Article: Should the Blind be Able to Obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit?

[not new guy]

how blind? If there's no possible way you can see, identify, aim at and hit a target a gun's not a good idea for you. I'm not for making a law banning it, but I'd say any time a blind person shoots a gun it's probably a negligent discharge.

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

 

[namedpipes]

how blind? If there's no possible way you can see, identify, aim at and hit a target a gun's not a good idea for you. I'm not for making a law banning it, but I'd say any time a blind person shoots a gun it's probably a negligent discharge.

So a blind man, sitting inside his rural home, hears someone smash through his front door, rape and shoot his wife is negligent when he grabs the shotgun he has has strapped the the underside of the coffee table and shoots the bad guy?

It might not be the most advisable thing for a blind person to carry and use a gun, but for it to be illegal?

 

[todd c]

when i saw this hit 62 posts, i just knew some wrote (no). sure enough i was right. blind people have rights and are subject to all laws. its their right to exercise a right or not.

 

[BattleSnail]

So a blind man, sitting inside his rural home, hears someone smash through his front door, rape and shoot his wife is negligent when he grabs the shotgun he has has strapped the the underside of the coffee table and shoots the bad guy?

I had and example like that in mind, but figured the "exception to every rule" was obvious enough.

It might not be the most advisable thing for a blind person to carry and use a gun, but for it to be illegal?

nope, which is why I wrote

I'm not for making a law banning it

 

[jasons]

how blind? If there's no possible way you can see, identify, aim at and hit a target a gun's not a good idea for you. I'm not for making a law banning it, but I'd say any time a blind person shoots a gun it's probably a negligent discharge.

No possible way? Obvious logical fallacy is obvious.

 

[pbearperry]

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

 

[namedpipes]

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

When did this happen? I missed the news story.

 

[Boghog1]

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

Could you please provide real life examples where they have done this, based on that argument sighted people that have misidentified their target should also be prohibited from owning a firearm correct?

 

[not new guy]

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

How is it anyone else's business if a blind guy buys a gun unless/until he shoots somebody? How many people have you shot with your personally owned guns so far?

 

[pbearperry]

Could you please provide real life examples where they have done this, based on that argument sighted people that have misidentified their target should also be prohibited from owning a firearm correct?

Morganton, NC-AP) July 19, 2006 - Burke County authorities say a legally blind man trying to carry a pistol and a plate of food at the same time shot and killed his wife.

The sheriff's office says Kelly Honeycutt of Morganton was holding a .38-caliber pistol he found in a box while he and his wife were moving into a new home Monday night Honeycutt accidentally shot his wife Norita in the head after she handed her wheelchair-bound husband a plate of chicken.

Investigators haven't filed charges, but the case was sent to the county prosecutor's office for a final determination.

A sheriff's office spokesman says Kelly Honeycutt was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis. His wife was his caretaker.

 

[n1bsbri]

It must be like the killing fields in Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, and Vermont where they don't have licensing for concealed carry.

 

[pbearperry]

How is it anyone else's business if a blind guy buys a gun unless/until he shoots somebody? How many people have you shot with your personally owned guns so far?

None yet Junior.

 

[Boghog1]

Morganton, NC-AP) July 19, 2006 - Burke County authorities say a legally blind man trying to carry a pistol and a plate of food at the same time shot and killed his wife.

The sheriff's office says Kelly Honeycutt of Morganton was holding a .38-caliber pistol he found in a box while he and his wife were moving into a new home Monday night Honeycutt accidentally shot his wife Norita in the head after she handed her wheelchair-bound husband a plate of chicken.

Investigators haven't filed charges, but the case was sent to the county prosecutor's office for a final determination.

A sheriff's office spokesman says Kelly Honeycutt was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis. His wife was his caretaker.

So you are saying he thought she was a criminal and shot her as she handed him a plate or was it a neglagent discharge that could have happened to a person with full sight because I can come up with hundreds of those examples, I alos think this may have more to do with it

A sheriff's office spokesman says Kelly Honeycutt was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis

- - - Updated - - -

None yet Junior.

Hey Pops hows it going

 

[edhead35]

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

So guilty because of what could happen, and even if it did happen, no trial. Guilty. No rights for you.

Sounds like carrying a plate of food and a gun is a bad idea for blind and sighted people.

 

[Boghog1]

So guilty because of what could happen, and even if it did happen, no trial. Guilty. No rights for you.

Sounds like carrying a plate of food and a gun is a bad idea for blind and sighted people.

with MS

 

[Billsail]

Morganton, NC-AP) July 19, 2006 - Burke County authorities say a legally blind man trying to carry a pistol and a plate of food at the same time shot and killed his wife.

The sheriff's office says Kelly Honeycutt of Morganton was holding a .38-caliber pistol he found in a box while he and his wife were moving into a new home Monday night Honeycutt accidentally shot his wife Norita in the head after she handed her wheelchair-bound husband a plate of chicken.

Investigators haven't filed charges, but the case was sent to the county prosecutor's office for a final determination.

A sheriff's office spokesman says Kelly Honeycutt was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis. His wife was his caretaker.

Maybe it wasn't an accident, and if it was, these accidents occur with some frequency, across the country, mostly to sighted people. This has NOTHING to do with allowing a legally blind person to have whatever means possible to defend his or her self!!!

 

[edhead35]

with MS

So this guy has multiple disabilities but it was his brain that failed it seems. Knowing ones limitations would say, make the wife bring the food, you handle the gun. Not both

 

[not new guy]

None yet Junior.

Maybe you should try contemplating the points everyone is making instead of focusing on being a condescending *******, officer.

 

[xcom]

I find it ironic that people are so glib about taking someone's rights away. I hear "there are exceptions to every rule" but this is no rule, it is a right. I am not going to start depriving lawful citizens of rights simply because I do not agree with their use. Maybe people should have no right to Free Speech because they cannot vote? Perhaps they should be prevented from having redress of grievances? Come to think of it, perhaps the blind should be prevented from assembly because they could obstruct public ways?

 

[pbearperry]

So you are saying he thought she was a criminal and shot her as she handed him a plate or was it a neglagent discharge that could have happened to a person with full sight because I can come up with hundreds of those examples, I alos think this may have more to do with it




A sheriff's office spokesman says Kelly Honeycutt was more than 50 percent blind, had limited movement and was in advanced stages of multiple sclerosis

Not saying anything about him thinking his wife was a criminal.Stay focused please.All I am saying is some folks shouldn't own firearms.Why make things more dangerous than they need to be.If I ever get too infirmed to handle guns safely,I will pass that job onto someone else in my family.

 

[Admin]

Right, probably in many cases anyway. It would be like banning a family with no arms or legs from owning a pool.

Not even close.If people who have no arms and legs buy a pool ,that is their business.If they drown,nobody but themselves will suffer.If a blind person miss identifies a target or misses the bad guy and hits someone else,it's on him.That's my point,it has nothing to do with peoples rights.What a stupid thread.

You honestly can't be that dense. That means Cops shouldn't carry guns they shoot innocents all the f-ing time.

 

[n1bsbri]

If I ever get too infirmed to handle guns safely,I will [STRIKE=.]pass that job onto someone else in my family[/STRIKE] report myself to the police, and have them come confiscate my firearms and license.

FIFY

 

[Whiskeyjim]

A blind person would of course need to consider more factors than a seeing person would in order to use a firearm safely.
They are just as capable of exercising the necessary judgment required to do so, taking into account their own limitations, as anyone else is.
If an accident, disease, or natural aging caused your eyesight to fade, would you want your license revoked, and your personal property seized?

 

[Boghog1]

Not saying anything about him thinking his wife was a criminal.Stay focused please.All I am saying is some folks shouldn't own firearms.Why make things more dangerous than they need to be.If I ever get too infirmed to handle guns safely,I will pass that job onto someone else in my family.

Like the Police, they seem to shoot innocents on a rather large scale compared to law abiding gun owners sighted or blind

 

[pbearperry]

FIFY

Wow,isn't this so grown up of you.

 

[pbearperry]

Like the Police, they seem to shoot innocents on a rather large scale compared to law abiding gun owners sighted or blind

that's unfortunate for sure,but unless there as many blind gun owners as cops involved in shootings,it's impossible to make a comparison intelligently.

 

[pbearperry]

My last statement on this thread is this.To be able to master shooting,you must be able to maintain a proper sight picture and proper trigger control.I don't believe legally blind people can do that.That is infortunate but true.Have fun with this,I am tired of it all.

 

[Realtor MA]

Apparently nobody here has seen 'The Blues Brothers'.

 

[Boghog1]

that's unfortunate for sure,but unless there as many blind gun owners as cops involved in shootings,it's impossible to make a comparison intelligently.

so you are arguing that an extremely small group of gun owners that are involved in an immeasurable percentage of mis identified targets should be prohibited from owning guns, but a much larger group that shoots a statistically higher group of innocents shouldn't have their rights infringed.

 

[not new guy]

so you are arguing that an extremely small group of gun owners that are involved in an immeasurable percentage of mis identified targets should be prohibited from owning guns, but a much larger group that shoots a statistically higher group of innocents shouldn't have their rights infringed.

He's saying that only people who have "mastered shooting" should be allowed to own guns.