Iowa Issues CCW Permits to the Blind

[Ben]

Interesting debate topic. I'm not sure how I feel about it without more information. On the face of it, I don't see anything wrong with a blind person having a gun in their home, as they likely know everything about their space very well. I'm not sure that transfers to public spaces, where it seems way to easy to make a mistake, not know what's behind your target, etc. (unless your name is "Eli").

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/08/iowa-granting-gun-permits-to-blind/

[charby]

Why should someone be excluded due to a handicap?

[Sergeant Bob]

Why should someone be excluded due to a handicap?

A.D.A.!

[Fly320s]

Why should someone be excluded due to a handicap?

Agreed. A right is a right.

[Ryan in Maine]

While a blind person's self-defense abilities might be limited to contact distances they ought to be able to carry for that possible event.

[Hutch]

Guys, there's blind/sightless and then there's "legally blind", a definition that varies from State to State.  I'm pretty sure I'd be legally blind in my right eye (untreated "lazy eye") in some jurisdictions.  I would still have plenty of visual cues for a gunfight, especially at close range, using only my impaired eye.  Blind doesn't necessarily mean "cain't see lightnin'"

[vaskidmark]

Stephen Wegner discussed this in his DUF (Defensive Use of Firearms) newsletter today.  He offered the recommendation that blind folks are themselves with revolvers to avoid putting the slide of a bottom feeder out of battery on contact with their attacker.  He also opined that blind folks ought to be able to tell when they are being assaulted regardless of a lack of eyesight.

Blind folks target shoot and hunt (bow and firearm).  Yes, they have someone help them aim.  They also compete in precision casting tournaments - without any assistance except for being oriented towatds the target and told the distance to the target.

Blind folks in several states have had carry permits for years.  I cannot recall a single incident of them having a negligent discharge or of hitting a little girl in a school crossing two blocks away instead of their intended target which was on the other side of a squad car.

stay safe.

[Ben]

While a blind person's self-defense abilities might be limited to contact distances they ought to be able to carry for that possible event.

It also depends on what the definition of "blind" is. I went to grad school with a guy who was legally blind, but had some coke bottle glasses that let him "see" to the point of people being blurred shapes, etc. out to some distance in his vicinity, that allowed him to walk around without using a cane. He also, with another pair of glasses, was able to work on computers just fine as long as he could enlarge screen text. None of that would help much in a crowded public setting, but could certainly be enough to make a decision in a mugging, etc.

Edit: Hutch got the "legally blind" thing in while I was typing.

[Ryan in Maine]

Now that you guys mention it, all the blind folks I've met have retained independence via technology to various degrees, including sports and the outdoors.

[Sergeant Bob]

I just wonder who is going to start manufacturing Braille guns (and Braille bad guys) for them.

[BlueStarLizzard]

This may be an urban legend, but there was a story years ago about a blind guy who kept getting mugged and got a revolver loaded with blanks.

The blanks prevented him from inadvertinly hitting someone beyond his target, and close contact shots with blanks can put a hurting on someone and more then enough for a mugger to rethink his "easy" target.

[brimic]

Blind folks target shoot and hunt (bow and firearm).  Yes, they have someone help them aim.

We had a story of a blind hunter a few years ago here in WI. He would have his daughter help him line up his shots.
Not surprisingly, he was viciously mocked by anti-hunters, anti-gunners, and the rest of the local socialist cadre.
Ironically, the man, being handicapped, was still far more capable than most of the whole-bodied dregs who expect EBT cards, free college tuition, and free Obamaphones for merely existing. To the left, a handicapped person is only 2/3 of a person if they are doing something that flies in the face of socialist group-think, like hunting, shooting, or ccw.

[T.O.M.]

I recall reading years ago a recommendation that a blind person's best choice of weapon would be a .44 mag loaded with full power blanks for up-close and personal encounters.  Theory is that a contact-range blast would be pretty traumatic on the receiving end.  I think shot shells would also maximize short-range effectiveness while reducing the risk of downrange mistakes.

Devil's advocate:  The "Four Rules" require that a shooter be certain of the target and what is beyond the target.  In a public setting, how can a blind person, or even many legally blind people, comply wit this rule?  Granted, this is a political attack by the antis, with the intention of making us look foolish for defending the idea of blind people having firearms.  Has anyone heard from any disabled rights groups supporting this position?

[Ben]

Devil's advocate:  The "Four Rules" require that a shooter be certain of the target and what is beyond the target. 

The Devil's advocate part is kind of where I'm coming from regarding public carry. As a sighted CCW holder, I have a responsibility to use my right without harming innocent people (like those that may be around or behind my target). Being blind doesn't take away your rights, but it doesn't take away your responsibility either. Most likely in a real world scenario, a blind person would not be using their weapon in anything but a very close encounter (something sighted CCW holders are generally trained to avoid through situational awareness and walking away), so with proper training, they could, as much as a dangerous situation allows, minimize the risk to bystanders. Blanks are certainly an option as they can kill at contact range.

[Balog]

I recall reading years ago a recommendation that a blind person's best choice of weapon would be a .44 mag loaded with full power blanks for up-close and personal encounters.  Theory is that a contact-range blast would be pretty traumatic on the receiving end.  I think shot shells would also maximize short-range effectiveness while reducing the risk of downrange mistakes.

Devil's advocate:  The "Four Rules" require that a shooter be certain of the target and what is beyond the target.  In a public setting, how can a blind person, or even many legally blind people, comply wit this rule?  Granted, this is a political attack by the antis, with the intention of making us look foolish for defending the idea of blind people having firearms.  Has anyone heard from any disabled rights groups supporting this position?

It's almost never possible to be %100 certain of what's beyond your target in a defensive shooting, especially in an urban environment. I'd take a blind guy sticking a revolver in a mugger's stomach over someone with minimal training taking a 10 yard shot any day.

[MechAg94]

Balog likely said it better than me.  A truly blind person has some unique liability issues to deal with, but I see no reason to deny them the right to carry.  

If it is illegal in your state to knowingly expose a concealed gun, would a blind person ever be guilty?  

[brimic]

In our state, CCW covers such things as knives, batons/asps, and ELECTRIC weapons- all of which would be useful to a blind person even if a gun is not.

[dogmush]

As an aside, since I've seen this before.

The "Four Rules" are safety rules for the sport of shooting and hunting.  In combat, while still handy for quick risk assesments, they become guidelines at most.

Trying to limit someone's right to self defense through the lens of made up "rules" for non emergency situations is obtuse.

(I know you were playing devil's advocate, but it's a common gun board thing to treat those as holy writ.)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

legally blind does not equal can't see

[MicroBalrog]

As an aside, since I've seen this before.

The "Four Rules" are safety rules for the sport of shooting and hunting.  In combat, while still handy for quick risk assesments, they become guidelines at most.

Trying to limit someone's right to self defense through the lens of made up "rules" for non emergency situations is obtuse.

Someone had to say this.

[lupinus]

As an aside, since I've seen this before.

The "Four Rules" are safety rules for the sport of shooting and hunting.  In combat, while still handy for quick risk assesments, they become guidelines at most.

Trying to limit someone's right to self defense through the lens of made up "rules" for non emergency situations is obtuse.

(I know you were playing devil's advocate, but it's a common gun board thing to treat those as holy writ.)

This right here. Strictly following the four rules we really wouldn't be clear short of defense in the middle of nowhere.

Sent via tapatalk