Blind Man Wins Court Battle To Own Guns

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

---

By that logic if he collects cars and is legally blind, why should not the state say he can no longer collect cars? Or paintings. Or what ever.

Did I miss the memo where identifying your target became a non-issue? Or do we just shoot off duty Marines in the bush?

He CAN own firearms. Period. Let's all (Ronin, Jer, 00tec) take a moment to refresh ourselves on the prerequisite to owning firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

He CAN own firearms. Period. Let's all (Ronin, Jer, 00tec) take a moment to refresh ourselves on the prerequisite to owning firearms.

---

I agree that it is his constitutional right to possess a firearm. Didn't argue that at all.
Last I checked, identifying a target was a prerequisite of shooting. Not doing so is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

---

I always use touch to verify a round in the pipe. Train for the worst scenario, and that will include darkness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00tec

Did I miss the memo where identifying your target became a non-issue? Or do we just shoot off duty Marines in the bush?

---

Is it possible there are methods to identify a hostile target besides good eyesight? [Bang]

What does owning guns have to do with target identification?

The article is about this man OWNING firearms. What other discussion is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

Is it possible there are methods to identify a hostile target besides good eyesight? [Bang]

---

Yeah, because the boogeyman is going to announce he is hostile. Unless he is touching you, it may prove pretty difficult. Glad he was able to identify his leg when the round went through it.

Let me ask, what if bad guy is holding a hostage? Hand over their mouth, shooting at you. Do you return fire at the gunshots if you can't see shit? The self defense argument starts to sound pretty weak at that point.

How can you tell if someone's kid runs out in front of that paper you are killing?

Look, I never said they should take his 2A away, but a bad idea is a bad idea on his part. Just because it is a good argument, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00tec

Yeah, because the boogeyman is going to announce he is hostile. Unless he is touching you, it may prove pretty difficult.

Let me ask, what if bad guy is holding a hostage? Hand over their mouth, shooting at you. Do you return fire at the gunshots if you can't see shit? The self defense argument starts to sound pretty weak at that point.

How can you tell if someone's kid runs out in front of that paper you are killing?

Look, I never said they should take his 2A away, but a bad idea is a bad idea on his part.

---

Or kicking his way in your front door?

I don't suppose we could assume he lives in the sticks, or shoots with friend's so the "kid" argument is pretty weak at best?

We could argue what-if's all day long.

Bottom line, it's his right to own a firearm and regardless of the circumstances, he may decide to use it. We really don't have enough info to decide that it isn't just plinking and he has zero intent of using them for self defense? We are all often guilty, myself included, of immediately jumping on the self-defense platform when it's really all about 2A isn't it?

Yep. I agree he can own guns. He can and will be judged if he uses it on another person. It would be cool to rig up some sort of echo location sighting system on a gun and have him at the range (with a sighted person helping). Orient him and let know when the range is hot and cold.

Steve