 |
Boeing 767 Simulator In a Bedroom |
 |
D.C. Detective Pulls Gun At Snowball Fight |
 |
Court Pulls Insurance Award In Sex Accident Claim |
 |
Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope |
Idle Pictures
45% Voted 'To be overall better for me than was 2009.' for 'As 2010 approaches, I expect the next year ...'
Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and DisabledComments:1093
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Dec 04, 2008 02:12 AM
from the take-two-bullets-and-call-me-in-the-morning dept.
from the take-two-bullets-and-call-me-in-the-morning dept.
Repton writes "Thanks to the Second Amendment, even the elderly have the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is that many of the guns out there are a bit unwieldy for an older person to handle. However, the inventors of the Palm Pistol are planning to change all that with a weapon that is ideal for both the elderly and the physically disabled. In a statement submitted to Medgadget, the manufacturer, Constitution Arms, has revealed the following: 'We thought you might be interested to learn that the FDA has completed its "Device/Not a Device" determination and concluded the handgun will be listed as a Class I Medical Device.' Physicians will be able to prescribe the Palm Pistol for qualified patients who may seek reimbursement through Medicare or private health insurance companies."
Comments
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why do seagulls live near the sea? 'Cause if they lived near the bay,
they'd be called baygulls.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't one because they all know old people are a huge voting block and they'd be out of office faster than they could blink.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
There might also be a few that want to see fewer elderly citizens forced to live in homeless shelters, and a few more who support it because most people who are thinking clearly do too.
But then they wouldn't be conservatives.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you judge people by prejudiced notions like "conservative" or "liberal", you will never be able to truly understand them.
I am a conservative (technically a Jeffersonian), but I still believe in providing a "safety net" for those who fall off the highwire of life & need government assistance to survive. Not all but most of my colleagues believe the same.
So stop being prejudiced and judge individuals as individuals, not labels.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.
Go ahead, mod me a troll for this one but I feel I just have to. What's to stop some nut job, (who has no regard for life, his or others), with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people? It's definitely not some law abiding citizen carrying a gun because it is illegal to carry a weapon on most campuses. Do you think such a thing could happen? You are an idiot if you answered "no" because recent history has already proven that answer to be false.
-- The sig should not be applied to any of the preceding paragraphs
I am of the belief that no material possession is worth a life. I really don't understand why some people believe that their life is worth less than anything they would be able to steal from a place they break into, but I will do what I can to honor their belief if they test it here.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
The second part is that burglars and petty thievery becomes much more serious, when they're caught with a weapon, as it then becomes armed delicts, which increases the jail time a lot. So many criminals decide not to risk that, plus the hassles of being caught with a weapon.
In addition to all of that, if weapons are banned, organising one becomes more difficult. So no more just whipping out the gun from grannies drawer when you want to teach someone a lesson, you need first to find a dealer you can trust, the stuff is more expensive, you risk legal trouble while buying the weapon and so on. Until one's done with all that, a lot of momentum is gone and most but the very dedicated won't bother with it.
But all of this is moot anyway, because handguns are a sacred cow in the USA and no amount of reasoning and real life experience in other parts of the world will change the mind of the public.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed."
I agree with you, except the part noted above. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point? So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.? Should I not be allowed to own those because I might use them illegally at some point too? Should the government ban owning a penis to stop rapes? :-) England has banned private ownership of guns, and the response has been a large surge in knife attacks. Criminals will use whatever they can, and realistically I agree with you that criminals aren't going to be the ones turning in their firearms if they were banned.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's right to self defence. I think it is a form of mental illness you're suffering.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for part 2: If you commit a felony while packing heat, you get extra felonies, even in the good ol' US of A. Non issue.
Part 3: so you're saying it's ok if the "very dedicated" are armed? You've solved nothing, removed a useful tool from the hands of those who would exercise their right to self-defense, and made sure criminals know their victims are unarmed, all in one fell swoop. Bravo.
I think your sticking point is that you believe criminals actually care about this "trouble" that they "risk" in obtaining and carrying weapons. You're a (presumably) law abiding person, so you think "oh dear I certainly wouldn't want EXTRA trouble!" Well, I hate to break it to you but that is an obvious misattribution on your part. On top of that, what about "real life experience" in the USA? There are plenty of people walking around (legally) armed as can be and amazingly people don't die during traffic accidents or parking disputes or whatever other garbage contrived examples you can come up with. 48 out of 50 states in this country allow provisions for private citizens to conceal, carry and use a firearm in well-defined circumstances and crime committed with a firearm is not really a problem except in places that outright ban firearms (see: Chicago).
This point of view of "oh just disarm everyone!" really pisses me off. Regular people defend their lives successfully and legally in this country often and you have the audacity to tell them that they are wrong for owning and/or carrying a firearm. Some people refuse to be victimized and they should be afforded the right to defend themselves in rare, legally-defined circumstances.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Gun is Civilization, by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Ack, everyone here seems to be missing the point. This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Granpa can kill someone else, it's so that Grandpa can kill himself.
I know far more elderly that used a handgun for suicide that has used a handgun in self defense. Why else is it a "medical device" if it's not for the person to use on themselves?
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
If free speech cost lives, what death rate would convince us to abandon that right? 1%?
The correct answer, of course, is that the risk is irrelevant. Self defense (and free speech) is the right and perview, first and foremost, of the individual, and shouldn't be taken away based on comparative statistics.
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use a gun to kill a poisonous snake about to bite me when I'm changing a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, how does respect come into play?
If a farmer or rancher uses a gun to kill a coyote ravaging his livestock, how does respect come into play?
If a hiker/camper fires a gun to scare away a bear that is charging him, how does respect come into play?
If I hold at gunpoint, or shoot, a criminal, committing a criminal act against me, why should I have or show any respect for the person who has already shown a complete disrespect for me?
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are these countries with "historically strict gun control" you talk of - because the places I'm thinking of only introduced gun control in the last 50 years and have seen reduced levels of gun crime as a consequence, for example, the UK.
We strongly believed in gun ownership then because we just won an armed rebellion against a colonial power.
And I wouldn't argue with that, in fact I'd say that's exactly what the second amendment was for. But given that the effective fire power of the United States is many billions of times greater than it was at the end of the 18th century, which particular colonial power are you so concerned about? And how is an armed militia of geriatrics going to help in this coming war?
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
You're using anecdotal evidence from "a buddy of yours" to belie the statistics on homicide?
If you had bothered to just google it quickly you would amongst others have found:
In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.
In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).
There might simply be fewer coppers on London. How about them apples?
Then the question is how many burglaries there are in the US vs the UK. Then there's the question how many of those end up in a death and how many are solved.
To cut a long story short: You are ignorant as hell. Which is OK. But you choose to remain ignorant as hell because you think it suffices to listen to "a buddy" to make sweeping statements on a political topic like gun control.
It's pathetic.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Interesting)
Did Portugal used to have much more readily available access to these kinds of weapons?
I think the main difference between the US and other countries with stricter gun control laws like the UK and Australia is that the US is already awash in all sorts of guns. Enacting laws now to control them will have little effect.
In contrast, Australia and especially the UK have always had pretty strict controls and there are fewer guns available to the criminal element as a result. Gun control seems to work reasonably well when applied from a clean slate, but it's very unlikely to work if the criminals already have guns.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a little note for you. Law abiding gun owners don't fear other law abiding gun owners, unless you think sportsman clubs, social clubs and the dreaded NRA are all figments of my imagination. What they do fear is people who would break the laws they follow.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, take a look at the more crime-ridden cities - DC, Chicago, Detroit - which have high restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun owners, as a rule, don't commit crimes. Period.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confusing behavior which could lead to dangerous behavior (carrying a gun which could be used to shoot someone) with dangerous behavior. There is nothing inherently dangerous about the existence or possession of a gun.
What you should be asking is does he support your right to a car knowing you could drink and drive? Yep.
Does he support drug use or drug dealing? Couldn't tell you, completely unanalogous.
Where's the cognitive gap, now? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a ludicrous comment, and it's an insult to people who try to rationally argue anything about abortion and gun rights. You know very well that the justification for having guns, especially in this case, is defense. So a more accurate representation of the conservative viewpoint, "life is sacred until you try to attack someone. THEN you're fair game."
Argue against that perspective all you like (and I'll side with you), but please, don't build an absurd straw man just so you can end a post with a clever-sounding quip.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Funny)
So that means if they shoot someone, it would be a medicinal homicide?
Hypocritic Oath? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I know the World's gone mad. What Doctor in his right mind is going to prescribe a killing/harming/maiming machine? Especially one that clearly has no therapeutic benefit to the patient. Surely the money that will be wasted in this way could be better spent actually treating sick and ill people? When Doctors qualify, they swear a Hyppocratic Oath to preserve life. If they are to prescribe offensive weapons, surely they'll need a hypocritic Oath as well.
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm let's see ...
US Bailout = 700 billion dollars mostly to banks and financial institutions who have been putting profit over people for years.
US Population = circa 300 million.
So let's just give every man woman and child a nice Christmas Gift of $2,333 (that they can use to pay their mortgage or buy food or whatever), and let those useless fatcats declare bankrupcy, and start over with a more regulated model.
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
A typical aggressor already has the means to successfully attack anyone who is elderly enough or disabled enough to need the device in the article. If we could magically eliminate all weapons, then the physically strong would still be able to attack the physically weak.
The fact that the device in the article (or just a regular firearm) would be both useful to an aggressor and to a victim shows merely that it is a useful tool.
Lose/lose? Since able-bodied aggressors can already easily attack elderly or disabled victims, I think that an armed potential victim is a clear win/lose. The win is for the potential victim who has a chance to avoid being a victim. The lose is for the attacker who must face the chance that his attack could be thwarted.
Big Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame on anybody who tries to solve their their individual problems for themselves. Such anti-social behavior can not be tolerated in a civilized society. Individuals must make individual sacrifices for the greater good.
One must never think of themselves and their own, insignificant, needs and problems.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, you consider this a conservative victory?
I don't really consider myself a conservative any more these days. Mind you I support this policy because it's so batshit insane it's got a certain charm. From an economic point it's quite rational too, patients with gunshot injuries are much cheaper to treat than patients who stayed unshot long enough to get a serious (and hard to treat) illness. Come to think of it from an economic point of view there's an argument for handing military grade assault weapons or sawn off shotguns - that way the injuries would be untreatable. Untreatable injuries are cost effective from a medical economics point of view. Hell you could just stop sending ambulances.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't find your comment very funny. The elderly are weak and most-likely to be attacked by criminals. Since they can't rely on aged muscles or frail bones like younger men/women, their ONLY recourse is to shoot the asshole dead.
These are Australian statistics (haven't found any similar report for the US), but the 15-19 years old [aic.gov.au] [warn: PDF] age group is the most likely to be victimized by armed robbery. And, there are a few other options besides "shoot the asshole dead" anyway--like, say, not carrying around large amounts of cash. Avoiding bad neighborhoods. Walking with groups and staying in well-lit public areas. Locking your doors at night. The elderly and weak are the least-likely to leave their homes on a regular basis anyway.
And I agree that the right to self-defense is just as important as the right not to be enslaved or the right to self-determination, but none of those three rights are exactly a medical issue. Why shouldn't Medicaid buy everyone guns, in that case?
Unless you're joking, in which case, I knew all along.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Big government buying crazy old people handguns"
Not all "old people" are "crazy", and many "old" and not so old people have limited ability to use their hands in the specific manner required to fire a weapon. Leaving out the complex mechanics of firing a semi-auto, even pulling the trigger on a double-action revolver could be difficult.
Plenty of old and very old people already own firearms, but so far they aren't going gangsta on us.
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
It is also worth noting that, so far as I know, self-defense has never been considered a medical priority. Furthermore, anyone who could use this device could use a Taser or mace/pepper spray. And yet further, the people to whom this device is marketed are also among the least likely to be subjected to violent crime in the first place.
I got no problem designing a gun that's ergonomically designed for the weak and elderly to use, but it's awfully silly to classify it as a medical device.
Class I medical device? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if that gun is a Class I medical device, does that mean that the TSA will have to allow them to be carried on aircraft?
Re:Class I medical device? (Score:5, Informative)
That's... actually a really good question.
A quick bit of research, though, seems to indicate that Class I Medical Devices aren't critical to the life support needs of the patient, and so the TSA will probably confiscate them and/or require their transport in a firearms case.
The perfect weapon for the elderly ....... (Score:5, Funny)
Is a 6 gauge sawed back to 5". You don't have to aim it so eye sight isn't an issue and the sound shouldn't be a problem for the hard of hearing. Recoil is a bit of a problem but if they hold on tight the recoil should rocket them to safety.
How a disabled person robbery goes down (Score:4, Funny)
Robber: Okay gramps, this is how it's going down... You tell me where you keep your money.
Victim (clutching chest and gasping): Give me my inhaler... under my pillow... bulbous thing... has a nozzle... HURRY!!!
Robber (rummaging around): Is this it?
Victim: Yes... yes... give it to me...
Robber gives it to the victim, who pretends to put it to his mouth, but instead straightens his arm and shoots the robber down.
Victim, rolling his wheel chair over the (now-dead) robber's hand: You thought you felt lucky punk?? Well... Didya?
What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Referencing the Global Harmonization Task Force on the term "Medical Device" it defines it as:
"Medical Device means any instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, appliance, implant, in vitro reagent, or calibrator, software, material or other similar related article intended by the manufacturer to be used, alone or in combination, for human beings for one or more of the following specific purpose(s):
-Diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease
-Diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of or compensation for an injury
-Investigation, replacement, modification, or support of the anatomy or a physiological process
-Supporting or sustaining life
-Control of conception
-Disinfection of medical devices
-Providing information for medical purposes by means of in vitro examination of specimens derived from the human body, and which does not achieve its primary intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, but which may be assisted in its function by such means"
The only possibility I see is a machine used for sustaining life (obviously for the user of the gun, not the recipient of the bullet).
It is a medical device (Score:4, Funny)
911 call (Score:5, Funny)
Granny: Operator, my husband was shot, I think he is dead.
Operator: Please calm down mam. First, let's make sure he is really dead and not just injured.
Noise in background: click, fumble, another click, BANG!!!
Granny: ( Out of breath wheeze ) , OK I am sure he is dead, now what?
He he
Re:Grandma What Happened to Your Nose?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally am more concerned with their abilities behind the wheel. If you're going to die because of a senior citizen, it will most likely be in a driving accident. The AARP does it's best to keep states from requiring vision tests for drivers licens renewal after a certain age.
Re:Why oh why.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's no promises that an updated one would be an improved one. Open it up for editing 3 years ago, and we would have seen the bill of rights gutted if not completely removed. No thank you, I prefer the thing to be hard to modify, so only the best modifications make it through.
Re:Why oh why.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why oh why.. (Score:4, Informative)
There are good reasons for that, and they aren't the typical canards that are trotted out about how difficult it was to coordinate an election in the 17th century. It is because of the division of powers between the Federal and State governments. I don't know if you are a United States resident or not, but most people outside of the U.S. don't really understand how independent the states are. The vast majority of Law resides at the state level, as do all elections, even for president electors. You may disagree with that, but it's not archaic in any sense, no more than the separation of the legislative/judicial/executive branches is.
Lets see. Right to bear arms. That's not archaic; it's based on principle, and that (by definition) doesn't change. The right of self-defense is as fundamental as the right of free speech or the right to be secure in your possessions. Those concepts no more become dated over time than Aristotle's rules of logic do.
Free Healthcare. Not a right. It's a misunderstanding of rights to imagine it could be. Nothing that is 'given' can be a right. A right only allows, never gives. There is no right to housing, medical care, food, or tv. Only a right to not be restricted from obtaining any of those, if you could otherwise produce or trade for them.
Loser pays court system: Yeah, you're right, we need to fix that... although I don't think that's actually a constitutional issue.
Equal access to the media: Well, everybody does have equal access to the media. You want to control the media, and regulate who and how much they can cover. That's a direct abridgment of free speech rights; see the problem with 'the right to medical care' above, for the reason.
Re:Idle (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idle (Score:5, Funny)
That was a reply to a comment.
Re:More Accidental Deaths (Score:5, Funny)