Jimmy Kimmel Takes Blind People to the Gun Range

There’s a lot of suspense in the video above. Will late night chat show host Jimmy Kimmel play the shooters’ disability for laughs in a good way or a bad way? “Five for five,” he lies to the shooters. “Straight through the heart,” he jokes. The hands-up joke—“show of hands how many of you think it’s OK for blind people to carry guns?—is especially disgusting. Although not quite as reprehensible as telling a participant she shot her dog. Let’s be clear: a blind person has a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They are fully capable of using their firearm to defend their lives; a gun is a deterrent both before and during a violent attack, and a suitable way to end it. Put a blindfold on Kimmel and have him walk through a dangerous part of LA at night. See how that feels. Jerk.

comments

  1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Disgust, F the liberal media. I know blind people that hunt, with an assistant. This would be like telling a guy in a wheel chair he can’t have a gun because he needs two hands to try and wheel away.

    1. avatar utdmatt says:

      What I took away from this was how the Glock’s bad grip angle threw all of their aim low. Give them an XD or a 1911 and I bet we would have seen more hits 🙂

  2. avatar Hannibal says:

    Anyone who can’t see the point of why people would be worried about blind people using firearms in a non-controlled environment is so drenched in the gun movement they are beyond reasonableness. It’s about the same level as saying someone should be able to carry a grenade around (I’m not talking about the construction of the 2nd at this point).

    Now, you can talk about “legally blind” vs. blind blind, which is a fine point. The implementation of any regulations about this sort of thing would be a nightmare, *and so I don’t suggest such*… but can you really not see why this is a good talking point for anti-gunners? The pro-gun crowd should steer the conversation away from this (non)issue instead of engaging in it.

    1. avatar tfunk says:

      1. People have concerns about a lot of things. It doesn’t necessarily make he concern valid, nor invalid. But a “concern” is not a reason to take away someone’s rights.

      2. I don’t think gun rights advocates are steering the conversation towards this topic. It seems to me anti-gunners are, and gun rights advocates are responding.

    2. avatar AK says:

      Keep in mind legally blind does not mean totally blind. Just because a person is legally blind doesnt mean they cant see an assailant. Everyone has the right to defend themselves

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        That is the story behind the “blind people have a right to a firearm.” It generally is ignored. Most “legally blind” people can see a threat that has entered their house, but can see him only with their very good peripheral vision. That applies to all early cases of macular degeneration, and many late-state cases. My mother could (though she won’t) aim a pistol at a perp and challenge him as to whether he wants to take his chances against her. “Do you feel lucky?”

    3. avatar John says:

      why shouldnt i be able to carry a grenade around?

      1. avatar C says:

        Well, i get not CC’ing a grenade. But why shouldn’t i be able to have one on my land?!

        1. avatar Counihan says:

          I don’t even see a problem with carrying a grenade. They let me carry them in other countries. Plus grenades are nowhere near as powerful as people think.

    4. avatar Fug says:

      As a disabled person I disagree. I am in a wheelchair and people have scoffed at the idea that I shoot at all. It can be pretty insulting at times from both anti gun types and gun salesmen who try to talk me out of what I came in for.

      Someone who is seriously blind could handle something like a .410 revolver or a 12 gauge loaded with light buck or birdshot, they could even use frangible rounds. There is really no problem with this and we should draw attention to the fact that the liberals are hypocrite assholes for mocking disabled people and/or implying they should be stripped of their rights.

      A man needs to know his limitations and Jimmy Kimmel should recognize that his role as a comedian is best limited to being Ben Stein’s dense sidekick.

    5. avatar Cliff H says:

      “The pro-gun crowd should steer the conversation away from this (non)issue instead of engaging in it.”

      Here is where you nailed the argument. The ONLY reason gun grabbers keep bringing this up is because they know we will respond with the pro 2A argument and to most low-information voters that will make us look stupid. The argument against blind people exercising their RKBA is a straw man. They cannot show any statistics of how many blind people own guns, how many carry guns, how many WANT to carry guns, nor have I seen any statistics of blind people with guns shooting (at) other people. (Okay, Ray Charles in The Blues Brothers.)

      The only logical way to counter this crap is to call it crap. If you fall into countering their (pretended) fear of armed blind people you have entered their trap. The proper response is and should remain:

      The Second Amendment states categorically, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not, therefore, allow any government agency or branch the authority to restrict the right of any American to keep and bear arms. This is a blanket statement of a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and is not subject to any degree of government regulation, regardless of an individual’s perceived handicap.

      Perhaps we should start framing the argument as to whether or not comedians should be allowed to own firearms or be given carry permits. Maybe we should take a bunch of those incompetent mental defectives to the range and see how foolish they look. In Soviet Russia many comedians were branded as “enemies of the state” and sent off to the Gulags. The range of what a tyrannical government can find to charge you with in order to deny your rights is limited only by their ability to enforce those charges WITH A GUN.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Nailed it. Better than I could have worded it.

    6. avatar Blue says:

      A person with ‘normal’ vision is still in a crowd of people when they are in a crowd of people. When they are on a poorly lit street, well, low light/no light defensive shooting is a different ball came anyway. I am pretty sure that if some one is on top of me pounding my head into the ground, I can draw and hit them even if I am blinded.

  3. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Actually we should protect these people, and their rights to protect themselves.

  4. avatar dwb says:

    ok, but two said blind people should have guns. I would not say that went as planned. I thought they were pretty good sports, and it was all done safely. I do not think that the video makes the point the anti-gunners want it to.

  5. avatar CJ says:

    As long as they shoot lead-free ammo so as to protect the environment (and the children).

  6. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Guys like Kimmel don’t see any harm in what they do. Neither did Amon Goeth. Just fun and laughs.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Did you really just compare a talk show host to a Nazi holocaust executioner?

      1. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

        Yes its called satire. I ‘m a comedian so anything is ok.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Zing!

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Fantastic.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        What you just stepped in, you’re gonna need a very large towel to get that stinky mess off your slippers.

  7. avatar Mike says:

    Kimmel had some easy targets for his shitty jokes. This SHOULD be a non-issue. They have the right.

  8. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    This is insulting, seeing him take advantage of those people. Would it be so funny, if say he was taking advantage of someone who could not speak english? Whole I do applaud him for giving those four people an experience they probably never had, nor will have again, it still reeks of prejudice on his part.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Blind people (my late great uncle was legally blind) can triangulate quite well on noises. Why don’t some People of the Gun take some blind, semi-blind, legally blind people to the range? After some basic safety training and learning how to operate the handgun, set up a target at a reasonable range, say 15 to 20 feet, with a speaker mounted on it that emits a beep, or even just speaks in a belligerent tone. Then without further coaching see how many of those blind people can hit “minute of bad guy” just by picking up the sound. This does imply, of course, that they get ONE shot, as after that their ability to triangulate on a distant sound (unless it is the bag guy screaming in pain) would be limited.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Traiangulating on the screaming might actually be even more effective. Maybe that makes me a violent bastard devoid of compassion, but if I enter a violent confrontation, I intend to win. I don’t see why those who are visually impaired deserve to lose a fight because they were dealt a terrible accident or genetic abnormality. If anything, those who would attack the physically disabled deserve their just dues even more do than the average criminal.

  9. avatar Jerry says:

    Yeah that was a bit silly on Jimmy’s part, but he is a comedian and we can forgive him for that.

    But Robert, respectfully I don’t agree with you.

    Let me explain, yes you are correct. Blind people have the right to own a firearm to defend themselves. Legally speaking you can’t argue this point. But is it safe for someone who is blind to own one? I know you’re worried about gun grabbers, but maybe this would be a point I would cave on because it has some logic.

    Take this story for example. http://czcustom.com/CZcustomPROTEK2.aspx

    A quote from it below.
    “Angus drew his sub-compact and took a sight picture realizing now that the short sight radius wouldn’t forgive any inaccuracy in sight alignment he thought better and didn’t return fire. ”

    Here is a really good shooter with good vision not taking a shot because he didn’t feel confident. I think we can all understand that safe responsible shooting is a good thing.

    I’m having a tough time with this one Robert. How would a blind person make the same decision in the above situation?

    I believe you’re turning the founding fathers into deities by assuming that when 2A was crafted, it and the constitution were perfect. But, the founding fathers are human just like you and me. People make mistakes. Hence Article 5 and them basically saying…. hey, we can mess up too, so here is a way to check our math.

    And I agree with Hannibal, this is a total non-issue. When was the last time you heard of a blind person(not legally blind) shooting someone?

    And quite frankly, arguing for it makes us seem stubborn and silly just like Jimmy making fun of the blind people shooting.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Even a blind person can stick a snubby into a bag guy’s guts.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Yeah that was a bit silly on Jimmy’s part, but he is a comedian and we can forgive him for that.”

      I do not forgive Bill Maher for his crap. I do not forgive Jimmy Kimmel for his crap. In his defense, he is desperate for ratings and approval and probably that colors his decisions as to what he is willing or unwilling to consider, especially when surrounded every day by die hard liberals.

      No one should be given a pass for doing something unconscionably stupid just because they were trying to be funny.

      That said, back to the constitutional argument. The Bill of Rights was included as the first ten amendments as a statement (necessary to get the approval of the states to sign onto the Constitution) of several basic, natural, civil and now Constitutionally protected rights that the new government, and by the nature of those rights, ANY government had no authority to restrict, modify or deny. Therefore, WHO, or what branch, or what agency, can claim the authority to create a list of persons who are no longer authorized to exercise those rights? I submit that no such agency exists and that the attempt by any government authority to set themselves up as that agency (SCOTUS included) is in itself unconstitutional. Any other view of the Bill of Rights is just an admission that they are negotiable. And we can see by the government shut-down how the Liberals feel about negotiating when they do not want to give up a sacred cow.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Cliff, you’re my hero. I couldn’t have said it better.

        1. avatar Jerry says:

          “No one should be given a pass for doing something unconscionably stupid just because they were trying to be funny.”

          Who’s giving him a pass… exercise your rights not to watch, call him a comedian, idiot whatever. Or become a liberal and regulate the TV or post on a blog, totally up to you.

          Me calling him a comedian was my way of saying his goal is to make people laugh and if I start taking my political cues from him and getting all worked up over a comedian, what does that say about me?

          “Therefore, WHO, or what branch, or what agency, can claim the authority to create a list of persons who are no longer authorized to exercise those rights? I submit that no such agency exists and that the attempt by any government authority to set themselves up as that agency (SCOTUS included) is in itself unconstitutional. ”

          You can continue to make the argument that nobody can abridge my rights. How’s that going for the pro gun contingent in New York or Colorado? It isn’t working. All we’re doing is “submitting” it isn’t constitutional while the laws changes under our very noses. Awesome, lets commit to a strategy that is failing and we can sit there as right and just as we want without our guns.

          The only constant about this country and the constitution is change…
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

          And quite frankly, if we are going to appeal to more people and get them on our side, which is essential to winning this debate, we have to negotiate, we have to change. The same 2a logic isn’t working anymore in america, open up a newspaper and watch people infringe on our 2a rights on a daily basis.

          Having only conservatives in the NRA means that it is less than 50% of the country on our side, as much as you might hate it, we need some of those dreaded liberals.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Jerry: I’m not negotiating. You know those Charlston Heston words.

          BTW: liberals typically don’t join the NRA – they are afraid of guns. Not afraid of criminals – just the guns.

    3. avatar 505markf says:

      The essential difference between a right and a privilege is that a right should never be abridged in advance. Everyone has the right to free speech. You do not say that everyone – except for Sam, over there, who is an Illinois Nazi – has the right to free speech. If someone falsely declares “fire!” in the classic movie theater scenario, THEN you punish and restrict based upon how it was used.

      EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves, including those who can’t read an eye chart. If someone blind purchases a firearm, and then shoots their neighbor’s cat, THEN you restrict. Not before. As scary and abhorrent as it might sound, the idea that blind people own firearms is one of those prices of freedom. They are then accountable for misuse. Who the hell are any of us to say, “no, that’s not safe for you or for us because something *might* happen?” Sounds very Bloombergesque to me.

      Banning the blind for firearms ownership is not logically different from banning those with Tourette’s Syndrome from speaking in public.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        The “who” to which you refer is exemplified by the current liberal progressive administration. There are many statists and politicians who would gladly deny basic freedoms in exchange for the false promise of safety.

    4. avatar SpeleoFool says:

      Why would a blind person need to make the same decision in the same situation as your story to pass your personal “responsible enough to own a gun” test? How do you know a blind person wouldn’t have made a different decision about opening the door in the first place?

      Everyone has limitations, whether sighted or blind. Trusting a blind person to judge when and how to use a firearm is only dignified.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        +1

  10. avatar C says:

    Substitute in mentally handicapped and watch the ensuing shit storm.

  11. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Hey Jammy, karma can be a b1tch.

  12. avatar Tom says:

    Kimmel is a so-so comedian who got a couple tepid laughs by making fun of blind people. Yes, it’s insulting, but not serious. A more insidious form of insult is the argument that blind people should not have guns because they can’t see. Why? It assumes that because people are blind, they are too stupid to realize that they can’t see what they’re shooting at. Do you think that they don’t know they’re blind? That they don’t live with that challenge every waking moment? That they don’t know what guns do? Do you think that they are so willfully careless that they’d blaze away knowing that they can’t see where their bullets are going? Is there some “epidemic” of blind people sending bullets through their neighborhoods?

    The right to keep and bear arms is ultimately about choice. No one is requiring blind people to have guns. If a blind person wants a gun, he or she has that right. We might think it is pointless. We might think it’s a waste of money. But I would bet that the blind person can learn safe gun handling just like the rest of us. They know that without assistance, they’re likely violating 3 of the 4 rules of gun safety. Bottom line: blind does not mean dangerous.

  13. avatar John Fritz says:

    He could’ve done that whole bit without being an asshole. But whenever guns are involved I guess the temptation is too great.

    You made your point Jim. Congrats for taking the high road. Kidding.

  14. avatar Zach says:

    First he had his unfunny Kanye West spoof that made him loose the little respect I already had for him. This ruined it all. You’d be surprised what your other senses can do for you when you don’t have sight. Yes, blind people will have a higher accident rate, but let’s not forget that most self defense scenarios take place at bad breath distance.

  15. avatar Friendly Neighborhood Gunsmith says:

    As always, a lot of opposing extremes on the topic. Personally I think the thing to focus on is that individuals who are blind (legally or otherwise) could very well have specialized self defense training with firearms. I have in the past worked with and spoken to people involved in the martial arts who were blind, and they took defense of their person just as seriously as everyone else.

    Just because what most people see as “normal” firearms training isn’t applicable to blind people doesn’t mean blind people can’t train to defend themselves. To be realistic about it, anyone with impaired vision won’t be reasonably taking shots from much if any distance… but they can train for contact distance defense. With good vision we consider that to be the worst case scenario, but without being able to see a possible attacker it may be the only line of defense a blind person has to work with.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve heard of the blind leading the blind, but never the stupid leading the blind. Live and learn.

  17. avatar Hanover Fist says:

    What about Cooper’s fourth rule? As gun enthusiasts and concealed carriers we are always stressing how we are responsible for every projectile that goes down range.

    How does that work for a blind person?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Contact shot. And BTW, if you ever have to make a contact shot (I sure hope you don’t, but you might), you won’t be able to see anything either.

    2. avatar vioshi says:

      I posed the “Should blind people be allowed to have guns?” She immeadiatly said, “No.” Now she likes guns but is one of the “Why would anyone need that? You can’t use it for hunting” types. And that’s where everyone gets confused. They don’t want to CC to go hunting or for target practice.

      Starting from the point that blind people aren’t invalids and are in fact law abiding citizens like you or me, let’s cover the four rules required for responsible gun handling from self defense perspective. 1. The trigger one is easy, doesn’t require any sight. You have to train your finger to go to a safe place 2. Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Well that doesnt require any sight either especially in the daily life of CC. I would argue that this is more of forming good habits of muzzle control. But for CC it’s called a good holster. 3. Don’t point at anything you aren’t willing to destroy. Again 99.999% of the time my holster takes care of that. Or I’m in a controlled familiar environment like my bedroom. 4. Know your target and what is beyond. This is the other <0.001% of the time when you are attacked, and oddly the only thing anyone focuses on. Even though a blind person has presents a much better target than me, the absolute probability of them being attacked is very low if they stay away from the 3 stupids. This is where their freedom meets their responsibility. One person commented on a prior post that they knew a blind man that carried blanks with the knowledge that only a contact shot would be useful but a stray shot wouldn't harm someone. He assessed his limitations and created a responsible solution. That's the American way. The reality is if the guest on Jimmy's show chose to carry, they wouldn't be taking shots past 3 feet. And as it turns out, most DGU happen at that distance. And sighted people are encouraged to shoot with out looking at the sights (point shooting) because at that distance, how could you miss? As for what's beyond, most blind people live in a small familiar area and could easily lean where there is suitable cover and back stops. But let's be honest, if the bad guy is with range (3') and you fear of your life, do you really give a damn? I know I won't.

      Speaking of responsibility, the blind are still required to establish means, motive, and opportunity before using deadly force. While this will be harder to them, that doesn't mean that we leave them empty handed when they do establish it.

      But even more importantly, even if every blind person with a gun pray'd and spray'd when they were attacked, they would probably hit fewer inocents than the NYPD. So I, for one, would feel safer.

  18. avatar dph says:

    Blind people should be able to have a weapon, Ray Charles did just fine in the Blues Brothers with a Walther PPK.

  19. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    So the anti-gun crowd’s tactics are to make fun of arming black folks and the disabled? Seriously???

    Jimmy Kimmel did date Sarah “VAGINA” Silverman for several years, so I guess it makes sense that he do something moronic like this.

  20. avatar Chip says:

    So what other Rights should we deny the disabled?

    I am deaf, should I be denied my right to vote because I can’t hear what the politicians are saying?

  21. avatar pc_load_letter says:

    You people crack me up. Get some thicker skin or go back to watching three stooges re-runs.

    You think he thought for one second how it might offened gun owners, NO. Does any comedian think for one second about whether or not their joke will offend one group or another…NO.

    Get of your high horses already. You too Robert.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I think you should get off your horse and confront a blind person who wants a gun but cannot have one because the majority bought into comedy skits and newspaper hype and it was voted so. Maybe this article isn’t about comedy … Maybe it is about something more important – something bigger.

    2. avatar Silver says:

      The moment low-information voters and drooling products of the public school system stop taking The Daily Show and celebrities as legitimate sources for news and facts, I’ll grow thicker skin for stooges like this.

    3. avatar Blue says:

      You probably think it would be funny to watch the “tones/chirps” reversed at 4 and 6 lane busy intersections.

  22. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I always suspected he was a smug prick, but didn’t have easy proof. That is no longer the case.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Wasn’t Jimmy Kimmel Sarah silvermans b!tch for a while?

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Wait, what?
        Which one wore the strap on???

        1. avatar jwm says:

          No doubt she wore a wife beater and the strap on. Wonder if he kept the strap on after the break up? In case he gets lonely.

  23. avatar Anonymous says:

    Gun control advocates appear to think that all blind people are both blind and dumb. I think that blind people are aware that they are blind and know if they start firing a gun towards an area they could hit a target they were not intending to hit. I also think that blind people are aware of how the judicial system works. However this is not about personal responsibility right?? This is about government social policy towards blind people (statism).

  24. avatar Jerry says:

    “Jerry: I’m not negotiating. You know those Charlston Heston words.”
    You should get elected to Congress 🙂 You’d fit right in.

    How is that working for us? More states have limited our rights in the last year than ever before. Continue with same tactics and enjoy the same result.

    “BTW: liberals typically don’t join the NRA – they are afraid of guns. Not afraid of criminals – just the guns.”

    Stranger things have happened, like oh wait a black democratic president….

    Just so people don’t think I’m being racist, I’m commenting on political shift of the democratic party during the mid part of last century.

  25. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Kimmel has never watched “Wait Until Dark ” with Audrey Hepburn as the blind girl being attacked. Guess he thinks blind 105 lb girls should be raped and killed. Waiting for the laugh fest he ‘ll have with that.

    1. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

      RF can we start calling out the shooting ranges and personnel (like this RSO) who aid and abet these anti gun efforts? If we can bust on George K at Freedom Group, then knowing idiots should be held responsible for their actions.

  26. avatar Silver says:

    I’d rather have a deaf, mute, and blind liberty-minded person with me during a crisis than a leftist who will wet his pants, freak out, then stab me in the back.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email