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.
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…
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?
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…”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As long as the person can see good enough to hit what they intend to shoot, I’m fine with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All we need to do is ban cops, Glocks, iphones, and minorities.
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.)
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.
He should get a judge and load it with 410’s
He should get a judge and keep them around to give a legal opinion if a shoot is legal or not.
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.
Definitely better than someone who closes their eyes when pulling the trigger.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.