Gun buyback event back-fires. Oh the humanity!

A raging typhlophobe. Yep, I fear and hate the blind so much.

Which is useful in and of itself, really -- if a person doesn't want the responsibility of gun ownership, it's better all around if they have an easy way to stop being a gun owner. In that respect it's not that different from those events where people bring their old prescription drugs to be disposed of.

Well, let us actually think this through instead of posting crazy thoughtless conclusions.

First off, is there some reason to actually believe this is true? Why do you assume blind people do not have the same weakness as other humans and are 100 percent aware of their limitations? Just a warning, if you claim they are not and that I took your statement way too far you will invalidate your conclusion because they would not be fully aware of their limitations and prone to mistakenly overestimating themselves. Second is this is an assumption of a sighted person. Since blind people have had no part in your, or the NRA's, insane claims we cannot use their accute awareness of their limitations because you have no acute awareness of their limitations, and neither does the NRA or the schmuck who made the argument. The only argument that becomes acceptable in this rationalization would be the one of a blind person who can be shown to be fully aware of their limitations. Therefor this justification has been disproven as you, and no one else involved, have made that argument from a blind person's perspective.

Despite the fact humans have involved themselves in irresponsible behavior for years and the claim that they can act overall with restraint has no backing in reality we can also dismiss your argument based on one fact. Let us say we all resist firing when our vision is impaired by a temporary block like fog or darkness. Let us say blind people would also restrict firing when their vision is obscured as a necessary act of responsibly using a gun. Then blind people have not lost an action they would ever do. A gun becomes an irrelevant right to them, sort of like having an abortion is an irrelevant right for a male to have as they will never be in a position to have one. Essentially possessing a gun would become pointless because they would never be able to fire it responsibly without sight.

Well, you see your point here is off a bit. You should be comparing a blind person responsibly using a gun to a mute person yelling fire in a crowded theater. Neither can be accomplished by your example as a blind person firing blindly can never be accomplished safely. Every responsible gun user will tell you blind fire is one of the worst most irresponsible things you can do short of
looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. Actually, since it is possible to look down the barrel of a loaded gun without it discharging, blind firing is worse because you have actually sent the bullet in motion.

Now, having actually applied simple logic and thought to your very stupid argument we have shown that the one not actually thinking things through is you. Since your argument has absolutely no value when we think about it I would suggest that in the future you do not suggest people think about your pro-gun insanity.

This is an odd thread. I followed the link, and evidently it was about a woman upset that the guns she collected during a buy back where resold, and not destroyed. Maybe the story has changed since the initial posting, because I can hardly see how that is defined as a tragedy - which the 'oh the humanity' thread title implies, as that is almost always used in context with a tragedy.

Here's another one, happened in Virginia not too far from where I live:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...oots-daughter-mistaken-for-intruder/14086355/

I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes tragedy. Thankfully this young lady survived.

"Daddy? What the fuck!?"

I once came home unexpectedly. Dad was apparently in his basement workshop. I heard "Oh, it's you" behind me. I turned to see him holding a .22 rifle, pointed safely at the floor while he identified the "intruder". I said yup, it's me, and he went back downstairs.

The end.

Yeah, that's a much better resolution, and one I endorse.

But obvisously my POV on guns is different than many others here. I certainly don't think they should be universally banned, but the unintended consequence rate is pretty damn high, and I don't look at them as 'just a tool.'

One look at a study by the Joint Chiefs on the appalling suicide rate in the miltary impacted me a few years a go. They took away the right to take weapons home from the troops, and suicide rate in that test case dropped 60%.

Yes, you can find other ways. But that's why a gun isn't just a tool - its a ridiculously easy way to kill yourself (or try to), and what they keep finding out is that suicidal people are often overwhelmed by a biochemical process when they think its a good idea to kill themselves. That process doesn't last that long - its a dark time that lasts sometimes only a couple of minutes. Taking away that easy implement means a lot of soldiers lived that would have died. Some went on to find other ways, but some that came to their senses soon after and were around to think about what happened.

Missed my point! I meant "oh the humanity" in a sarcastic manner because the gun buy-back crowd all passionate and dramatic and shit abiut guns.

Okay I'm going to comment - when were soldiers EVER allowed to take actually military/work weapons home?
No unit I was ever in did this. The only we time we had access to our weapons during off-duty time was in combat zones for obvious reason.
On military posts work weapons are very tightly controlled. Perhaps they meant MP's or Security Police who tote a gun all day - but I believe they have an "arms room" where they lock up their issued weapons when not at work. It's tough even having a POW (Privately Owned Weapon) on some posts.
So I'm not understanding the test case scenario.

Yep, you are correct, I misremembered what I read a while back. So I chased it down.

It wasn't the Pentagon, it was IDF - Israelis.

Suicide rates went down 40% when they forbade soldiers to bring their service weapons home.

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts...necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

I conflated that with a Pentagon policy that's looking into ways to prevent soldiers from accessing weapons at home that is cited in the same article. The NRA obviously objects, even if its just to check to see if a potentially suicidal soldier has access to weapons as a safety concern by the part of his commanding officer.

Of course, that goes back to the fact that for the last 30 years the NRA has abrogated its original role (encourage civilian ownership and safety so the US had a competent population for military service) to supporting gun ownership and sales in almost any situation - which makes their backers happy.

That's super interesting, Demiurge. I applaud thinking carefully about depression, suicide, and firearms. This hits close to home for personal reasons.

What it means, though, is that to both encourage gun ownership rights and help people with depression, we need to become a more supportive (no, not welfare supportive, haters) society in general. Whether its meds or therapy or just a feeling of inclusiveness, keeping people from slipping into that dark place is worth it.

Incidentally, yes, there are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton–Babinski_syndrome

Should a person who believes they can still see, but can't, continue to carry?

Are you really saying blind people should carry guns to defend themselves?

Here's the problem though in the military. EVERYTHING and ANYTHING can impact your career. In theory pyschiatric care is confidential.
Of course that's not the reality. Since all promotion boards (to the Senior NCO level) are conducted in secret (I covered this a few times)
nobody wants anything that may be percieved as a weakness or in a negative light on their record. And if you don't make rank fast enough...you get kicked out.

I can't see any way for a blind person to defend themselves with a gun. Arguing defense for these "most vulnerable members of society" should thus not be grounds for defending their right to own guns. Now, I can see other perks of ownership -- collection, arming guards, etc., that I would be prepared to defend. But a blind person ready to use a gun should be prosecuted, just as anyone who gets ready to use a gun while drunk or high.

But a blind person ready to use a gun should be prosecuted, just as anyone who gets ready to use a gun while drunk or high.

Well there goes all the fun at my next family reunion.

Considering the massively high incidence of assault on blind folks, we need a solution!

I really don't see how.

I haven't the slightest idea, but I'm sure firing guns without seeing what you're shooting at isn't going to help.

ISWYDT.

Well, everyone knows that blind people make exceptional martial artists. It must be true, I've seen it in many movies.

Damn it, that wasn't even deliberate.

I think there's a movie or two about it matter-of-fact. One might be "Blind Justice" but I'm not sure.

Found it! BLIND FURY is the name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Fury

Anyway now HERE'S a guy who knows his way around a gun or two!

Movies? Bah.

I normally hate doing a short retort as it normally doesn't cover the argument, but...You just went full retard on me.

I understand that, and I wasn't limiting support only to the military.

Is this literal? Are you saying that constant improvement (to the point of moving up the ranks) is a necessity in the military? Is there no place for people who rise to the level of their competence and stay there?

Is it ok to to accept something that was not given? No, in a subtle humorous way I was trying o say you got too stupid for me to argue with. If you want to ever come back down to someting around reasonable I would be able to confront your point, but when your argument boils down to monkey's flying out of my but I will leave you to it.