Polk County officials say they’ve issued weapons permits to at least three people who can’t legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.
And sheriffs in three other counties — Jasper, Kossuth and Delaware — say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have severe visual impairments.
Some people think that Iowa’s blind gun owners are a bit over the top, a new and unusual twist in the ongoing debate about gun control. But, really, it’s nothing new.
Go back to Genesis for the first instance of a blind hunter killing a man and then gunsplaining — or, I suppose, bowsplaining — the whole thing to his wives:
Most of the legends about Lamech, the grandson of Cain, center around his killing of his grandfather. He was blind and when he went hunting, he was led by his young son Tubal-Cain, who would tell his father when game came in sight, so that Lamech could shoot at it with his bow and arrow. Once he aimed at some horned creature which Tubal-Cain thought to be a beast. In fact it was Cain, the “sign of Cain” being a horn in the forehead, and he killed him. In despair, Lamech smote his hands together inadvertently killing Tubal-Cain. After this incident his wives, Adah and Zillah, wanted to leave him on the ground that Cain’s descendants were doomed to annihilation. But Lamech argued, “If Cain who committed murder with malice aforethought, was punished only in the seventh generation, then, I who have killed inadvertently may hope that retribution will be postponed for 77 generations” (cf. Gen. 4:23).
I’m going to go ahead and make it official:
There’s no need for anyone to come up with any additional ridiculous theories for why crime occurs because this one — from Janet Morana, head of “Priests for Life” — is, without doubt, the most ridiculous:
“First of all, we have to start with the fact that since 1973…. These kids are survivors. They could have been aborted. And that’s a fact. And people don’t realize. They’re post-Roe v Wade, and therefore there’s a thing called “survivor syndrome.” There’s a psychiatrist up in Canada, Dr. Philip Ney, has studied this for decades and shown the effect. Just the fact that you could have been aborted can affect you as a survivor of Roe v Wade.”
Why did three teenagers murder Australian baseball player Christopher Lane? Because of the Roe v. Wade decision, naturally.
I’m looking at myself a bit differently this morning, because — just like those teenagers — I was not aborted and thus I might be suffering from “survivor syndrone.”
Basically, high profile crimes are really about whatever you want them to be about. For a lot of conservatives, this crime is all black-on-white crime and the racist-against-white-people mainstream media. For a lot of liberals, it’s all about easy access to guns or urban poverty. And, with enough bizarre mental gymnastics, for some people it can even be all about abortion.
So … what’s your pet issue and how does some high profile crime prove your point? If Janet Morana demonstrates anything, it’s that you just have to do a little bit of work to make sure your pet issue isn’t left out of the hysterical national conversation about particular instances of violent crime.
HT: Lawyers, Guns and Money
OK, this is the last gunsplaining post I’m going to reblog here:
Gunsplaining 102: “I don’t really care how many people get accidentally shot. Perhaps if it happens in my circle of life, I may, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. I’ve already made my responsible choice and will stick too [sic] it.”
If you want more gunplaining, you’ll have to keep an eye on that blog. And, of course, submit any gunsplaining that gets sent your way too!
Has anyone written anything yet about gunsplaining?
In my head, this would be the process by which men — always men, every single time — explain to me (or to you, of course) that each instance in which someone is accidentally shot by a loaded gun makes perfect sense from the perspective of gun owners and couldn’t possibly be avoided.
I propose the motto of the gunsplainer should be: “There’s always a risk to carrying a loaded gun but, you know, there’s a risk to everything. Is there a way to minimize this risk? I don’t care.”
It’s a long motto, admittedly. But I think it’s pretty accurate. And, anyhow, it’ll fit on a t-shirt a lot more cleanly than this slogan about how, just like loaded guns, lots of household items are also dangerous to kids:
I should start a blog dedicated entirely to gunsplaining.
I could find all the gunsplaining out there every time a five year old is shot and killed in his own home, every time a middle school security guard forgets a loaded weapon in the bathroom, every time someone loses a loaded gun at the movies or a restaurant, and every time a gun safety instructor shoots someone taking his class.
Needless to say, it’d all be unbelievably callous — “Sorry your kid died; sorry you got shot; sorry your ten year old found a loaded gun at school … but the most important thing is I can do what I want” — and it’d all revolve around the premise that there’s absolutely nothing that could possibly be done to prevent accidents.