Iowa grants gun permits to the blind - Poll

I can't seem to find the right issue, but the IDPA Journal had an article about a blind shooter. My first thought was WTF Chuck! The 1st quarter 2013 has an article on hearing impaired and deaf shooters. Granted these are controlled condition matches, but impairments are a reality of life and gun safety is first and foremost. IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) matches are an attempt to simulate real world scenarios in a safe environment, ie. when you screw up, neither you nor anyone else dies as a result. I understand the idea behind demonstrating proficiency with the firearm, but for a person who can barely afford the gun and a box of ammo, practice is but a term or concept. To deny them the ability to acquire a concealed carry permit stinks of "only the successful have value" notion. I don't have the answers, but denying a person the most basic natural or God given law is wrong.

The self defense scenario for the visually impaired person can only take place at bad breath distance, normally while the aggressor is in contact with the victim.




If you go in for a prostate exam, but the doctor has a hand on each shoulder, something is horribly wrong. :faint:

Martial arts make a lot of sense for many physically able folks, and for someone with a cane it is right at hand. Each must find their best fit.

So, you are biased against tangents?

[youtube:2xlwe5rc][/youtube:2xlwe5rc]

HEARTLESS wrote: I understand the idea behind demonstrating proficiency with the firearm, but for a person who can barely afford the gun and a box of ammo, practice is but a term or concept. To deny them the ability to acquire a concealed carry permit stinks of "only the successful have value" notion.

For me there's the rub; it wasn't that long ago that kids in rural America grew up with firearms and parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, and sisters who all knew how to use a firearm responsibly. Just like a hammer, it is a tool and learning about how to use it was just a common part of daily life and growing up. With a hammer you get second and third chances, fingernails grow back and you can learn from your mistakes on your own (I think that's why God gave us ten fingers - you have spares). Shooting someone else or yourself isn't something that can be easily recovered from, it's permanent and "I'm sorry" doesn't carry much weight if the result is a person being maimed or killed.

IMHO that isn't the case in today's America. If you own firearms you're already painted as a radical and if you have the audacity to want a permit to carry one in public you're automatically a right wing radical who has nothing in mind other than overthrowing the gubment through violence and rebellion. If you're not a conservative then the only other reason to have firearms is because you're a thug and involved in crime. There seems to be a thin line on gun ownership today and there isn't any happy medium that allows citizens to own guns responsibly regardless of their politics or socioeconomic status. Yes there are conservative gun nuts (guilty as charged) and there are gangs and thugs too, nothing I post here is going to change that. What about hunters, farmers, and ranchers? For them a firearm is a tool they need to accomplish a job and little more.

Sorry for the tangent - the distilled comment should be: Training won't guarantee safety but, it goes a long way towards keeping people from doing things the wrong way. If you've been trained and you have to verify that you still know what you need to know then it's more likely that you'll get it right most of the time, accidents happen.

HEARTLESS wrote: The self defense scenario for the visually impaired person can only take place at bad breath distance, normally while the aggressor is in contact with the victim.




If you go in for a prostate exam, but the doctor has a hand on each shoulder, something is horribly wrong. :faint:

If I was blind, I think I would prefer carrying a large knife. I would hate to shoot and not be sure of what is behind the bad guy.

Blazer Bob, as I grow older, the urinating on demand as opposed to the alternative, may become a more distant memory. Otis, you're right, the whole purpose of training is to gain unconscious competence with the firearm. Antigun folks think we train to kill when what we really are doing is training to stop the threat, if death results, that's the price of attaching a skilled individual and not having a trauma team on standby.

Fred, my thought is have a gun and plenty of ammo, maybe a backup gun as well and a knife just in case, but I still have some of my sight left. Your point is right on for visually impaired persons. If you choose a gun, very aggressive hollow points help to minimize over penetration.

One thing we didn't touch on yet is the advantage of a big furry alarm system with sharp teeth. Yes you have to feed them and they are self propelled poop machines but I seem to have a certain affinity for a dog that won't back down when a brown bear is in the yard. I recognize dogs can't go everywhere with us (why not?) but putting layers on the onion is a good approach to securing any position. Hear the dog barking? Know that bark is an aggressive "there's something or someone in the yard, just letting you know while I go check it out." I value the power of the Wundermutt's bark even knowing he's no match for a bear, lion, or scumbag with a weapon. The bark that comes out of a 112 Lbs half black lab/rottweiler is scary but he's also the most intelligent and gentle dog I have ever owned. He loves to hunt and lives to recover birds but don't shoot and miss, he'll give you a dirty look.