Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

[*BlackFox]

No one questions the legality of the permits, but some officials worry about public safety.
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Here's some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads: Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability. The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

Read Moar Here

[omier]

Oh wow.

[Tasdik]

I approve of this.

[*BlackFox]

I approve of this.

let's give them drivers licenses too. Yes?

[omier]

^Of course. Because blind people can't do the driving test, they won't have to do it to get the licence.

[Fiction]

Obviously you guys aren't fans of Dare Devil...

[Tasdik]

I approve of this.

let's give them drivers licenses too. Yes?

The way I figure it is, even if a blind person cant see, they can still hear. As such, let's say a blind person hears a robber enter their house, should they not be allowed to try and defend themselves?

[Fiction]

I approve of this.

let's give them drivers licenses too. Yes?

One is a right, and the other is a privilege.

Being legally blind does not necessarily mean you cannot see, and being handicap is not grounds to strip away someone's rights. Again, driving isn't a right.

[BuDo]

Hurray! for the USA...more dumb shit.... They should do this state wide actually....Only when the consequence of dumb shit manifest itself then you have its initial supporters doing the Micheal Jackson moonwalk over their original argument....So in light of this I say carry this thing state wide where we might get to see a handful of involuntary manslaughter cases...

[Rawr]

Legally blind is alright, I know quite a few people who fit this category and they're fine once their glasses are on.
Now completely blind on the other hand... Are you serious?

[Fiction]

Hurray! for the USA...more dumb shit.... They should do this state wide actually....Only when the consequence of dumb shit manifest itself then you have its initial supporters doing the Micheal Jackson moonwalk over their original argument....So in light of this I say carry this thing state wide where we might get to see a handful of involuntary manslaughter cases...

[Love]

Spray and pray moterfukers.

[*BlackFox]

Well!

Being legally blind means that your best seeing eye cannot be corrected with glasses or contact lenses any better than 20/200. The best way to understand this is to think about a normal person with 20/20 vision. This person has the ability to stand 200 feet away from an object and see the finest detail, whereas the legally blind person would have to move all of the way up to 20 feet to see the same detail. A legally blind person has difficulty seeing objects very far away or very close.

[Ganja]

^ By the description I guess I am also legally blind and I have a driver's license. Watch out bitches.

[Tasdik]

^ By the description I guess I am also legally blind and I have a driver's license. Watch out bitches.

Quick! Take his license away!

[*BlackFox]

even if a blind person cant see, they can still hear.

But in this case. Shooting an innocent person.. is extremely high!

[Fiction]

even if a blind person cant see, they can still hear.

But in this case. Shooting an innocent person.. is extremely high!

No... No, it's not.. This is really just sensationalizing the situation. Just because a blind person owns a gun doesn't mean they will go around shooting it at anything moving... More than likely, like a lot of concealers or gun owners, they'll go their entire lives not having to use it in a self-defense situation. You can let your little imagination run wild all you want... Where I'm sitting, there doesn't seem to be an increase in blind people blasting innocent people away.

[BuDo]

even if a blind person cant see, they can still hear.

But in this case. Shooting an innocent person.. is extremely high!

No... No, it's not.. This is really just sensationalizing the situation. Just because a blind person owns a gun doesn't mean they will go around shooting it at anything moving... More than likely, like a lot of concealers or gun owners, they'll go their entire lives not having to use it in a self-defense situation. You can let your little imagination run wild all you want... Where I'm sitting, there doesn't seem to be an increase in blind people blasting innocent people away.

The potential for an increase in accidents is significant enough to not allow this dumb shit....Normal seeing people have their guns removed/borrowed/taken from it's supposed safe keeping place and that is already bad enough.....If you really believe that blind people will go through their entire lives not having to use a gun in a self defense situation then there is no need for them to have it just to satisfy some outmoded doctrine that says everyone should have the right to bare arms.....at the very least..extending this to blind people is taking the doctrine too far...

[Fiction]

The potential for an increase in accidents is significant enough to not allow this dumb shit....Normal seeing people have their guns removed/borrowed/taken from it's supposed safe keeping place and that is already bad enough.....If you really believe that blind people will go through their entire lives not having to use a gun in a self defense situation then there is no need for them to have it just to satisfy some outmoded doctrine that says everyone should have the right to bare arms.....at the very least..extending this to blind people is taking the doctrine too far...

Well at least you've got reliable information to back up your opinion... Just because the odds are in your favor that you will not have to use your gun, doesn't mean there isn't the off chance you'll have to use it. I carry a gun with me, doesn't mean I'll use it, but there is always that one and a million chance. One of my good friend was blind to the point he could only make out shadow figures. He was fully capable of deciding if there was an actual threat present or someone just coming over late at night. He was very responsible, and could navigate his house just as anyone one else.(Sorry, I seriously doubt a blind man will be carrying concealed in public if they're at this level of blindness)

Do you think just because someone is blind, they'd leave their firearm laying around on the coffee table or something? You also fail to realize, this isn't a law that says all blind people must own a gun... This is simply restating the right to own one. So the likely-hood of a blind person actually going out and getting one, then being completely irresponsible with it, aren't that high. Then you take into account that someone then has to steal that gun, then decide to do malicious things with it. Oh yeah, definitely a significant increase... dumb dumb dumb, we have our government giving drug cartels assault weapons, illegal guns being sold in the street errrrrrday, and your brilliant mind(sarcasm) goes to blind people being able to own a gun is a significant threat... You make it perfectly apparent you've not really been around firearms, nor done any kind of homework on the crime situation, every time we have a discussion pertaining to the subject.

Please if you can show many any studies pertaining to blind people having such a significant effect on any kind of criminal activity, I'll go ahead and concede that we should actually be worried about this law.

[BuDo]

Your sheepish and indoctrinated love affair with the right to bare arms is hilarious at best as you try to apply reason to why the blind and/or partially blind should be afforded this "precious" right when you yourself would probably argue against this decision if it involved motor-vehicle operation/equipment operation/the operation of public transportation vehicles/air planes etc....

[Fiction]

Your sheepish and indoctrinated love affair with the right to bare arms is hilarious at best as you try to apply reason to why the blind and/or partially blind should be afforded this "precious" right when you yourself would probably argue against this decision if it involved motor-vehicle operation/equipment operation/the operation of public transportation vehicles/air planes etc....

Ehhhh....Ignoratio elenchi... Yet again confusing a right and a privilege. Also, one is directly endangering other people for obvious reasons, and the other just has the slight potential. It could be argued everything has the potential to cause harm though. Sheepish and indoctrinated?

[BuDo]

Your sheepish and indoctrinated love affair with the right to bare arms is hilarious at best as you try to apply reason to why the blind and/or partially blind should be afforded this "precious" right when you yourself would probably argue against this decision if it involved motor-vehicle operation/equipment operation/the operation of public transportation vehicles/air planes etc....

Ehhhh....Ignoratio elenchi... Yet again confusing a right and a privilege. Also, one is directly endangering other people for obvious reasons, and the other just has the slight potential. It could be argued everything has the potential to cause harm though. Sheepish and indoctrinated?

Not confusing the right with the privilege at all...don't know where you saw that...just pointing out your bias love affair with the right... We all know you'll argue to defend the right and only care about the dangers brought on by the privilege when its quite clear that both of them pose a threat, hence lies your sheepish indoctrination. Which is why you think blind people with guns aren't really posing a significant threat to others.."for obvious reasons"...yes....

Edit

[TheDrop]

pole foot 10

[Fiction]

Your sheepish and indoctrinated love affair with the right to bare arms is hilarious at best as you try to apply reason to why the blind and/or partially blind should be afforded this "precious" right when you yourself would probably argue against this decision if it involved motor-vehicle operation/equipment operation/the operation of public transportation vehicles/air planes etc....

Ehhhh....Ignoratio elenchi... Yet again confusing a right and a privilege. Also, one is directly endangering other people for obvious reasons, and the other just has the slight potential. It could be argued everything has the potential to cause harm though. Sheepish and indoctrinated?

Not confusing the right with the privilege at all...don't know where you saw that...just pointing out your bias love affair with the right... We all know you'll argue to defend the right and only care about the dangers brought on by the privilege when its quite clear that both of them pose a threat, hence lies your sheepish indoctrination. Which is why you think blind people with guns aren't really posing a significant threat to others.."for obvious reasons"...yes....

Edit

On the contrary... Your fallacious argument poses that owning a gun is equal to operating a piece of equipment, flying an airplane, or driving a vehicle. Yet, in no way is the similarity between the two relevant to this discussion. The similarity being they both possess the ability to bring harm or kill someone. You're excellent at the art of fallacious argument, I'll give you that-although it takes absolutely no wit or understanding for such a feat.

Simply owning a gun-as it's granted to all law abiding citizens of the United States- is not endangering anyone's life just because said person is blind. Blind does not equal mentally deranged either. Blind in this case equals poor vision. Having poor vision doesn't mean someone will go around shooting others just because they own a gun... Having poor vision does make it very dangerous to operate an airplane, car, equipment, etc. Again I ask, how am I sheepish or indoctrinated? I base my beliefs off of what is proven and logical, not off of whim and emotion. Which seems to fuel your ignorant assessments.

TL;DR Your argument is garbage, and you're a hypocrite to call me sheepish and indoctrinated.(As you might want to look those words up, then look at where your stance is based from. lol)

[Tasdik]

But, Fiction, only tea party conservatives can be indoctrinated. Everyone else is immune to it. Especially liberals. They're all free thinking individuals who come up with their own unique view points on important issues.

[non ego man]

But, Fiction, only tea party conservatives can be indoctrinated. Everyone else is immune to it. Especially liberals. They're all free thinking individuals who come up with their own unique view points on important issues.

Struth! Liberals are like totally open-minded and sht!

And for the record (because I don't visit the forums all that much any more) I've given my proxy to Fiction.

[Fiction]

But, Fiction, only tea party conservatives can be indoctrinated. Everyone else is immune to it. Especially liberals. They're all free thinking individuals who come up with their own unique view points on important issues.

And for the record (because I don't visit the forums all that much any more) I've given my proxy to Fiction.

[BuDo]

@ Fiction

Again more bias filth for the right to bare arms....I love how you convey that the operating of machinery/airplane by a blind person is dangerous but failed to use the same context/word of operating a hand gun by blind person....You instead carefully chose to use a different context such as them simply having a gun.... A blind person could have car or plane but almost never use it so your own argument is not only fallacious its quite moot....The initial argument (which you seem to be steering away from) is the danger that comes from the usage of said firearm by a blind person and not merely owning one...But your brainwashed love affair with the outdated right to bare arms won't let you observe common sense so there is no point going any further with this...

[Fiction]

@ Fiction

Again more bias filth for the right to bare arms....I love how you convey that the operating of machinery/airplane by a blind person is dangerous but failed to use the same context/word of operating a hand gun by blind person....You instead carefully chose to use a different context such as them simply having a gun.... A blind person could have car or plane but almost never use it so your own argument is not only fallacious its quite moot....The initial argument (which you seem to be steering away from) is the danger that comes from the usage of said firearm by a blind person and not merely owning one...But your brainwashed love affair with the outdated right to bare arms won't let you observe common sense so there is no point going any further with this...

Im sorry, but you really are ignorant. You made these parameters, I simply argued your stupidly put points. Just because a blind person is allowed to own a gun does not mean they will use it, and if they did use it, the likelihood they go around shooting all over the place is just retarded. You say a lot, but you don't really ever back anything with sound reasoning. Please show me how legal gun ownership has harmed this country. Illegal gun owners cause far more problems. You're the one that comes off sheepish and indoctrinated... Alright please give me back mclovin or thedrop, dubo always gets dumb and dumber the longer his argument goes in circles.

[*BlackFox]

How would a gun instructor teach a blind person?