ShivaX
2827
The Iowa thing makes sense if you view it from how the logic works.
Basically: You cannot be denied a permit based on a physical disability - the right to defend yourself applies to everyone.
The problem, of course, is that that means blind people in public with weapons, which can’t end well in any scenario that doesn’t involve a 1 on 1 situation far from anyone else.
The defenders of it are all “Just cause you can’t drive doesn’t mean you can’t go to the range and shoot!” which is… stupid. You don’t need a carry permit to go to the range. The only reason you need a permit is to carry in public, which is a scenario where you want the person with the gun able to assess the situation and know what they’re shooting at.
So I get WHY things are the way they are, and I’m loathe to say just cause your vision is shit you shouldn’t have the right to defend yourself, but I think there are plenty of non-lethal alternatives since if you’re legally blind a gun isn’t really the best choice anyway since you wouldn’t be engaging anyone until they were really close. Stunguns and pepper spray seem a better option for sight impaired self defense in my book.
Edit: Also this reminds me I should go get said permit before they add a bunch of hoops to jump through.
Flowers
2828
My friend is a standup comedian and blind and has a routine on this.
If you cannot be legally denied a permit based on disability, then how come you can be denied a driving permit if you are blind? Because you don’t have insane auto industry lobbyists who don’t care a dime for public safety?
No second amendment for cars, I presume.
ShivaX
2831
More or less. People with a physical disability have the same right to self defense as anyone else. Which is fine, except we’re talking about blind people with guns. I think reasonable target identification isn’t asking too much for a carry permit.
Edit: Also the best picture I’ve seen out of this so far is the blind dude and his assistant shopping for guns. Dude is obviously 100% blind holding a gun with a laser sight on it.
^^^There should a thread just on that. ^^
I have two teenagers and I’m shocked not so much at what they teach but rather what they don’t teach.
We’ve now had at least 2 generations that have been raised to be afraid of guns. Fear of guns leads to idiots trying to overcome that fear by behaving recklessly with them rather than respecting them.
RichVR
2833
Why do schools have driver safety instruction? Because every kid will eventually want a car and they need to know how to use them.
Why do schools have gun safety courses? Because there are so many guns in the USA that eventually a child will either own one or be exposed to one and they should know how to use them.
Oh, wait…
I think that’s factually very debatable. Guns, unlike cars, are a very geographically divided aspect of American life.
Colorado State Senate recall live results.
John “I proudly ignored my constituents” Morse has conceded, with 51.3% in favor of recall and too few votes remaining to swing it. With 43% of (whatever voting subdivisons are called in Colorado) reporting, Angela Giron is down 57-43 (edit: now 62% reporting, 60-40; edit edit: no more votes, Giron out 56-44).
Mother Jones (I feel dirty for linking there) says Bloomberg spent at least $350,000, California billionaire Eli Broad spent $250,000, Conservation Colorado spent $75,000, and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spent $300,000, vs. about $375,000 from the NRA, plus an unknowable amount from various other groups on both sides.
To compensate for using Mother Jones as a source, I’ll post this schadenfreudelicious bit of commentary from the end of their article.
But Democrats have more than just money on their side this time. For one thing, while a majority of Coloradans dislike the gun control law, a roughly equal number oppose the recall. And the returns so far are promising: In Giron’s district, supporters have built up a 3-1 advantage in early voting. The idea that bucking the NRA meant an almost-certain political death has always been a myth. With all eyes on Colorado, people might just finally take notice.
Take notice? Yes. I very much expect they will.
Do you remember when Clinton ran on Gun Control? They learned the gravity of their mistake pretty quickly, and Democrats across the country spent the next decade trying to undo the damage. Look at Mark Warner’s campaign and his signs “Sportsmen for Warner.” Gun control costs you votes outside of cities, and gains you no more votes inside of them.
Clanan
2838
“My son was at Marine Barracks – at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn’t have ammunition. And they said, ‘We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could’ve cleared that building.’ Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could’ve stopped the rest of it.”
source
Military bases are “gun-free” zones since 1993, with some exceptions. What a sad unintended consequence.
sharaleo
2839
Wow, the US has removed firearms from military bases and instead wants to put them in schools.
Makes perfect sense.
olaf
2840
Actually the federal government removed them from bases, specifically the Clinton administration. And the federal government does not want to put them in schools either. All gun control efforts are based on knee-jerk emotional arguments. Putting up a sign making an area a gun free zone does nothing to keep people safe. It does the opposite.
mdowdle
2842
Actually, it’s just the opposite. Anyone who thinks that the gun situation in America in not in need of serious regulation is a fucking moron.
I’m a whole topic-of-conversation behind now, but, in this vein, there’s a lesson on the whole gun control debate which have been clear for about twenty years. Given friendly phrasing (e.g. the highly-misleading ‘are you in favor of background checks?’), gun control polls well, but serious gun rights supporters, people who are willing to make it a litmus test, overwhelmingly outnumber serious gun control supporters.
You’re either being sarcastic or you have no grasp of irony whatsoever. I’m much too lazy to look through your posting history to work out which it is.
Only in America can a man who had repeatedly displayed complete irresponsibility with firearms and was self-admittedly prone to black out rages can continue to legally purchase and own firearms.
Not to mention get a security clearance.
Ah yes, more guns makes it safer! Woo!
Oh wait, the accidental shooting rate alone…
The kneejerk thing here is demanding rights to carry lethal weapons in the first place.
