[Debate] Should Blind People have the right to bear arms?

[Kenotthib]

Title says it all. In Iowa blind people have the right to have guns. I'm all for freedom but this really makes me question it in some instances making me a hypocrite.

 

[The Necromancer]

I.... guess. They can't be any worse with guns than some of the hicks who tote dozens of high powered rifles. As long as they don't hurt themselves or others.

 

[LUMOS ULTIMATUM]

It's a bit dangerous without sight. So my answer is negative.

 

[The Big Boss]

Title says it all. In Iowa blind people have the right to have guns. I'm all for freedom but this really makes me question it in some instances making me a hypocrite.

look at dare devil .

 

[Kurome]

It's dangerous, indeed...as dangerous as those that use them with good eyes and consciousness...U_U

 

[SonictheHedgehog]

Lol Like asking if a deaf person should be allowed to have political debates.

It doesn't matter, they're going to fail either way.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Lol Like asking if a deaf person should be allowed to have political debates.

It doesn't matter, they're going to fail either way.

No it's not, a deaf person can't f*ck up with his debate and kill people.

 

[Cosman]

There are qualifications in terms of discharging a firearm and safeguarding. Qualifications that I'm not sure a blind person can meet.

So no.

 

[Crossroads]

No, how do they know who they're shooting?

Simple as that, I don't really see the argument against this..

 

[Dreckerplayer]

You shouldn't hold a gun if you can't see where your aiming it. That's putting innocent people's lives in danger. That isn't logical, or fair.

It's not about 'freedom'. No one is free in this country, we just think we are. It's not freedom we should live by, it's fairness, unconditional love, and logic that would make better sense.

General 'Freedom' isn't happiness. Would you allow pedophiles to run 'free' and rape little kids?General freedom doesn't make the world a better place, so don't be fooled.

 

[Cursed Prince]

**** no. Unless you're one of those blind people that got super senses and shit

 

[Kαmi]

No. The requirements to use a gun would mean you would have to pass a vision test and a blind person does not have the capability to do so. They would need super senses to know where to aim at or they will shoot aimlessly and could possibly hurt innocent people.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

**** no. Unless you're one of those blind people that got super senses and shit

Yes, only if you have a reliable sense that allows you to use a gun properly.

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

They can shoot a man then can say i can't see and they can be free . is there new laws for them ?

 

[Aim64C]

You shouldn't hold a gun if you can't see where your aiming it. That's putting innocent people's lives in danger. That isn't logical, or fair.

The second amendment says that the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone approaches this from the perspective of: "Should a blind person be allowed to buy a firearm?" But that's not what is being asked. Let's say a gun collector who frequents the range loses his sight, for some reason. Should he be forced to give up his firearms?

I don't think your assertion that there are "innocent people's lives are in danger" is a very stable, logical argument.

It's not about 'freedom'. No one is free in this country, we just think we are. It's not freedom we should live by, it's fairness, unconditional love, and logic that would make better sense.

Continue with that, and I will be forced to eliminate you some day, kid.

It's not "unconditional love" that you profess. It is unconditional superiority. You believe you can tell people how to live better - and can make them do so through use of law. You believe that you're being logical when you're merely rationalizing totalitarian brutality. You argue that you're fair... but there's no such thing as fair in this world.

Your mentality invariably leads to you trying to write laws from thousands of miles away that deal with the details of my every day life (because you know better than me). Which is why, if you continue, there will come a time when people such as myself remove the problem.

General 'Freedom' isn't happiness. Would you allow pedophiles to run 'free' and rape little kids?General freedom doesn't make the world a better place, so don't be fooled.

Now that's a straw man if I ever did see one.

I bet you're the same type that argues we should be free to marry whomever we choose, correct? That gays should be allowed to get married.

There's a very good line to draw with regards to freedom. When you have to use some kind of force upon another person in your freedom, then you have gone too far. Blackmail, physical and economic coercion, murder, rape - those types of things cross the line in terms of individual liberty.

If a blind man buys a firearm and ends up killing someone - he's just as liable as any other person is for killing someone. If it was in self-defense, it was in self-defense. If it was in error - that's manslaughter or some type of murder (depending upon the prosecutor).

Now - would I say it's wise for a blind man to use a firearm? No, I wouldn't. But, that said - I don't feel like a blind person with a firearm represents a hazard to me. If there's a person with a firearm who is making me feel anxious - it's because he/she is being stupid/irresponsible with it. A blind person can still use a firearm responsibly.

Just because they can't see doesn't mean they are lacking in awareness of where they are, what general direction they are pointing, and what could go wrong. People with perfectly functional eyes will point firearms around without paying attention to what is on the other end of the barrel. They'll shoot without thinking about what happens if/when they miss.

A blind person acting like that isn't making me anxious because he's blind - he's making me anxious because he's a fool, first. Even if he had eyes - it wouldn't likely change that.

They can shoot a man then can say i can't see and they can be free . is there new laws for them ?

No, there's no new laws needed.

You could build a very circumstantial case for murder. If in the case of an accident - manslaughter and some types of murder charges could also apply.

It's the same as if I were to get into my car and speed down the main roads through town at 90 miles an hour. Some kid runs out in front of me, chasing a dog - and I turn the kid into a grease stain. Did I -intend- to kill the kid? No. But my decision to drive that way was not only illegal - but also something that any reasonable person should have known posed an unreasonable amount of risk to others in the area.

I willingly took that risk, and I knowingly degraded my ability to respond to a life threatening situation.