Just ONE more thread on blind shooters please

[slackmaster]

Check out this ongoing conversation among people who are legally blind. They discuss firearms ownership, civil rights, concealed-carry permits for the blind, and specialized firearms training.

http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nabs-l/2003-May/004704.html

Start here and trace either way. It's all pretty interesting IMO. Here's a teaser for you:

Hi Ryan,

Not even talking about whatever the original article was, in the subject line,
which I admit I didn't read back when it passed through... not talking about
that, but merely my experience with it all... it may not have passed 'public
scrutiny,' as you put it, but it couldn't have stopped me, most likely.
I had several on my side, including this ex-cop training me, and as far as
any of us knew there were not at the time any specific laws stopping a
blind person from trying to get this permit that was available to others.
And so I was going to try, that's all. Public scrutiny be damned. More
oftne than not, the 'public' vote seems to be the foolish vote, when it
comes to decisions dealing with any other situation than their own.
Decisions are made from fear & misunderstanding, not from true
knowledge, sadly enough.

But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations where it would
not be a smart choice to have some blind persons firing guns. But
to be allowed to have the choice is my point. *smile*

Is there a Braille edition of Democratic Underground?

:D

[iverglas]

1. whoa, good one

And to think I almost ignored it.

But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations where it would
not be a smart choice to have some blind persons firing guns. But
to be allowed to have the choice is my point. *smile*


But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations where it would not be a smart choice to have some drunks driving cars. But to be allowed to have the choice is my point. *smile*

But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations where it would not be a smart choice to have some high-school dropouts running nuclear plants. But to be allowed to have the choice is my point. *smile*

But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations where it would not be a smart choice to have some hearing disabled people working as school crossing guards. But to be allowed to have the choice is my point. *smile*


Yup. One person's choice is so very, very much more important than anybody else's survival, in all conceivable situations. Hell, we wouldn't want to insist that anyone to give up any of that *essential* liberty for anybody else's *little, temporary* safety. It is plainly *essential* that blind people be free to possess and use firearms, and anybody who thought otherwise would just be a whinger who cared only about that *little, temporary* business of continuing to live his/her utterly insignificant life and in one piece ...

Was someone being facetious? Has my well-oiled Canadian facetiousness meter failed me?

Dang, I'm one of the shrillest objectors to discrimination based on stereotype that y'all could ever imagine, but it somehow seems to me that the notion that "blind people can't see well enough to safely use firearms around other people" is rather more of a tautology than a stereotype ...

.

[slackmaster]

2. Allow me to point out the logical fallacy in your comment

One person's choice is so very, very much more important than anybody else's survival, in all conceivable situations.

False dilemma.

I've read the whole thread written by several visually impaired individuals, and as I count myself as one on the margins of their group I believe I can say their point is that society denying the opportunity to make the RIGHT choice diminishes their status as citizens and human beings. It's far better to decline to do something that one should not do than to have the decision forced on you by well-meaning but misguided souls who think that blindness carries with it some kind of moral terpitude (pardon my spelling if I blew that) or mental deficiency.

There have been two threads here this week regarding incidents in which individuals who are legally blind used firearms defensively in a completely lawful manner. Denying them the choice to own a gun would have put them at risk with no DEMONSTRABLE offsetting benefit to society at large. As one of the blind posters puts it, the moment a blind person with a concealed carry permit brandishes a gun in public it will be all over - My point being that such an incident has apparently NEVER occurred. Concealed-carry permits for legally blind people WHO CAN PASS THE REQUIRED TESTS have been around as long as permits have been available; to my knowledge no state denies access to permits solely on visual handicap. It would be difficult for a person who could see only a silouette to pass California's shooting test because a specific and not trivial numerical score is required, but I've been told by an instructor that a few blind people have done it.

...it somehow seems to me that the notion that "blind people can't see well enough to safely use firearms around other people" is rather more of a tautology than a stereotype ...

And that perception is clearly shown to be incorrect by the two incidents discussed here in the Dungeon and several of the statements made by real live blind people in the discussion on their forum. Too bad you insist on clinging to your stereotype. It's not very becoming of someone posting on a board that claims to serve progressives and liberals. Bigotry in the face of hard evidence to the contrary is harder to excuse than bigotry based only on hearsay.

[MrBenchley]

3. But, well, okay, I'll say yes, there are some situations

where it would not be a smart choice to have an unelected drunk running the country. But to be allowed to have the choice was the corrupt gun industry's point. *smile*