vamo said:
I think the blind argument is a losing one. I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun. I know theres a lot of room between legally blind and completely blind, but lets just use the Always know your target and what is beyond rule if a person can't do that they shouldn't use a gun.
Realistically, the argument against blind carry is like an argument against being probed by aliens.
Being shot by a blind person is just about statistically impossible and even if it does happen to you, no one will believe you.
Seriously though, what percentage of the population carries to begin with? Maybe 10%? So on top of that, what percentage of blind people carry? What percentage of blind people ever need to fire a shot in self-defense?
Now after all of that, what is your chance of being hit by a stray round fired by a blind person?
The blind person thing is a great issue for Piers Morgan to sling out when he wants to rail against something, but in the real world, it's practically a non-issue.
I mostly agree with BSA1 on the premise of CCW licensing though. It restricts a right and discriminates not only against certain groups, but also against anyone who just has a job and a shortage of time. Even in my home state of PA, which isn't too bad for gun laws, it still sucks.
First, as I recall, you need a couple character references. What if you just moved to PA and don't know anyone yet? Does that make it OK for criminals to rape you because you can't carry for defense? Especially when you can pass a background check?
Second, although the fee is only $26 for five years and there is no training requirement, you still have to find time to go jump through the hoops to get your permit.