Question of the Day: Should A Blind Man Carry Concealed?

 

Kyle [not shown] emailed TTAG central:

My name is Kyle and I am a visually impaired adult living in Florida and will be getting a permit to carry a concealed firearm the 1st of September. I was talking to my father recently, who owns a gun but does not carry, about the idea of me owning and/or carrying a firearm and he was very opposed because i’m “blind”. This was a bit shocking as the fact that my impairment would hinder my ability to safely and effectively use a firearm had simply not crossed my mind . . .

About my “impairment.” While I am “legally blind”, considered disabled and unable to get a driver’s license my vision is actually quite good. If you met me and talked to me you wouldn’t have any idea I had a visual deficiency. For those of you who understand visual acuity, i’m about 20/60. Basically this means I can see people, cars, trees, etc. It’s the details that escape me. Reading street signs, license plates, and so on. It’s also worth noting that my vision is significantly worse in one eye.

I am more than familiar with firearms, I have been to the range a handful of times and plinked with a friend’s .22 on his property, and I can say with all confidence that I am a decent shot at 50 ft.

So this is the question I pose to you and the greater gun community, Do you think it is a bad idea for me as a visually impaired person to carry a gun? Provided that I am a responsible adult who has undergone the required training and licensing procedures as well as practiced with my carry gun?

I really enjoy reading the site and look forward to reading your thoughts on this.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

41 Responses to Question of the Day: Should A Blind Man Carry Concealed?

  1. avatarAaron says:

    May cause an issue with “know what your target is, and what’s behind it” but otherwise I support the man’s right to have and carry.
    I’ve read at least one self-defense tale of a sight-impaired armed citizen prevailing against a criminal attacker…

  2. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I think there are limits, but you sound as if you are within them. I think most self-defense cases are within 20 feet or so. If you can reliably recognize and hit a man-sized target at that range or less, who am I to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to defend yourself?

  3. avatarFrank says:

    Yeah, that’s a tough one. At what X/Y visual acuity does it become impossible to follow rule #4? And the less you see the more the second part of rule #4 becomes important… Let’s say Kyle is OK, what about people who are 100% blind? I’m pretty sure being blind does not make you an idiot, and blind people can act responsibly when they use guns, even in self-defense in a public area, but good luck finding a politician to support “blind men with guns in our streets, the children, etc…”

  4. avatarThe Knight says:

    I support your carrying. I disagree with the question. “Should” has nothing to do with it. Carrying is a personal choice for which we assume responsibility. It sounds like you are doing the same.

  5. avatarBlindshot says:

    I think that as a right, you should have the same as someone with 20/20 vision. However, as Aaron pointed out, the whole “knowing your target and what’s in its fore/background” as well as ID’ing your target is going to be a big issue.

    I think that if you can get someone to train you, who understands your disadvantages and is willing to work with you through them, and you can hit your target under stress (let’s be honest going to a gun range/field and hitting non-moving paper targets isn’t really practice) as accurate as someone who isn’t legally blind (or better) then you should have the right to decide to carry.

  6. avatarDon says:

    If you feel you see well enough to identify your threat and still follow rule #4 who are we to judge?

    • “Who are we to judge?”

      We’re the folks standing behind his target just out of range of his limited vision.

      If a person cannot adhere to the 4 Rules due to a physical impairment, he cannot own guns. It’s simple.

  7. avatarJason says:

    Since most self defense cases take place within conversational distances and don’t involve a single shot fired, I don’t have a problem with it. Successful self defense is not predicated on being a total combat god. Despite two misses, the granny posted earlier today successfully defended herself (and her customers) against 5 bad guys. If you can see well enough to identify a threat and hold center of mass at 10 feet, you’re making life dangerous for scumbags, and enhancing my safety. I not only don’t mind, I encourage you to carry. An armed society is a polite society. Please, join.

  8. avatarRalph says:

    Should you carry? That’s not for any of us to say. The real questions you need to ask yourself are whether you are able to handle and deploy a handgun safely and whether you have confidence in your ability.

    Get your license, get some training and then make your own decision as to whether or not you’re capable of carrying and want to carry.

    • avatarBen Eli says:

      +1

    • Sure, it’s not for any of us to say who can have and use guns, right, Ralph? Live and let live, right?

      Gun owners have to take a more active role in policing each other. That would save lives. All that crap about “it’s up to you, brother,” is the way you support the hidden criminals and unsafe gun owners in your midst. Then when one of the does his thing, you write 50 comments about how he should be tortured.

  9. avatarRKflorida says:

    As long as the person can see good enough to hit what they intend to shoot, I’m fine with it.

  10. avataruncommon_sense says:

    Kyle,

    I believe there is a reasonable middle ground for someone who is legally blind. If I were totally blind — meaning I see nothing but black at all times — I would carry a revolver with blanks. While many people might scoff at blanks, they can certainly be deadly at point blank range. More importantly, you could safely point a revolver with blanks based on sound and even shoot with relative safety. (Beyond a few feet a blank is not lethal.) That would allow you to present a gun to a bad guy and go bang if necessary. In that scenario 99.9999% of bad guys are going to pound bricks in a hurry.

    In your specific case where you have some visual function, I believe it is totally appropriate to be armed with two conditions. First, you better be an excellent marksman and constrain yourself to close distances — roughly 15 feet or less. Second, I would like to see a lighter caliber with muzzle velocity around 900 feet per second. If you do miss, a lighter caliber would be “less lethal” to bystanders and the relatively slow velocity would mean a stray bullet would drop to the ground before traveling as far as faster rounds.

    It may not be a perfect solution. I think it is a reasonable solution.

  11. avatarWiregrass says:

    If your vision is 20/60 uncorrected and can be corrected by glasses or contacts, I don’t think your vision should be an issue as far as whether you should be capable of carrying a firearm. I wish my uncorrected vision was that good (I wear contacts) and I carry everyday. Your decision to carry should be a personal one based on an honest self-assessment of your ability to handle and shoot your weapon and your defensive mindset.

  12. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    I was going to say no when I read the title because I thought you will completely blind, but if you can hit a target at 50ft then you should be able to carry.

  13. avatarCurzen says:

    can you discern someone from holding a gun from another object? can you hit a target a the range with great accuracy? what about a more realistic competition setup? of yes to that, carry.

  14. avatarAccur81 says:

    By the questions you ask, you seem to be a person of sound judgement, which is an asset severely lacking in the sighted world. Hence the reasons we carry. It sounds as though you have a good grasp of your limitations, so I say carry away and exercise your right.

    However, I don’t believe a jury would show you any leniency if you made a mistake, so I would bear that in made as well. A court of law would ask tough questions, and thoroughly question any judgement call you made, especially in the case of a disastrous outcome. Then again, any DGU can and will be scrutinized. A Taser might also be a great option for you, such as an C2, X26, or X2.

    So don’t live your life for the courts and juries, pack the most appropriate heat with the best training you can achieve, and perhaps you’ll meet a friendly TTAG reader at a local range.

  15. avatarAharon says:

    Thanks for writing this piece to us here at TTAG. The one concern I have is that you can visually recognize the difference between objects such as a flashlight or similar from an actual gun. Bottom line: If you can identify and separate a threat from an innocent in the same vicinity, and can distinguish what is beyond your intended target regarding judging safely to shoot then I have no issue with you having the legal and moral right to carry. I wish you well.

    • avatarRalph says:

      The one concern I have is that you can visually recognize the difference between objects such as a flashlight or similar from an actual gun.

      That’s the same concern I have — about cops. Too many of them seem to be unable to differentiate between a Glock and an iPhone, especially when the cell phone is being held by someone of a minority persuasion.

  16. avatarPro-Liberty says:

    I think this man has the same natural right to keep and bear arms that any other human being has. It is a sad thing that anyone would try to prevent him from enjoying that right. (Disclaimer: I once sold a Barrett light fifty to a quadraplegic.)

  17. avatarTD says:

    I have similar vision and have no issue with it. EVERYONE, regardless of visual acuity, has a point at which it is safe for them to shoot and a line past which it is not. EVERYONE has to use their brain to know where that line is. Your (and mine!) line is definitely closer than the average guy, but you and I have dealth with this in every aspect of our lives since day 1. You wouldn’t be here asking this question if you’d lived your life doing things your brain says you can’t do just because the guy next to you was doing it, this won’t be any different. Don’t let someone with “perfect” vision tell you that you are limited and they aren’t, it simply isn’t true, the only difference is where those limits kick in. You know your limits better than anyone. In terms of the law, EVERYONE is in the same boat. if the shot is on target and justified, you’re fine, if not, you’re not. Your visual acuity does nothing to change that equation.

  18. avatarPeck says:

    He should get a judge and load it with 410′s

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      He should get a judge and keep them around to give a legal opinion if a shoot is legal or not.

  19. avatarspymyeyes says:

    All I can say is:

    1. It is a god given right to defend yourself

    2. It is a constitutional right as well

    3. 20/60 vision is NOT blind, therefore sound judgement can be applied before anything goes downrange

    4. A person who is visually impaired the way this guy is could carry a judge loaded with buck or bird.

    5. Another good carry for this guy would be a SERBU super shorty.

  20. avatarFyrewerx says:

    Definitely better than someone who closes their eyes when pulling the trigger.

  21. avatarKyle (OP) says:

    Thank you all for the replies and support.

    To clear things up, my vision is 20/60 corrected, but i’m always wearing contacts or glasses, even at home. Whether or not the object in someone’s hand is a weapon or not is a concern of mine. People with perfect vision make that mistake under stress all the time.

    Right now i’m trying to devise some sort of training scenario to see if I can make that determination. I was thinking some sort of pop-up target set up in my backyard with an airsoft gun. I know training like this exists for law enforcement but i’ve never heard of someone doing it at home.

    Also, I was planning on carrying a 9mm subcompact. Probably a Ruger SR9c. although the super shorty looks awesome.

    • avatarCinSC says:

      What if an aggressor doesn’t have a weapon? I’m not trying to challenge you, I’m genuinely curious.

      Also, how have you determined when someone is aggressive in the past without the benefit of seeing their face clearly? Voice? Body language?

    • avatarjwm says:

      kyle, if this has been discussed already i missed it. some folks i know that have vision problems have them worsen in low light or darkness. be honest with yourself and try your proposed training routine in dark or semi dark conditions. on the rare occasions that i have used a gun against another person it has been in low light at best.

  22. avatarإبليس says:

    “Basically this means I can see people, cars, trees, etc. It’s the details that escape me. Reading street signs, license plates, and so on. It’s also worth noting that my vision is significantly worse in one eye.”

    Can you further clarify? Suppose two men of identical silhouette approached you. Both wore colors. In a stressful situation could you have clearly identified which was which? Was that a cell-phone or a firearm in his waistband? Can you identify what’s behind them?

    I can’t decide for you whether or not you should carry. But you must mentally replay dozens of such scenarios. Consider investing in a paintball pistol and some targets. Practice with a friend. Mark different patterns on each target. Run some mock drills with this set up.

    Best of luck.

  23. I’m a board certified optician and I must say, the standard Snellen chart derived visual acuities don’t say much about overall quality of vision or functionality in general; they’re really just a comparison. For example, a BCVA > 20/200, the threshold for legal blindness, means what one individual with “normal” vision can resolve at 200 feet, the impaired would need to be at 20 feet to see the same thing. Uncorrected, I’m about 20/1500 (although -7.50 lenses easily get me to 20/20), therefore, can understand what it’s like to see without all the detail. However, I could definitely identify an intruder in my home- just wouldn’t recognize my best friend walking right past me. So I’m curious- are you sure it’s not more like 20/600? Because 20/60 isn’t too bad, and certainly not blind as far as the legal definition. Either way, I have every confidence that with due caution you’ll be just fine carrying a firearm, especially given your training, the previous experiences you’ve shared, and your subjective interpretation of how you see. Cheers!

  24. avatarKyle (OP) says:

    I can tell a lot about a person based on body language and tone of voice, in that order. Hunched shoulders, arms farther out to the side, head moved forward a little, are all signs of aggression I have observed. I did look these things up, they are observations I’ve made over the course of my life.

    My most recent low vision evaluation was about a month ago, my left eye is 20/60 corrected, 20/400 uncorrected, my right eye is immeasurably bad, light, color and movement, that’s about it, field of vision in my right eye is also pretty bad. However, light conditions make no more difference to my vision than to that of a normal person.

    If someone is unarmed and trying to do me physical harm.? Yes, I draw my gun. That’s the reason to carry. In fact, I would prefer they were unarmed because gun vs. no gun generally ends the situation, whereas if you pull your gun on someone who is also armed you will probably have to shoot them.

    Again, thank you for the replies.

  25. avatarTD says:

    forgot to mention, XS Big Dot sights have worked great for me. I’m 20/60 corrected on a good day but have full field of view, etc. I can use 3 dot, but it’s slower than I’d like.

  26. avatarWalter says:

    While I am very pro-gun I would say in this persons case they should have a test. If at normal defensive ranges (less than 50 feet) the person can distinguish between targets (good guy, bad guy, etc) and effectively hit the appropriate targets (as in hit or miss a human sized silhouette when aiming for center mass) then they are sufficiently safe to carry a pistol for self defense.

    • avatarTD says:

      Such a test is based on personal bias and nothing else. If someone with super vision proposed a similar test with 500 feet being the required distance, you’d obviously scoff at that and argue that even though you can’t do that, you should still have the right to protect yourself at ranges that your brain tells you are within a safe range for you. Same principle applies for the OP. Even if he can’t pass your test at 50 feet, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to protect himself at 25 feet where he might be perfectly competent at determining a threat. the incorrect assumption a lot of people make is that if the OP or anyone else is unsure of the target, they’ll just start shooting. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make, especially when it’s applied to some more than others based on vision. The decision to shoot or not shoot requires a brain, not perfect vision. The line at which average guy can say with confidence that he can take the shot is surely farther out than the OP, but the situation is the same for everyone, it’s the brain that makes the decision, not the eyes. doesn’t matter if it’s 5 feet away or 500 feet away, if you’re not sure, you don’t shoot, and it’s your brain that makes that decision. There is no realistic option other than to trust that the other guys with guns will use the same sound judgment that you do regardless of differences in physical ability.

  27. avatarChad says:

    All of us who carry concealed, take on a huge responsibility. So, as long as you can live up to that responsibility, I say, go for it! I suppose all of us, will at some point have to evaluate if we are able to continue to drive or if it’s time to put up the car keys. There may be a point, where the guns have to go to. My grandmother lived to be 99. She died in 2009 and was fine up until a year and a half prior. She developed dementia and it took her down fast. So, being a responsible driver or gun owner, I think the same standards apply.

  28. avatarJohn says:

    The department of agriculture defines the question “Do you suffer from a physical infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a weapon or firearm?” as:

    1. Can you load a firearm safely?
    2. Can you discharge that firearm safely?
    3. Can you unload that firearm safely?

    The reason I know the answer to this question is I am totally blind and have a conceal permit in Florida. I have been carrying for over 10 years and although I have never had to use my weapon in a self-defense situation (and hope I never will) it still takes brains not necessarily vision to carry or use any type of weapon. It is your right to defend yourself and it is your judgment on if you can do that safely in different situations.

    I went as far as calling the licensing department and told them my situation and they asked me those three questions. I have gone above and beyond by taking the self-defense courses to be sure I was totally comfortable before I strapped my pistol on for the first time. If you can’t tell the difference between someone bumping into you and someone attacking you then NO you probably shouldn’t be carrying.

    Just because your blind or visually impaired don’t mean that you just became stupid. I am not going to pull out my weapon and randomly go shooting up the neighborhood. I have worked with several self-defense instructors in real-life scenarios and have performed just as good if not better. Being blind increases the risks to innocent bystanders therefor I am less likely to pull my weapon than someone with site until I have identified a definite threat and I am able to acquire my target.

    It is not up to anyone else to tell you if you are capable to carry a concealed weapon, it is your judgment call if you think you are capable of carrying safely and using good judgment in using that firearm. I know many people that I personally don’t think should be carrying a baseball bat let alone a concealed weapon, but they have one!

    Should someone who is blind or visually impaired not be allowed to defend themselves? The whole idea is old school thinking. I personally own several pistols and have them around my house. I keep them loaded with Magteck rounds. These are rounds that won’t penetrate sheetrock, so even the risk of hitting someone if they were in the next room has been eliminated. I do have a couple of advantages over anyone breaking into my house though: I am use to getting around in the dark, I already know the layout of my house, I am extremely sensitive as to the direction that a sound or footstep is coming from, and even if I miss with the first round I have a much better chance of coming out of the situation than the intruder because the muzzle flash is going to blind him, not me. If someone targets my house because he knows I am blind he is in for one hell of a surprise!

    We are all responsible for our actions and if that action results in the injury or death of another person regardless intentional or unintentional; it is going to be you answering for it, nobody else. So it is you that needs to decide if you are capable of carrying and using a firearm safely.

  29. avatardavid says:

    i am legally blind and would certainly know who I was pointing my gun at.

  30. avatarMD Matt says:

    Kyle,
    I am for all intents and purposes completely blind. I own several hand guns, a couple rifles, and a shotgun. I have some frangible .38 ammo and #4 buck in case I ever feel the need to load up. That said, the guns stay unloaded and locked up separate from the ammo in my house. I have a 6 cell flashlight, a combat knife, and some pepper spray around the home incase things go south.
    My state doesn’t currently have concealed carry. If it did, I’d get the permit in order to have the option and to afford some additional legal protection while going to the range; but I wouldn’t carry regularly. I don’t home carry either.
    It is a personal choice, but one that has consequences. You should probably ask yourself:
    • Are you trained to the point that you are competent with your carry gun under stressful circumstances? Stress impairs judgment, coordination, and sensory input for people with 20-20 vision. So if I was in your shoes, I’d want proportionally more training and practice under my belt before I started carrying. In your article you say “I am more than familiar with firearms, I have been to the range a handful of times and plinked with a friend’s .22 on his property, and I can say with all confidence that I am a decent shot at 50 ft.” This does not say to me that you are an experienced shooter or that you have meaningful training. You may have hundreds of hours of applicable practice under your belt, but that’s not what I get from a “hand full” and “plinking.” If you haven’t already, go through a professional class or get someone to run you through some serious live fire drills. As a legally blind shooter, you’re going to be held to a high standard by the public and by the courts, and rightly so. Training and a documented effort to alleviate your physical limitations would be a must if I was in your shoes.
    • You have the right to defend yourself. Innocent people have the right not to get hit by your missed shots. Outside the theoretical world of this blog, you have to live with the consequences of your actions. I can tell you that it’s fine to carry, but what you really have to decide is whether you have the requisite skill, judgment, and physical acuity to assess when you are in a life threatening circumstance and act accordingly. If you can’t pass all three of those tests, then you have no business carrying a firearm, blind or not; because it isn’t just you who has to live with your decision, it’s everyone else who may be in the threat zone if you’re forced to draw.
    • I’m going to tell you something that probably isn’t politically correct. At some point, carrying a loaded gun is about shooting someone else. It’s about saying better him than me. You don’t want it to happen, and if you’re a responsible person you’ll do everything you can to avoid it. But the purpose of carrying a gun is so that in the gravest extreme to borrow a line, you have the ability to stop a lethal threat with decisive force. If that happens, you’re not just going to be that guy who defended himself. You’re going to be that blind guy who pulled a gun. If you make a single mistake, you’re going to be held to that higher standard I mentioned. So you have to ask yourself is it worth it?

    A lot of people here will tell you to do it if you can do so responsibly. I will add to that list that being the blind guy with the gun isn’t likely to win you public acclaim. Get the training you need if you haven’t already, make sure that you are capable of doing the right thing for the right reasons, and make sure you can live with the reality of that choice. Being legally blind adds an additional helping of complication on top of what should already be a weighty decision.
    If you can’t already tell, I struggle with this issue regularly.

    I’ll be interested to hear what you decide.

  31. avatarJason K says:

    This is a very interesting discussion thread. I am for the most part completely blind…I have some short distance vision that would allow me to acquire a target within approx 10ft which is a limitation I have no problem acknowledging. I also live in FL and am considering getting a conceal and carry. I intend to take many many hours of training before even considering carrying a gun on the street and I had a few points I wanted to make with this discussion.
    First of all, I want to point out that I feel there is a little bit of hipocracy here in the fact that you would create a more difficult test for a low vision person than you would a sighted person. What you (some people who have commented on this thread) expect is a certain level of profficiency with a weapon that you don’t expect from someone who can see. To me this says that you don’t care whether or not someone is a bad shot as long as they can see.
    I have to say that I have been researching this topic for several days now because I have been considering the idea and I have come to the conclusion that sighted people do not feel like blind people are capable of acknowledging there limitations in a responsible way. I have to say that this is rather insulting to me. I may not be able to hit someone from across a crowded parking lot by I can certainly shoot someone who is attacking me from less than ten feet.
    I also would like to point out the fact that yes it is true that you should verify what is behind targets but if your life is truly threatened and you have an instant to make a life or death decision how much time will you allocate to scoping out the entire area behind a menacing person if there is not an obvious presence of people (example you know there would potentially be people behind an attacker in a known crowded area such as standing in front of a school bus or playground etc.). I know that this is something that is done in perfect scenarios but I think some gun owners are a little self-righteous when discussing this. I know that I can hit a person who is near me but if the bullet passes through them I cannot say what could potentially be on the other side and do you not shoot someone in front of you who will potentially kill you because there may be someone a distance away that “might” get hit with a bullet after it has passed through your intended target? I think sighted people should ask themselves this question and really be honest. If your attacker hits you over the head with a beer bottle and now you cannot see because you have blood in your eyes, are you going to drop your gun? My bet is that you would hear the scuffling of feet in front of you and shoot where you believe the person is based on that noise. In this situation, I am far more capable with a gun then you because I have been living with the limitation my whole life and have developed the instincts to quickly react to audio queues accurately.
    Regarding the statements questioning whether or not I can tell the difference between an aggressor with a gun or someone with an iPhone…this scenario does not apply to me. I would not be able to defend myself against someone that would pull a gun on me from a distance and fire. But that is no different than what I have now. What is different is someone who tries to attack me now in close range (mugging or simple malicious intent to do bodily harm) can now be potentially fended off. You have to remember that I blind person is not as capable of running from aggression as a sighted person. They pretty much are forced to stand their ground because they are not as mobile.
    And to clarify, I am speaking or complete blindness or near complete blindness. The person who posted this initial question I don’t think has any issues at all. How often do you really have to defend yourself from distances of 25 ft or more. Unless someone has been hired to take you out or you are trying to bring down a shooter at the mall, most of your aggressors are going to be close range anyway.
    To summarize, we are all liable for bad decisions. I reject the right for someone else to remove that decision for me to make. The overly emotional argument is that we have a right not to be hit with your missed shots or what if your loved one was shot by someone who was blind. The argument is based off irrational emotion. Are you honestly telling me that you would not grieve as much for a dead loved one because the person had perfect vision and just acted irresponsibly with a gun? If you believe that than you are not being honest with yourselves. I’m sure that all blind people who own weapons know they are all acting as ambassadors for the armed blind and none of us want to make those blind individuals who own and carry concealed look bad. I think personally we would probably be even more careful than a sighted person in many regards because we know the immense responsibility of not only carrying but carrying blind. As I stated earlier, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously and I would imagine most other low vision gun owners would be the same way. We have just as much right to defend ourselves and in many cases may be more prone as targets because of our disability. But based on this post I think you might be surprised how many more blind people have carry permits than you might think. And when have you heard of someone being shot with a stray bullet from a blind person? But sighted people have done it quite frequently. Even the most trained law enforcement and military have hit unintended targets so it is not simply vision that dictates safety with a firearm. I am actually glad to see more people breaking the stigma and trying to get concealed weapon permits. It is getting more and more dangerous and the value of life to criminals is next to nothing now. You used to be able to go through a robbery and still survive as long as you cooperated. Now they will rob you and shoot you just to be evil. Blind people can be just a safe and rational with firearms as the sighted.

  32. avatarMD Matt says:

    Hi Jason,
    I just found your response—which I’m assuming is to my rather lengthy comment. Please re-read my post. I am in no way saying that blind people *should* be held to a higher standard if they pull a gun. I’m saying that in my experience, fair or not, they will be. My suggestion re-training has more to do with mitigating liability than any assessment of skill. As one of my college professors told me, you’re going to have to often work twice as hard to get half as far.
    Regardless, the concerns I raised are based on the issues I, also a blind person, struggle with re-carrying. The author may not share those concerns and likely has better vision than I ever will—which is fine. My _opinion_ is that too often we of the pro-2a community look for reasons to encourage people to carry and slap by reflex anyone who urges a modicum of caution or raises troubling questions for consideration. Carrying a firearm is a right. It’s also a huge responsibility. I believe everyone, blind or not, should have that option. I also believe that having the option doesn’t mean everyone should make that choice. My intent here isn’t to discourage anyone from carrying concealed. I simply feel that the author should make an informed decision. The truth as I see it is that if you’re blind, and you pull a gun, you’ve got even more to consider than if you are sighted. Hope that puts my comments in context.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.