TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25c_1193512372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was also good to hear, on CNN no less, the police praising the man for taking steps necessary to protect himself.

Still, while I certainly don't argue against the mans right to be able to defend himself, I find myself with mixed feelings over a blind person having a gun. I guess when someone's right on you though it doesn't take much to aim though.

atxgun wrote:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25c_1193512372

It was also good to hear, on CNN no less, the police praising the man for taking steps necessary to protect himself.

Still, while I certainly don't argue against the mans right to be able to defend himself, I find myself with mixed feelings over a blind person having a gun. I guess when someone's right on you though it doesn't take much to aim though.

One could argue that these are precisely the people who need to be armed the most.
Us healthy young men are probably the demographic that need guns the least. The most vulnerable is the elderly, the handicapped or infirmed.

Liberty wrote: One could argue that these are precisely the people who need to be armed the most.
Us healthy young men are probably the demographic that need guns the least. The most vulnerable is the elderly, the handicapped or infirmed.

Certainly all true but when it comes to the blind, the issue ATX is getting it is whether or not they can SAFELY operate the firearm in a public setting. We often will jokingly talk about the "Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder" or Braille sight alignment system but the reality is, you need to be able to identify a threat and use force or deadly force only against that threat as needed. Mistakes on your part (blind or not) are not looked on kindly by prosecutors or grand juries if a mistake leads to injury or death for an innocent bystander.

It just seems like it ultimately must be left to the individual to understand what they can and cannot do safely. After all, there is no way to stop a blind person from buying a car. At the same time, we generally do not issue a license to the blind which would allow the operation of a vehicle on public roads unless a sighted person is driving the car. The exceptions would probably be those who retain sufficient sight to safely operate a vehicle with corrective lenses but are otherwise "legally" blind.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

Liberty wrote: One could argue that these are precisely the people who need to be armed the most.
Us healthy young men are probably the demographic that need guns the least. The most vulnerable is the elderly, the handicapped or infirmed.

Certainly all true but when it comes to the blind, the issue ATX is getting it is whether or not they can SAFELY operate the firearm in a public setting. We often will jokingly talk about the "Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder" or Braille sight alignment system but the reality is, you need to be able to identify a threat and use force or deadly force only against that threat as needed. Mistakes on your part (blind or not) are not looked on kindly by prosecutors or grand juries if a mistake leads to injury or death for an innocent bystander.

It just seems like it ultimately must be left to the individual to understand what they can and cannot do safely. After all, there is no way to stop a blind person from buying a car. At the same time, we generally do not issue a license to the blind which would allow the operation of a vehicle on public roads unless a sighted person is driving the car. The exceptions would probably be those who retain sufficient sight to safely operate a vehicle with corrective lenses but are otherwise "legally" blind.

I have a very good friend who has been blind since age 1. He is the most 'unblind blind guy' I have ever met and is an EXTREMELY talented studio musician. He owns a vehicle (van for hauling his music equipment.) He always joked that the only reason he doesn't drive is they don't make long enough canes. He also owns a couple of pistols for self defense as he lives alone. He would only pull it out if someone broke into his home and was attacking him. His hearing is so acute and tuned that he can tell where you are in the house and how far away you are by just listening. I have never been concerned about his ability to properly use the firearm and hit what he was shooting at since it would be really close range.

On a side note, we did play a joke on a trooper one time by switching seats after being stopped in Chris's van at 2:30 in the morning for having a tail light out. The trooper was bumfuzzled by the fact Chris was driving until he figured out we had switched seats before he got to the drivers window. He got a kick out of it and said he now had another good coffee shop story!

I'm glad he came through that experience relatively unharmed... but why did the police take his gun?

kirock7 wrote:I'm glad he came through that experience relatively unharmed... but why did the police take his gun?

That's what I thought. They should at least have a loaner program if they need yours for a while.

I think the sentiment here is exactly what Montgomery said. . . all gun owners have a responsibility to know their limits - what they can and cannot safely do with their firearms. I have a form of macular degeneration that limits my long range accuracy with a pistol. I know which shots I can't take. If I can't make them at the range, I know not to even try them in real life. There's a chance that in ten or twenty years I won't pass my driver license eye exam, but I don't think that should revoke my RTKABA under any circumstances or impede my access to a CHL as long as I can still pass the proficiency test at the range.

For this guy, it sounds like he was assaulted and shot his assailant at very close range. Good for him! Now if only the police would give him his gun back since the news just broadcast the fact that he's elderly, blind, living secluded in the country, and has no gun.

Don't overestimate the importance of sight to combat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM1a2MWmoUE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kirock7 wrote:I'm glad he came through that experience relatively unharmed... but why did the police take his gun?

It's called "evidence." The shooting has to be investigated and all evidence at the scene is collected as part of that investigation. If a police officer is involved in a shooting, the gun with which he shot the suspect is taken as evidence too. Some agencies however, have discontinued the practice of publicly disarming officers after a shooting.

fickman wrote: Now if only the police would give him his gun back since the news just broadcast the fact that he's elderly, blind, living secluded in the country, and has no gun.

Well they didn't report on his shotgun and AK he still has He made the choice to agreeing to be interviewed.