Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Being blind as a bat shouldn't be a problem...
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2013 :  15:37:42  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
... if you're applying for a permit to carry a gun.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130908/NEWS/309080061/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1


Personally, I'm a little conflicted. On one hand, dangerous. One the other, who likely is it that he/she will hit anything he's aiming at?

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2013 :  18:27:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

... if you're applying for a permit to carry a gun.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130908/NEWS/309080061/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1


Personally, I'm a little conflicted. On one hand, dangerous. One the other, who likely is it that he/she will hit anything he's aiming at?

And they are also reconsidering another stand your ground law. What could go wrong.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2013 :  11:47:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

... if you're applying for a permit to carry a gun.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130908/NEWS/309080061/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1


Personally, I'm a little conflicted. On one hand, dangerous. One the other, who likely is it that he/she will hit anything he's aiming at?



Blown out of proportion.

How many blind people have licenses in the state? 0 if you don't count the cops.

Also a difference between blind and legally blind.

It's another distraction issue for a problem that doesn't exist.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2013 :  12:46:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have a modest proposal. Let the blind buy and use hand grenades instead. That way their visual challenge would be less likely to cause them to miss their target.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2013 :  12:53:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

...

Also a difference between blind and legally blind.

It's another distraction issue for a problem that doesn't exist.
Actually, people with total blindness can now carry pistols in Iowa, per the article:
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.
And as the blind man who was getting his gun (see the article's photo caption) said, "When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary".

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/12/2013 13:14:01
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2013 :  17:56:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

...

Also a difference between blind and legally blind.

It's another distraction issue for a problem that doesn't exist.
Actually, people with total blindness can now carry pistols in Iowa, per the article:
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.
And as the blind man who was getting his gun (see the article's photo caption) said, "When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary".


What kind of blind? Totally blind? Legally blind?

In either case, this is a giant non-issue.

Legally blind can still identify a shape that is attacking him/her.

And was this guy a Brady shill who say absurd things to whip up concern where there is none?

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2013 :  23:26:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think a shotgun with be a better choice for the totally blind a hand gun is likely to just piss someone off when they miss. Taking a gun away from a blind person would be like taking candy from a baby. You just have to throw something to get them to shoot away from where you are.

Seriously people! Does anyone really think a totally blind person would think they're safer with a gun? They're blind, not brain dead. Believing so is laughable, IMO.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2013 :  04:21:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

What kind of blind? Totally blind? Legally blind?
Based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. That distinction is not made by the Act or the Iowa law. So there is no need to split that hair.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/15/2013 :  15:05:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Does the law nullify this?

http://www.ag.idaho.gov/concealedWeapons/concealedWeapons_index.html#Do%20I%20have%20to%20take%20any%20classes%20to%20obtain%20a%20concealed%20weapons%20license%20in%20Idaho

Do I have to take any classes to obtain a concealed weapons license in Idaho?
You may demonstrate familiarity with the firearm. Usually, one of the following courses is required:
1. A hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game or a similar agency of another state;
2. A National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course or any National Rifle Association hunter education course;
3. A firearms safety or training course or class offered by a law enforcement agency, community college, college, university, or private or public school or firearms training school. You may wish to utilize instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Idaho State Police;
4. A law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, law enforcement agencies or security enforcement agencies.

A county sheriff may grant you a license without completing one of the courses if:
1. You present evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through your participation in an organized shooting competition or military service; or
2. You are licensed or have been licensed to carry a firearm in Idaho or an Idaho county or city, unless the license has been revoked for cause.


Even if you are legally blind, it would appear the sheriff is still only permitted to give a license if you have passed a training course or can demonstrate experience. The latter part seems to not compel the sheriff to do any such thing as well, but gives him/her the discretion to accept these. I assume the new law would get him/her into trouble if he/she uses the blindness criteria for declining a license. I guess trained blind folks are better than untrained ones... marginally.

The problem still exists if, say, you were in the military previously but have since become legally blind. I'm really not sure what sort of apologetic gymnastics one must undertake to not see this as a problem, though a relatively rare problem (I'd say certainly blown out of proportion, given the amount of media coverage I've seen).

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/15/2013 :  15:06:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Son of a bitch, wrong "I" state LOL, never mind.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  07:27:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Son of a bitch, wrong "I" state LOL, never mind.


Yet the state's laws are eerily similar.

http://www.iowacarry.org/download/Iowa%20Code%20Section%20724-Effective%201-1-11.pdf

724.7 is the applicable part of the law. The hand-wringers have issue with 724.8 which does not take into account the effects of 724.7 and 724.9 (referenced by 724.7).

It is also telling that this passed in 2010 to be effective in 2011 yet it did not become an issue until now.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  13:50:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Originally posted by Machi4velli

Son of a bitch, wrong "I" state LOL, never mind.


Yet the state's laws are eerily similar.

http://www.iowacarry.org/download/Iowa%20Code%20Section%20724-Effective%201-1-11.pdf

724.7 is the applicable part of the law. The hand-wringers have issue with 724.8 which does not take into account the effects of 724.7 and 724.9 (referenced by 724.7).


But a blind person who passed a gun safety class at any time in their life would meet the requirements of 724.7 and is not disqualified by 724.8. I don't believe this:

3. Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner as would endanger the person's self or others.


would apply to someone physically unable to handle a weapon, would it? Where would it necessarily be documented?

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/16/2013 13:56:36
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  16:19:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
All I read here are arguments from ignorance. Many people have no idea what legally blind is exactly, yet they will argue their position on the topic like they do. FYI, a person could see 20/20 in both eyes or his best eye and be legally blind. Also a person can be tested at 20/200 in their best eye after correction and is classified legally blind. Sounds crazy? Well look it up and find out what legally blind actually is. Of course there are other possible qualifiers involved but being classified legally blind allows plenty of room to being a visually capable responsible and safe gun owner and is a freaking far cry from being Helen Keller, who couldn't detect a photon if she was sitting on the sun. For those who don't know who Helen Keller was.

People who are considered legally blind under statue should have the right to buy any kind of gun/s anyone else is entitled to buy. It's not just my opinion but it also the opinions of legislators who, after knowing the facts and understand them and what it actually means, have decided not to exclude them from this right. People have to have the right to protect themselves, at least in America because dialing 911 is no protection at all.

I am completely in agreement with America's founding fathers and the bill of rights on this. The NRA is not just some lobby group that gets it financing from corporate interest that can't cast a single vote on election day. The NRA is not just some lobby organization. There are at least 4.3 million (2011) members in the NRA and who are all very motivated voting Americans, that will never allow their right to be taken away. That is where the NRA's power comes from, from voting citizens. Not from the billions of corporate dollars that was spent last election (2012) to confuse and lie to voters so their bought off and owned politician sills might win. Deal with it.

For the record and on a completely different side issue, I don't think the NRA was in sink with the majority of it's election day voting members with their fighting the proposed bans (state or federal) on 20 rounds or more ammo magazines. I have absolutely no objection with banning those. There are other restrictions I would not object to but that is another thread.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  16:29:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Should a armless man be restricted from having a CWP? Like this man? I would like to hear from anyone who thinks not and why.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  18:39:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul

Should a armless man be restricted from having a CWP? Like this man? I would like to hear from anyone who thinks not and why.


If he can pass the safety course, cool. There's no reason he couldn't, there isn't a lot to those classes, they essentially just have you sit through a lecture and then you show them you can operate your weapon and fire a few rounds in front of the instructor.

I'd prefer to not have people who were once able to pass the course and can't do it now get a CWP because they were in the military 50 years ago, however.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/16/2013 18:40:16
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2013 :  21:17:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli



If he can pass the safety course, cool. There's no reason he couldn't, there isn't a lot to those classes, they essentially just have you sit through a lecture and then you show them you can operate your weapon and fire a few rounds in front of the instructor.

I'd prefer to not have people who were once able to pass the course and can't do it now get a CWP because they were in the military 50 years ago, however.
I agree with you, 50 years is way to long to qualify for a wavier. I'd say 7 years max.. Could it be less? For me yes but not less than 4 years. Specifically I'm saying, for example, on the 7 anniversary such training would no longer be valid for a wavier, for any requirement on getting a CWP. In Florida the renewal period is every 4 years after first issue. Strangely enough, they required a newly taken finger print card, taken at any police station, a current photo but they do not require retaking any safety course (3 hours). Having a CWP permit is an awesome responsibility. I would think it's in any permit holder's best interest to be required to requalify completely with any renewal cycle, as though it's the first time applying.

Frankly I don't like NRA being in bed with the corporate gun industry because it should not be assumed that their interests are always the same as mine.

e.g. Manufacturers and sellers of high capacity magazines, to name two. Personal gun advocates are just as likely to fall victim to some "nut job rambo asshat" as anyone else using those. Corporate best interest in this case are not close to mine. Theirs are profits for themselves and share holders, mine is personal safety for myself & family and those others who choose to carry. They are not at all close to being the same thing.

I can't speak for other CWP holders but when I had one, way past ten years ago, I carried for my own protection and nobody else. That was very clear in my head, at the time. I was not automatically coming to anyone's aid if I was not threatened. Other people's safety was their responsibility not mine and I had no intention of making their problem mine. Cops do that and are trained for it. I wasn't and knew it. Not to mention if they error they are protected and I would not have the same protection.

When it comes to additional legislation, I am in favor of any reasonable and likely effective additions or changes. Not legislation written in a knee jerk reaction to a recent tragedy carried out by a criminal, someone insane or mentally ill or written by legislators looking for reelection in the heat of the moment.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000