Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Idle Video

31% Voted 'Bacteria -- an old stand-by' for 'If I must catch a disease, I'd rather catch it via ...'

Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and DisabledComments:1092

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday December 04, @02:12AM
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."
usa humor getoffmylawn idle whatcouldpossiblygowrong
idle humor
story

Comments

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Thursday December 04, @02:14AM (#25985823) Homepage Journal

    I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.

    LK

    • by NIckGorton (974753) * on Thursday December 04, @02:33AM (#25985925)
      Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.

      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?
      • by WTF Chuck (1369665) on Thursday December 04, @03:20AM (#25986133) Journal

        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.

        • by Confused (34234) on Thursday December 04, @03:58AM (#25986389) Homepage

          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.

          • by slap20 (168152) on Thursday December 04, @05:41AM (#25986941) Homepage

            "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.

          • by Toonol (1057698) on Thursday December 04, @04:19AM (#25986503)
            If allowing gun ownership is a matter of ethical principle and human rights, than the "rate of gun deaths" and other such evidence is pretty much irrelevant.

            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.
              • by WTF Chuck (1369665) on Thursday December 04, @05:36AM (#25986909) Journal

                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?

          • by nicobigsby (1418849) on Thursday December 04, @04:24AM (#25986517)
            Last time I checked, the cold war never went hot, so you're argument is kind of self defeating. The bottom line is that there will always be people out there willing to murder, it's been around for the entire history of the world and it will always be around. It's not ignorant, it's realistic. As long as the bad people have guns, the good people should be allowed to have guns. The bad people will always have guns, thus the good people should always have guns, so they can kill the bad people and protect themselves and their families. Check the stats man, states with less gun control have less violent crime and home invasions. It works. Who's being ignorant now?
              • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Thursday December 04, @05:42AM (#25986955)

                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.

          • by Neoprofin (871029) on Thursday December 04, @04:46AM (#25986647)
            I think you're the one in a misguided cycle of fear. The only reason people are afraid of law abiding, safe, gun owners is their own prejudice against guns. Which is more rational, the fear of a population that seeks to harm and deprive by force, operation outside the laws of society; or a population who values their lives and property, crosses the Ts and dots the Is on all the relevant paperwork isn't taking anything from anyone?

            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.
      • by Arivia (783328) <arivia@gmail.com> on Thursday December 04, @03:24AM (#25986155) Journal
        It took awhile, but I eventually figured out why I am not generally in favour of programs against gun ownership. Simply, if I support the rights of individuals to own property for their own reasons and to conduct themselves as they see fit according to their personal morals and philosophies (classical liberalism), then I cannot say that someone cannot own a gun, because my reasoning for that would be "Because you're only going to use it to shoot someone some day." That's inflicting my viewpoint on their life and lifestyle, and I don't have the right to do that. And before you go jumping down my throat, I work for a magazine too leftist for the campus it's on (which in and of itself, is the most left of all Canadian campuses.) Communism? sure. Socialism? Hell yes. Anarchism? Go for it. Anti-gun ownership? No thanks.
          • by Neoprofin (871029) on Thursday December 04, @04:53AM (#25986695)
            I would bet he might be ok with the last one and the pregnancy one

            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.
      • by booyabazooka (833351) <ch.martin@gmail.com> on Thursday December 04, @03:34AM (#25986223)

        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.

        • by nicobigsby (1418849) on Thursday December 04, @04:03AM (#25986413)
          They are helping to preserve the life of their patient. Elderly people are often victimized due to their physical inferiority to their attackers, they are easy targets. This is an equalizer. Why would you want to prevent a little old lady from defending herself? Also, no weapon is inherently offensive or defensive, it is what the owner intends it to be. Correct me if I'm wrong but the rate of violent crime perpetrated by elderly people probably isn't very high.
          • by Smivs (1197859) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Thursday December 04, @03:55AM (#25986365) Homepage Journal
            I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the right to self defence, but self defence is not a medical issue. You could just as easily argue that poverty can cause depression, so doctors could prescribe Money, or that because the sick may need to visit their Doctor or a Hospital they should be prescribed cars. No, I'm sorry but this is the most patently stupid thing I've heard since, well ever!
      • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Thursday December 04, @04:07AM (#25986435)

        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.

  • by Pathwalker (103) * <hotgrits@yourpants.net> on Thursday December 04, @02:21AM (#25985857) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • by Caraig (186934) * on Thursday December 04, @03:09AM (#25986089)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, @02:22AM (#25985863)

    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.

  • 911 call (Score:5, Funny)

    by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs1 AT aim DOT com> on Thursday December 04, @03:12AM (#25986105) Homepage

    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

    • by philspear (1142299) on Thursday December 04, @02:47AM (#25985981)

      To all you gun lovers don't worry I don't want to pry one out of your hands but if your too old to hold a plastic glock, how can we count on your aim?

      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.

"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone