• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Carrying by the legally blind?

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?

Not to mention how urine poor their situational awareness would be.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/

On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities

On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn't issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.

First off, let's deal with "legally blind" and what that really means. http://www.visionaware.org/info/you...vision/low-vision-terms-and-descriptions/1235 Legally blind folks can see - just not as well as the rest of us.

Why do you believe their situational awareness is poor? Or are you relying only on sight to tell you what is going on around you?

While you are on the subject, what about folks who are not legally blind but do not have perfect vision? Or folks who can achieve perfect (20/20) vision with correction, but because of that correction are able to clearly see their sights or the target, but not both at the same time?

As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

stay safe.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/



First off, let's deal with "legally blind" and what that really means. http://www.visionaware.org/info/you...vision/low-vision-terms-and-descriptions/1235 Legally blind folks can see - just not as well as the rest of us.

Why do you believe their situational awareness is poor? Or are you relying only on sight to tell you what is going on around you?

While you are on the subject, what about folks who are not legally blind but do not have perfect vision? Or folks who can achieve perfect (20/20) vision with correction, but because of that correction are able to clearly see their sights or the target, but not both at the same time?

As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

stay safe.

Some cannot see facial expressions, or things in the distance, there is at least one that I know of that can't see his hands in front of his face with a CHP. A comb may look like a knife, a wallet a gun. A child pointing a finger. I am against any law limiting their rights, I am asking about responsibility. I agree with you about NYPD, apparently some of their officers are legally blind, or just incompetent.

Let me put it another way, blind as a bat with a gun.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP As for shooting "innocent victims"? If the legally blind can perform no worse than NYPD should they still be barred? Or should we start barring NYPD officers from carrying based on the number of "innocent victims" they do in fact shoot? (sarcasm? maybe - maybe not)

stay safe.

:D
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?

Not to mention how urine poor their situational awareness would be.

Good questions. Here's where I landed on it. First, a couple points, then the analysis.

I think "legally blind" is less than total blindness. Also, I think the exact characteristics vary, for example, for some it may be dusky dimness in broad daylight, or maybe the brightness is there, but way, way out of focus.

As for situational awareness, I had the opportunity to talk with a totally blind person. Her situational awareness was pretty danged high--hearing. Based on stuff I've read casually over the years, I understand the fully blind are very attuned to the sounds in their environment. I'm guessing--only guessing--that people whose sight is dramatically diminished probably do similar.

Whether the legally blind, or even totally blind, carry is a question of personal responsibility. By which I mean, I think we really need to leave it up to the sense of responsibility of each blind person.

For example, I could not deny the right to self defense to even a totally blind person in their home. If they live alone, and have a burglar at 3am, when the bedroom door opens, or even if the door knob turns, that is a very narrow field of fire, and the blind person will know exactly where that door is spatially. Even if they miss, that burglar is gonna be gone lightning fast.

And, if they live with others, they can take the same precautions sighted people do: let the family know to knock first on the bedroom door, that there is gun at hand, that the blind person will call out "who is it?" before firing, etc.

In public, a totally blind woman may still need that gun for a contact shot against, say, a rapist.

And, I think those points would still hold true for a legally blind person.

I think it really boils down to trusting the blind person to be responsible; meaning trust them to have a sense of personal responsibility to shoot within their limitations.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Bearing arms is an inherent right independent of one's need or ability to deploy that firearm for any particular purpose. Bearing arms need not be justified by reason that the arm is being borne so that it can be deployed in self-defense, and one's ability to deploy that firearm in self-defense is thusly quite irrelevant. Even if it would be criminally negligent to attempt to use the firearm, the right to bear the arm is not negated by the bearer's inability to use the firearm effectively.

Likewise, I don't believe one's property rights are precluded by an inability to ensure withstanding an arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression, so I don't believe there would be any merit to a claim that they should be prohibited from possessing the firearm at all due to them being potentially unable to secure it against that arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression.

ETA: I guess this doesn't actually answer the OP's question about how responsible it is. On that, I concur with Citizen.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Should they be afforded the same leeway a LEO gets if they shoot an innocent person. Because they most likely would believe that their life is in danger, even if the teenager is only holding a model of the millennium falcon. Or should they be treated the same way the rest of us are.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Results of Quick Experiment

I just tried a quick experiment.

I walked around in my living room, periodically closing my eyes and pointing my "gun" (classic kid's finger/raised thumb) at the front door.

I was off by at least two feet every time.

However! I then went to the location where I practice dry-fire. I stood in my usual location and my usual distance, but with my back turned to the target location. I closed my eyes, turned, and aimed my "gun". Damn! I was only off by maybe three inches from the center of the target. And, that was 21 feet away.

My point here is that, whereas I was only spatially familiar with the dry-fire target location, I'll bet blind people know way better where most of the stuff in their home is spatially. I'll bet they could shoot close enough to either hit or scare the beejeezus out of the home invader.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I just tried a quick experiment.

I walked around in my living room, periodically closing my eyes and pointing my "gun" (classic kid's finger/raised thumb) at the front door.

I was off by at least two feet every time.

However! I then went to the location where I practice dry-fire. I stood in my usual location and my usual distance, but with my back turned to the target location. I closed my eyes, turned, and aimed my "gun". Damn! I was only off by maybe three inches from the center of the target. And, that was 21 feet away.

My point here is that, whereas I was only spatially familiar with the dry-fire target location, I'll bet blind people know way better where most of the stuff in their home is spatially. I'll bet they could shoot close enough to either hit or scare the beejeezus out of the home invader.

But you are still in the home, and you have the option of checking your aim with good vision. I am talking about semi crowded, and crowded public places, where a person might encounter things they perceive as a threat, that may not be a threat at all. And I still think that it is a personal responsibility, not the role of government, but it should be discussed.

Blind people have other options also we do not. A blind person can take a service dog into a business that we cannot, the dog has to be trained for a service the person cannot provide for themselves, such as personal defense. To be honest I would rather have the trained dog over a handgun if I only had one for a choice. A police officer was recently dragged into the woods by three criminals, possibly to kill him. He was not saved by his handgun, he was saved by his trained police dog. So the blind are not without options to protect themselves.

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but the effectiveness of a trained dog is hard to beat.

[video=youtube;yadeRfqjMMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yadeRfqjMMM[/video]
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Bearing arms is an inherent right independent of one's need or ability to deploy that firearm for any particular purpose. Bearing arms need not be justified by reason that the arm is being borne so that it can be deployed in self-defense, and one's ability to deploy that firearm in self-defense is thusly quite irrelevant. Even if it would be criminally negligent to attempt to use the firearm, the right to bear the arm is not negated by the bearer's inability to use the firearm effectively.

Likewise, I don't believe one's property rights are precluded by an inability to ensure withstanding an arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression, so I don't believe there would be any merit to a claim that they should be prohibited from possessing the firearm at all due to them being potentially unable to secure it against that arbitrarily defined and hypothetical level of aggression.

ETA: I guess this doesn't actually answer the OP's question about how responsible it is. On that, I concur with Citizen.

Let me make this crystal clear, I am not talking about infringing on rights, I am talking strictly personal responsibility. If a blind person unjustly kills a innocent person, would you give them a pass on the jury?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Should they be afforded the same leeway a LEO gets if they shoot an innocent person. Because they most likely would believe that their life is in danger, even if the teenager is only holding a model of the millennium falcon. Or should they be treated the same way the rest of us are.

No. But, my reply is a bit complicated, and, as you will see, I haven't really got to the bottom of it myself yet.

First, cops enjoy far, far too much latitude on being held accountable. I know, I know, some cops get figuratively hanged even for justified shootings (read Mas Ayoob's writings). But, those are often political situations where the department or prosecutor responded to public outrage. At the other end of the spectrum, cops are professionals. And, they work for the state aka government. If they shoot an innocent person, the least they've shown is that they cannot be trusted in their job--they might shoot another innocent again in the future. I consider that at a minimum, they need to be fired and forever barred from being a cop. Or, I suppose, maybe reassigned to a job with a very low likelihood of encountering an armed criminal--desk job, etc. The city can pay the victim damages.

As to citizens, I am torn. Can I really blame someone for being human? Meaning, if a citizen defender accidentally shoots an innocent. Can I really blame him for being too fearful to shoot straight?

Remember, too, all the reasons government prosecutes citizen defenders--political, anti-gun prosecutor, career enhancement, etc. Although "the law" is held to be majestic, and to ensure justice, etc., it sure doesn't seem to be used that way very often against citizen defenders.

I realize an argument can be made that the shot innocent deserves compensation for medical bills, loss of quality of life, etc. But, I'm not sure the blame should attach to the inaccurate defender who was just human and missed. I've never really been able to draw the line. Should the intended target (the criminal) pay? Who pays if he doesn't have the money? Etc.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
But you are still in the home, and you have the option of checking your aim with good vision.

Yes. But, I think my earlier point still holds; I think we have to trust the visually impaired to have enough sense of personal responsibility to shoot within their own limitations.

I've already planned that. For example, I know I miss the headshot on the Mozambique Drill a certain percentage of the time at 30' unless I go slower than I expect combat conditions would allow. So, no Mozambique Drills for Citizen unless there is nothing but an empty brick wall behind the attacker. I think the visually impaired can do the same--plan to shoot only within their own limitations.

As to being able to check my aim with good vision, that occurred to me while I was writing the experiment post. But, I was looking at it from before the shot. How would a visually impaired person learn to shoot with enough accuracy in the first place? I realized that all it would take is a laser and a friend. If I can learn to point very close to the target (so-called muscle memory), then the visually impaired can do the same.

And, none of that precludes the visually impaired waiting for a contact shot.

I really do think it comes down to trusting the visually impaired to only shoot within their personal limitations.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
But along those lines, how to we as a society deal with injuries from mistakes that are directly related to the disability? I want it to be clear it is their responsibility, but as a society we may have to deal with it at some point. Would you give a pass to a blind shooter that kills a innocent victim by mistake?

Another question, if a person is blindly aiming a gun in your direction, or family, will you hold back if you think they are blind?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
But along those lines, how to we as a society deal with injuries from mistakes that are directly related to the disability? I want it to be clear it is their responsibility, but as a society we may have to deal with it at some point. Would you give a pass to a blind shooter that kills a innocent victim by mistake?

I'll answer your question in a moment.

First, though, I think the question is changing. That's not necessarily a bad thing; happens all the time as threads evolve. I just want to make sure we understand it/don't overlook it. In the OP you questioned the level of responsibility to merely carry. Have the replies so far satisfied you that mere carry alone is not automatically irresponsible?

Reply to whether I would give a pass to a blind shooter who kills an innocent victim by mistake:

That is a pretty broad question. For example, you also mentioned mistaking a comb or something for a knife. Lets recognize/stipulate for a moment just for the sake of discussion that the elements of justified lethal force are sufficient in number and situations varied enough that we could spend all day specifying the variables in order to just figure out whether a mistake was made. So, within that context,

Yes, I would give the visually impaired and even the fully sighted a pass. But, only because I have not yet myself concluded that I can justifiably blame the defender, which is to say, the deeper I dig into the question, the more complicated it seems to become; and, at this exact moment in time, I cannot relate the complexities one to another, assign them what I consider correct relative importance, and arrive at a conclusion. Could I later not give a mistake-killing defender a pass? Sure.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Another question, if a person is blindly aiming a gun in your direction, or family, will you hold back if you think they are blind?

Hey!?! No fair adding a question while I'm busy replying to the post as it appeared before your edit! :p:)

But, to answer your question, I guess it really depends on the situation.

If anybody is pointing a gun a me or mine, there is going to be some sort of response from me. If they're holding a red-tipped cane or a seeing-eye dog's specialized harness, I would probably just yell, "Everybody down, the blind man has a gun." Then, try to talk that person into putting the gun away.

On the other hand, if they've already fired a shot at me or mine, mistaking one of us for a criminal, I might just shoot to eliminate the threat.

Why did I say "might shoot" instead of "would shoot"? It goes back to post #17 about situations being so varied. It really comes down to exactly what is happening in that moment I make the decision to not shoot/shoot.

For example, if the visually impaired person is shooting toward me, as in firing repeatedly to eliminate the threat about which he is mistaken, then, yeah, I'm probably going to shoot back.

Alternatively, if he fired one shot mistakenly at me or mine and is just standing there trying to evaluate the situation even while still pointing the gun, I myself would probably try to communicate to de-escalate the situation.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I may have drifted a tad, but I am not concerned with infringement, I am only concerned with responsibility. Which is in the hands of the carrier, until they use the firearm. And with that comes ramifications, where it becomes OUR responsibility how we handle the aftermath.

I think if we can access what a gay, or a black should do, wear, hair color, even though it does not mean a hill of beans, we can discuss responsibility for actions. Every person who carries should/must take their responsibility into account. It is on them, until we are called for jury duty.

I can see a defense lawyer using the disability to make an argument to get their client off. In some cases such as the weak when there is a clear threat is acceptable. But if that disability is used like a LEO's qualified immunity, I have a big problem with that.

I forgot to answer one of your questions, YES, ohhh hell yes. If the disabled person cannot perform safely a task, in no way would it be responsible for them to do it anyway.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Of course, there is a whole other dimension to who is responsible if the blind defender's mistake is something like mistaking a comb for a knife.

What on earth was the comber doing scaring the beejeezus out of the blind person?

Who would be making a blind person, or anybody, so uncomfortable that a comb would then be mistaken for a knife in the AOJ* triad? Was the comber teasing the blind person? Just plain dumb and didn't see the fear in the blind person's stance and face?

At some point, the innocent person in such a scenario may share causation for getting himself shot.



*Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy/Intent. Three very necessary elements that must be present on the part of the attacker before the defender is legally justified in using lethal force. If you carry a gun and don't know about these three elements, you need to put finding out about them at the top of your list.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
WalkingWolf said:
Carrying by the legally blind?
I probably should have put this in the OC questions thread, but I am including CC as well as OC.

This has been bugging me for some time, I am a supporter of the constitution, and I do not think it is government, or ours to decide for others how they protect themselves. But just how responsible is it for someone who cannot see their hand two feet in front of their face to carry where there is a high likelihood of shooting innocent victims?

There's a huge difference between being legally blind and being totally blind. "Legally blind" is a standard that prevents people from driving without vision correction and is applicable to disabilities. Medically, 20/200 vision is "legally blind".

20/20 "Normal Vision"
river_orig_1.jpg



20/200 "Legally Blind"
As one can see, although inconvenient it's not exactly a disability. One can walk around all day while being "legally blind" and not suffer unduly.
river_20_200.jpg


Some cannot see facial expressions, or things in the distance, there is at least one that I know of that can't see his hands in front of his face with a CHP. A comb may look like a knife, a wallet a gun. A child pointing a finger. I am against any law limiting their rights, I am asking about responsibility. I agree with you about NYPD, apparently some of their officers are legally blind, or just incompetent.

Let me put it another way, blind as a bat with a gun.
I might mistake a comb for a knife, I might mistake a knife folded up in cardboard for a letter, but it you make stabby-stabby motions at me you're going to experience the joys of a sucking chest wound. (The editorial 'you', not you, of course)

And bats have quite good vision, but their primary diet is crepuscular so they have to adjust.
 
Last edited:
Top