Surely common sense says, NO gun licenses to Blind people ?

[surfsatwerk]

Rutger Haur in Blind Fury taught me that blind people are badasses with swords. I don't see any harm in letting them carry firearms.

It is my understanding, from the kung-fu documentaries of my youth, that blind people develop the ability of radar like hearing. My only concern is for the recently blind who do not have this super human power.

 

[Phoenix86]

Legally blind? Blind as a bat? Corrected/uncorrected? Kind of important details.

People read it and assume blind as a bat, walking cane, dog. However, these people have some vision (may still use a dog or cane but not 100%-no vision, blind).

Article is about a CCW, but they show a guy with a long gun and massive optics. Hunting licenses are very very different than CCW. Even then, it sounds like the guy is just range shooting which doesn't require a license at a ll.

It's sad what passes for journalism these days.

 

[Phoenix86]

Rutger Haur in Blind Fury taught me that blind people are badasses with swords. I don't see any harm in letting them carry firearms.

 

[KeithP]

Melchisedec Williams is 50 years old and legally blind. He has no sight in his right eye, and only minor vision in his left, because of Glaucoma.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ay-blind-homeowner-shoots-intruder-cut-power/

-KeithP

 

[schneiderguy]

What's a gun license?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ay-blind-homeowner-shoots-intruder-cut-power/

-KeithP

That's a very interesting case. It opens up a real can of worms. On the one hand they have a right to defend themselves (not that I'm trying to say that gun ownership is good, for anyone, ideally the Police should make everywhere safe enough), and they did in this case.
But on the other hand, their poor (or non-existent) vision, could lead to terrible mistakes, which it seems to have done, here. Because they shot their own nephew, partly because the nephew was doing bad/crazy stuff (if their story is fully true), but also because they could not see them properly (due to being mostly blind), so they shot them anyway, but fortunately it was their leg that got hit. So they survived.
I would hope that we all live in societies (round the world), which have the decency to leave seriously disabled/blind people alone, and not carry out serious crimes against them.
E.g. What kind of criminal attacks a poor old lady, in a wheel chair ?

 

[xBiffx]

If a blind person wants a gun, so be it. I'm not sure why they would want to or how they intend to use it though. Therein lies the rub. Ownership isn't the issue, its the details surrounding the use of it that matter.

 

[pontifex]

That's a very interesting case. It opens up a real can of worms. On the one hand they have a right to defend themselves (not that I'm trying to say that gun ownership is good, for anyone, ideally the Police should make everywhere safe enough), and they did in this case.
But on the other hand, their poor (or non-existent) vision, could lead to terrible mistakes, which it seems to have done, here. Because they shot their own nephew, partly because the nephew was doing bad/crazy stuff (if their story is fully true), but also because they could not see them properly (due to being mostly blind), so they shot them anyway, but fortunately it was their leg that got hit. So they survived.
I would hope that we all live in societies (round the world), which have the decency to leave seriously disabled/blind people alone, and not carry out serious crimes against them.
E.g. What kind of criminal attacks a poor old lady, in a wheel chair ?

LMAO!!! are you a comedian because thats the funniest shit i have ever heard. and everyone should have enough money to never have to worry about bills, food, medical care, etc. How do you propose that piece of wonderland logic? you are responsible for yourself. How many cops are there per how many people? I bet it's thousands if not more.

 

[KeithP]

But on the other hand, their poor (or non-existent) vision, could lead to terrible mistakes, which it seems to have done, here.

Did we read the same article I wonder? I see no mistake here. His nephew seemed intent on doing him harm and he protected himself.

-KeithP

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

LMAO!!! are you a comedian because thats the funniest shit i have ever heard. and everyone should have enough money to never have to worry about bills, food, medical care, etc. How do you propose that piece of wonderland logic? you are responsible for yourself. How many cops are there per how many people? I bet it's thousands if not more.

In the UK, we have crime under fairly good control, and a well performing Police force. Combined with some of the strictest gun control laws, anywhere in the world, and Police who routinely DON'T carry guns.
E.g. Hand guns are outlawed, and unavailable to normal individuals. With few exceptions. Exceptions would be the Police Armed response units, army, and probably the prime minister protection people. Some of the airport police ARE armed.

If we (UK) can do it, then why not other countries ?

tl;dr
I/we feel safe in our homes, and don't feel a need to arm ourselves.
Phoning the police, would rapidly (if urgent) get us major assistance if required.

Despite a common language and much similarity, there are still some areas of significant cultural differences between the UK and the US. This issue being a significant difference.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Did we read the same article I wonder? I see no mistake here. His nephew seemed intent on doing him harm and he protected himself.

-KeithP

But I got the impression, that he thought it was someone else (if his claims are true, and he is not lying to avoid getting into trouble with the law). He says that he called out to his nephew (before shooting), who did not reply, hence his belief that it was NOT his nephew.

EDIT: But yes, it does indeed seem that the nephew intended to harm their relative (e.g. Armed with Knife). So they may have been forced to shoot, even if they had noticed it was their nephew.

 

[mikeford]

Shotgun with a white band around the end of the barrel so you know they are blind.

 

[mikeford]

In the UK, we have crime under fairly good control, and a well performing Police force. Combined with some of the strictest gun control laws, anywhere in the world, and Police who routinely DON'T carry guns.
E.g. Hand guns are outlawed, and unavailable to normal individuals. With few exceptions. Exceptions would be the Police Armed response units, army, and probably the prime minister protection people. Some of the airport police ARE armed.

If we (UK) can do it, then why not other countries ?

tl;dr
I/we feel safe in our homes, and don't feel a need to arm ourselves.
Phoning the police, would rapidly (if urgent) get us major assistance if required.

Despite a common language and much similarity, there are still some areas of significant cultural differences between the UK and the US. This issue being a significant difference.

You live on a little island and nobody has anything worth stealing. Since you are all disarmed, anybody with muscle or a club can rob you in safety.

 

[pontifex]

In the UK, we have crime under fairly good control, and a well performing Police force. Combined with some of the strictest gun control laws, anywhere in the world, and Police who routinely DON'T carry guns.
E.g. Hand guns are outlawed, and unavailable to normal individuals. With few exceptions. Exceptions would be the Police Armed response units, army, and probably the prime minister protection people. Some of the airport police ARE armed.

If we (UK) can do it, then why not other countries ?

tl;dr
I/we feel safe in our homes, and don't feel a need to arm ourselves.
Phoning the police, would rapidly (if urgent) get us major assistance if required.

Despite a common language and much similarity, there are still some areas of significant cultural differences between the UK and the US. This issue being a significant difference.

A) look how small the UK is compared to the US. Thats a HUGE difference.
B) I haven't done any research myself, but from news reports, it seems like crime in the UK is pretty high.
C) what if you can't call the police?

Sorry, but relying on the government to save you is going to end up badly 9 times out of 10 (at least in the US).

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

You live on a little island and nobody has anything worth stealing. Since you are all disarmed, anybody with muscle or a club can rob you in safety.

A) look how small the UK is compared to the US. Thats a HUGE difference.
B) I haven't done any research myself, but from news reports, it seems like crime in the UK is pretty high.
C) what if you can't call the police?

Sorry, but relying on the government to save you is going to end up badly 9 times out of 10 (at least in the US).

A) The sizes scale up, because the population of the UK, is considerably smaller than the population of the US. But I agree that the much bigger land size of the US, and the way that things are funded, may make the UK Policing system difficult to implement.

B) There are media claims that crime is high in the UK. But I keep on hearing, that in practice, it is nice and low. In practice I have seen very little crime, apart from some bad driving, sometimes.

C) If we can't call the Police, usually crime is NOT too bad, the criminals will usually not be armed with guns. So the thing to do is hand over your wallet (or whatever), and then when you can, phone the police.

Like just about anywhere in the world, homes are sometimes broken in to, some people are mugged (robbed in the street), and banks are sometimes raided.

 

[1sikbITCH]

In the UK, we have crime under fairly good control, and a well performing Police force. Combined with some of the strictest gun control laws, anywhere in the world, and Police who routinely DON'T carry guns.
E.g. Hand guns are outlawed, and unavailable to normal individuals. With few exceptions. Exceptions would be the Police Armed response units, army, and probably the prime minister protection people. Some of the airport police ARE armed.

If we (UK) can do it, then why not other countries ?

tl;dr
I/we feel safe in our homes, and don't feel a need to arm ourselves.
Phoning the police, would rapidly (if urgent) get us major assistance if required.

Despite a common language and much similarity, there are still some areas of significant cultural differences between the UK and the US. This issue being a significant difference.

LOL this is like a wolf wondering why the sheep won't play anymore. This country and it's "right to bear arms" was borne out of your country's tyrannical oppression. Read a freaking history book. This is your fault and come to think of it, I want reparations!

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

LOL this is like a wolf wondering why the sheep won't play anymore. This country and it's "right to bear arms" was borne out of your country's tyrannical oppression. Read a freaking history book. This is your fault and come to think of it, I want reparations!

As with a lot of things in life, there is more than one way of doing it. So one way of controlling crime, is to have a big Police force and strict gun controls. Another way, is to have a smaller Police force (relatively), and no/little gun control.

There are many pros and cons, of both methods, and it is difficult to be 100% sure, which is the best method overall.

The future is at least a little bit uncertain, as we (world wide) may be sliding closer to wars, than perhaps we would like. Such as the current Russia and other countries, situations.

My opinion is still relatively anti-gun ownership. But I appreciate that I am not some super being, who knows the answer to everything, so without knowing considerably more about the situation in the US, and the history which brought it about, I feel that I should abstain, from having a strong opinion here.

tl;dr
I would prefer to have a team of twenty intellectual unbiased advisor's on this issue, like the American presidents have (approximately), before committing to a firm conclusion here.

From some earlier criticisms of my previous posts on this issue, I am expecting some highly comedic replies, to my stance here.

tl;dr (mk2)
My opinion = few guns; But in practice I appreciate that I am NOT an expert on things like this, so could well be wrong in practice.

 

[pontifex]

A) The sizes scale up, because the population of the UK, is considerably smaller than the population of the US. But I agree that the much bigger land size of the US, and the way that things are funded, may make the UK Policing system difficult to implement.

B) There are media claims that crime is high in the UK. But I keep on hearing, that in practice, it is nice and low. In practice I have seen very little crime, apart from some bad driving, sometimes.

C) If we can't call the Police, usually crime is NOT too bad, the criminals will usually not be armed with guns. So the thing to do is hand over your wallet (or whatever), and then when you can, phone the police.

Like just about anywhere in the world, homes are sometimes broken in to, some people are mugged (robbed in the street), and banks are sometimes raided.

I've never seen a crime in progress here either, must mean there's no crime, at least following your logic.

I dont even know how to respond your last point. If you cant call the police then it must not be a bad enough situation?
So when you're surprised by a criminal and beaten to a pulp, it must not be a big deal right?

Your criminals on the uk must be like the gangs in west side story...

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I've never seen a crime in progress here either, must mean there's no crime, at least following your logic.

I dont even know how to respond your last point. If you cant call the police then it must not be a bad enough situation?
So when you're surprised by a criminal and beaten to a pulp, it must not be a big deal right?

Your criminals on the uk must be like the gangs in west side story...

If we had easy access to handguns, then criminals would have easy access to handguns. So instead of being beaten up, we would get shot dead, on the days we were not fast enough to shoot back, at the criminals.

I would much prefer to be without my wallet, and/or have a bloody nose, from a criminal, than be armed with a handgun, not succeed at firing at them quickly enough, and then ending up DEAD.

The statistics are CRAZY, if I remember correctly. Something like 100,000 people are shot dead (through all causes, including accidents/suicides) in the US (if not 100,000 a year, some big figure).

In the UK, less than 100 people a year are shot dead, through all causes.

(Figures from memory, may be wrong).

The population difference does not explain the huge difference in figures.

Mass shootings in the UK, happen about once every 10 years, excluding big gang vs gang clashes (which are not that frequent, either).

It seems like every week, we (in the UK), hear about yet another mass shooting in the US.

I'm not sure that even your police force should all be armed, from the number of Police killings that I keep on hearing about. Let alone the general population.

But I am still open to the possibility that somehow, some good is coming from all these deaths in the US, but somehow, it does not seem right.

 

[pontifex]

If we had easy access to handguns, then criminals would have easy access to handguns. So instead of being beaten up, we would get shot dead, on the days we were not fast enough to shoot back, at the criminals.

I would much prefer to be without my wallet, and/or have a bloody nose, from a criminal, than be armed with a handgun, not succeed at firing at them quickly enough, and then ending up DEAD.

The statistics are CRAZY, if I remember correctly. Something like 100,000 people are shot dead (through all causes, including accidents/suicides) in the US (if not 100,000 a year, some big figure).

In the UK, less than 100 people a year are shot dead, through all causes.

(Figures from memory, may be wrong).

The population difference does not explain the huge difference in figures.

Mass shootings in the UK, happen about once every 10 years, excluding big gang vs gang clashes (which are not that frequent, either).

It seems like every week, we (in the UK), hear about yet another mass shooting in the US.

I'm not sure that even your police force should all be armed, from the number of Police killings that I keep on hearing about. Let alone the general population.

But I am still open to the possibility that somehow, some good is coming from all these deaths in the US, but somehow, it does not seem right.

Are you implying that every US criminal has a gun and kills their victims and implying that the UK criminals are a bunch of good guys just stealing wallets and giving bloody noses? Maybe your criminals are better than ours and are just misunderstood and misguided blokes who are good at heart?

 

[OverVolt]

Blind simply means that with corrective lenses you can see at best, 20/200. Though they can still see to an extent. Everybody thinks Mr. Magoo cause its the internet but its not that cut and dry.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Are you implying that every US criminal has a gun and kills their victims and implying that the UK criminals are a bunch of good guys just stealing wallets and giving bloody noses? Maybe your criminals are better than ours and are just misunderstood and misguided blokes who are good at heart?

Some countries (such as Switzerland, I think), have lots of guns, and yet relatively low gun crime rates, so there must be more to it, than just the availability of guns.

There are lots of physical and fundamental differences between the UK and the US, and their histories. So it is probably unfair to directly compare them in the ways that I have been doing.

I guess at the end of the day, you either allow guns, or you predominantly don't. The US allows them and the UK doesn't.

To answer your question, if there are hardly any guns about, and the penalties even for possession of them are very severe (5 years guaranteed minimum sentence, automatically applies in the UK, I believe), then few people are killed by criminals with guns (e.g. In the UK).
But some criminals + some guns = US = High gun crime. But there are countries with lots of guns and few gun crimes, so there must be a lot more to the issue, such as drug use, gangs, differences between rich and poor, etc etc.

There have been many discussions on these forums about this, so I think/hope that we can stop this (partly off-topic discussion), and continue with the on-topic discussion.
But I take a lot of the blame for initiating this off-topic part of the discussion.

Therefore if you reply to this, I will read it, but stop replying to the off-topic discussion, so that we can remain on-topic. I guess it should be discussed in P&N or discussions-club?? or under a guns or ban them discussion titled thread

Blind simply means that with corrective lenses you can see at best, 20/200. Though they can still see to an extent. Everybody thinks Mr. Magoo cause its the internet but its not that cut and dry.

Very true.

Advances in aids (over the coming decades) to help the Blind (including the 100% blind), at least partially see, are going to at least partly, cloud this issue as well.
e.g. Advances with brain (via nerve operations) to electronic camera interfaces.
Vision to sound systems.
Ultimately they will probably be able to use transplant surgery, and even grow back our own eyes (like they are already beginning to do with skin/ears/etc and stuff), with our own DNA.

I guess that the way things work, is that it is up to the individual, to decide if they are certain enough (relative to how much they can see, if at all), that the person(s) are >99.99% criminals and that the gun MUST be used. (Coming from the UK, which is relatively gun free, I don't like the idea of this). Then they can fire the gun.
So I guess part of this issue, is can a blind person be trusted, to use the gun sensibly and does their terrible vision, mean that even then, they CAN'T be trusted, due to their poor (or non-existent) vision ?

 

[child of wonder]

I'll just leave this here. Good friend of mine in the news.

What the news story doesn't say is that after the shoot was over, Ryan challenged the cop to a quick draw contest. Whoever came closest to the bulls eye won. The cop did not win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFNce0X_8AA

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I'll just leave this here. Good friend of mine in the news.

What the news story doesn't say is that after the shoot was over, Ryan challenged the cop to a quick draw contest. Whoever came closest to the bulls eye won. The cop did not win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFNce0X_8AA

It's amazing what can be achieved, if you put your mind to it. Many would think that blindness, 100% rules out target practice. I presume that he aligns the gun up to the target, by taking assumptions, on where the target is going to be, relative to the wall/surface/barrier or the target area, which he can feel with his hands.
But that method would probably fail, if an armed intruder was running towards him.

Thanks for posting the video, it has helped put into perspective, the situation, here.