You're not punishing them for a crime they didn't commit
Yes you are.
You're not punishing them for a crime they didn't commit
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.
As interesting as this post has been we continue to not be on the same page.
NOLA clearified that in fact eventhough it was wrote out as should they own the intend was more for self defense purpose like most of us carry everyday, other than actually being able to go to "Academy" and buy a gun should they wanted to, it is their RIGHT.
Some people say well with supervision they can do whatever they want even hunt which I agree, but the point was that if the SHTF and they needed to make use of deadly force to stop and agressor or agressors, what if, good - bad - hope for the best and hide.
Then again I doubt we will ever get an answer.
In my mind, the blind would only be able to use a firearm in SD in a severely limited scenario without endangering others. It probably wouldn't be practical.
In my mind, the blind would only be able to use a firearm in SD in a severely limited scenario without endangering others. It probably wouldn't be practical.
Maybe we should stop all .mil returning from over seas from owning guns bc they might have ptsd and, thus, might kill someone.
And if it's not practical, it should be illegal?
Maybe it IS stupid. I don't think it is, but so what if it is? What is freedom if it isn't the right to be stupid? If you aren't allowed to ruin your life because of "the greater good of the whole," you aren't really free, you're a cog.
With freedom comes responsibility. If a blind man acts in a way that is irresponsible with a gun, he suffers the same penalty anyone else would. I know that's already been said a dozen times in this thread, but I felt it should be said again. We shouldn't stick our noses in and substitute our judgment for his over what is or is not reasonable for him to own, and certainly not tell him his rights should be limited because exercising them would be "impractical." I do a dozen impractical things every day and would not like someone sticking their nose in my business.
yes as long as its an AK-47 loaded with cop killer burrets
General consensus is of course they can own. COmpletely my fault, but I was looking more for feelings about their use. If you were in a grocery store, and three dudes rolled in firing AK's in the air saying it was a robbery, would you feel safe with a guy with no eyes whipping out his 10mm SW to start blasting away?
Maybe having ptsd and definitely BEING BLIND are two different things.
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.
The blind people I know and know of are the most responsible people I know. You guys act like, just because they cant see, as soon as they get spooked they are going to dump a mag in random directions.
Thanks. I thought it was the same thing. Whatever would i do without you?
If you read my previous posts, I'm not against blind people owning firearms.
I've been mulling this over ever since i posted and the only reason I can give to back my argument is "but they're blind". Would I want an elderly blind relative leaving loaded guns around their house? NO!
However, there are several arguments that have been presented to counter mine. I'm still on the fence. This is a hard one. Would I like to see a blind person at the range? Absolutely! It's amazing to watch people overcome their disabilities. But hell... The only argument I have boils down to I don't like the thought of an armed blind person. I'm also well aware the constitution doesn't acknowledge personal opinion.
So I guess I'm saying that dzlenka has a much more solid argument than mine. I don't like the idea but that wasn't the question. Also owning doesn't mean necessarily shooting. And I'd be pissed as hell if I had to give up heirlooms because of a disability.
Still. I'm going on record i think it's a potential safety hazard if they use it for personal defense.
Not this guy...
if you know they are not the same thing, why would you even introduce it into the discussion since it bears no relativity? It appears you were trying to illicit a response with a charged comment. Without me you would not get as many PM's, sleep better at night, and have one less assclown to talk about at the secret squirrel lunches.