:eek: :eek: :eek: Remind me never to visit Iowa. OMG the stupidity of this is beyond words.
I realize that some legally blind people have limited vision. If they can hit a target then they can carry a gun. Arkansas requires a carry permit holder to hit a target. The article mentions Missouri and Minnesota have similar requirements. Thats a good common sense rule. If you can’t load, fire, and hit a large target 8 ft away then you can’t carry a gun.
The WTF look on that sales clerks face (in the very last photo) says it all. Giving a totally blind person a gun is not a good idea.
True. By the sound of the ricochet alone, they can tell just where the curb is along any sidewalk. Any groans followed by the sounds of bodies hitting the pavement just mean people were “too darn close”.
Many states allow the blind to get hunting permits, Iowa isn’t alone. A quick search showed a dozen states have some provisions for blind or visual impaired hunters. I’m sure there are others.
Then any woman who gets a bag slammed over her head and the second guy in front is hitting her and she manages to get her weapon but can’t shoot the guy in front of her because she could not see. Not being able to see makes having a weapon illegal.
Yep, that would be a dandy law.
There is blind & their is legally blind, where are the naysayers going to want the line?
If I didn’t have contacts/glasses, I’d be a bit over what legally blind is. If I had to stumble to a pistol and not wear my glasses, I wouldn’t give much credence to my accuracy, but I could be reasonably certain I was shooting a robber and not shoot a coat rack Mr. Magoo-style.
I’m not sure I trust USA Today to distinguish between legally and fully blind, so I can’t judge all the cases based on their summary. If you can’t read forms though, and it’s not a hyperopia/presbyopia issue, then you probably shouldn’t be shooting.
ETA: OP: you needed this to scare you away from Iowa!?
Back around 1995 I had a coworker whose father had a handicap sticker for being legally blind AND a valid driver’s license. This was in Missouri. And the father was very visually impaired. The coworker tried to get the state of Missouri to revoke the license, but it was such a hassle that he finally just stole all the car keys and disabled the car.
I’d rather have a blind person shooting the occasional bullet than driving a 4000 pound car at 60 MPH on busy roads.
I am a legally blind person. I have a retinal degenerative disease, not correctable with eyeglasses. I have a very narrow field of view, night blindness, and bright sunlight washes out my vision badly enough that I can only see in little bits and pieces outdoors on a cloudless day. My vision was reasonably normal until my late 20s, but I gave up driving in my early 30s, close to 20 years ago. Nevertheless, I co-own 2 cars with my wife, because I have the right to own property.
I suppose I have the right to own a gun. I could probably hit a stationary target on a range with just the right lighting conditions. Might even do reasonably well if someone was there to tell me what I hit so I could adjust my aim (I might see the target but not the holes I made). I could also, I suppose, hunt, but only with someone helping me extensively with targeting. Nevertheless, I think Bambi’s mother is quite safe from the likelihood of me hitting her with anything short of an area-effect weapon (tactical nuke, anyone?).
But there is no way IN HELL I should be allowed, nor would I hazard, to carry a gun around in public. If you were quiet, you could approach me from pretty much any angle except straight ahead and get close enough to disable me and take a weapon before I would even notice you were there. Even from straight ahead, you’d probably have a 50/50 chance if the light was too dim or too bright.
Me, and anyone with vision worse (or even a little better) than mine, would be a clear menace to the public with unrestricted access to guns. It would be stupid. Not that that’s ever stopped 2nd Amendment advocates before, but still.
Also, to those who have suggested machine guns to improve the odds of hitting something: wouldn’t a sawed-off shotgun be a better choice? Seems like that nice spread pattern is more likely to catch something on the first shot. Just sayin’.
As a competent adult, you can decide for yourself what’s safe.
Do we really need a law to tell you whether or not you actually could hit the side of a barn with your weapon?
(Personally, I’d like to see gun owners pass a test to get a license, like with cars. But that ain’t happenin’.)
Also, there’s all sorts of gun ownership that doesn’t involve the public in any way.
Target shooting, collecting/investing, just general gun nuttiness. Again, responsible people can decide what’s right for their situation.
Remind me never to visit Iowa. OMG the stupidity of this is beyond words.