You're right about the definition of legally blind. What I was getting at was that the cause changes the ability to see at a given range. As an example, I can thread needles without glasses but I can't read a 3/4" vcr display at four feet without them.

Right, and since the loss of sight is an inherent weakness in any of us, that it can be easily compromised and the most likely situation a person can end up defending themselves in, then it stands to reason that we should all be so restricted, unless we can demonstrate that we will wear suitable eye protection and always maintain an area of illumination around ourselves so that we can readily distinguish our intended targets.

How about if you go to the range to qualify for a CCW and the new requirement is that you have to score a certain number of hits with the range completely dark. That is a plausible self defense scenario, and since none of us has built in night vision, that would be a disqualifier as well.

I dunno, I am getting pretty rummy from lack of sleep, so maybe this is just a rambling. I will refrain until I can get some more rest for a while.

Wow, new day. I guess my point was supposed to be something like qualification seems a little unfair. I gotta get more sleep when I get back home.

"...most all of you are saying that the only time you would be willing to use a firearm to defend yourself or others is if you could see under ideal conditions? I guess then that means that if you get pepper sprayed, or debris in your eyes, or it is just too dark out"

I think there might be a difference between not being able to see at all, and being able to see where the shots that are hitting you are coming from.

Sue

Yep, definitely too rummy yesterday.