CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A law prohibiting Iowa from passing further gun regulations?
Makes perfect sense.
A blind man pointing a gun at an intruder is more safe than a blind man hoping to God that the intruder doesn't do anything. It doesn't matter if he even intends to use it when the time comes, it's that he has the option. Disarming the blind won't save lives, and a governing policy that has armed soldiers (aka police officers) hold disarming power over coerced citizens is definitely not desirable.
The article wasn't complaining about blind people have guns at home, just carrying them out in public:
A majority of law enforcement officers across the state don’t have a problem with the visually impaired owning a gun to protect themselves within their own home, where they are familiar with the surroundings, according to Dunbar. Their concern is when someone who can’t see takes that weapon out into the community to try and protect themselves.
I was going after gun control in general and pointing out that there may, in fact, be reasons for someone of a handicap to have a gun. Gun control of any kind of removal of power from the citizens and increasing that of the state.
I am actually totally in agreement with you as far as not wanting to government to make these kinds of decisions for me. However, if I knew someone who was blind and was concerned about protecting themselves, I would probably recommend pepper spray.
I think the key take away from the article is the last line "I can see no evidence that our law needs to be changed." Since the laws don't need to change, don't change them. I wouldn't be opposed to rules stating that more training be given to those who aren't fully capable, but not an outright ban just because. Fully capable people are shooting innocent people all the time.
The thing is, people who go to get a permit tend to be very conscious of how dangerous that idea is and are very responsible.
Would it be clear that we were governed by fools if they said black people shouldn't have guns? You are saying that when the government discriminates it is a good thing. What if we picked something that you felt wasn't a good thing to discriminate against?
umm...but I never said anything about discrimination.
I simply say that why should the blind be allowed to carry weapons when they cannot even use it in the first place? Wouldn't that make them prone to being used by terrorists to carry weapons for them?
I simply say that why should the blacks be allowed to carry weapons when they cannot even use it in the first place?
Same concept, see the discrimination now?
Wouldn't that make them prone to being used by terrorists to carry weapons for them?
Now you think blind people are mentally challenged, too. Man, that is harsh. I fail to see how being blind means that terrorists are more easily able to use you, so I can only conclude that you must feel that being blind includes a mental handicap that allows terrorists to target you.
Black people are just the same as anyone, but the handicapped citizens has special needs to consider. And giving them arms is not one of it.
I fail to see how being blind means that terrorists are more easily able to use you,
There are ways. Such as bribing you to work for them and blackmailing. Its not a mental handicap. Its about becoming a potential to be used by criminals
Wrong, you said a group of people deserve to not have their rights. We call that discrimination if that group of people is black people, why isn't it for blind people?
There are ways. Such as bribing you to work for them and blackmailing. Its not a mental handicap. Its about becoming a potential to be used by criminals
So, your argument that blind people are more prone to being tricked by terrorists is because they are just as likely to be tricked by terrorists? Please explain how your use of fearmongering applies here. Do you think if you say terrorist people should just listen to you?
Simple as that
Saying something is simple doesn't make it so. Why are you associating blind people with terrorists?
Wrong, you said a group of people deserve to not have their rights. We call that discrimination if that group of people is black people, why isn't it for blind people?
o_O
But I was just saying, whats the use of letting blind men have guns?
So, your argument that blind people are more prone to being tricked by terrorists
Its not trickery. Its being forced to do what they want. By giving them the right to carry weapons, you are exposing them to be used by criminals.
Why are you associating blind people with terrorists?
But I dont, I am just thinking of the possibilities. :)
But I was just saying, whats the use of letting blind men have guns?
And I am saying what is not discriminating about saying a blanket statement about a group of people?
Its not trickery. Its being forced to do what they want. By giving them the right to carry weapons, you are exposing them to be used by criminals.
WHY ARE BLIND PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO BE FORCED BY TERRORISTS? I don't remember any news stories where a terrorist made a blind person walk a bomb into a market. Plus, when have you ever heard of someone with a gun permit being forced to commit terrorism, blind or otherwise?
But I dont, I am just thinking of the possibilities. :)
You mentioned terrorists for no reason and associated them with blind people. What do you have against blind people? Do they creep you out? Do you hate all disabilities or just blindness?
I don't remember any news stories where a terrorist made a blind person walk a bomb into a market.
Whats with the temper anyway?
You did heard of pregnant women being used to smuggle goods, right? Also, there are cases where raped women are turned into time bombs by the trickery that they will gain salvation for their loyalty and children as human shields in exchange for food.
Unless you made it illegal for him to carry weapon, there are plenty of possibilities to use a blind man in terrorism.
You mentioned terrorists for no reason and associated them with blind people.
Again, I have nothing against the handicapped people. I am just worried about the dangers that this may cause
I was not getting angry, I was speaking louder so that maybe you could actually answer the question. Guess what, you didn't.
You did heard of pregnant women being used to smuggle goods, right? Also, there are cases where raped women are turned into time bombs by the trickery that they will gain salvation for their loyalty and children as human shields in exchange for food.
So your example of how blind people are more prone to being tricked by terrorists is that pregnant woman have been tricked. Good example.
Unless you made it illegal for him to carry weapon, there are plenty of possibilities to use a blind man in terrorism.
Funny, in your example a woman is strapped with an illegal bomb. I guess the legality of the object doesn't matter.
Again, I have nothing against the handicapped people. I am just worried about the dangers that this may cause
If I told you I had nothing against black people then said for absolutely no reason that black people were terrorists or would more likely help terrorists, could you really believe the part where I said I wasn't against black people?
So your example of how blind people are more prone to being tricked by terrorists is that pregnant woman have been tricked. Good example.
No, you got it twisted. ^^
I was implying that the wickedness of humanity has no bounds. In every generation, the art of crime gets more wicked as more and more potential are being discovered.
Funny, in your example a woman is strapped with an illegal bomb. I guess the legality of the object doesn't matter.
Again, its just an implication that once an man set his eye to his goal, there will be ways to reach it. War is about deceit and what can be more deceitful than using disabled men for battle?
If I told you I had nothing against black people then said for absolutely no reason that black people were terrorists or would more likely help terrorists, could you really believe the part where I said I wasn't against black people?
Depending on what facts you will use to support your claim, I might
I was implying that the wickedness of humanity has no bounds. In every generation, the art of crime gets more wicked as more and more potential are being discovered.
You have it twisted. You specifically said that blind people are more prone. Now you are saying terrorists are bad and have nothing to do with blind people, which is exactly my point.
Again, its just an implication that once an man set his eye to his goal, there will be ways to reach it. War is about deceit and what can be more deceitful than using disabled men for battle?
What does that have anything to do with allowing blind people to have the same rights as sighted people? Why haven't blind people been used?
Depending on what facts you will use to support your claim, I might
Let's pretend I have 0 facts. Let's pretend I say something about pregnant women being strapped with bombs. I still think black people are terrorists because pregnant women wear bombs. Do I still have nothing against black people?
You specifically said that blind people are more prone. Now you are saying terrorists are bad and have nothing to do with blind people, which is exactly my point.
No silly. ^^
I was just saying that this law will expose them. They cannot defend themselves so we had to defend them. But not in this way
What does that have anything to do with allowing blind people to have the same rights as sighted people? Why haven't blind people been used?
Its not about discrimination, it is about knowing their limits.
How can a blind man shoot something he cannot see? Wouldnt it be more efficient if they are taught martial arts and armed with knives instead?
I was just saying that this law will expose them. They cannot defend themselves so we had to defend them. But not in this way
Allowing a blind person to have a gun makes it so they can't defend themselves and taking his guns away means he can defend himself? Do you not understand how silly you sound. Are you a closet racist? Just wondering. I mean it sounds like you are saying being able to see would mean that you could tell whoever around you is a terrorist. Racists think they can do that too.
Its not about discrimination, it is about knowing their limits.
How can a blind man shoot something he cannot see? Wouldnt it be more efficient if they are taught martial arts and armed with knives instead?
If this is such a great idea, how come you decided to use the racist, demeaning, and discriminatory idea of associating blind people with terrorists?
Also, sighted people have shot lots of things they weren't supposed to , being able to see doesn't make your aim magical.
Then it all falls down
So, since you have 0 facts, you agree that you are prejudiced against blind people. Thank you.
SERIOUSLY? You want to take away his gun so that no one can take away his gun? Did you actually think that through before you wrote it.
Aye, you dont think tha he will just randomly shoot now do you? He will seek out voices. And that pause will allow others to steal his weapon. Then the rest you can guess.
1. So, this shouldn't be used to restrict rights.
I am implying that if they are being used for scams today, they will be used for more scams tomorrow.
2. You still haven't pointed out what knowledge would help make a blind person more susceptible to terrorism because he has a gun.
People will use his rights into their favor
3. a) The discussion is not about high powered rifles.
Aye, you dont think tha he will just randomly shoot now do you? He will seek out voices. And that pause will allow others to steal his weapon. Then the rest you can guess.
WOW, you didn't understand the question at all. You are trying to protect the blind guy from having his gun stolen by stealing his gun. Why don't you kill him to protect him from being shot?
I am implying that if they are being used for scams today, they will be used for more scams tomorrow.
What other rights should people lose if someone who is like them falls for scams?
People will use his rights into their favor
Do you actually believe it is easier for a terrorist to steal a gun from a blind guy or get one somewhere else?
You armed him with a gun nonetheless
It makes as much sense as you saying he shouldn't have sandwiches because he is dangerous with a high powered rifle.
Blind cannot aim
Never heard one news story where blind person shot wrong person. Being able to see is not the only way to aim. How many times has someone been shot at close range in a movie that didn't require being able to see in order to hit the person? Where is your evidence that blind people can't aim you bigot? What are they trying to shoot? If they are only trying to shoot something that they place the gun up against, they can aim. So, your statement is just an evil bigoted stereotype. You should be ashamed of yourself. Please also explain how your blanket false statement is not discrimination.
You are trying to protect the blind guy from having his gun stolen by stealing his gun
No, I am protecting the people around him (and himself) by giving him a weapon that suits his limits
What other rights should people lose if someone who is like them falls for scams?
Dont ask me about that one
It makes as much sense as you saying he shouldn't have sandwiches because he is dangerous with a high powered rifle.
explain?
Never heard one news story where blind person shot wrong person.
Because they never shot someone in the first place and they are aware of the dangers that they pose for using a weapon that needs sight. It takes common sense to know what they can and what they cannot use.
No, I am protecting the people around him (and himself) by giving him a weapon that suits his limits
Well, you have a terrible way of saying it.
Dont ask me about that one
Ooh, sounds like you want to restrict even more rights. You are a naughty one Mr. Grinch.
explain?
It is a law saying they are allowed to have handguns. If you want to take away their handguns because they are dangerous with rifles, why not take away other unrelated things if they are dangerous with rifles? If they are dangerous with rifles, just take away their rifles. Handguns and high powered rifles are very different.
Because they never shot someone in the first place and they are aware of the dangers that they pose for using a weapon that needs sight. It takes common sense to know what they can and what they cannot use.
If it is common sense, why do you think it should be regulated? Sounds like the sense is not as common as you hope. Plus, your explanation is bogus. The Iowa law is not new. They are discussing whether they should not continue to allow blind people to have gun permits. That means that they have been able to get gun permits, and we have blind people who have devices you say they can't use. So, it seems the blind are in good control of their guns.
why not take away other unrelated things if they are dangerous with rifles?
Its a gun. Guns need sight to be used. You cant let a kid handle electrics, let alone a blind man to guns
If it is common sense, why do you think it should be regulated?
Because it is dangerous
The Iowa law is not new. They are discussing whether they should not continue to allow blind people to have gun permits.
Correction, was secretly allowed on 2011 but remained a taboo subject. Now that the noise has sprung, and the blind are starting to learn of what they can do, alot of things can and will happen.
Its a gun. Guns need sight to be used. You cant let a kid handle electrics, let alone a blind man to guns
I am not sure what electrics is, we must call it something else. I will agree with your assessment that it takes sight to use a gun when you can explain stuff from movies where the correct target of the shooter is shot at super close range and no sight was needed.
Because it is dangerous
Lot's of things are dangerous. Some have actually caused harm to people. seeing as this is not a case when someone has been harmed, maybe it isn't that dangerous.
Correction, was secretly allowed on 2011 but remained a taboo subject. Now that the noise has sprung, and the blind are starting to learn of what they can do, alot of things can and will happen.
So, since 2011 there have been 0 problems. Not a long period of time, but still, nothing happened. Why does that mean you should associate blind people with terrorists? Why would you attack blind people who haven't done anything to you instead of actually discussing the real problem?
I will agree with your assessment that it takes sight to use a gun when you can explain stuff from movies where the correct target of the shooter is shot at super close range and no sight was needed.
so...why not tazers instead?
So, since 2011 there have been 0 problems. Not a long period of time,
It was a right that remained hidden until now. Today, the blind is aware of their rights and will use it. Which will be dangerous
Ok, so you have no explanation, so your line of thinking is incorrect.
It was a right that remained hidden until now. Today, the blind is aware of their rights and will use it. Which will be dangerous
Maybe not, maybe so, but you have no evidence. So, since you have no evidence of your claims, why is it ok to call blind people terrorists? Would it be ok for men to have called women terrorists when they were given the right to vote?
What is incorrect? I thought you said limit it to close range? Tazer are currently the best non-fatal melee weapon on the market.
You said that sight was absolutely necessary. You have conceded that that is not true.
The lack of sight.
And searching database ... searching .. no results found. Well, it looks like lack of sight does not show any results for people who have been dangerous in the past. So, why does having no sight mean you are a terrorist?
Sigh is necessary for guns, you said that you can use it for close range. If thats how you plan to use it, why not just tazers?
Ok, so you admit that you don't need sight for guns, but you want to make it safer for long range.
You cant aim without an eye. you cant shoot if you cant aim. That was my point. What are you talking about exactly?
Your generalized statements are false. Since your generalized statements are incorrect another way to show you are right would be actual evidence, like an actual story of someone improperly shot by a blind person.
Ok, so you admit that you don't need sight for guns, but you want to make it safer for long range.
Nope, i was saying that if you are gonna do a closerange attack, why not use something that is really meant for closerange?
Your generalized statements are false.Since your generalized statements are incorrect another way to show you are right would be actual evidence, like an actual story of someone improperly shot by a blind person.
But neighter can you prove me false. Unless you cannot give me a story about a blind man who can shot good that is
Nope, i was saying that if you are gonna do a closerange attack, why not use something that is really meant for closerange?
What is your definition of blind? Now that we have established that you think there is a class of people that shouldn't have equal rights it would help to know. Should people with glasses be allowed those rights? How do we know they will have their glasses on in a fight?
But neighter can you prove me false. Unless you cannot give me a story about a blind man who can shot good that is
You said EVERY single blind person can't shoot, and you didn't even provide your description of blind. Your statements are clearly false because you can't know that every blind person can't do something. Since you have provided no other justification, I have shown you are wrong.
A blind person should not be able to drive or own a gun. In fact they shouldn't have kids. It just takes common sense to see that blind people should not own guns.
This law is incomprehensibly ridiculous. This is like the right for someone with no arms to drive. Would you feel safe then? This is why America is the laughing stock of the world.
i know and understand that most blind people have better senses(other than sight) than the rest of us, but i don't see why they should be allowed to use weapons.
they probably won't be sure when to use it. besides, they might use it when they just happen to be startled over something small. and might hurt others in the process.
they might even hurt themselves, which won't do them much good if the weapon is meant for protection, would it?
