Another defensive shooting by a legally blind person

[slackmaster]

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=1425063&nav=0RdeHlNV

So far that's two apparently "righteous" shootings by legally blind Americans in under a week.

[LalahLand]

1. Wasn't there a better way to go about this?

Like having the police surveil his home or something? Stealing is very wrong, but somehow, I don't think death is the appropriate punishment.

[RoeBear]

2. I didn't see the article...

...say that anyone died.

[LalahLand]

3. True, but can we agree that guns kill? eom

[slackmaster]

4. No, we cannot all agree on that

Guns are inanimate objects and therefore incapable of malum in se.

People kill.

[CO Liberal]

5. People Don't Kill By Pointing Fingers At Each Other

They kill by pointing GUNS at each other.

Yes, guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects that need to be regulated and controlled.

[Spoonman]

Regulated and controlled

Regulated by the speed at which they cycle when firing at a criminal, and controlled well enough to hit "center mass".

WE AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"They kill by pointing GUNS at each other."

They also kill each other by hitting each other with baseball bats, blunt objects and vehicles.

They also stab, strangle, drown and poison each other.

[CO Liberal]

9. And How Many Mass Murders......

...are accomplished by stabbing, strangling, drowning, or poisoning?

Guns are the big problem. And what needs to be controlled.

[slackmaster]

10. Mass murders is a very weak example

Considering that far more people are killed in mass arson murders and mass bombing murders and mass aircraft hijacking murders than are killed in mass shootings.

[CO Liberal]

12. But More People Are Killed By Guns..............

...than are killed as a result of arson, bombings, or aircraft hijackings.

I believe that you have posed three weaker examples.

[slackmaster]

14. Oh no, not another body count thread

n/t

[Spoonman]

13. How many

are killed in vehiles every day???

[CO Liberal]

15. And How Many KIlled By Guns????

Steps are constantly being made to make cars and roads safer. We need to make guns safer, too.

By keeping them away from those who should not have them.

[slackmaster]

23. You are suggesting "solving" a problem for which there is no evidence

Where is the rash of deadly improper shootings by blind people?

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

28. Blind People are Just One Group.....

....that should not have guns. Along with felons, the mentally ill, etc.

When all these groups are considered, THERE'S your rash of deadly improper shootings.

[slackmaster]

30. As a person with challenged vision I find your attitude abhorrent

Again, where is your evidence that "blind people" owning guns is a problem for society? What definition of blindness would you apply? There are only two ways to determine who is blind as I mentioned earlier: Claim of the tax exemption for blindness, or some kind of objective vision test. Which would you implement and WHY? (And please don't try to fog the issue by claiming that your version of common sense is better than mine.) While I am fortunate enough not to be legally blind, I'm sure you could devise an objective vision test that I would reliably flunk if you really wanted to.

There's a HUGE difference between visually impaired people and the classes who are presently prohibited from owning firearms: The latter have DEMONSTRATED through their past behavior that they lack the emotional stability, honesty, terperament, etc. to be trusted with a gun. Having a handicap is not the same as being an asshole or a violent criminal.

[CO Liberal]

31. I Find My Attitude Reasonable

I do not believe that anyone whose vision is severely impaired should be allowed access to a firearm - especially if their vision level make is difficult (if not impossible) for them to identify potential targets.

I'm no vision expert, but I believe a reasonable standard can be established. For example, my vision is 20-400 without my glasses - I haven't been able to read the eye chart in about 40 years now without glasses. I cannot drive a car without my glasses - if my vision could not be corrected beyond that, I don't think I should be eligible to own a gun, either.)

And I beg to differ with you - anyone who is physically unable to safely control a firearm should be kept as far away from guns as possible. I don't consider this discrimination - I consider it an action taked to promote the general welfare, as called for in teh Constitution.

[RoeBear]

32. "Democratic Proposal Discriminates Against the Blind!"

Is what the headline would blare if someone was dumb enough to propose a law like you are suggesting.
And if he was from Colorado he'd probably be in the unemployment line
after the next election.

[slackmaster]

35. Thanks RoeBear, you beat me to it

If I ever do lose the ability to see well enough to shoot in my judgement then I will stop shooting. I trust myself to make that determination, and I trust other honest visually impaired people to have the wisdom and insight to be able to do the same. I think I am better qualified to know my personal limitations than to have the determination made by an arbitrary set of rules.

CO Liberal, you have explicitly denied being a "gun grabber" just today, here in the Dungeon. But by saying you don't believe people with severe visual impairment should have "access" to guns are you not suggesting that people who own guns and subsequently experience a deterioration of vision should have their guns CONFISCATED for the good of society?

:shrug:

You sound like a wannabe gun grabber to me. At least blind peoples' guns.

[CO Liberal]

40. This is Obviously a Touchy Subject

Slackmaster, you say that if you lost the ability to see well enough to shoot then you would stop shooting. That is a reasonable position to take, and I commend you for it.

But how many people in your situation would do likewise? Think of all the senior citizens who have no business driving any more, yet continue to do so? Like that 86-year-old who plowed into the farmers market in California earlier this summer?

Some people can decide these issues for themselves, such as my mother who stopped driving after her first glaucoma operation. But to take care of those who are either unable or unwilling to realistically assess their own visual abilities, I believe there should be a standardized vision standard for gun ownership.

[slackmaster]

45. That individual should have had his LICENSE pulled

But not his car confiscated. More frequent and thorough testing of seasoned citizens might have prevented the tragedy.

As with the case of my grandmother that I detailed in the other "blind shooter" thread, there was no legal basis to take the car away and there were valid reasons for her to have one (although I do not believe in "valid reason" tests for gun ownership or car ownership).

...I believe there should be a standardized vision standard for gun ownership.

I'll meet you half-way and agree there should be a standardized vision test for concealed-carry permits.

:D

I have no problem at all with a blind person collecting, keeping, owning etc. a gun or many guns. With my eye condition and family history of longevity there is a chance I will one day become legally blind. My gun collection is a significant chunk of my retirement plan, and if you fuck with it you are fucking with my finances.

[CO Liberal]

50. I Am NOT Calling for Gun Confiscation

CO Liberal, you have explicitly denied being a "gun grabber" just today, here in the Dungeon. But by saying you don't believe people with severe visual impairment should have "access" to guns are you not suggesting that people who own guns and subsequently experience a deterioration of vision should have their guns CONFISCATED for the good of society?

I am NOT calling for gun confiscation in any way, shape, or form. But if a blind person tries to buy a gun, I beleve that purchaase should be denied.

[slackmaster]

51. Thanks for the clarification

By introducing your grandfather clause you are no longer a potential gun-grabber.

I still think what you propose constitutes improper denial of a basic civil right. The fact that a person checked a box on a tax return (or failed an arbitrary vision test) should not put him or her in the same category as people who have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy with guns.

And the idea would go over like deep-fried liver sticks in any political campaign. Advocates for the disabled (e.g. Disabled American Veterans) would be all over it.

[CO Liberal]

52. I Believe That Most Reasonable People.......

....would fail to see the "logic" behind gun rights for the sightless.

[slackmaster]

56. And I believe that most reasonable people

Would not buy the argument that we should start denying civil rights to disabled people.

[CO Liberal]

58. You See This as a Civil Rights Issue

I see it as a matter of public safety.

[slackmaster]

59. If an epidemic of shootings by blind people breaks out

I may join you on this one. I insist that sacrifices of liberty in the name of public safety have a measurable return value. With apparently no massacres by white-cane wielding Rambos, the equation will give a divide by zero error which I cannot abide by.

[CO Liberal]

36. Wait a Minute

Back when I grew up in NJ, I know that people with epilepsy were banned from driving because of the possibility they might have a seizure while driving.

WHy not impose similar bans on gun ownership for those who cannot physically handle them safely, such as someone whose vision is so degraded that they can only discern shapes?

Bottom line?? If you're legally blind, you have no business handling a firearm, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

38. Yet we have TWO examples of legally blind people handling them

And handling them well.

A person with epilepsy here in California can drive provided that his or her physician files a letter with the DMV stating that the condition is under control and the person is capable of driving safely.

I have a similar letter on file with the DMV because of my eye condition - Amblyopia. My "good" eye corrects to about 20/20, and my driving record is spotless. But without that letter on file I would not be able to drive.

[RoeBear]

39. Did that law...

...require them to sell their cars?

If my vision were to go bad would I have to sell my grandpa's old shotgun?

[CO Liberal]

41. I Don't Remember

It's been over nine years since I left The Garden State.

[slackmaster]

42. No, it does not call for confiscation of the person's vehicles

New Jersey Permanent Statutes
TITLE 39 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
39:3-10.4. Report to director by physicians of persons subject to epileptiform seizures

Each physician treating any person 16 years of age or older for recurrent convulsive seizures or for recurrent periods of unconsciousness or for impairment or loss of motor coordination due to conditions such as, but not limited to, epilepsy in any of its forms, when such conditions persist or recur despite medical treatments, shall, within 24 hours after his determination of such fact, report the same to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. The director, in consultation with the State Commissioner of Health, shall prescribe and furnish the forms on which such reports shall be made.

L.1970, c. 195, s. 1, eff. Sept. 4, 1970.

39:3-10.5. Report by drivers' license applicants subject to epileptiform seizures
Each person subject to recurrent convulsive seizures or recurrent periods of unconsciousness or impairment or loss of motor coordination due to conditions such as, but not limited to, epilepsy in any of its forms, shall at the time of his initial application for a driver's license or any subsequent application for a renewal thereof or at such other time as prescribed by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, report the existence of such conditions to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in a manner to be prescribed by the director.

L.1970, c. 195, s. 2, eff. Sept. 4, 1970.

39:3-10.6. Procedure for evaluation and screening of persons subject to epileptiform seizures
In order to be assured that no person is unwarrantedly denied the privilege of operating a motor vehicle in this State because of reports submitted under the provisions of this act, the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, in consultation with the State Commissioner of Health, shall establish a procedure for evaluation and screening of cases so reported.

L.1970, c. 195, s. 3, eff. Sept. 4, 1970.

[RoeBear]

44. I did add another question on edit CO. nt

nt I'm assuming you didn't see it.

[CO Liberal]

48. Answering Your Other Question

If my vision were to go bad would I have to sell my grandpa's old shotgun?

No. But if you were legally blind and getting around with either a cane or a guide dog, I would expect you to be refused service at your local gun shop for buying a new gun.

[slackmaster]

49. So you'd grandfather my grandmother and her old shotgun?

PERVERT!

:argh:

Or are you just pandering for the AARP endorsement?

[RoeBear]

21. Well now...

...most of the mass murders of our day have used anything but a gun.

Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, Jim Jones, The Boston Strangler all used weapons other than guns. It seems that people who want to get away with murder use weapons that don't make so much noise.

[CO Liberal]

27. Not All

Charles Whitman - shot people from atop a tower in Texas, 1966.

David Berkowitz - "Son of Sam" killer - 1977.

The DC Area and West Virginia Snipers

The Columbine Killers

All the other school shooters

The guy who shot up a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas a few years back

The guy who opened fire in a McDonald's in California

(And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.)

[LalahLand]

6. Granted. Can we agree that shooting at someone may kill them?

*Meant to be a reply to post #4*

[slackmaster]

8. Yes

Give me a tool that is just as likely to STOP A PERSON IN HIS OR HER TRACKS as a handgun and less likely to result in that person's death and I'll deploy it as my primary home-defense weapon.

[RoeBear]

18. That's a more intelligent ...

...and honest statement than "can we agree that guns kill".

[LalahLand]

26. Well I didn't realize I'd actually have to spell it out

The whole point of my post was to say that I don't think stealing should be punishable by death. You responded that nobody died, my response to you was basically to say that when you shoot at someone, theres a high possibility that someone will die.

[MrBenchley]

29. Remember, you're talking to

people pretending guns for the blind is a GOOD idea...

[RoeBear]

34. Actually,,,

...we aren't talking about 'pretending' at all. We are talking about actual examples of sight impaired individuals using guns for their own self protection.

[MrBenchley]

47. And pretending that there was nothing at all

alarming or even unusual about somebody selling these blind people guns in the first place....

Yeah, r-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight....no "pretending" there.

[RoeBear]

33. Sorry...

...I didn't mean to be so harsh.

[slackmaster]

7. He tried that. Please read the article.

Stealing is very wrong, but somehow, I don't think death is the appropriate punishment.

Shooting in self-defense is not the same as administering punishment. A person who shoots with the intent to punish has committed a crime by taking the law into his or her own hands. There are laws in place to deal with that kind of antisocial behavior.

To get things you have to have money. Most of us make money by sacrificing our TIME and labor. Money is time, things are time, and someone who steals is literally taking a part of your life. As the man in the story said:

"I wish they hadn't come, I wish they'd stay away. If they hadn't of been here they wouldn't have got shot."

[MrBenchley]

11. How about a burglar alarm?

Oh yeah...this yutz didn't have electricity.....

[CO Liberal]

16. Alarms Can Run on Batteries

:-)

[MrBenchley]

17. Not in RKBA land

Home of the "Guns for the Blind" outreach program.....

[CO Liberal]

19. Coming Next - Nikes for the Legless and Radios For the Deaf

And the funnny thing is ...... some people don't seem to have any problem with someone with limited vision having a deadly weapon at their disposal...

[slackmaster]

20. Nobody has suggested changing anything except you, CO

I find it disturbing that anyone would consider taking away a person's private property just because he or she has become visually handicapped.

...some people don't seem to have any problem with someone with limited vision having a deadly weapon at their disposal...

I only have no problem with someone with limited vision who really wants to have a deadly weapon at his or her disposal having one.

[MrBenchley]

22. Those same people

oppose just about every Democrat anyone's ever heard of and post rubbish from WorldNutDaily and the Washington Times routinely.

[demsrule4life]

24. I've noticed that you are also an advocate

for censorship. I would have to guess that if you had your way nobody would have any rights other then you.

[MrBenchley]

25. Gee, nobody's saying the RKBA crowd can't lie, dems

I'm just pointing out so few of us are dumb enough to believe the right wing crap you gun nuts peddle..

[RoeBear]

37. If a legless person...

...wants to buy Nikes. If a deaf person wants to buy a radio. Or if a blind person wants to buy a car or a gun. I will support that right. The only time they will have a problem from me is if they misuse any of their purchases.

[RoeBear]

43. Is he a yutz because...

...he's poor or because he used a gun in legal self-defense?

[MrBenchley]

46. How about because

he doesn't care enough about his precious goddamn possessions to have electricity or a burglar alarm?

[histohoney]

53. No one was killed

Not to pick but nothing was said about a death. The thief was shot in the stomach, police caught up with him. He is hurting for sure but not dead.

[CO Liberal]

54. "No one was killed" - THIS Time..................

But what would happen if a blind person hears a noise, shoots, and winds up killing a family member?

[slackmaster]

55. While we're on a hypothetical tack

I would assume that a blind person who lived with others would leave the task of home defense to a sighted person, should that option be available.

It really comes down to a matter of trust. I trust people to do the right thing until they prove otherwise by their behavior.

[CO Liberal]

57. I Prefer to Err On The Side of Caution

How many people have to be killed by blind people with guns before it's seen as a potential problem???

[slackmaster]

60. One would be a "good" start

Not so much a good thing, but it would go a long way toward making the intangible tangible. Right now we're looking at selling blind people down the river in return for zero shootings prevented annually.

I don't like that math.