Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:49 am UTC

And do you really believe that being blind would reduce their willingness to fire to the point where it's nearly as safe as or safer than a sighted person firing? Because if so, why don't we have blind policemen?

Cleverbeans wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Technically no human is capable of doing anything without the possibility of error. You are dodging the question. All else being equal, is a sighted person more capable of safely firing a gun than a blind person?

I'm not dodging the question, I said no. Firing a gun is a fundamentally unsafe activity. I don't feel a blind person is any less capable of discharging a firearm safely than say, George Zimmerman is. A blind person is going to be aware of their limitations as much as a sighted person, and ultimately that comes down to judgement, which blindness does not impair.


And technically flying a plane is unsafe, but a well-trained healthy pilot is safer than an epileptic pilot with a strobe light. Now please stop sidestepping or dodging the question. Is a sighted person more capable of safely and properly firing a gun than a blind person? If not, why?

You are allowed to believe that it's too unsafe for nearly anyone, sighted or not. I'll agree that things like 1k mph rocket-cars on our highways are too dangerous regardless of a person's ability to see, but that does not mean I will agree that a sighted rocketcar driver is equal to a blind one.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:53 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:50 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:I repeat my question: what exactly do you envision happening where a reasonable blind person would falsely conclude it is appropriate for them to fire a gun when it is not?
I'm going to tell you, and I'm going to say I immediately feel uncomfortable with situation;
I envision blind person having a gun, and being attacked, and firing the gun, completely missing their assailant, but hitting... anyone else, which isn't something that will NEVER happen to someone who isn't blind, but it sure strikes me as more likely with a blind person.

I don't want blind people driving because they are more likely to hurt someone. I don't want blind people shooting because they are more likely to hurt someone. I feel terrible about making any sort of statement that does posit a blind person shouldn't be able defend themselves if assaulted however. EDIT: But again, why do you posit that they must defend themselves with a gun, a 'defensive tool' that REQUIRES vision? The utility of a gun is that it is lethal force FROM A DISTANCE. If you want blind people to defend themselves (and you should! I do too!) give them knives.

YES, a blind person knows not to drive; that's not the point. We don't assume that blind people won't be behind wheels by virtue of knowing better (which we assume they do!), we don't give them licenses to have to make the decision. Again, why is this fundamentally different with guns?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:02 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And do you really believe that being blind would reduce their willingness to fire to the point where it's nearly as safe as or safer than a sighted person firing?

I like to think anyone shooting a gun asks themselves "do I have clear shot?" before firing. They're blind not retarded.
Because if so, why don't we have blind policemen?

Because they can't check identification or write tickets.
Now please stop sidestepping or dodging the question. Is a sighted person more capable of safely and properly firing a gun than a blind person? If not, why?

I just told you, judgement is not impaired. I have no idea why you think blind people are trigger happy morons any more than sighted people.
You are allowed to believe that it's too unsafe for nearly anyone, sighted or not. I'll agree that things like 1k mph rocket-cars on our highways are too dangerous regardless of a person's ability to see, but that does not mean I will agree that a sighted rocketcar driver is equal to a blind one.

And the only reasonable conclusion to reach is that protecting gun ownership as a constitutional right is batshit crazy. QED.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:16 am UTC

Snowflake, a situation where a blind person has a gun is by far and away more dangerous than where a sighted person has a gun. People don't always have equal abilities. And a huge part of being able to properly fire a gun is being able to know what you are pointing the thing at. That's something that blind people simply are much less capable of doing. As for blind policemen, it goes far beyond asking for ID and reading.

Stop living in this fantasy rainbowland where each and every one of us is a special snowflake with our own abilities that no one else has or can do better because we are so special. Yes, people do have varied strengths and weaknesses, but sometimes people have crippling weaknesses; we just use different words to describe those weaknesses because we are afraid of breaking the little snowflake's tender hearts. Yes, yes, nearly all have something to contribute, but life isn't some game where you get +3 to hit by choosing 'deaf'.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby bluebambue » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:20 am UTC

Assumption 1: a gun is only a good self defense weapon when used at a distance. At the point of contact a knife makes a better self-defense weapon.
Assumption 2: being able to conceal carry and fire in self defense is a right. (I am not sure I believe this, but that is not the point of the thread).

Main point:
I think for this argument we can group people into four categories:
Unreasonable sighted people: people who can see, and make unreasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Reasonable sighted people: people who can see, and make reasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Unreasonable blind people: people who can't see, and make unreasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Reasonable blind people: people who can't see, and make reasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.

The people in the 4th group are always going to make the decision not to fire in a self-defense (ie uncontrolled) situation, so by limiting the opportunity of the 3rd group through legislation only actions that would harm others are being contained.

The 1st group, however, has to continue existing as there is no way to legislate away their rights without also infringing the 2nd group.

Now as to whether it is worth it to have legislation, almost certainly not, as the 3rd group is vanishingly small to non-existent.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby elasto » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:58 am UTC

bluebambue wrote:Unreasonable sighted people: people who can see, and make unreasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Reasonable sighted people: people who can see, and make reasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Unreasonable blind people: people who can't see, and make unreasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.
Reasonable blind people: people who can't see, and make reasonable judgement calls about whether firing a gun is a good idea.

It all comes down to whether it's ever a reasonable judgement call to fire a gun when you can't see what's in the direction its pointing.

If it's never a reasonable judgement call - if a reasonable blind person would always decide not to fire - then there's no point allowing blind people to carry guns because only an unreasonable blind person would open fire. The argument of many here is that it's so close to 100% that you might as well call it 100% - just like you could hand out driving licences to the blind, trusting them to use their judgement to only drive when it's safe - but in practice it's just simpler not to give them out - even though there might be some 0.0001% situation where a blind person can safely drive on a public road.

Indeed - the advice in the UK is not to carry a weapon - for your own protection: Weapons many times get used against the person that was originally carrying them. So the blind could suffer a double-whammy of almost never being in a position where they could safely fire - and also putting themselves in greater danger simply by having the weapon in their possession.

I am not often for laws protecting people from their own poor judgement, but in this case I could easily make an exception.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Brace » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:29 am UTC

bluebambue wrote:The people in the 4th group are always going to make the decision not to fire in a self-defense (ie uncontrolled) situation, so by limiting the opportunity of the 3rd group through legislation only actions that would harm others are being contained.


Huge leap, but admittedly not helped by the falsity of your first premise. A gun doesn't become less functional at contact range. It requires less strength, so a weaker person can use it. It is better at incapacitating quickly. It has a bigger and more accessible range of valid targets for incapacitation of the human body (the entire thoracic cavity + the head vs the neck and a handful of major arteries for a knife). It tends to have, subjectively, a greater psychological effect on an attacker. It is also easier to legally carry an effective gun for self-defense than it is to carry an effective knife for self-defense due to absolutely preposterous knife laws which are hugely inconsistent even from one part of a single city to another part of that same city.

Nevermind. That's why your first premise is wrong. Your logic skips a step because it doesn't establish that there are no instances in which a reasonable blind person would fire in self-defense, it just takes it as a hidden assumption. If you want to play logician you have to show all of your work.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Qaanol » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:35 am UTC

It also presupposes that the only reason to carry a gun is for self-defense.
wee free kings

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:55 am UTC

What, pray tell, are all the other totally valid reasons to have a concealed carry permit, if not for defense?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:55 am UTC

elasto wrote: Weapons many times get used against the person that was originally carrying them.


Citation please?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Vahir » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:00 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:It also presupposes that the only reason to carry a gun is for self-defense.


Firing ranges are the only usage I can think of that can feasibly be done safely blind.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:03 am UTC

So fine, let blind people go to firing ranges. But don't give them hunting or concealed carry permits, and any firing of the weapon outside of a firing range is assumed to be reckless discharge or whatever the legal term is.



gmalivuk wrote:What, pray tell, are all the other totally valid reasons to have a concealed carry permit, if not for defense?


Male enhancement, of course.



As for people claiming no one should have guns ever, I just have to ask; have you or anyone you know and love worked on a farm? Because when a boar goes mad and gets loose and the police response time is measured in hours, it's not wishful thinking that puts the thing down. Farming is one of the most dangerous jobs in the US, but you probably think your food grows on supermarket shelves. Then there are the people who use their guns to eat; they should go without simply because a bunch of fuckups in the city? We need increased restrictions on handguns, not shotguns and rifles.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Thesh » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:05 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
elasto wrote: Weapons many times get used against the person that was originally carrying them.


Citation please?


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/le ... sly-killed

Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.


So 1/21 officers killed with firearms were killed with their own gun in 2011.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:32 am UTC

Why is this even an issue?

If blind people are more likely to cause accidents, then there should be statistics supporting this. If the effect is great enough, hardly anybody will argue against prohibiting blind people from getting concealed carry permits.

If statistics don't support this, then I don't care if it's because of better judgment, better shooting skills, or even echolocation (Which is totally possible by the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation). They should get to use a gun to the same extent as everyone else. Although I have a hard time seeing why they would even want to use one. Knives are supposed to be much more effective than guns at close range.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:25 am UTC

Knives are highly effective as offensive weapons, but relatively poor defensively. Someone bleeding to death from multiple deep cuts still has plenty of time to act out before the blood loss debilitates them.

It's very difficult to actually 'stop' an attacker with a knife, you pretty much have to sever some deep tendons or some fairly central nerves.

Although the precise mechanism is not completely understood, gun-shot-wounds to the torso have a strong tendency to immediately incapacitate, even if the wound isn't otherwise fatal.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:12 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:Why is this even an issue?

If blind people are more likely to cause accidents, then there should be statistics supporting this. If the effect is great enough, hardly anybody will argue against prohibiting blind people from getting concealed carry permits.

If statistics don't support this, then I don't care if it's because of better judgment, better shooting skills, or even echolocation (Which is totally possible by the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation). They should get to use a gun to the same extent as everyone else. Although I have a hard time seeing why they would even want to use one. Knives are supposed to be much more effective than guns at close range.

Look, if you're gonna demand statistical evidence that blind people can use guns as effectively as people that can see, provide some evidence that knives beat guns at close range.

Someone in this thread has got to be trolling us. We're arguing how well blind people can shoot guns. What's next, questioning if torture is a war crime?

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby elasto » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:52 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
elasto wrote: Weapons many times get used against the person that was originally carrying them.


Citation please?


Almost one-in-four hospital shootings are carried out by someone taking a guard's gun

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.


For many gun rights advocates, one of the most frequent arguments used to justify their need for possessing guns is the argument of self-defense. The argument basically states that guns make us safer by protecting us and that in the absence of a firearm, we are vulnerable to predatory criminals who are intent on invading our homes, or vulnerable to a government that will suddenly decide to disarm and annihilate us when it inexplicably turns tyrannical tomorrow. However, the argument for self-protection is seldom subjected to scrutiny. Do guns really make us safer or do they increase the risk that we will become victimized by gun violence?

The evidence suggests that on average, having a gun actually increases the likelihood that a person will be injured or killed, rather than that it will be used to protect that individual from harm. If you own a gun, the most likely person you are to shoot is yourself. The next most likely person you are to shoot is a close family member. Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder. Firearms are more often discharged in a homicide, suicide or an accident, than in self-defense.

...

Although Americans may fear the random stranger or the potential street thug more than friends or family, that fear is misplaced. Statistically the threat of being killed is much greater from someone who is welcome in your home than from an unwanted intruder. Eighty percent of homicides in the United States are committed by a family member, a friend or an acquaintance of the victim. Female murder victims are more likely to be murdered in the home than male victims and most female victims are killed by a spouse, an unmarried intimate partner, or a close relative. Lethal domestic assaults are nearly three times more likely in a household where a gun is present, and studies have shown no significant protective effect for having a gun in the home.

Male victims are more likely than females to be shot outside the home. While many men may carry guns for personal protection, a University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study found that people who possess a gun are about 450 percent more likely to be shot in an aggravated assault or firearms homicide than individuals who do not possess a gun.


I think it's worth emphasizing one of the lines there - to refute the 'guns don't kill people - people kill people' line: "Lethal domestic assaults are nearly three times more likely in a household where a gun is present, and studies have shown no significant protective effect for having a gun in the home."

Common sense would suggest it's much harder for you to go through with bludgeoning or strangling your partner to death than to coldly pull a trigger - and so the statistics bear out: All things being equal, owning a gun makes you less safe both inside and outside of the home.

I won't go on. You can google for studies as easily as I can. And, yes, I'm broadening out my point to include the fact that carrying a gun increases both the chances of you being killed by your own gun and the chances of you being killed by someone else's.

I imagine a blind person would be disarmed even more easily than the average person, also - so would be much more likely than average to be facing a situation where the assailant has got hold of their weapon. And, no, I'm not going to provide a citation on that...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:Why is this even an issue?

If blind people are more likely to cause accidents, then there should be statistics supporting this. If the effect is great enough, hardly anybody will argue against prohibiting blind people from getting concealed carry permits.


Sometimes things don't have statistics for them for very good reasons. We know that alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome, but we don't know at what point this occurs, simply because it's so horribly unethical to test this by having thousands of pregnant women drink alcohol at different stages of development to narrow it down, so we merely say 'no alcohol at any point in the pregnancy'. Likewise, we know that blind people can't see, but we are not going to give blind people guns to determine the accident rate any more than we give pregnant women alcohol to determine when it's safe to drink alcohol.

You don't get to demand 'statistics' for things that are both A) so rare in the first place accurate statistics wouldn't exist, and B) bloody fucking obvious even without 'scientific proof'.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:The only way to convince me that we need to demand heightened scrutiny on a marginalized group? Is to show me that it will result in deaths if we don't. Not "I, in my own ignorance, can't think of how to do that safely", but "Here is my evidence that large numbers of people actually die when as a result".
This isn't the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is proving that a blind person cannot adequately shoot as well as a non-blind person. Just like we don't have to find data that blind drivers will get into accidents more frequently (protip: that data doesn't exist either!). There's PLENTY of data that being vision IMPAIRED increases your risk of car accident; I'm still somewhat incredulous that you are positing that being BLIND doesn't impair your ability to fire a gun. Just like we don't need data to suggest that giving guns to 5 year olds is unwise, we shouldn't need data to prove that giving guns to the blind is unwise.


Why not? Why is this the "null hypothesis that needs no evidence"?

Also, children can safely be taught to fire guns. They are not typically given them without direct, close supervision*, but that has nothing to do with their physical capabilities, though those are vastly less than adult, and everything to do with their mental capabilities. Blind people do not lack mental capabilities compared to sighted people, and are still entirely capable of determining who someone is, where they are, what their surroundings are, etc. The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive. Can we at least acknowledge that mentally, they are no worse off than anyone else, and thus, no less capable of bearing the same legal standards?

Additionally, this headline is deceptive. It isn't like this is some entirely new thing. A more accurate headline would be "Iowa declines to discriminate against protected class. Iowa is not the only state that allows or has allowed the blind to shoot. Shit, there are formal competitions for blind shooters only. http://www.usashooting.org/about/paralympicshooting. This isn't a problem. This has never been a problem. If you believe it is now suddenly a problem, it's time to actually bring evidence, not panic loudly and insist that none is needed because of how GD worried you are.

*I was a rifle instructor at a summer camp for a year, it really wasn't a problem.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive.

Triple offensive, in fact, since it demeans children and people with mental illnesses as well as demeaning blind people.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Knives are highly effective as offensive weapons, but relatively poor defensively. Someone bleeding to death from multiple deep cuts still has plenty of time to act out before the blood loss debilitates them.

It's very difficult to actually 'stop' an attacker with a knife, you pretty much have to sever some deep tendons or some fairly central nerves.

Although the precise mechanism is not completely understood, gun-shot-wounds to the torso have a strong tendency to immediately incapacitate, even if the wound isn't otherwise fatal.


I see, thank you for telling me this. My previous impression was based on vague recollections of stuff like http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html.

CorruptUser wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:snip


Sometimes things don't have statistics for them for very good reasons. We know that alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome, but we don't know at what point this occurs, simply because it's so horribly unethical to test this by having thousands of pregnant women drink alcohol at different stages of development to narrow it down, so we merely say 'no alcohol at any point in the pregnancy'. Likewise, we know that blind people can't see, but we are not going to give blind people guns to determine the accident rate any more than we give pregnant women alcohol to determine when it's safe to drink alcohol.

You don't get to demand 'statistics' for things that are both A) so rare in the first place accurate statistics wouldn't exist, and B) bloody fucking obvious even without 'scientific proof'.


I was under the impression that Iowa isn't the first state to allow guns to blind people. If firearm accidents caused by blind are so rare that accurate statistics don't exist despite Texas and Michigan allowing blind people to hunt, this shouldn't be a problem.

Also,

B) bloody fucking obvious even without 'scientific proof'.


If it was, we wouldn't be having this debate. Nobody's arguing blind people can shoot as well as sighted people, the argument is that blind people won't shoot unless it's safe to do so any more than sighted people do.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:07 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive.

Triple offensive, in fact, since it demeans children and people with mental illnesses as well as demeaning blind people.
It does no such thing, and the recurring insistence that it is doing so is dishonest.
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, children can safely be taught to fire guns. They are not typically given them without direct, close supervision*, but that has nothing to do with their physical capabilities, though those are vastly less than adult, and everything to do with their mental capabilities. Blind people do not lack mental capabilities compared to sighted people, and are still entirely capable of determining who someone is, where they are, what their surroundings are, etc. The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive. Can we at least acknowledge that mentally, they are no worse off than anyone else, and thus, no less capable of bearing the same legal standards?
Again, no one has suggested that blind people are MENTALLY or MORALLY handicapped. I'll request again that this straw man stop being raised.

Tyndmyr wrote:Why not? Why is this the "null hypothesis that needs no evidence"?
Well, like I said, I urge someone to find the study that demonstrated blind people are more likely to get into a car accident than non-blind people. No seriously, find that study. Until you show me the stats that prove that blind people are worse drivers than non-blind people, I don't believe that sight has anything to do with driving a car...
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:22 pm UTC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168100/

This study suggests that visual impairment leads to more car accidents.

Now find me one that says visual impairment leads to more gun accidents.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:24 pm UTC

Here's an article with a sheriff arguing that it's actually safer for blind people to carry guns compared to sighted people, because they're less likely to miss than someone shooting at range. Of course, he mentioned the "shooting at voices" myth explicitly, and there is some video of him teaching his blind daughter to shoot. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/09/10/iowa-guns-blind

I'd also be interested to see if anyone can find an incident of a blind person accidentally shooting someone they didn't intend to. So far I can find more vice presidents who's accidentally shot someone than blind people...
Last edited by Cleverbeans on Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Vahir » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:40 pm UTC

Guns are a terrible method of self-defense anyway, blind or not.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby addams » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Given that a blind man with a sword can defeat an army of 10,000 ninjas, giving them guns would make them unstoppable.
What if it's a blind ninja?


Depends how many blind ninjas. If just one, nothing short of learning a valuable lesson about human nature could kill him. If it's a her, depends on whether she is good or evil; the good female ninjas are immortal, no matter the size of the army. If there is only 1 female ninja, she is good. If there are two, the one with modest but perky breasts will be good, while the other ninja with the larger pair will have been driven insane from the all the back pain.

There is otherwise a cap of one blind ninja in a group, but the group has rules too. More than 3 is kind of risky, 5 is pretty much the limit for regular practice. Six is unstable but can occur on rare occasions, assuming the 6th is a former member that was kicked out, an old mentor, or recurring villain joining forces against something worse.

As for 'citation needed' for blind people being allowed to own and use guns, no, just no. We don't need to spend time and money on studies for whether or not blind people can operate something that requires you to see what you are doing. Unless you also want to argue blind people should be allowed driver's licenses?

Guns? Everyone has guns.
You want a gun; You have money?
You are golden; Get a gun.

Why, not?
Blind people own cars. And; Should.

What was the name of that guy?
Blind guy. Black, blind guy.
He wanted to drive. They took him out in a huge parking lot and he drove.

If you are blind, you can buy a car.
If you are blind you may not be a very successful driver.

If you are blind, you can buy a gun.
If you are blind you may not be a very successful marksman.

Do your blind friends have guns?
Brings new meaning to the words, "Keep your friends near. Keep you enemies nearer."

The sighted are dangerous when armed and twitchy.
What do you do? It is so funny. I move toward the gun.

Why the hell would you run? If you run; Run toward the gun.
I am a big fan of belts. Grab the shooters belt and put your chest against his back.
It is the safest place in the house.

If he is blind, I stand a better chance of survival.
Oh. One of those Fat Old Bastard that either can't or won't stand up?

Yuck. Old Time Warfare? yuck. Why? oh Why?
It is fun? It is a middle class entertainment.

Not many people get shot. A lot of talking about shooting.
Not much shooting, yet. Maybe the sides are still getting armed.

They have Blind Guys with guns. Dang.
Any idiot can have a gun. Why, not?

The only limiting factor is money.
If you have the money, then buy the gun.
Buy two, Buddy. The Gangsters that take your shit will be glad they found you and your little pack of Blind and Disabled Vigallanies.
Get some food and woman. The Gangsters want those things, too.

Do you idiots know what war is really like?
You want to know? it is so much fun for some people.

Wars are like bad storms. Wars often have bad storms.
Only; The Assholes sometimes get a little confused about things during a storm.
Storms do not effect all persons the same. Wars are the same way.

If a storm blows in and blows back out, again.
The Survivalist do pretty well.

If the storm lasts and lasts; Well;
Wars are a game of Might Makes Right.

And; Who knows who.
Who knows the Blind guy with the guns?

The Blind and Disabled as Survivalists. So sad.
The Gangsters are a good match for them.

Yes! Of course, they team up.
Uneasy teams. Gangsters and Survivalists.
They have so much in common.

This shit is funny. I wish I had a little more distance on it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168100/

This study suggests that visual impairment leads to more car accidents.

Now find me one that says visual impairment leads to more gun accidents.
so, visual impairment isn't blind, but I'm curious if you're aware that this was precisely my point earlier in the thread. Visual impairment results in more accidents. Being blind means you shoupdnt drive... So... Logically... Being blind means you shouldn't shoot a gun.

Thanks for finally being on the same page!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:28 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote: Being blind means you shoupdnt drive... So... Logically... Being blind means you shouldn't shoot a gun.


I don't think this is logical at all, driving a car is much harder than shooting a gun. You're not required to follow posted signs to shoot a gun for example. More so, if you're driving a car, you can't just decide *not* to drive it suddenly, with a gun you always have the option to not shoot. Shooting a gun is not driving a car, this very much a straw man fallacy.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Thesh » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:30 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:You're not required to follow posted signs to shoot a gun for example.


Guess you've never been to a shooting range.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Guess you've never been to a shooting range.


Guess you've never driven a car.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Thesh » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:36 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Thesh wrote:Guess you've never been to a shooting range.


Guess you've never driven a car.


How exactly is it that you believe your response makes sense?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:44 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote: Being blind means you shoupdnt drive... So... Logically... Being blind means you shouldn't shoot a gun.


I don't think this is logical at all, driving a car is much harder than shooting a gun. You're not required to follow posted signs to shoot a gun for example. More so, if you're driving a car, you can't just decide *not* to drive it suddenly, with a gun you always have the option to not shoot. Shooting a gun is not driving a car, this very much a straw man fallacy.
I very much disagree, and feel driving a car and shooting a gun are very similar activities with respect to mental and moral awareness, physical requirements and motor skills, and general potential public risk.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Plasma Man » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:36 pm UTC

I'd say there are probably more medical conditions you can have and still be safe to have a gun compared to being safe to drive... but being blind isn't one of them. In the UK at least, when someone suffers from epilepsy and has fits, they aren't allowed to drive - their medical condition makes it unsafe. Likewise I'd say that blindness is a medical condition that makes it unsafe to have a gun (outside of a controlled environment like a shooting range). But someone with epilepsy would probably be safe to have a gun - it is a lot easier to put a gun down than to stop driving. Ultimately, it's not about questioning the person's judgement or demeaning them, it's about what it is and is not safe to do with a particular medical condition.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:22 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:How exactly is it that you believe your response makes sense?

I don't know, why do you think strawman arguments make sense? Shooting a gun at point blank range is so easy an infant can do it. I couldn't even get into the car by myself with keys till I was 7 because I was too short, let alone operate it.

Izawwlgood wrote:I very much disagree, and feel driving a car and shooting a gun are very similar activities with respect to mental and moral awareness, physical requirements and motor skills, and general potential public risk.


In terms of public risk clearly sighted people are far more dangerous shooters than the blind. There are literally no reported cases of blind people accidentally or intentionally shooting anyone. The problem isn't that blind people can buy guns, it's that guns ownership is constitutionally protected. If there exists a single situation in which a blind person can discharge a firearm in a responsible manner then you don't get to discriminate just because you think being blind makes you somehow incapable of using a gun responsibly. There is absolutely nothing about being blind that impairs judgement, which is probably why there are no recorded cases of a blind person shooting someone. If I was blind I would sure as hell know not to fire a gun without being absolutely certain of my target anymore than if I could see.

Ultimately it's a question of judgement. Given all the variables in a particular situation, do I discharge the weapon or not? If I'm a sighted person and i can't see what I'm shooting at because of smoke, nighttime conditions, or other factors I am entrusted to make the right decision and not fire. Why are blind people not capable of reaching exactly the same conclusion? Why do we distrust them any more than sighted people to make the right decision?
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
elasto wrote: Weapons many times get used against the person that was originally carrying them.


Citation please?


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/le ... sly-killed

Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.


So 1/21 officers killed with firearms were killed with their own gun in 2011.


I do not think that 3 times/year over the entirety of the US qualifies as "many".

That said, I note that more police die in many action movies than actually die across the US in a year. The job of a policeman seems to be treated as significantly more dangerous than it actually is on a cultural basis. Nothing to do with blind folk here, just an observation.

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive.

Triple offensive, in fact, since it demeans children and people with mental illnesses as well as demeaning blind people.


Oddly, I'm not offended at the children aspect. Children generally are mentally immature. Exceptions exist, sure, but humans as a whole have a much lengthier childhood specifically because of our brains.

Of course, comparing those three groups together is strange as hell, though. I'm a bit calmer at the moment, and I'm hoping the conversation will steer away from demeaning the handicapped.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, children can safely be taught to fire guns. They are not typically given them without direct, close supervision*, but that has nothing to do with their physical capabilities, though those are vastly less than adult, and everything to do with their mental capabilities. Blind people do not lack mental capabilities compared to sighted people, and are still entirely capable of determining who someone is, where they are, what their surroundings are, etc. The constant comparisons of blind people to children, the mentally ill, etc is...just a wee bit offensive. Can we at least acknowledge that mentally, they are no worse off than anyone else, and thus, no less capable of bearing the same legal standards?
Again, no one has suggested that blind people are MENTALLY or MORALLY handicapped. I'll request again that this straw man stop being raised.


So, what's the standard for taking away rights, then? Something is physically more challenging for them, so it's ok to ban it? No data needed on if it's actually a danger?

That standard has an uncomfortably long reach for my tastes.

Vahir wrote:Guns are a terrible method of self-defense anyway, blind or not.


I'd prefer to address general claims of this nature over in the firearms thread or what not. How you feel about guns overall is really a separate topic from if the blind in particular should be allowed to use them.

Thesh wrote:
Cleverbeans wrote:You're not required to follow posted signs to shoot a gun for example.


Guess you've never been to a shooting range.


The shooting range I ran had no posted signs whatsoever. Why? Because children shot there, and children are pretty terrible at reading lengthy postings before doing things. Everything was verbal.

Now, it is common for ranges to have posted reminders, but at the ranges I shoot at locally, if you have no been there before, the rules will be read to you entirely. This is utterly irrelevant to if you are blind, but it would be trivially easy for me to shoot at any local range if I was blind.

Cleverbeans wrote:
Thesh wrote:Guess you've never been to a shooting range.


Guess you've never driven a car.


This car/gun thing is kind of ridiculous. Driving a car and shooting a gun are different, and not necessarily related things. I might trust a person to do one and not the other for many reasons.

Izawwlgood wrote:I very much disagree, and feel driving a car and shooting a gun are very similar activities with respect to mental and moral awareness, physical requirements and motor skills, and general potential public risk.


For one, I am aware of no gun that even requires modifications to be used without legs. Most guns have very few controls on them, far less so than a car. Cars and guns perform rather different functions. Guns seldom smash into other guns, requiring you to contact your gun insurance companies and wait for a tow gun.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This car/gun thing is kind of ridiculous. Driving a car and shooting a gun are different, and not necessarily related things. I might trust a person to do one and not the other for many reasons.

I really want to elaborate on this, because it's clearly not going away despite the obvious differences between the two.

1) Gun ownership is constitutionally protected, driving a car is not
2) Cars require continuous operation, firing a gun is instantaneous
3) You can never fully control driving conditions, you can always control shooting conditions
4) Driving a car is almost always done in public, firing a gun is almost always done in private
5) No one can help you drive a car safely, but you can get help to fire a gun safely.

I definitely can see why it seems crazy to let blind people own guns, because it is. It's just no more crazy than letting sighted people do it.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby KrytenKoro » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Isn't the "of course it needs to be outlawed, evidence not needed!" method of thinking what everyone castigates about Prohibition?
Pardon my interruption but what prohibition are you referring to here?

The one on alcohol in America, in the early 20th century. I don't know about political circles, but at least in informal debate circles like this one, the response to it I usually hear was that it was stupid to enact it because the somewhat obvious side effects (i.e., instead of mentally ill people refusing treatment in order to not lose guns, it was the mob popping up to run the black market alcohol) were ignored in favor of "it's obviously bad, we don't need evidence or examination of what the consequences will be, people can't be trusted to be responsible for their own actions, outlaw outlaw outlaw!"

I mean, sure, it's not the same situation and some might argue its false equivalence, but it's still just...there are a ton of civil rights/disenfranchisement situations where the same group here would usually be ready to rip an advocate's ears off for suggesting that disenfranchisement would, in their opinion, be "correct", so it seems odd to me that they're drawing the line here. If we've not actually had a rash of blind shooter killings, if there's no evidence that letting blind people purchase guns is going to result in massacres, then I don't see any justification for infringing on the Bill of Rights with the justification of "I don't need evidence, my point is obvious".

And I hope I don't slip into another fallacy here, but just for gun deaths, "being blind" is so much lesser a cause for injury than stuff like improper background checks, unsafe gun storage around children or animals, etc. It doesn't seem reasonable to outlaw it if it's not even causing a problem.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:07 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This car/gun thing is kind of ridiculous. Driving a car and shooting a gun are different, and not necessarily related things. I might trust a person to do one and not the other for many reasons.

I really want to elaborate on this, because it's clearly not going away despite the obvious differences between the two.

1) Gun ownership is constitutionally protected, driving a car is not
2) Cars require continuous operation, firing a gun is instantaneous
3) You can never fully control driving conditions, you can always control shooting conditions
4) Driving a car is almost always done in public, firing a gun is almost always done in private
5) No one can help you drive a car safely, but you can get help to fire a gun safely.

I definitely can see why it seems crazy to let blind people own guns, because it is. It's just no more crazy than letting sighted people do it.


1) Technically, gun ownership is protected from Federal law, not state law. Even then, technically the 2nd amendment only protects the members of a well regulated militia, such as the National Guard or police. But what the law actually says is kind of meaningless compared to how it's interpreted.
2) Using a gun is continuous, even when not firing. Obviously you have never used a gun outside a firing range.
3) No, no you can't. Shooting conditions outside of a shooting range are much, much less in your control than when in a car.
4) Wrong again. Outside of a firing range, most gunshots are on public property, e.g., hunting.
5) Again, wrong, what do you think student drivers are?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Technically, gun ownership is protected from Federal law, not state law. Even then, technically the 2nd amendment only protects the members of a well regulated militia, such as the National Guard or police. But what the law actually says is kind of meaningless compared to how it's interpreted.


the 2nd amendment was incorprated by the SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago.

It was in all the papers.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby addams » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:36 pm UTC

You people are funny.
You are waiting for a Tow Gun?

I have heard weirder things.
A Tow Gun! I love it.
Thank you.

Owning a piece of Art is similar to owning a car and owning a gun.
Cars and Guns are Art, sometimes. I have had some pretty cars.

Guns? Yes. Some are beautiful. Some are so Ugly they qualify as Art.
Some are very discussing. Designed to be so. The barrel comes out of a Human Ass or a Human Mouth.
Weird. Some of the old ones have marks and names on them. The new ones are very mass produced.

It is a man made machine. How can we look at this thing and not hold the Creators in high regard?
To harm one another it is not required to have a gun. Guns keep it less personal. That is good. Correct?

You are so funny. You don't have control of driving conditions and you do have control of shooting conditions?
That is funny. When you have the condition that your car has been shot out from under you. What control do you have?

You have a few choices to make. Do you have a gun? What are you going to do with it?
Nope. I have never had my car shot out from under me. You?

Your whole list cracks me up! That is funny stuff. Driving in Public: Shooting in Private. Yes. It is best to get back out of the way before shooting. Private enough and there will be no questions.

No one can help you drive a car safely? You are so funny.
Everyone and his mother's brother will do everything they can think of, to improve your driving.

Same with your shooting skills. "Fire it higher." they will say. "Your sighting wrong." they will say.
"Don't you want to be a better shot?" They ask.

I took driving classes. I did not take shooting classes. No. I don't want to be a better shot.
I might be tempted to shoot someone. The guy that is insisting I shoot is right up there on the top of my list.

You people are so funny. Yes! If blind people want cars and guns, then that is what they should have.
What do you want? You should have that. If you get into trouble with it, The Judge will talk to you.

Judges have to Judge.
Judges laugh. They are not supposed to.
But; You guys are funny.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests