|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/12/2013 6:44:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You won't see this for what it really is, a comment on the ADA and the unintended consequences of the ADA.
The writers of the ADA were suppose to have perfect knowledge of events twenty years into the future? Just as the framers of the US Consitution were to of the state of firearms and usage over 200 years into the future? Or those that wrote the Holy Bible of events, actions, and ideas more than 2000 years into the future?
I want you, DesideriScuri, to post on to this specific thread, of this forum, the winning Powerball numbers for Saturday, September 14th's drawing....BEFORE...the drawing. Its just a collection of six sets of numbers from '1' to '54' (I think that is the limit).
Seriously, DS.....
The first question that needs to be applied is whether this concept of law even applies to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992. Does the ADA allow Americans to bend and breach previous laws; when those laws were designed to keep the public safe from dangerous elements. Does the ADA law protect a medical patient who is rich enough from setting up a micro nuclear reactor in their backyard because they need radiation therapy and do not 'agree' with the philosophy or religious outlook of hospitals in the USA. Before you say this is 'silly', 'stupid', or 'insane', consider the nature of subject material in this thread already? An that Americans are becoming known for doing stuff like this; should we count ourselves lucky that it, HASN'T happen yet?
I'm not going to rule out that those define as 'legally blind' could not have a firearm. Those that are completely blind should NOT have a firearm. It falls into the whole 'identify the enemy target at 100 paces' test. The question becomes, 'were does society draw the line on being...to legally blind...in so far as the ADA is concern with its definition"?
Your sensationalism aside, the ADA is a well-intentioned law that forbids discrimination based on disabilities.
Nice dodge to every question. What's wrong, cant handle honest questions that destroy your entire set of arguments? The ADA was never intended nor written with allowing people that would be more of a danger with a firearm than not.
At no point in time did I ever say that was the intention, did I? The fact of the matter is, though, that it can be used to do just that. That's yet more proof of unintended consequences to blanket laws.
quote:
Let's perform a set of studies, DS. Put this to an actual, honest, scientific understanding. We'll select 'A' number of complete blind people. Another group of 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E', members that have differing levels of 'legal blindness' (more groups if we are given more persons for the study). A third set would be group 'F' (or which every letter was after the second grouping), composed of average persons with no use of firearms. Group 'G' is composed of individuals who are pretty proficient with firearms (those that frequently hunt, sport shooting, or go to the gun range frequently). Group 'H' is composed of those in 'A well regulated militia': Law Enforcement and people in the US Military. Pretty wide group, right? The control group would be average, ordinary Americans with no previous use of a firearm and/or very little use of them (Group 'F').
Each person is lead into a darken room to stand in a circle at the center, with a single light shinning down to the floor. They are told after a bell, that the room will light up gradually. Around the room in a larger circle is a curtain wall standing about ten feet in height and away from the circle by about fifty feet. A set of twelve targets are set up on the circle, one for each location on a clock (1-12). But that each location will have a random number that appears just below the targets. When the researcher presses a button, a random number will be spoken and it will be up to each person to fire only at that target. After each shot, the numbers are regenerated. Rinse and Repeat for ten shots or until the magazine is empty. From the time of the first number spoken to the last is a mere 50 seconds. After 5 seconds a new target is spoken.
Now, the first question would be the type of firearm to use in such a study. The second is how much ammunition should be in the magazine. Since we are looking for the 'a typical firearm' it might be a 'popularity' contest. Since people use a wide range firearms for self defense. I'm thinking along the lines of a 1911, though perhaps several different firearms are used?
My view on the study, is that Group H would do the best. An each letter more or less in order that proceeds back towards 'A', with group 'A' doing the worst on the test.
Obviously, the 'gun range' would need to be indoors and secured.
The purpose of the study is of course, to understand whether a legally or completely blind individual could safely acquire a target quickly enough to put shots on targets. But hey, its a good chance to see how well different types of shooters could do the same exact thing. Treasure trove of science to be had.
Nothing like setting up the study for anyone with any sort of visual disability to fail. [8|]
Of course, the ones with the most training and experience will perform the best. That's ridiculous to think otherwise.
quote:
The problem with studies and how people behave are very few in number. There are study after study saying guns are good or bad, but that's from a purely numbers point of view. The sort of studies that should be created are ones that simply test ability, reaction, handling, knowledge, and maybe other factors. Since dealing with a firearm can not be done with machines the same way automobiles are used. They need a human operator. But how does one form a study, keeping those human operators in a safe environment to test what would be 'reasonable'?
Situational studies can be created and done. Is a "legally blind" person getting a gun so he/she can engage in military-like situations? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. If a person breaks into the house of a "legally blind" adult, is there any reason to truly think that your "clock" experiment described above would be an applicable situation?
quote:
Of course obtaining funding for this would need to come from non-political hot potato organizations (I.E. The Brady Campaign, the NRA, etc.). I just do not feel like I could trust the information gain from those sort of sources.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to the OP link: quote:
Jane Hudson with Disability Rights Iowa said keeping legally blind people from obtaining weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Further:quote:
"It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can't deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing," said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff's office, referring to a visual disability.
I don't know that we, as a society, should draw a line at all. Each case should be determined on its own merits, imo. I do think that having a physical disability that could impair your safely using a firearm should register more scrutiny and that those that fall in that category should have to show their disability isn't going to prevent them from safe usage.
Is that discriminatory? Yes, but it's based on sound principles.
How do you 'draw the line'? That is a hard question for our society to answer if we allow a set of circumstances to change from a previous held viewpoint without any understanding. It sucks, but the action of allowing people who are either legally or completely blind to use firearms, could be placing the public at even more peril. I believe we can both agree, for example, that the legally blind person see's someone holding an object that looks like a weapon towards them, firing, only to find it was never a weapon to begin with. The poor person is hauled off jail, and a court room. The idea here is to keep such people from going to jail for making mistakes of judgment based on sight limitations.
We agree that allowing firearms in the hands of the "legally blind" (which includes those who are completely blind) could increase public risk. And, it is exactly that reason that I believe there needs to be some sort of ability test that is indicative of likely situations. My father-in-law had brain surgery and his recovery was being assessed. My ex (still my wife at the time) was in the room and he was asked if he recognized her. He did. He was asked to spell her last name. He looked at the doctor and told him that he could pronounce her last name, let alone spell it, before the surgery. If the results of his being able to pronounce or spell my last name been used as a determinant in his assessment, he'd have failed miserably. That question, for him, was not a worthwhile question to be used as an assessment tool. His other sons'-in-law (Jesus, is that how you make that possessive?!?!?) last names he had no trouble with.
The ADA is what is allowing people whose only contraindication is a visual disability to not be barred from getting a firearm. Is that a good thing? On a case-by-case basis, it could be good, or it could be bad.
|
|
|
|
