First, I must admit that I’m relatively new to the world of guns. But I am an expert on disabilities, and the convergence of gun ownership and being handicapped is the focus of this article.
For 46 out of my 57 years, I have learned to cope with the devastating effects of Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. Four total hip replacements, two knee replacements and reconstructive hand surgeries have awarded me an advanced degree in dealing with a major disability.
Nearly four years ago, I set out to find a pistol that would be an appropriate home defense weapon when my condition worsened and forced me to retire on permanent disability.
Feeling more vulnerable than ever before in my life, I thought a gun purchase would not only alleviate my fears but also allow me to take up target shooting as a new hobby to enjoy now that I had time on my hands. My journey introduced me to all the major gun manufacturers and calibers.
Is it possible for someone like the man pictured or the author of the article (I'm not sure if they're the same) to own and use guns safely?What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Yes. And if you had any decency you would feel ashamed of demanding that such people be disarmed and left helpless against able bodied thugs.
ReplyDeleteEspecially since one of your stated reasons is for the protection of said thugs.
What thugs? What kind of world do you live in? How many times have you had to use a gun to defend yourself?
DeleteMike, Do we really have to do this dance every fucking time?
DeleteYou know that I'm not saying that as soon as you disarm a person, a thug will assault and murder them.
You already know that what I'm talking about is that these people are extra vulnerable if attacked, and they have a slightly higher chance of being attacked because criminals look for easy prey. If they know that the guy in the wheel chair is disarmed by law, he makes an even more tempting target since he can't fight back physically or with a gun.
But, that is exactly what you infer when you say inflammatory bullshit like I'd be leaving them unarmed against the thugs.
Delete1: I believe you meant to say "imply." Inferring is what you're doing.
Delete2: Your inference is incorrect and manipulative. You're deliberately misconstruing my words to avoid dealing with the issue; preferring to close your eyes to the fact that some of these disabled people you want to disarm would be assaulted and murdered if left with no way to defend themselves.
As long as they don't get uppity about their rights and use an icky gun, it's all good, according to the gun control freak.
DeleteMore disabled people with guns are shooting themselves or others or having their guns stolen than are using them to save their lives. Disarming people because they're not fit to own and operate guns safely is doing them a favor, not to mention those around them.
DeleteMikeb, prove it. And then prove that you get to decide anything for other people.
DeleteDo you have some numbers to prove that statement about the disabled defending themselves less often than they hurt themselves, others, or have their guns stolen?
DeleteAs for your comment about disarming them being doing them a favor, that's what the Nazis said about euthanizing them; that's what people over 100 years ago said about enslaving blacks, putting natives on reservations, etc.
Yeah, yeah, you're gonna say that I've violated Godwin's law or some such, but the point is that if you are going to say: "We are going to do X to you, against your will, for your own good." Then you better have a DAMN good justification for it. Opinions, guessed at statistics, and emotional arguments don't fit the bill.
MikeB: "More disabled people with guns are shooting themselves or others or having their guns stolen than are using them to save their lives."
DeleteYou say the same thing about non-disabled people.
My proof is simple and it's been presented repeatedly. There are a half a million crimes each year committed with guns. There are far fewer DGUs, (which is why you guys make up lying bullshit like there are millions of them).
DeleteSince gun crime far outnumbers defensive gun use, guns do more harm than good. By disarming people, starting with the worst of the worst, we improve that ratio.
You have to keep in mind that many of those we disarm would be responsible for the gun flow that keeps the criminals armed even if they themselves don't commit crime.
If you're going to reject the National Academies of Science, why do you expect that we'll believe your claim here?
DeleteThe question wasn't if guns do more harm than good, but whether you have any proof that disabled people injure themselves, injure others, and have their guns stolen more often than they use them defensively.
DeleteUh huh, Mike. Like I just said, you use the same logic for disabled and non-disabled people, but you’d be “doing [the disabled] a favor” by disarming them. Is that not true for the rest of us? And as you continue to strip people of their rights, the DGU count will fall with it, further bolstering your logic that says people need to be disarmed for their own good. Nice.
DeleteT., the proof I've presented works for all gun owners as well as all the sub groups, unless you think disabled people are especially gifted in avoiding the commonplace mishaps that occur with guns. I know you believe concealed carry permit holders are such a superior group, is that what you're saying about the handicapped too?
DeleteYou've offered opinions, guesswork, and supercilious dismissal of any studies that don't fit your views because they just Can't be true.
DeleteThat's not proof of squat.
Mikeb, if you refuse to accept that there are at least 800,000 defensive gun uses per annum, then on the same grounds, I refuse to believe that there are 500,000 incidents of injury, death, or the threat of the same in a given year.
DeleteBut, in fact, since both numbers are coming from the credible estimates of the situation, I accept both as likely.
Greg the 800,000 DGUs come from wild estimates based on telephone interviews. We've seen how unreliable they are.
DeleteThe 500,000 crimes committed with guns comes from FBI hard statistics of crimes actually committed.
The DGU estimate included mainly brandishings for which there is no documented evidence. Not so with the crime stats.
The bottom line is there is no comparison, guns do far more harm than good.
Not according to the National Academies of Science.
DeleteIt doesn't look like the same guy. He has a profile picture if you click on his name.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you have any worries? The man in the photo seems to be quite safe. The only concern I might have is that it looks like he might have an issue with finger strength since he seems to have his trigger finger pretty far through the guard.
The article highlights how the wide variety of firearm designs enabled him to find handguns that he could effectively use. And many accessories that also helped him overcome his disability.
He doesn't look too safe, not to me.
DeleteCan you clarify how he is being unsafe?
DeletePlease, expose your bigotry further, Mikeb. Tell us how this man is not able to use firearms safely.
DeleteYes, well, we have yet to see a picture of someone shooting who you thought looked safe, regardless of how much control they had.
DeleteWell, I guess there's one exception to that: The guy shooting with his feet who you said could keep his guns as the one exception to disarming the disabled.
Yeah, the guy with the feet seemed to have good control of the weapon, unlike the guy in this picture.
DeleteMikeb, I have no reason to believe that you know anything about safe handling.
DeletePlease, enlighten us, o master, as to how this man doesn't show control over the weapon?
DeleteYes. The better question is whether you're capable of overcoming your prejudices. I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is certainly possible for someone with severe disabilities to own and operate a firearm safely. There are more hurdles for them to deal with, and I believe it's a good thing he had an instructor that was so willing to work with him to overcome them. This is more the rule rather than the exception, as most instructors are more than willing to assist.
ReplyDeleteEveryone, handicapped and able, should have to pass a physical test in order to be licensed as a gun owner. That's part of my number 1 gun control law. Many disabled people would pass, but the purpose of the test would be to screen out the ones who are unfit to own and operate guns safely, for their own sakes and those around them.
DeleteUntil your position evolves and the test becomes more and more difficult.
DeleteYes, and his necessity is more obvious than the frightened, healthy NRA dudes who cannot leave home without a gun strapped to them.
ReplyDeleteFor the home I recommend a shotgun that could be braced against his chair. Outside, I recommend a low caliber with little kick and greater accuracy.
How about you back up your claim that we're afraid or stop lying?
Delete????
DeleteGet a grip dude. Go blow off some rounds.
Where did I say that
"his necessity is more obvious than the frightened, healthy NRA dudes who cannot leave home without a gun strapped to them."
DeleteAfraid and frightened are the same, so there's where you said that.
Not lying. You NRA dudes have stated repeatedly, that you never leave home without your gun strapped to you. I call that an irrational fear. How long have you been carrying and how many times have you had to draw your gun.?
DeleteGun control Jim, yes, I carry my gun wherever it's legal. Your lie was in claiming that I do it out of fear. If you believe yourself not to be lying, then prove me wrong. That doesn't mean claim. That means prove.
DeleteNever and never. I don't have my license and have never had one. That will change eventually, but not yet. You can call it what you want, but I would call it prudence. People carry for their own reasons, and those reasons vary drastically. Your insistance that all of us carry, and that we all do so as a result of an "irrational fear", is nothing more than your own bias showing itself.
DeleteI understand why you won't answer my question.
DeleteWell, lets see here; I've never said that I never leave home without my gun. I've said that I usually carry it in the same way I usually carry a pocket knife and a spare key--I'm not likely to need it, but it could be good to have in some circumstances--circumstances that I could avoid if I knew they were going to happen rather than merely arming up and diving in.
DeleteHow long have I been carrying? Around 6 years or so.
How many times have I had to draw the gun? I almost had to the first year I was carrying, but thankfully the pitbull backed down between its owner calling it and my bellowing at it. Hand hit the gun, but I decided to not pull it unless I had to.
Since then, I had to pull it one night when I was outside and a raccoon got into the chicken house and grabbed one of them. He let go of the chicken and got away before I could line up a shot I knew would be safe and have good backstop.
Third time I would have pulled it, but since my hands were full my kid brother beat me to it and shot a raccoon that was snarling and running at us.
No, none of these are defense against humans, and I sincerely hope I go a lifetime without having to deal with that. What these are are situations where my carry piece proved to be a useful tool that I was glad to have on me rather than having to resort to my flashlight, pocket knife, or the biggest stick laying in arm's reach.
Gun control Jim, I've been carrying for about five years now, anywhere and any time it's legal. Like Tennessean, I've had a situation involving a pair of dogs in which I would have drawn and fired had they not backed off. I've not had occasion to draw or give serious contemplation to drawing against another human being.
DeleteI also haven't been in a situation in which a seatbelt saved me from death or serious injury. But I wear it every time I'm in a vehicle. Do you consider that to be out of fear as well?
Gun Control Jim: "I understand why you won't answer my question."
ReplyDeleteWho are you talking to? I did answer your question.
I have had a gun pointed at me in serious anger (by humans) 3 times. All 3 times was what you would call a robbery situation. None of those times was I carrying. All of those times I disarmed and subdued the assailant, no one got hurt, not one shot fired. I wasn't lucky. I used tried and true tactics to handle the situation. So the only times I might have used my gun, I didn't need it. If I had my gun those times, I can only wonder how many customers would have gotten hurt, or killed, if I simply started firing. Yes, it took a little courage. I advise you gain some courage and the knowledge how to meet deadly situations without just shooting.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I teach classes on how to handle those situations, without resorting to deadly force. But yes, I still think a person has a right to carry, but I stress using a gun is a LAST resort. You NRA dudes would flunk. The first thing you would do, is start shooting, with no care who was around, innocent, or not. You would consider them collateral damage as you prove your right to kill.
ReplyDeleteSince you're addressing caricatures, do you expect a response?
DeleteI expect no intelligent response from you.
Delete