So, basically 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, you would then just lay your gun down and either run or surrender?
I dunno about you, but many times when I am suddenly awakened in the middle of the night, I can't see for crap. It can take me a few minutes for my eyes to adjust. If I am in the dark and my eyes get strobed with a bright light, like witnessing a snubby 357 flash go off, then I am just as handicapped. In that crucial moment, my vision acuity is worthless. I've also got caught in my own trailing pepper spray discharge and not even been able to open my eyes.
So I guess if it is a permanent or persistant disability then that would preclude being able to defend yourself, whereas if it is just a temporary but immediate problem, then that somehow makes it okay?
Umm, I don't think we have the right to tell someone else they can't share the same privilege we have to defend themselves. This isn't a question of convenience, like driving a car would be, but of life or death. Based on that logic, a gun control advocate would successfully argue that your vision might also be obstructed or compromised at a critical moment, and therefore you should not be allowed to arm yourself because that is a likely condition you would find yourself in.
Yeah, you might refrain from shooting until you regain your vision, provided the assailant affords you that opportunity, but what if the threat is ongoing and imminent? What if you get hit and the threat persists? Are you going to refrain from discharging because you can't see the assailant, or are you going to fire for effect?
Once you start down the road of qualifying people for their rights, then none of us are safe from scrutiny.
Here's the deal, if a gunman takes one of my daughters hostage and is using her as a shield while shooting at me, I will take the shot, even if I have to shoot through her to get to him, to make him stop. To my mind, neutralizing the threat takes precedence over collateral damage, regardless of the obstruction. I wouldn't like it, any more than I would like shooting blind, but you do what you gotta do, and we are seldom presented with the ideal situation. Would you disqualify me then from carrying?
Leave it to the judgement of the individual as to using it within their limits of ability and willingness.
In no state where I have been legally allowed to carry concealed has there been any proficiency requirement.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)