Some fairly confused reasoning here. "The thing that makes guns dangerous is the willingness to use them to kill other people. In that regard, being blind or n

Some fairly confused reasoning here. "The thing that makes guns dangerous is the willingness to use them to kill other people. In that regard, being blind or not shouldn't make any difference at all to whether or not someone should be allowed to carry one." That is just one factor. Another is possession of the ability and skill to use the weapon appropriately. This is why, for example, young children cannot carry weapons in public. And in that respect its very hard to make a case for blind people being able to carry lethal weapons in public places, or indeed on private property. If they can't see what they are shooting at then their use of the weapon would be inappropriate because they can't use it safely. "The idea of carrying a gun is that you should never need to use it, so the skills required to use it safely are rendered moot." You're using an obviously incorrect premise to justify a conclusion that is therefore flawed. The practical justifications for concealed carrying of firearms in the US are [1] personal protection and crime prevention. Both require a willingness on the part of the carrier to use the weapon, even if they hope that they never have to do so. [1] I live in a country where carrying weapons is (thankfully) highly illegal, so its kind of hard for me to understand the idea of "concealed carry". I hope I haven't significantly misunderstood. Also, I do appreciate that there is a constitutional justification in the US for possessing a weapon, that exists irrespective of the practical ones that I have listed.