Should Blind People have a right to Own Firearms?

[dzelenka]

I think many of you are missing the point. This is the question: "Should a blind person have the right to own firearms?" The answer must unequivocally be yes. It is his RIGHT, not a privilege. Anyone who is focusing on the blind person's ability to safely use the firearm, is taking the first step to a competency test for ownership. I know I can pass, how many of you can? Why do you think there is such a huge fight over licensing requirements? Because, if the government is able to decide who gets to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Does anyone recall poll taxes and literacy exams to vote? Amazing how many poor and minority people didn't happen to pass. None of this is to say that the firing of a firearm by an unaided blind person is not gross negligence per se (it may or may not be), but he/she has the right to own one. Like I said using it subjects him to the reasonable man test concerning negligence should another person be injured. If he uses it negligently, he must pay for the damage he causes.

I once read a story that took place in Britain. A WWII veteran of the British Army had an Enfield Sniper rifle that he had carried in the war. It was properly registered and he shot it at the range for years. When he reached his 80s, the gov't decided he was too old to own the rifle and ordered him to demil it. Do you want them to have that sort of power over your rights? (seems like a violation of the US 2nd and 5th Amendments). The story may or may not be true, but is should be a lesson to all of us. If through some accident, I lost my sight, I wouldn't want some gov't employee taking my collection and my memories.

Dan

 

[Nolacopusmc]

For the purposes of this poll, we will define blind as the fact that they cannot see well-enough to drive and are legally and clinically blind. Blind. Can't see ****. Can't see their hand in front dey face. Couldn't see a pecker in pile chickens. Blind. Got it?

And when we say own, we are talking about functional firearms that they keep on hand with the intent to use for personal defense.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/...820019/-1/LIFEFRONT/+A+blind+man+and+his+guns

Obviously some people on here are blind too....Turn in your firearms.

While the fault probably lies with me and the way I worded the question, though I thought I was clear, I think everyone knows they DO HAVE THE right.

WHat I am referring to is SHOULD they have the ability maybe, to wantedly go around carrying the firearm the same as you and I?

Blind is the handicap of the day on this one, and I think when it comes to shooting, there are some obvious differences in potential issues with a blind guy shooting a gun and a deaf guy doing the same.

What if he has narcolepsy or asbergers, or any other impairment where he temporarily loses control of his mental and / or physical control. Does this not present issues for weapon retention and security? It is not that I think a blind guy is going to wildly shoot into a crown or someone with epilepsy will whip it out and start randomly firing like a retard, but certain conditions present certain realistic problems for the consistent safety and security of firearms.

I KNOW THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AND BELIEVE THEY SHOULD!

I agree 100% with what DZelenka and others have posted.

However, the topic of discussion, is that grandmother or grandfather with dementia, god bless them, have issues beyond all their noble intentions.

What do you think about that? It is not as much a possession issue as a use issue.

 

[spanky]

I don't have a problem with a blind person having a firearm but, when he puts it down somewhere will he be able to find it again?

You can't be serious.

 

[spanky]

Thank you for saying what I was too lazy to type.

I also think that people over the age of 80 should take yearly sight and reaction tests to maintain their drivers license. Once you become an obvious danger to others, it's time to let someone else do the driving. I support the 2A, but I don't support stupid - and that's what letting a 100% blind man is doing.

If you feel differently about the debate, we can do an experiment. I'll stand in a room full of people with a blindfold on. 10 yards away will be a boom box with the sound of someone talking. I'll start firing where I THINK the sound is coming from. Hopefully no one would die, but that wouldn't be entertaining at all.

Common sense, I learned it at a young age.

You don't know any blind people, do you? I guarantee a blind person could not only walk straight to the boom box but turn it off too.

 

[oleheat]

Some might be surprised to know just how aware of their surroundings some people blind from birth actually are. Many of them make up (somewhat) for their lack of sight through their other senses....

How impossible is it to envision a blind person who's being assaulted using a "mouse gun" (Ruger LCP, for instance) to stop a violent attacker that has them in their grasp?

If a person with sight is assaulted in a very low-light situation, and their artificial light source is lost in the struggle (or cannot be accessed in time), should they at that moment be legally obligated to submit?

 

[honestlou]

If we want to remain a "free" country, limitations on that freedom should be based on past actions or demonstrable danger to others, not on status.

 

[dzelenka]

Like I said, firing it without "supervision" may be negligence per se. If they do anything in a negligent manner that injures another, they are liable for damages.

The dementia issue is different. If granny has dementia to the extent that she cannot handle her own affairs, there are mechanisms whereby a 3rd party (usually a child or spouse) can have her declared incompetent and take over her affairs for her. At that point the court appointed guardian may make decisions for the person with dementia, including about her firearms. This places the impaired person in much the position of a child vis a vis his parent.

A blind person operates under no such mental infirmity and will be held responsible for his decisions and actions. One who owns a firearm better understand his limitations.

By the way, blind people are able to hunt with supervision of a sighted person.

 

[idunno]

so you think someone can put a blindfold on and it's the same as a person who has been blind all his life? seriously?

[youtube]NI9cGYWKs_8[/youtube]

this

Not assuming his responsibility or lack there of, but I would think he could possibly be capable of defending himself in a familiar environment such as his home. I'll admit that this kid is an exception to the rule, but many blind people learn to compensate for their loss.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Some might be surprised to know just how aware of their surroundings some people blind from birth actually are. Many of them make up (somewhat) for their lack of sight through their other senses....

How impossible is it to envision a blind person who's being assaulted using a "mouse gun" (Ruger LCP, for instance) to stop a violent attacker that has them in their grasp?

If a person with sight is assaulted in a very low-light situation, and their artificial light source is lost in the struggle (or cannot be accessed in time), should they at that moment be legally obligated to submit?

Something like 80% of our active brain and its reactions to stimuli are based on our vision. I've seen blind people do amazing things, but it is almost all based on learned responses to memorized environments. They can walk around their house like they have 20/20 vision, but that doesn't mean if you dropped them off in an unfamiliar place that they'd be able to function the same, if well at all.

Factor in how "dumb" our senses get when our adrenaline gets pumping during a traumatic event, and I just can't realistically see ANY way a blind person could properly use a gun in self defense, especially in public. Even if they feel they are being robbed (not sure how they'd know unless the attacker was sympathetic enough to explain what was happening), how can they be sure the person grasping them means them harm? What if it's someone trying to help and trying to come between the attacker and the victim? What if the "assaulter" doesn't even have a weapon? Would the blind person be justified in the use of deadly force in a situation where you or I wouldn't, just because they couldn't see that there was no weapon?

 

[idunno]

More what-if's. They are irrelevent. A right is a right. If we start infringing upon anyone's rights, it is just a step in the wrong direction.

 

[BIGGREEN]

Okay, let's make this interesting. Why not restrict alcoholics ability to purchase vehicles, they are more of a danger than a blind person with a gun. When was the last time you heard of a blind man shooting someone else? Now think about the other (alchy behind the wheel). I have a good friend who is blind and an accomplished marksman, I will contact him tomorrow and get him to chime in on this issue. Yes, he has a computer with a monitor in his house with light bulbs!

 

[seven-up]

This has been an interesting thread to read thus far.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

FYI, I think they do and should have the right, but it is onne of those things that feels wrong even though I know it is right.

Kinda like gawking at a 17 year old. Technically legal, but.........


I do say though that if someone has ANY condition that lessens their full faculties to safely handle and secure a firearm, then they take on a much greater PERSONAL responsibility to ensure those issues are compensated for so as not to negligently endanger the lives of others. Failure to do so should carry swift and stern consequences as it would for someone doing anything else negligent that injures another.

Though I agree with the sentiments of many that when we start regulating such basic rights as the pure ownership of firearms and the ability to defend oneself, then we are putting a pin prick into the 100 gallon water ballon of bureaucratic fecal matter hanging over our heads, and it is a short matter of time before it bursts.

 

[Ben Segrest]

All of the "what if" arguments are punishing people for a crime they haven't committed.

 

[A5Mag12]

What if someone steals your gun and kills their Mother with it? Probably should outlaw all guns from private ownership just to be on the safe side.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

All of the "what if" arguments are punishing people for a crime they haven't committed.

Your not punishing them for a crime they didn't commit, it is an attempt to stop it from happening. Potentially not allowing someone to carry firearms outside of their home or without supervision is not the same as placing them in prison for the same amount of time as negligently killing someone.

I see what you are saying, and I agree with the general sentiment, but you are not punishing. It is unfortunate that they have whatever condition they have, but there are still some accommodations that cannot be made.

We do it for people with mental health issues. How much more different is it to consider the same for those who are legally blind. Granted, tere will always be measures of "how blind id blind enough", but the basic argument has merit.

However, I do not have my spiked heels on and feel the slopp getting ever so slippery......

But it does sound crazy to the average person for a blind guy to be carrying a gun with the intent to possibly fire it knowing he is blind. Just saying. 17 year old girl.

 

[JustinB]

^^ "She told me she was 18".......

 

[Leonidas]

I would respectfully argue that denial of a right is indeed, punishment. Based on potentiality. (enter Department of Future Crimes)


Prison is not the exclusive venue of punishment.

 

[Win1917]

All of the "what if" arguments are punishing people for a crime they haven't committed.

I agree. There's no reason a blind person can't be a responsible gun owner. If they prove to be irresponsible then they get to suffer the consequences just like everyone else.

 

[oleheat]

Bump.


Who among us can HONESTLY SAY we would willingly give up our right to bear arms if we lost our sight due to an accident or medical reason?

Count me in for a NO on that one.

Let us all hope we are never in that terrible position.

I believe it's wrong to automatically assume that a blind person will be a threat to public safety if he owns a firearm. That hasn't exactly been a huge problem up to this point.


I wouldn't use the "well, blind people can't drive, either" arguement. Guns are not cars, and besides- what blind person in their right mind actually wants to drive, anyway? Statistically, cars are much more dangerous.