http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3890291.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...blind/2780303/
Granted the number of blind people carrying guns in public is likely to be small even in Iowa but wtf man wtf :o
Printable View
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3890291.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...blind/2780303/
Granted the number of blind people carrying guns in public is likely to be small even in Iowa but wtf man wtf :o
Second article mentions that it would be against the Americans with disabilities act to ban it, but surely the blind aren't allowed to, say, drive a car either?
The Chronicles of Narnia would have ended quite quickly in Amerika.
I would've been shot at least a 100 times, what with me startling people all the time because I don't trample around like an elephant.
Which reminds me, and other comments at the news sites have pointed this out, too:
Wouldn't that particular train of logic apply to driver's licenses as well?
google says 34 states allow blind drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
You're not serious. Really?
A number of states allow "legally blind" people to drive provided their vision can be corrected to some extent (usually to the point where they have reasonable visual acuity in at least one eye) and occasionally with specific restrictions on the circumstances in which they can drive (eg. time, place). "Legally blind" does not have to mean "completely blind"
No, but generally speaking it's also important to read signs etc. If you can correct it to that point, sure.
I'm considered legally blind.
20/1800 vision. -11 power in my left eye, -10.5 in my right.
Correctible to 20/20 though.
If memory serves, legally blind is worse then 20/200
Well ... if you can aim a volleyball I'm sure you're fine with a gun ... :noob:
HAHA!
I'm a pretty good shot. My point is legally blind <> not able to see.
In Germany that's called "sehbehindert" or "suffers from visual impairment". We only call people "blind" when they can't see anything or can only differentiate between light and dark.
"Legally blind" is a moronic term, in my eyes. If you still can see after corrections of some kind, then you're not blind.
Ogre is not/shouldn't be considered legally blind. In the US legal blindness is 20/200 (equivalent of 6/60 in the other common scale) or worse AFTER correction. Well, or with a sufficiently restricted field of vision. I have a cousin who is legally blind because she has a macular degeneration disorder and only has limited peripheral vision. Anyway, 20/200(6/60) and/or a varying degree of restricted field of vision is the standard in most countries.
I guess my question is, what is the value of a legal definition of "blindness" if it's illegal to place limits limits on permitted activities because of legal blindness (driving/shooting/etc)?
I'm not arguing that people who are legally blind can't see and do things...because I know a guy who is legally blind and can definitely see and function very well with his limited sight. But I'm just curious about the value of the designation if there's some sort of consensus that it's illegal for a state to limit firearm purchases by the legally blind.
They should simply move to a whitelist. Define a list of abilities you have to be able to fulfill and you get your firearm. Stuff like "The ability to hit the broad side of a barn" and such.
That's a pretty low standard for gunfire, I'm sure the gun lovers will take the compromise. :p
Its not illegal to limit someone based on their physical or mental capabilities, but people fucking love suing the government, and its a hell of a lot cheaper to be PC than to fight a costly legal battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Love suing anyone (with money) not just the government.