The blind to be allowed gun permits?

Sid said:
I will agree You should not have one and respect your decision and will never try to force you to carry one.
Why is it that you and others seem to want to try to keep me from having one.
Click to expand...
Sid, I don't want to stop you from owning a gun. Hunting aside, I just don't understand why you want to.
However, if you venture across the Pacific to this country, I definitely don't want you to bring your guns with you.
 

Warrigal, I admit I had the impression you were one who wanted all guns abolished.
I grew up we hunted and fished a lot for food. No we would not have starved but we learned independance and did not need to go to the store for everything. Today we have people trying to stop hunting and fishing. But I like some wild game amd would like to teach my Grandkids how to hunt and fish if the need arises. To me hunting and fishing is a survival skill not a sport. I would like to pass those skills on.
On occasion I have had to kill wild animals to protect my livestock or put down an injured animal. It has become so expensive to have a butchershop process meat for us so we plan to start doing our own.
I like to shoot at targets. To some this is a waste. A tool(yes I call a gun a tool) needs to be checked and kept in working condition. If I do not practice when I need to use it the chances are greater that I will miss.
As for the fear factor,with me there is none. I do not fear fire but I take precautions and am ready to act in case the need comes up. Just the same as self defense, I do not fear burglars rapist dopers or whatever but I take precautions and try to be ready to act if need be. I do not think a burglar needs to be shot but come after my family or loved ones I will do whatever it takes, shooting to kill will be the last resort.
As for visiting your country, Australia is the first I would like to visit. But don't worry my guns will stay home.
 
Sid:
I grew up we hunted and fished a lot for food. No we would not have starved but we learned independance and did not need to go to the store for everything. Today we have people trying to stop hunting and fishing. But I like some wild game amd would like to teach my Grandkids how to hunt and fish if the need arises. To me hunting and fishing is a survival skill not a sport. I would like to pass those skills on.
On occasion I have had to kill wild animals to protect my livestock or put down an injured animal. It has become so expensive to have a butchershop process meat for us so we plan to start doing our own......

snip...............As for visiting your country, Australia is the first I would like to visit. But don't worry my guns will stay home.
Click to expand...

Drop in when you make it down here Sid, I have a cousin you'd enjoy a chat with who shared an almost identical upbringing and shares the same attitude to rifles. He's on the land too, cattle usually, none at present, not enough dosh in it, but will again when prices pick up. He has a butchery set up on the property and shoots and butchers his own when he's got them and buys one on the hoof from a neighbour when he gets low on beef. He could give you some tips about that.

We're not all namby pamby no-gun nancies down here, nor are we all horrified by guns. It's usually city people who think banning them is a great idea because they've never seen a feral animal ripping up their pets or livestock.
We simply seem to have a very much more pragmatic attitude to guns to those we see on News grabs from the US.
Guns don't hold any real symbolism to us, of rights, status or anything much except if someone's got one who doesn't need it he must be a crim.

Most of us are aware that what we see on News grabs is the extremes of behaviour. A lot of that is down to the bias of the journos, but it does give us a bewildering impression of how things really are in the States.

I sit on the fence when it comes to guns, I've owned a rifle but got over the novelty of blowing cans off fence posts and sold it without hesitation or regret. If I hadn't already sold it before the buy-back, I'd have handed it in with no compunction....simply because I didn't need it.

It's the extremes of reaction that any mention of restriction triggers (excuse the pun) over there and the instant stance that it's all about 'rights' rather than logic that fascinates me.

...whoops, sorry I was going to shut up wasn't I?
 

What our Aussie friends have to remember is that the media is not us.

The media profits from broadcasting fear-mongering - it creates a rich market for the negative news that sells so well. But it isn't representative of ALL or even MOST of us. Granted, there's a question whether the crazy minority is growing larger but unlike what he newscasts tell you they haven't taken over yet, except in very small geographic areas such as inner cities.

So yes, the manufactured fear factor is one aspect of gun ownership here. After every mass shooting by one maniac there is a rush to purchase arms. Who knows, it might be a conspiracy with the gun manufacturers.

We also, as a country, used to have the idea that we were safe in our homes. Unfortunately this is one publicly-reported fact that is true. You ARE a target for home-based crime, whether it is home invasion, domestic violence, burglary or a slew of other possibilities. People tell how they always leave their doors unlocked - what I always question is, WHY? Why tempt fate? Why decrease the odds of being safe just because you're too lazy to turn a lock?

Those days are gone here, no matter WHERE you are, as evidenced by the common exclamation by neighbors to a crime scene - "Oh, things like this just don't HAPPEN here!"

Yeah, they do. Get used to it. It's a new world now.

Returning to our original question, I still do not understand what a blind person would do with a gun. A firearm is meant to be used at a distance, not when your attacker is choking you or has you in a bear hug. By that point it's too late.

And a blind person cannot SEE into that distance, even though it's 10 feet away. Spray-and-pray? Hope I'm not in the vicinity when they do.

Yes, they have the right to own a gun. I just don't see the possibility of using it effectively.
 
Sid said:
As for the fear factor,with me there is none. I do not fear fire but I take precautions and am ready to act in case the need comes up. .
Click to expand...

Well put.

I don't fear driving, but I wear my seatbelt.

I don't fear riding a motorcycle, but I wear my protective gear when I do. 'Roadrash is Forever'

I lock my doors when I leave my house.

I do not fear fire. I have two fireplaces and five fire extinguishers.

I have a friend who's wife was kidnapped and raped when she was young. She carries a .38 now. When dining with some friends (they are vegetarians), one of the people attending the dinner was shocked to learn she carried. "Wow Pam! you're a vegetarian and you carry a gun? I cannot believe you'd actually kill someone!!"

Her reply was priceless................................ wait for it..................................



"Joan, until you've been abducted and raped, you cannot comment on this, besides..................................






.......................................I'm not going to eat them" :love_heart:
 
SifuPhil said:
Returning to our original question, I still do not understand what a blind person would do with a gun. A firearm is meant to be used at a distance, not when your attacker is choking you or has you in a bear hug. By that point it's too late.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree, Phil. MANY times when a firearm is used to save an innocent life, a scuffle has ensued first.

Perhaps Kreskin was able to shoot his would be attacker before an altercation, but he would be a special case, no? ;)
 
Warrigal said:
IMO guns are either a tool for culling and hunting animals or they are a necessary evil for some dangerous professions..
Click to expand...


Guns are not evil, guns are an inanimate object. They certainly can be used for evil, but they can also be used for good.

If you are an evil person, it's best you don't have one. Likewise, why would somebody mind if their good neighbor was armed?

Then there is the tired argument about how virtuous police officers are, but the number of crimes committed by police officers is many.

It all boils down to a few things IMHO; Locus of control, belief in good, minimal fear, and lack of brainwashing.
 
From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!
 
Jambi said:
Gotta disagree, Phil. MANY times when a firearm is used to save an innocent life, a scuffle has ensued first.

Perhaps Kreskin was able to shoot his would be attacker before an altercation, but he would be a special case, no? ;)
Click to expand...



I guarantee you that when you are being choked out, either arterial or oxygen, your first thought is not going to be drawing your firearm ...
 
So let's get this straight Phil. That move only works for honest people right? Crims will never learn that trick to disarm the righteous citizen protecting his home and family and blow his head off with it?? Betcha it would never work on that blind man.

I think I'm getting the hang of this... but then again...


:beatdeadhorse:
 
GDAD said:
From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it Gdad, we're just lighting up different aspects of the subject from our different light sources that's all.
We all benefit from new and different input and I for one enjoy getting a better picture of what the whole thing looks like, and not just settling for seeing only one side of it.

Explaining where our particular 'light' is coming from helps to clear the focus a little too.
Sometimes we need to question a stance to encourage an explanation of it and how and why it was formed.
That isn't arguing, that's debating. That we bother to seek that explanation shows our degree of interest in the other person's opinion by my reckoning. I don't bother questioning people who's opinion I don't care about.

It isn't a contest, whether discussing it changes minds or not doesn't matter, only learning about why others see it differently does. We're just passing time and viewpoints here, not legislation.
 
Diwundrin said:
So let's get this straight Phil. That move only works for honest people right? Crims will never learn that trick to disarm the righteous citizen protecting his home and family and blow his head off with it?? Betcha it would never work on that blind man.
Click to expand...

Actually the move itself would work for anyone with super-fast reflexes that trained that move for, oh, 5-10 years or so under all conditions with all sizes of assailants and all models of handguns.

But a homeowner who actually bothered to learn the limitations of a firearm when used as a self-defense tool? Who actually KNEW that you don't hold a gun to someone's head like they do in the movies? It's doubtful the bad guys would ever get the chance, even if they HAD trained for it.

I think I'm getting the hang of this... but then again...
Click to expand...

Not flagellating a deceased equine at all - as you said, we're trying to explain our own points of view and understand the others.

My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.

I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away. Yes, I was going overboard with my video example - that guy specializes in disarms like that, teaches them to police departments and special forces - but I wanted to make the point that if the guy with the gun had been 10', 15', 20' feet away Mr. Quickie-Hands wouldn't have had a prayer.

But a blind person does not have that choice - they have to be pressing the muzzle of the gun into the person to be sure. What if the bad guy has a family member as hostage? In attempting to use the gun in that close a distance they open themselves up to a 90%+ chance of being disarmed.

At root I think the whole "blind person defending themselves with a gun" is ludicrous in the extreme. Some people might say "well, it makes them FEEL safer". Yeah, so do filters on cigarettes, but you still die from them.

Giving someone false hope in the name of being PC is FAR more cruel - and possibly lethal - than just forcing them to acknowledge that they have a limitation. Ever since we began to refer to midgets and dwarfs as "Vertically-Challenged" and fat people as having "glandular difficulties" we've conned ourselves into thinking that everything is skittles and rainbows, and that if we just sing the mantras of "We Are The World" and "Kumbaya" loudly enough for enough times everything will be fine.

But it won't.

I spent 35 or so years teaching people how to acknowledge the real world. You'd be surprised what a tough job that is. They watch a movie or they hear a snippet of conversation from their neighbor and right away they think they know how the dark side operates.

They do not.

People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:


  1. Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
  2. Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them

Both groups are mistaken.
 
SifuPhil said:
My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.
I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away.

People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:
  1. Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
  2. Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them
Click to expand...
I disagree. If it's a weak, sickly, elderly man or woman carrying a gun on their person for example, they can take out the gun and use it effectively, keeping the element of surprise. I sometimes carry a small pen device called the Guardfather, it looks like a pen, but quickly converts to a sharp pointed weapon that can easily take someone's eye out, burst a neck artery, etc. I certainly wouldn't take it out and wave it around at my attacker, challenging him to fight me...when he was on me, trying to restrain me, or choking me, I'd time it right and take it out quickly by surprise, and do what I had to with it.

I don't fall into either group. I have no false sense of safety just because I may have a weapon, I'm aware that anything can happen. Also, I won't go down without a fight regardless, I'll fight dirty, gouge eyes with my thumbs, get on the ground and work on breaking or injuring their knees, break elbows if possible, etc. I did take a short course in a martial art when I was young, no black belt here, but I will do my best when it comes to surviving. Everyone should have a few moves in mind, whether defensive or offensive, to protect themselves if needed.
 
SifuPhil said:
Actually the move itself would work for anyone with super-fast reflexes that trained that move for, oh, 5-10 years or so under all conditions with all sizes of assailants and all models of handguns.

But a homeowner who actually bothered to learn the limitations of a firearm when used as a self-defense tool? Who actually KNEW that you don't hold a gun to someone's head like they do in the movies? It's doubtful the bad guys would ever get the chance, even if they HAD trained for it.



Not flagellating a deceased equine at all - as you said, we're trying to explain our own points of view and understand the others.

My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.

I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away. Yes, I was going overboard with my video example - that guy specializes in disarms like that, teaches them to police departments and special forces - but I wanted to make the point that if the guy with the gun had been 10', 15', 20' feet away Mr. Quickie-Hands wouldn't have had a prayer.

But a blind person does not have that choice - they have to be pressing the muzzle of the gun into the person to be sure. What if the bad guy has a family member as hostage? In attempting to use the gun in that close a distance they open themselves up to a 90%+ chance of being disarmed.


At root I think the whole "blind person defending themselves with a gun" is ludicrous in the extreme. Some people might say "well, it makes them FEEL safer". Yeah, so do filters on cigarettes, but you still die from them.
Click to expand...

Good point about the training. I didn't consider that aspect, I guess because it doesn't apply here I forget that many in the States would have that training. We tend to judge things according to our own abilities. You see the question in terms you are used to, physical fitness, speed, and training in martial arts. I see my chances in close 'combat' as zero. Knowing the moves wouldn't benefit me much, and I'd have to ask them to wait a few minutes to let me make it to where I'd left the gun. Even if I had one on me I doubt I'd get a chance to use it.
Sometimes you just have accept that shit happens and live normally because it hasn't happened yet and worrying that it might won't stop it if it ever does. Kismet. Besides, there's more and more elderly in the demographic, they can't get around to all of us.

I was never 'fit', nor strong, and couldn't run fast or far even when I was young. But I was a big tall solid looking girl.
When I had to 'run the gauntlet' of lowlifes to get to the door where I worked I used to carry the car key sticking out of my fist and could fix anyone who looked as though they were thinking about their chances with my best, steely, aggressive 'make my day' look and that bluff always worked. No one bothered me. I never suffered the delusion that I could beat them in a fight, the key was to mark 'em up so they'd be easier to identify later. Presuming I could land a blow with it. But I never had to. They were mainly drunk or just homeless and looking to get out of the weather so probably not as dangerous as some of them looked.

It might sound a good reason to carry but that thought never crossed my mind. I used to fantasize about driving a tank through the traffic, but guns simply never entered the equation even though I owned a rifle for some of that time. But then, I could hardly have fronted up to work with that. Not a good look.
None of 'them' had guns either, they weren't that kind of lowlifes back then, a knife maybe but no guns... different world. Even today the gun toters shoot from cars and live in the burbs.
We really do come from very different cultures in that respect.
Giving someone false hope in the name of being PC is FAR more cruel - and possibly lethal - than just forcing them to acknowledge that they have a limitation. Ever since we began to refer to midgets and dwarfs as "Vertically-Challenged" and fat people as having "glandular difficulties" we've conned ourselves into thinking that everything is skittles and rainbows, and that if we just sing the mantras of "We Are The World" and "Kumbaya" loudly enough for enough times everything will be fine.

But it won't.

I spent 35 or so years teaching people how to acknowledge the real world. You'd be surprised what a tough job that is. They watch a movie or they hear a snippet of conversation from their neighbor and right away they think they know how the dark side operates.

They do not.
Click to expand...

NO, I wouldn't be in the least surprised .


People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:


  1. Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
  2. Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them

Both groups are mistaken.
Click to expand...


3. Then there are those of us who wouldn't hesitate to fight dirty if we could just manage to lift the knee to crotch level but are aware that it would end badly if we tried and that God won't be giving us any superpowers.

Great post, and appreciated response.:)
 
I've been reading through these posts and I see one thing that hasn't even been mentioned.

A blind person could never get a permit to carry a gun. To get the permit you have to pass a test part of which includes shooting at targets. You must hit the target to pass the test.

A blind person could still legally buy a gun and have it a home. But many of you are talking about a blind person out in public with a gun. That would not happen.
 
rkunsaw said:
I've been reading through these posts and I see one thing that hasn't even been mentioned.

A blind person could never get a permit to carry a gun. To get the permit you have to pass a test part of which includes shooting at targets. You must hit the target to pass the test.

A blind person could still legally buy a gun and have it a home. But many of you are talking about a blind person out in public with a gun. That would not happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it is any other place but here in the wonderful Commonwealth of Pennsylvania you get a full carry permit just by submitting your application at the Courthouse along with your fee, from whence it goes to the Sheriff's office for a criminal background check. If you haven't done any mass slayings lately, you get your permit within 2 months. My student just got his - he's just an average Joe, left his application with the clerk along with cash (they don't take checks LOL!) and 3 weeks later boom, he can carry a cannon through the streets.

Maybe in other states they have different requirements, but here it's scary to realize that a totally blind person could indeed get a carry permit. As well, a person with no arms or whose head is on backwards could probably get one, because they don't take any physical limitations into account. You could also be totally ignorant of how to use and maintain that gun and not be capable of hitting the barn side of a broad - doesn't matter to them. :(

And THAT is where I think the law needs to be overhauled a bit.
 
GDAD said:
From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!
Click to expand...

Well, it may have wandered around a bit. I don't think it got out of hand. It has helped me to see the "Other side" as people with legitmate views. By reading some of the replies I feel some on the "other side" have come to see my concerns as well.

Thanks
 
Sid said:
Well, it may have wandered around a bit. I don't think it got out of hand. It has helped me to see the "Other side" as people with legitmate views. By reading some of the replies I feel some on the "other side" have come to see my concerns as well.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Thank you SID...cheers Mate!
 
GDAD said:
Thank you SID...cheers Mate!
Click to expand...

Will you clear something up for me?
What exactly is "cheers" I think it is something good but better make sure.
Since I am from up over instead of down under, am I allowed to use that phrase?
 
h8F98F1C1
 
'Cheers' can mean a number of things or nuthin' at all really Sid. People clink their beer glasses and say cheers and nobody knows or cares what it means.

It can be used to replace and mean 'no worries' or 'it's all good/okay/square' to indicate the end of an argument by mutual consent. As 'good luck', 'best wishes' or as 'see ya later' and quite often said in lieu of 'thanks' for casual favours ... or even lately to replace 'yours sincerely' at the end of correspondence. Take your pick, it's generic.

It's relatively new down here but has been around in the UK since year dot and probably has different meanings to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top