it could only happen in texas

[rone]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A Texas lawmaker wants to give more hunters a chance to shoot live animals -- even if those hunters can't see very well.

A bill has been filed for the 2007 legislative session that would permit legally blind hunters to use laser sights, or lighted pointing instruments.

Because nothin' says lovin' like legally blind people with guns.

Comments

[ikkyu2.livejournal.com]

Crimson Trace (http://www.crimsontrace.com) laser sights are very popular; the pair I bought had a little pamphlet extolling their virtues for, among others, "people with low vision."

I think this is complicated, and when you look hard enough at it, it begins to look like the entire gun control debate all over again. You can make the same arguments for and against a blind person owning and using guns that you can about a sighted person, or a deaf person.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Ummm. Shooting a gun relies very heavily on sight, not unlike driving a car. I have no idea why you think you can make the "same arguments".

[ikkyu2.livejournal.com]

Legally blind is interesting, because it does not mean that a person can't see anything. They're handicapped, sure. They can't drive a car - by law. Reasonable. But they might still be able to see well enough to shoot a homebreaker. I'd venture to guess that most "low vision" people who want to own or to shoot a gun have some idea of their own limits and capabilities, and choose to exercise those capabilities, and not to exceed their own limits.

So the argument becomes: is there any time at which it's acceptable to fire a gun, and if so, how stringent do we need to be about the person's ability to place their shot? Should all humans, including police and military, be deprived of guns? Most would say "no," because they're trained and their mission is supposed to be only to shoot the bad guys. Most folks trust cops, for instance, not to place their shot in such a way as to jeopardize the innocent.

What about a healthy private citizen? Last I checked, there was still a serious debate about this. Some folks think, no, that person oughtn't shoot guns for any reason. Well that rules the low vision folks right out along with them, no need to cover that ground twice in one argument.

Some folks think private citizens could own guns - with a little training, so they know how to handle and operate a gun safely. One of the things you learn in such training is how to acquire your target. Basically you don't fire until you've acquired your target.

Why can't a low vision person meet that requirement? It may be harder for him or her to acquire the target owing to their handicap. In that case, they wouldn't fire until they'd acquired their target.

I find it hard to believe that a totally blind, eyeless person could ever acquire a target well enough to satisfy. But could a low vision person do it? What about someone missing half their visual field, sparing the fovea, because of a stroke? What about the cute deaf girl who has a gun for self defense but can't hear the cop's bullhorns saying "Put the gun down, we're here and we'll handle it?" What about a guy who has perfect vision when his contacts are in, but wants to keep a gun by his bedside table in case someone breaks in at night when he's not wearing contacts?

Slippery slope, man.

Finally, disarmament is something that a lot of folks feel pretty strongly about, and they're going to be hollering, "First they came for the eyeglasses-wearers." You may not share the feeling that there's a large conspiracy afoot to disarm the American citizen - hell, you may even trust your government to do the right thing by you and the world 100% of the time - but you can't deny that some of us feel otherwise.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Dude, thanks for the fuckin' lecture and the cheap rhetoric.

[ikkyu2.livejournal.com]

What the hell, dude? I didn't attack you personally. If you don't want comments, turn 'em off. If you just want a soapbox where you can make cheap jokes about how foolish it is to advocate for equal rights for the disabled, let me know in advance that that's what's going on, and I'll lay off.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Fine, i'm going to spell it out for you. I'm not saying that blind people shouldn't own guns; rather, i'm finding it difficult to believe that people whose vision is so bad that they're legally considered blind would actually want to go out in the wilderness with a gun and shoot animals. When normally sighted people already have plenty of hunting accidents, letting the legally blind hunt with firearms seems like a very bad idea. This isn't about gun rights; this is about common sense. You think that people who are legally blind are well acquainted with their limitations; i think that there are way too many people who are unaware of their limitations to make your assumption.

Now, in your condescending diatribe, you start off by talking about a legally blind person shooting a homebreaker. What the fuck does that have to do with hunting? Nothing. Zero. It's a red fucking herring. Then you descend into giving a patronizing example of complete polar opposites about gun ownership positions; there's nothing in my post about gun ownership. The "cute deaf girl" example and the contact lenses guy stories are marvelous hypothetical situations that you use to build up a strawman that's supposed to represent my position. You don't even know whether i'm pro-gun control; you just assumed that, probably because i'm a liberal. "First they came for the eyeglasses-wearers..." Please. Equal rights for the disabled... what a joke. That's all you; that's what you tried to turn this into. Don't blame me.

You can comment all you want here; i will call bullshit on anyone who comments here with bullshit.