Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
adatesman
climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 9, 2013 - 03:33pm PT
|
Seriously. And not that puny shark the Fonz jumped, but one with *freaking laser beams*.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/us/gun-permits-blind/
I mean, come on... Iowa issuing concealed carry permits to blind people?? Have we really run out of common sense??? These people *by definition* are not physically capable of visually taking account of a situation and/or verifying down range safety. And they want to let them carry in public?????
Now, before you write this off as Iowa being just a bunch of hayseeds and it being safe to ignore this, take into account that Iowa has CCW reciprocity agreements with *30 other states*. Which means that blind guy with a gun from Iowa can carry their gun in any of them regardless of that state issuing CCW permits to blind people.
And to head off the 2nd Amendment fetishists, there is clear legal president for limiting rights based on both public safety and physical capability. For example, no yelling Fire in a theater and blind people can't drive.
Jeez. The stupid, it burns.
Edit- probably should mention that I not only own guns, but used to have a CCW. So it's not that I'm against guns, but rather pro-common sense.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
Legally blind people can only drive if their vision can be corrected to a certain standard. Pretty sure they can't drive uncorrected if they can't pass the vision test.
And I'm agreed with the OP. Common sense should come into play at some point.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
If they are actually blind then how do they know if their penis extension device is really concealed?
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Read a little story on this today. The headline was: "Another edition of Not the Onion: Iowa will allow blind people to get conceal/carry permits"
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
^^ Carlin would be proud!
|
|
adatesman
climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
|
Legally blind people can drive in many states.
Very true, Dave, but as mentioned a bit after you vision correction is required. Heck, at -3 in both eyes I can get by without glasses (barely), but it is illegal for me to drive without them.
But if you read up on this, they're issuing permits to people who can't even see the target! Wtf???
|
|
adatesman
climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
|
Not that I am against gun control, but blind people can locate a target in space and respond to it quite accurately with binaural cues. Driving is another story all together.
I have no problem believing the first part, Sean. But can they accurately determine what's down range of the target from those clues, and in the fraction of a second we're told is necessary for self defense with a gun?
No, of course not. Which is why driving is an entirely different story. Lots of targets, moving lots if directions, and some of them erratically. No way a blind person can hear their way through it, which is why they [strike]shouldn't have guns[/strike] can't drive.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
Montana
|
|
Dear friend adatesman,
you wrote:
"And to head off the 2nd Amendment fetishists, there is clear legal president [sic] for limiting rights based on both public safety and physical capability. For example, no yelling Fire in a theater and blind people can't drive."
And you are from Philadelphia, home of the Friends? Do you not know the ruling from which the crowded theater quote is so aptly abused? Check it out: it was a case of an anti-war protestor encouraging people not to fight. I think the chap had some Quaker connections, as did the ship the "Golden Rule" which is now being lovingly restored.
I'm with the anti-war chaps: good manners would keep me from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but in the present instance, I am speaking out against blatant laziness in not asking enough or effective questions. Sheesh. You are smarter than that, too. I am amused.
Look:
Of course blind people should have guns, if their auditory skills match those of some blind people I know. It is called compensatory sensing, I believe.
Or are you assuming a level of stupidity, malice, or carelessness on the part of the person who is blind? That shows a bit of prejudice, do you not think? Are they of limited mental or moral capabilities? I don't think blindness confers other challenges.
Furthermore, your statements are based on a type of fear that has been carefully inculcated into the minds of humans in this nanny nation: that if there is any perceived possibility of harm, the government must pass a law to impose prior restraint upon the humans who might possibly, under some strange set of circumstances, maybe kinda harm themselves or someone else.
Maybe. Forget their human rights: the greater good (as perceived by someone else) might be harmed. Individuals are the set of the greater good. When you deny individual rights, you deny the rights of those who ARE society. If you think they might be dangerous to other humans, taking away the right to arms is not going to change that.
Who are you to limit the human rights of any other individual? Huh? You've already brought into the whole permit to be able to defend life at the only level rationally possible: the self-defense level.
Thus, gentle readers, is the totalitarian state given birth, by inculcating fear and also, of course for a small fee, offering to provide protection against what some have been taught to fear. Stop seeing monsters, and stop paying the monster-killer. There are no monsters under any beds. We are mostly kindly good humans out here, enjoying such shreds of our Human Rights we have the courage to exercise in a land where more and more human actions must be permitted through payment of a fee (more accurately called a bribe) to keep from being kidnapped and caged.
Human Rights are for Everyone, or no one. We all have the same Human rights. You, a gun owner, should think before you type. Because of such attitudes as yours human rights are more easily lost.
Now go apologize to a blind person for wanting to deny them the right to self defense, especially for an already vulnerable individual. I think in cities where there a lot of muggings of blind people, they should all have the option of concealed carry.
Go have a wonderful day, and I believe the reference is "jumped the snark" not the shark. Your entire post was just such a jumping, and I am highly amused, as well as certain that upon further consideration you will realize the error of your thinking.
I remain both highly amused and
Kindly yours,
feralfae
|
|
adatesman
climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
|
[Quote]Please ST Gun Nuts, get on here and tell us why blind people should have guns.
Eagerly awaiting the pro-gun responses to this!!!
+1
And not to drift my own topic, but what if we simply allowed them to carry lethal-voltage stun guns (the touch variety, not the projectile ones). This would limit the collateral damage to arm's reach, which is about a sighted person can do without a weapon.
Following from that, why don't we just give everyone one of those and do away with the collateral damage from projectiles all together?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
Montana
|
|
(small snark)
Better yet, just give everyone a club, and revert back to head-bashing.
Begin with getting rid of all government arms, then we might be on to something.
feralfae
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
My buddy is legally blind.
Pretty tight spread with anything weapon He carries.
He has limitations.
Not a CCP holder.
Bottom line, many of the people I know who carry, do so without anyone knowing. Especially the state.
Have gun will travel.
|
|
adatesman
climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 05:13pm PT
|
Or are you assuming a level of stupidity, malice, or carelessness on the part of the person who is blind? That shows a bit of prejudice, do you not think? Are they of limited mental or moral capabilities? I don't think blindness confers other challenges. .
No. I'm a realist who knows that in a situation resulting in a *sighted* person draws and fires there is often little regard for what's down range. Blind people are at a distinct disadvantage in this regard, and frankly the safety of my child trumps their right to do damage beyond the scope of their perception. Case in point, sighted person might see the cop sneaking up and refrain from escalating. Blind person hears another target.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
Montana
|
|
Apparently, according to the initiator of this conversation, your I. Q. drops only if you are blind.
Words are a much better weapon that wielded weapons. Cogito armo and all that.
feralfae
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
I don't have any objection to blind people owning guns, or target shooting. Maybe not even hunting, if the proper assistance is in place. But the most common reason given for CCW is for helping in emergency situations. I'm sorry, but people with limited vision are going to have problems responding quickly and appropriately in emergency situations. Even people with good vision and training have a tough time.
And feralfae, you may be trolling, but the phrase most definitely is "jumping the shark". Try Google next time if you doubt.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
Montana
|
|
Ah, the "save the children" card has been played. I am highly amused.
The children of the blind mother have as much right to protection, according to her capabilities and inclinations, as does your daughter.
And if you are concerned about fools who have no regard for what is down range, then statistically, all cops should be disarmed yesterday to protect the general public, and all teachers trained in close combat tactics with sidearms.
Sir, the central argument you present is your (assumed) right to deprive another human of their rights: I say you have no such right, and thus you rely on government to use initiation of force to deprive another of the same human rights you wish to keep. You want to win by use of force. have you considered reason as an alternative?
Your concern for your daughter means that you need to be a more responsible Dad and teach her to shoot better. Or stay with her and protect her from the world, because there are a lot of other things out there to worry about besides blind people carrying.
I refuse the red herring of "for the sake of the children."
Kind regards,
feralfae
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, or creative effort's evolution loses the essential qualities that initially defined its success and declines, ultimately, into irrelevance. jumping the shark
good use of the phrase
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!