If someone is trying to choke the life out of me, I don't need to see that someone in order to stop the threat.

 

 

But if someone is choking the life out of you, you probably don't need a firearm to stop the threat either. What of the more common situation where punches are thrown? How hard is it to disarm a blind person? What if someone knocks a blind person to the pavement in an attempt to protect them from some injury? What if a third party tries to intervene when a blind person is being attacked? I really don't think most people would be comfortable with a blind person being allowed to pull a firearm in any of these situations, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

If we're talking about the special situation of grappling (and I'm not even sure how we would get there), why not simply allow them to carry a knife or a Taser? Why should they be allowed to carry a weapon that can be lethal at considerable distances when they have no way of assessing what is located at anything beyond touching distance?

 

In a larger sense, where do we draw the line? Does a mentally disabled person with the cognitive skills of a seven year old have the right to defend herself? Does an actual seven year old child have the right? Are these even valid comparisons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Rat

 

I did not know that when you loose any part of your vision you loose your 2A rights.

 

Please show me where that is written in YOUR Constitution because it sure is not in the ones I have or read?

 

Also have you ever dealt with blind folks?

 

One I met used to climb up his 65' ham radio tower and make the necessary repairs or adjustments and Jim lived bt himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But if someone is choking the life out of you, you probably don't need a firearm to stop the threat either. What of the more common situation where punches are thrown? How hard is it to disarm a blind person? What if someone knocks a blind person to the pavement in an attempt to protect them from some injury? What if a third party tries to intervene when a blind person is being attacked? I really don't think most people would be comfortable with a blind person being allowed to pull a firearm in any of these situations, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

If we're talking about the special situation of grappling (and I'm not even sure how we would get there), why not simply allow them to carry a knife or a Taser? Why should they be allowed to carry a weapon that can be lethal at considerable distances when they have no way of assessing what is located at anything beyond touching distance?

 

In a larger sense, where do we draw the line? Does a mentally disabled person with the cognitive skills of a seven year old have the right to defend herself? Does an actual seven year old child have the right? Are these even valid comparisons?

 

Rights aren't contingent on what you or others are 'comfortable with' or the potential outcome of any of the hypothetical situations you can dream up.

 

I'm not comfortable with some people having the right to vote but I'll defend it nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question for you, Dr. Rat. What makes a blind person's right to self-defense invalid? I would think a blind person's need for an effective means of self-defense would be even more acute, even though they would need to undergo more training to be effective.

 

Come on - this is a joke. Firearms are a sight-based means of defense at a distance. No, blind people should not be allowed to carry. Some people just don't have a lick of common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

Their right to self-defense is not invalid. The means by which they are allowed to exercise that right can and should be regulated. Of course they're more vulnerable, but if they can't identify the threat how can they deal with it?

 

I shouldn't have said it was a joke. It is an interesting question, but it just seems extremely unlikely that this is going to gain any traction with people in this state.

 

 

 

If someone is trying to choke the life out of me, I don't need to see that someone in order to stop the threat.

 

 

 

 

But if someone is choking the life out of you, you probably don't need a firearm to stop the threat either. What of the more common situation where punches are thrown? How hard is it to disarm a blind person? What if someone knocks a blind person to the pavement in an attempt to protect them from some injury? What if a third party tries to intervene when a blind person is being attacked? I really don't think most people would be comfortable with a blind person being allowed to pull a firearm in any of these situations, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

If we're talking about the special situation of grappling (and I'm not even sure how we would get there), why not simply allow them to carry a knife or a Taser? Why should they be allowed to carry a weapon that can be lethal at considerable distances when they have no way of assessing what is located at anything beyond touching distance?

 

In a larger sense, where do we draw the line? Does a mentally disabled person with the cognitive skills of a seven year old have the right to defend herself? Does an actual seven year old child have the right? Are these even valid comparisons?

I agree they would be better served with a karambit. Get them knife preemption via law or ada and we can have that TACTICAL discussion.

 

But still they have a right to a gun. I don't feel comfortable with a black man carrying or a gay man he's not stable or a woman on her period or a girl after she is raped cause she may over react (I was almost killed by a Marine I was dating cause we were making out and I tickled her and she had a flashback that stuff can happen)

 

I can come up with 100+ categories I can give mechanical or statistical evidence that they are less good with a gun than me. Where does it stop?

 

48 minimum dot torture target?

 

9/10 in a 8" at 25 yards.

 

Burpees before qual?

 

Getting yelled at? Hit? Water sprayed in face? How about people that are colorblind? They don't know cops are there. How about deaf? Way more to worry about than a blind person.

 

What's the rubric here?

 

Your a very scary fudd.

 

When a girl is raped by 18+ people you going to be the one telling her its for the greater good?

 

Safety is a momentary choice. Prior performance and certification are completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Rat

 

I have not always agreed with you in the past. In fact I frequently don't agree with you but you usually make pretty fair arguments for your views and for that I give you credit. I have to tell you though my friend, you are really grasping at straws with this one.

 

Maybe, but I'm serious about those questions. As a society we've already made the decision that rights can be regulated and that some persons should not be allowed to carry firearms. Given that, how can we possibly allow someone who has a disability that keeps them from being able to use a firearm in a safe or effective manner to carry? Or is the argument that they can safely employ a firearm in a street setting?

 

I'll admit the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes. I see very limited circumstances where a firearm would be of benefit to a blind person and almost none where the benefit to that person isn't outweighed by the inherent danger to the public. This seems so obvious that I'm amazed at the number of people that disagree and feel I'm missing something basic.

 

Let's try this. Forget rights. Is it a good idea for society to allow blind people to carry and potentially use firearms in public? Does anyone want to be in the room when a blind person begins shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see limited circumstances where it may be beneficial to a blind person as well but we do agree there are circumstances where it could be beneficial. In light of that would you agree with me that we do not have the right to deny them that liberty?

 

I hope they would exercise responsibility with their rights but at the end of the day, we have the same guarantees that they will be responsible as we do with any other person walking the earth.

 

Liberty and freedom do not come without some risk of danger and not only am I ok with that, I am thankful for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dr Rat

 

I have not always agreed with you in the past. In fact I frequently don't agree with you but you usually make pretty fair arguments for your views and for that I give you credit. I have to tell you though my friend, you are really grasping at straws with this one.

 

Maybe, but I'm serious about those questions. As a society we've already made the decision that rights can be regulated and that some persons should not be allowed to carry firearms. Given that, how can we possibly allow someone who has a disability that keeps them from being able to use a firearm in a safe or effective manner to carry? Or is the argument that they can safely employ a firearm in a street setting?

 

I'll admit the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes. I see very limited circumstances where a firearm would be of benefit to a blind person and almost none where the benefit to that person isn't outweighed by the inherent danger to the public. This seems so obvious that I'm amazed at the number of people that disagree and feel I'm missing something basic.

 

Let's try this. Forget rights. Is it a good idea for society to allow blind people to carry and potentially use firearms in public? Does anyone want to be in the room when a blind person begins shooting?

 

When I was in Texas I was hanging out with a person that had a ccw permit and was totally blind. He said he would only shoot at contact. I have no issues with that. He polices himself and knows him limitations.

 

Whats next ban derringers cause they are only good in some people hands for 4 yards?

 

Obviiously you should teach them slightly differently.

 

Obviously if they start throwing sallys (loose rounds) take their permit, or jail them for public endangerment as appropriate. But to arbitrarily ban them up front is insane.

 

Now as I was saying maybe we as a forum should persue ADA argumentation that blind people are better with a knife than a gun, and that for them that is their apropriate tool for self defense and get it so they can have knife pre-emmption with a carry permit. If i was blind I"d much rather have a ring knife than a gun, however thats not universally legal in this state for them, and it should be. If I was blind and was choosing between a shivworkks class and a magpul class, shivworks would take precedence obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH a blind person might hit innocent bystanders.

 

That excuse has no legs.

 

Start paying attention to the news where the highly trained and frequently re qualified police fired 30-50 or in some cases even over 100 rounds even using an AR type weapon and NEVER hit their intended target even once.

 

Many of us have been involved for YEARS to see that everyone that can qualify can CCW.

 

Why do you wand to throw some folks back under the bus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH a blind person might hit innocent bystanders.

 

That excuse has no legs.

 

Start paying attention to the news where the highly trained and frequently re qualified police fired 30-50 or in some cases even over 100 rounds even using an AR type weapon and NEVER hit their intended target even once.

 

Many of us have been involved for YEARS to see that everyone that can qualify can CCW.

 

Why do you wand to throw some folks back under the bus?

they are closet fascists that like guns.

 

The answer is "Feels" just like the mda. What I feel is good is good what I feel is bad is bad. They just happen to like mostly what we like aka "fudds"

 

I am the only person I know with 100% hit ratio in combat 5 for 5. 3 were at a 18 wheeler with an m4. It doesn't happen often except at contact distances.

 

Safety is a momentary choice. Prior performance and certification are completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH a blind person might hit innocent bystanders.

 

That excuse has no legs.

 

Start paying attention to the news where the highly trained and frequently re qualified police fired 30-50 or in some cases even over 100 rounds even using an AR type weapon and NEVER hit their intended target even once.

 

Many of us have been involved for YEARS to see that everyone that can qualify can CCW.

 

Why do you wand to throw some folks back under the bus?

 

So your argument for blind people carrying is that most sighted people miss anyway? Isn't that justification for making the qualifying criteria stricter?

 

It's interesting to hear all the different points of view, but it's kind of silly to go on about it. I believe most people would agree that there are more effective ways for blind people to defend themselves in the limited circumstances where they might be able to do so that don't involve serious danger to other people in the vicinity. I don't see CCLs for blind people happening in this state and yes, I'm fine with that. I also don't think the seriously mentally ill, seriously mentally disabled, or children should be allowed to carry. I've never been a member of the "unrestricted firearms for everyone" camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again I will ask you how many "legally blind"folks have you known and or worked with to be so prejudice against them?

 

Why didn't you bring up this a year and 1/2 ago when the rules for the ISP were being written?

 

Have you ever mentioned this in a face to face meeting with Valinda,Todd or the other folks here that have been working for many years to get what we now have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH a blind person might hit innocent bystanders.

 

That excuse has no legs.

 

Start paying attention to the news where the highly trained and frequently re qualified police fired 30-50 or in some cases even over 100 rounds even using an AR type weapon and NEVER hit their intended target even once.

 

Many of us have been involved for YEARS to see that everyone that can qualify can CCW.

 

Why do you wand to throw some folks back under the bus?

 

 

 

So your argument for blind people carrying is that most sighted people miss anyway? Isn't that justification for making the qualifying criteria stricter?

 

It's interesting to hear all the different points of view, but it's kind of silly to go on about it. I believe most people would agree that there are more effective ways for blind people to defend themselves in the limited circumstances where they might be able to do so that don't involve serious danger to other people in the vicinity. I don't see CCLs for blind people happening in this state and yes, I'm fine with that. I also don't think the seriously mentally ill, seriously mentally disabled, or children should be allowed to carry. I've never been a member of the "unrestricted firearms for everyone" camp.

what ways? Again tactics not rights is your argument. You have no business dictating tactics through the fccl board.

 

But in a tactical discussion what's their better option?

 

Safety is a momentary choice. Prior performance and certification are completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again I will ask you how many "legally blind"folks have you known and or worked with to be so prejudice against them?

 

Why didn't you bring up this a year and 1/2 ago when the rules for the ISP were being written?

 

Have you ever mentioned this in a face to face meeting with Valinda,Todd or the other folks here that have been working for many years to get what we now have?

 

I've made accommodations for several blind students over the past 30 years. I don't believe I'm in any way prejudiced against them. It's just a simple fact that they have a disability that prevents them from identifying a target and knowing what's beyond it or even knowing what they're covering with the muzzle, which makes them inherently unsafe.

 

Why would I bring it up to Valinda or Todd? I'm not on a crusade about this, it's just a personal opinion. In fact, I doubt the issue will come up for more than a handful of people anyway, although it may have to be addressed explicitly in a future version of the FCCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Federal Farmer, July 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Federal Farmer, July 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM - No reason given

Dr Rat

Join date 14-Jan-2014

Posts 1,795

 

I am afraid a TROLL is among us.

 

It is trying to find information to use against our hard fought CCW laws.

 

What else could be here less than 7 months and have that amount of posts.

 

Time to ignore it and hope it will go away.

Link to comment

 

I've made accommodations for several blind students over the past 30 years. I don't believe I'm in any way prejudiced against them. It's just a simple fact that they have a disability that prevents them from identifying a target and knowing what's beyond it or even knowing what they're covering with the muzzle, which makes them inherently unsafe.

 

 

I'm sure you're far from prejudiced against the disabled and I understand the concern, but as a counterpoint to your statement, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be blind to be inherently unsafe. I can't remember how many times I've been muzzled by people who can perfectly see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Federal Farmer, July 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Federal Farmer, July 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM - No reason given

 

Dr Rat

Join date 14-Jan-2014

Posts 1,795

 

I am afraid a TROLL is among us.

 

It is trying to find information to use against our hard fought CCW laws.

 

What else could be here less than 7 months and have that amount of posts.

 

Time to ignore it and hope it will go away.

 

 

Now that's a well-reasoned argument.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...