No clear shot: Iowa giving carry permits to the blind.

[DJ_Critterus]

I'm all for the 2nd amendment and self defense, but something tells me that a blind person with a gun isn't exactly a safe thing (depending on exactly how bad his/her vision really is). I'm kinda torn on this one.

Iowa granting gun permits to the blind | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/08/iowa-granting-gun-permits-to-blind/)
No one could see this coming.

Iowa is giving people who are blind permits that will allow them to purchase guns or to carry firearms in public, the Des Moines Register reports.

The permits are legal, as Iowa law does not deny anyone the right to carry a weapon based on physical disability.

But, the paper reports, the dilemma comes for law enforcement officials who are trying to ensure public safety.

Advocates for the disabled are split over the decision.

“When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary.”

- Michael Barber

Some insist blind people can be taught to use guns, and blocking any visually impaired person from obtaining a weapons permit would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Still, others say owning a gun may be the one exception where the blind should be treated differently than individuals who have their sight.

It’s not new for Iowans who are visually impaired to own guns and even hunt, according to the Des Moines Register. But what’s different is that changes in the law in 2011 now make it possible for them to carry firearms in public.

“It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can’t deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing,” said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff’s office, referring to a visual disability.

“When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary,” said Michael Barber, who is blind, as he examined a gun using only his hands at a Bass Pro Shop in Altoona last month.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit blind people from owning guns. Some states, however, do consider vision in issuing permits.

In Nebraska, applicants for a concealed carry permit must provide “proof of vision.” According to the paper, a 50-state database of gun permit requirements published by USACarry.com also shows that South Carolina has a law that requires proof of vision before a person is approved for a weapons permit.

In Missouri and Minnesota, applicants must complete a live fire test, which requires the shooter to hit a target.

The issue of the blind carrying guns was one addressed by musician Stevie Wonder, who is blind.

“Imagine me with a gun. It’s just crazy,” Wonder told CNN while calling for reforms to what he has previously called “ridiculous” gun laws.

Read more: Iowa granting gun permits to the blind | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/08/iowa-granting-gun-permits-to-blind/#ixzz2eK0n2Zr1)

[DukeAllen]

It's only fair. Libs vote blind...

[DJ_Critterus]

It's only fair. Libs vote blind...

bwahahahahahahah :funniest:

[Y2Kvert4me]

I don't think it's inherently unsafe. The argument that "they can't possibly see what they're shooting" is null because it assumes the gun will be discharged.

Let's face it, concealed carry would not be legal anywhere if we make the assumption that everyone carrying will discharge their weapon at some point. The reality is they won't.
CCW is effective at reducing crime not because of actual gunfire, but because of the "what if" aspect, the possibility/likelihood that someone may be armed is the deterrent.

To automatically remove that privilege from someone that is blind, only serves to make them vulnerable - easily identified prey. Not unlike gun-free zones at schools, proof that criminals much prefer unarmed targets.

[DJ_Critterus]

I don't think it's inherently unsafe. The argument that "they can't possibly see what they're shooting" is null because it assumes the gun will be discharged.

Let's face it, concealed carry would not be legal anywhere if we make the assumption that everyone carrying will discharge their weapon at some point. The reality is they won't.
CCW is effective at reducing crime not because of actual gunfire, but because of the "what if" aspect, the possibility/likelihood that someone may be armed is the deterrent.

To automatically remove that privilege from someone that is blind, only serves to make them vulnerable - easily identified prey. Not unlike gun-free zones at schools, proof that criminals much prefer unarmed targets.

I fully understand that and can see how the weapon itself is a deterent, but you also have to ask the question "what if the weapon is discharged?" All the training I've had stated that if the weapon comes out be prepared to shoot. Don't pull it if you aren't willing to shoot.Can the person see what's behind the target in case they miss? I'm all for everyone except non-citizens and felons having and exercising their 2nd amendment rights, but I'm not so sure a blind person carrying and possibly having to shoot is the safest thing. Of course they, like most of us, probably don't have body guards around 24/7, but how can they effectively defend themselves without hurting innocents bystanders because of their physical impairments.

There are tons of what ifs out there, but I'm just wondering how a blind person can safely shoot in a situation (possibly out in public around crowds or other people). This is a safety thing for me and I'm all about TheHandle safety.

[VITE1]

The question should be how many people who are legally blind and have CCW commited a crime?

[DAB]

i think they got it right. a physical infirmity should not deprive you of your rights. that said, the right to keep and bear arms does come with some responsibility, including knowing your arm and using it properly.

not everyone who is legally considered blind is lacking all ability to see (pitch black), some just have vision that is too poor to be corrected. and if you are blind, you seek help where needed, like getting from point A to point B.

if you were a bad guy, and you saw someone helping a blind person around, you might conclude that the helper might be armed, and now you have to also consider that the person being helped might also be armed. better pick on someone else punk.

[DJ_Critterus]

i think they got it right. a physical infirmity should not deprive you of your rights. that said, the right to keep and bear arms does come with some responsibility, including knowing your arm and using it properly.

not everyone who is legally considered blind is lacking all ability to see (pitch black), some just have vision that is too poor to be corrected. and if you are blind, you seek help where needed, like getting from point A to point B.

if you were a bad guy, and you saw someone helping a blind person around, you might conclude that the helper might be armed, and now you have to also consider that the person being helped might also be armed. better pick on someone else punk.
This goes along with my comment above concerning the level of disability.

[Scissors]

You don't need eyesight to shoot the guy on top of you beating your brains out.

#Zimmerman

[C5SilverBullet]

I don't think it's inherently unsafe. The argument that "they can't possibly see what they're shooting" is null because it assumes the gun will be discharged.

Let's face it, concealed carry would not be legal anywhere if we make the assumption that everyone carrying will discharge their weapon at some point. The reality is they won't.
CCW is effective at reducing crime not because of actual gunfire, but because of the "what if" aspect, the possibility/likelihood that someone may be armed is the deterrent.

To automatically remove that privilege from someone that is blind, only serves to make them vulnerable - easily identified prey. Not unlike gun-free zones at schools, proof that criminals much prefer unarmed targets.
You mean you don't find blind people easy to identify?

[Y2Kvert4me]

You mean you don't find blind people easy to identify?I stated they are easily identified. Now couple that with a law that prohibits them from being armed.


<Criminal mind> "Hey look, a blind guy, I'll rob him because I know he's not armed" </criminal mind>

That was my entire premise on why the blind should have the right to carry.

[C5SilverBullet]

I stated they are easily identified. Now couple that with a law that prohibits them from being armed.


<Criminal mind> "Hey look, a blind guy, I'll rob him because I know he's not armed" </criminal mind>

That was my entire premise on why the blind should have the right to carry.

I think this is the worst idea of all time. What are they going to do, pull the gun and start shooting all around them?

You have to KNOW what you're shooting at before you pull the trigger.

[Y2Kvert4me]

I think this is the worst idea of all time. What are they going to do, pull the gun and start shooting all around them?
You are equating blindness with a lack of responsibility.

[Joecooool]

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[C5SilverBullet]

You are equating blindness with a lack of responsibility.

No, I'm saying it is pointless to give a blind person a gun, because they can't f'king aim it.

[Y2Kvert4me]

No, I'm saying it is pointless to give a blind person a gun, because they can't f'king aim it.Can they shoot a bow and arrow? :D

[C5SilverBullet]

Can they shoot a bow and arrow? :D

They can shoot either one, but it is the accuracy that is the problem.

[Scissors]

They can shoot either one, but it is the accuracy that is the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/2-years-after-116-police-bullets-flew-few-answers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[C5SilverBullet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/2-years-after-116-police-bullets-flew-few-answers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Were all of those people blind? I don't get it.

[Y2Kvert4me]

They can shoot either one, but it is the accuracy that is the problem.I only asked that because the most accurate archer at the 2012 olympics is legally blind. :)



But practically speaking, I suspect very few blind folks will make the choice to carry, and of those that do, even fewer will ever cause a problem by doing so.

As DAB said, the right to carry comes with great responsibility. The decision to pull that trigger carries serious consequences, and a person with perfect eyesight is every bit as capable of bad judgement, inaccurate or irresponsible shouting. The blind person is well-aware of his capabilities and limitations in this regard, and as such is apt to be even more responsible about it.

You are advocating stripping them of a constitutional right based solely on a specific "what-if" situation that exists only in your mind, not one based on an actual problem.
Fortunately, that's not how we enact law in this country.

[Scissors]

Were all of those people blind? I don't get it.

Sight and training don't guarantee accuracy.

So it's a given that the vast majority of sighted people who are allowed to carry aren't accurate anyway.

And, again, firearms don't have a minimum range. A blind person can shoot an attacker who's right on them just as accurately as anyone else.

[FasterTraffic]

No, I'm saying it is pointless to give a blind person a gun, because they can't f'king aim it.

You might be forgetting that the term "blind" has to be defined by the government. As someone noted earlier, you can be blind according to the legal definition but still have good enough vision to see a thug intent on assaulting you. I doubt "blind" always means zero vision.

[Y2Kvert4me]

20/200 vision (or worse) is the legal definition of blind.




This is normal vision:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-20.jpg


This is legally blind:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-200.jpg



Is it possible the blind person could hit any of the objects in the picture?

[VITE1]

20/200 vision (or worse) is the legal definition of blind.




This is normal vision:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-20.jpg


This is legally blind:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-200.jpg



Is it possible the blind person could hit any of the objects in the picture?

Actually is 20/200 AFTER being corrected.

Legally Blind - What Is Legally Blind (http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm)

[Y2Kvert4me]

Actually is 20/200 AFTER being corrected.

Legally Blind - What Is Legally Blind (http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm)That is true, but even at 20/200, one can still see well enough to discern shapes, colors, and objects.

[VITE1]

That is true, but even at 20/200, one can still see well enough to discern shapes, colors, and objects.

I am 20/1200 when un corrected. 20/20 with correction.

[Kevin_73]

Don't you have to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency with a firearm (pass a test) in order to qualify for a carry permit in most states? :confused5:

[VITE1]

Don't you have to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency with a firearm (pass a test) in order to qualify for a carry permit in most states? :confused5:

Not here in NH. Fill out the form and they are required to give it to you in 10 days or you get to sue the police chief.

[MrPeabody]

Don't you have to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency with a firearm (pass a test) in order to qualify for a carry permit in most states? :confused5:

It's up to the county Sheriff here in California. Ranges anywhere from handing them out freely to no f'ing way, depending on the county

[MrPeabody]

20/200 vision (or worse) is the legal definition of blind.




This is normal vision:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-20.jpg


This is legally blind:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-200.jpg



Is it possible the blind person could hit any of the objects in the picture?
Hit them? Probably. Identify them? Less than probable.

[C5SilverBullet]

Hit them? Probably. Identify them? Less than probable.

:iagree: Especially in the dark.

[OddBall]

20/200 vision (or worse) is the legal definition of blind.




This is normal vision:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-20.jpg


This is legally blind:
http://www.thevettebarn.com/tom/20-200.jpg



Is it possible the blind person could hit any of the objects in the picture?

I can hit all three of those cows and all of the deer too.

[DAB]

Don't you have to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency with a firearm (pass a test) in order to qualify for a carry permit in most states? :confused5:

15 hour class here and live fire on the range....25 shots total, 15 at 3 yards, 10 at 7 yards, 12"x18" target, hit is 1 point, miss is 0 point, need 70% to pass (that's 18 hits, and they basically give you 15. better than nothing).

[Y2Kvert4me]

I can hit all three of those cows and all of the deer too.Showoff. :lol:

[Torqaholic]

Nothing wrong with it. They'd have an advantage over a sighted person shooting in a dark room (everyone should practice this).


There's a u-tube video of a blind guy target practicing with a new gun. He does extremely well even shooting at a distance much further than what the typical self-defense incident occurs. Who is going to tell him he must submit to murder simply because he is blind? Not me, I'm no lib politician forcing people to die for my prejudiced beliefs.


Here's the video I had in mind -

BLIND MAN AT THE GUN RANGE SHOOTING A PISTOL - YouTube

[Burro (He/Haw)]

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Have you READ Snake/Thraak's thread?

[Torqaholic]

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

You don't proofread? :lol: