Izawwlgood wrote: Elvish Pillager wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Wha...? Are you two serious? Like really?
Now that you know that we're serious, would you like to rewrite your questions in a manner suggesting you actually care what our opinions are, or do you prefer to continue taking the piss?
Frankly, not really; the notion that someone doesn't require vision to use a lethal weapon is pretty frightening, and I'm not really sure how to rationally address your position without utter incredulity pouring through.
We're obviously not talking about people who don't have 100/20 vision, but how do you feel about someone who is legally blind driving?
I'm okay with some incredulity. There's a difference between regular incredulity and comments like "Are you trying to be stupid?". I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, since you have literally just asked me a non-insulting question that I'm willing to answer.
My opinion about cars? Well, you might say that it's hardly related, because my opinion about cars is that they should be driven by computers. The technology is within reach; to save lives, governments should encourage its development, and once it's common, humans should be banned from driving on any public road. Also, we need more public transit; cars are wasteful, damage the environment, and have many harmful indirect effects. Those are the biggest issues of car usage, so those are what public policy should focus on.
Within the context of that focus, we can also address a few details during the stopgap years, such as vision requirements for having a driver's license. First off, as far as I've heard, current vision requirements are inconsistently enforced - people can renew their licenses without doing new vision tests, even as their vision degenerates. That's a measurable effect that you could study, so if I was a policymaker, I'd like to see a study into the public cost of deaths attributed to driving with eyesight below the allowed threshold. That would, of course, have to be weighed against the cost of limiting legally-blind people's mobility, which is also a public cost. (Plus the cost of running additional tests.) If the study found the risks were insignificant compared to the costs, I'd favor relaxing the requirements that are
How does that relate to guns? It's all about public policy. Although, in this case, I can't make the "cost of them not being allowed to own guns" argument, because I haven't seen evidence that there's any
public benefit from people owning guns. I can
make the "cost of enforcing regulations" argument, and I can also make a hypothetical argument based on the assumption that I believe gun ownership has a public benefit (like self-defense, deterring crime, or holding government accountable, to name some common beliefs). And bear in mind that, checking the Internet, it looks like accidental gun deaths are about 650/year in the entire
US, while cars kill about 40,000/year despite all restrictions put in place to stop it, and despite, you know, the fact that cars aren't designed to kill people. Compared to cars, guns are astonishingly safe.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only concern here is that people would possibly be injured or killed by blind people accidentally shooting them with legally owned and operated guns? Legally blind people are less than 1% of the population. Using the federal minimum wage and the EPA value of a human life, if all Americans spent the amount of time worrying about this that I already have writing this post, we'd have to save more than 500 lives to break even, so legally blind people would have to be more than 100 times as deadly as sighted ones for it to be even worth the attention I've given it.
Now, I don't know how completely blind people can use guns responsibly, but that's because I'm not blind
. I spend literally all of my time not thinking about how to safely practice marksmanship without seeing, so I'm not going to demand a full justification whenever someone says that they know how to do so. The only way to convince me that we need to demand heightened scrutiny on a marginalized group? Is to show me that it will
result in deaths if we don't. Not "I, in my own ignorance, can't think of how to do that safely", but "Here is my evidence that large numbers of people actually die when as a result".
You're not going to produce that evidence, because there is no such evidence, because it's not true. Now I'm going to go back to worrying about the ten thousand Americans per year who are killed intentionally by sighted people with guns and the forty thousand Americans per year who are killed by sighted people with cars.