Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled 1093
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."
YaY! (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that is what an unstable (mentally too?) person needs, something that fires a projectile when accidentally squeezed...
Good times!
Only in the USA?
More Accidental Deaths (Score:0, Insightful)
How many children will dead with those Toy like weapons?.
Why oh why.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, you consider this a conservative victory? Big government buying crazy old people handguns, under medicaid?
Gee, I was expecting a conservative conspiracy theory amounting to "they're just trying to trick us into supporting socialized healthcare while making gun owners look ridiculous." I keep promising myself I won't overestimate trolls...
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, 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:YaY! (Score:3, Insightful)
and not counting the CIA's "Deer Gun" which is more the fetal form of a more conventional pistol
What's that? Guns for unborn babies? You yanks have it all covered as far as guns are concerned, from cradle to grave...
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, 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.
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.
Elderly (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why oh why.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Funny? (Score:3, Insightful)
People think this is funny? Objections about physical and mental issues among the elderly aside, I really think Medicare funds should be used to provide _medical care_ to those who need it, and not be spent on weapons.
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).
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:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, lets ignore your ignorance and forget about all those conservatives who think there are exceptions to their abortion beliefs for rape and incest and where the mother;s life is at stake and assume that you can lump every conservative into the same group within your fictional mind. We will do this for the sake of exploreing your argument.
Now, suppose the same girl kills the kid when it is one year old, is she a murderer? I mean killing innocent babies isn't exactly a good thing is it? All of the supposed things that you could say about why she needed an abortion are still true when the kid is one years old. I mean the rape is there, the incest is there, the potential for birht defects, the mental trauima and stress is still there. How about when the kid is 4 years olf, is killing then off limits and if so, what makes anything go away that changes the right to kill the kid?
You see, people who are against abortion aren't so because it will punish someone, they are because they believe life starts at conception and that there is no difference between an abortion or killing the kid at one or four years olf.Just because you can rationalize it away doesn't mean that others need to. I know, it is just a fetus, a parisite that can't live without the body, and a baby can't live without someone caring for it. still not much difference.
Now I don't care to argue the merits of an abortion. I have already heard it all from both sides. I don't care to argue the differences between a fetus and a baby, I have heard it all too. What I do want you to know is that the only difference between you and that conservative is the timing of the termination of life. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if you can rationalize one of those rights to yourself somehow. This is something you need to understand because it is obvious that you are clueless with your cognitive dissonance. and fair game comment. The right to protect yourself from those that wish to harm you or someone close to you even if it results in their death is in no way conflicting with the wanting to save a life.
Re:Why oh why.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:1, Insightful)
Who said life ceased to be special? The difference is a criminal preying on an elderly person (in this situation) has made the decision that they no longer recognize personal freedoms.
Choose to eliminate a fellow humans right to safety you also choose to give up your own. You make it sound like people that support gun rights actually _want_ to use them on people.
The right to own a gun in your home is the single greatest deterrent against home breakins, short and simple. Same argument as the possession of nuclear weapons. As horrible a weapon as they are, as terrible as they would be to use, they have saved incalculable lives in wars prevented.
Re:Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just anti-stupid-wars. Like say for example, Iraq.
War is a tool that can be used to good or bad ends. Saying that someone is anti-war is like saying that someone is anti-screwdriver.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
No different than a cane, or a speech synthesizer for someone who has difficulty talking.
Re:30% without medical cover (Score:2, Insightful)
You know that the gun control numbers include self-defense shootings in the "gun deaths" numbers right? So, if I have to defend my life, or someone else's life, it gets chalked up as a "gun death" along with murder.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's okay, I think the gun owners manage to make themselves look quite ridiculous enough without needing this new "guns for old people on prescription" story.
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:What the? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your scenarios are off base. Many home invasion robberies are drug fueled and lead to the physical assaults of the people at home, armed or unarmed.
A more realistic scenario...
1a) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has no weapon therefore not a threat, going to be assaulted and/or killed because they are a witness.
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:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a logically consistent view, long acknowledged in law, that killing in self defence is not the same as murder and is not wrong. Equating the killing of an innocent human for no other reason than a desire to do so to the killing of a person threatening ones own life requires either dishonesty or sub-moron intelligence. Nobody is advocating the right to murder on demand (unless a foetus is human, then there is a large number of people advocating the right to murder on demand), you would obviously know that, so I have to conclude dishonesty on your part.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:0, 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. 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.
I'm not saying you're a troll, but you have no idea how ignorant you're being. Can you not see that this method of thinking is a self-feeding cycle of fear? This is what I don't understand about this type of American. You are afraid that someone is going to attack you with guns, and your solution is more guns, which makes people afraid of you, which makes them want guns to protect themselves, which makes people afraid of them... It's like you all have a mini cold war going on where every house is USA and everyone else is Russia.
So this is new news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Most europeans already think any american retard is already in possesion of a gun...
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:3, Insightful)
You think most doctors wouldn't shoot somebody who was attacking them? They would. Their oath doesn't forbid that. So how hypocritical would it be for them to deny that right to one of their patients?
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
Doing so is not innately pro or anti abortion. It's just stating a fact, and is no different than explaining why most pro-choice people think that the mother should have the freedom to abort.
His point, which you missed, is that the principles that lead anti-abortionists to that conclusion simply are inapplicable to, say, the morality of warfare. Apples and oranges. Comparing the two is a rather simplistic logical error, and if you really, honestly, paid attention to _what_he_actually_said_,, you would never make that mistake again.
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, I bet you think I shouldn't have them either! Thankfully the SCOTUS disagrees with you or we'd live in a fabulous country where only criminals have a right to defend themselves or to enjoy an honest and fun hobby like target shooting.
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
Really? Strange, I've heard the opposite in enough cases to make me want to be able to continue owning a firearm. Buddy of mine lives outside London and the cops have said on more than one occasion "we really don't have time to pursue assaults, we have to devote resources to homicides." There's little chance of somebody getting caught, his home has been burglarized twice in the last year (he was home the last time, and attacked with a golf club), and he can't own a gun to protect himself. It's pathetic.
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.
There is a paradox here (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Sick ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:1, Insightful)
You really think WW1 was a good idea? Preserve us from any other of your 'good ideas'!
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:3, Insightful)
And without those rights, the aggressors, who are breaking the law anyway and are less likely to care than you or I, will still have guns.
What then?
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, 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:3, Insightful)
So its a race to the bottom where everybody shoots everybody else on sight.
Maybe the solution instead is to address the social problems that cause people to turn to crime, and to address the impression that there are loads of criminals on the prowl looking for people to shoot.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:1, Insightful)
Or perhaps a rational fear of gun owners? I saw some scary shit at the McCain rallies.
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.
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, 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:2, Insightful)
ok and Switzerland is a bloodbath then? now there is an armed society.
our problem is the US is not the guns but the assholes that live here. look at our Amish - in my area heavily armed with all the good stuff (scary semi autos and such)... zero crime. my opinion, not the gun, but the people and their quest for "things" and money is the problem (aside from the ones that are straight fucked up to begin with).
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)
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: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:1, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, 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.
The right to self-defense is as important as the right to not be enslaved, or the right of self-determination.
"There exists a law which comes to us from nature itself... I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. . . . A man who has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim." - Roman Senator Cicero. ""The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." - George Washington.
Suicide Device (Score:2, Insightful)
This particular gun isn't being marketed so that Grandpa 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: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:Big Picture (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look in the sock drawer
What are you doing in other men's bedrooms poking around? I think your sample may pre-determine the outcome.
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except those with criminal records are already barred from getting guns legally. That they still do so only shows the ineffectiveness of the current system of ban things so people dont have them (cause the bad guys still will)
Also, there is plenty of data showing a decrease in violent crime in areas after concealed carry laws went into effect. It boils down to criminals not wanting to jump ol granny because she might be legally carrying. That said, this should be marketed to the public, not as a medical device.
And yes I do carry on a regular basis.
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:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong Attribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wanted to mention that although this version pops up pretty regularly, it appears that it was not written by "Maj. Caudill, USMC" [blogspot.com].
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.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, while I agree everyone should take fairly reasonable precautions for ones own safety....why should you HAVE to stop carrying cash?? Why should you HAVE to go out of your way not to be victimized? Isn't that ass backwards? It is the criminals who should have to change their ways.
If they don't want to get shot...don't fucking break into someones home or rob them on the streets. And lately, the rise in crime in many areas isn't robbery on the streets...but, home invasions where thugs kick down the doors and not only rob but terrorize people in their own home.....sometimes killing them before they leave. So no, I have no problem with shooting someone dead the second they break into my home. I don't see much wrong with nailing the bastard trying to steal a car stereo...but, for some reason some people see that as extreme these days.
But I'm sorry..I see a large problem of a law abiding citizen having to change some of their ways, and curtail their freedom to move about unscathed in lieu of making it more risky, and yes, life threatening to the would be criminal.
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.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I be forced to carry a gun everywhere I go if I want to feel safe outside? That's just as much forcing me to change my behavior as carrying less cash or walking in well-lit streets. The point is, crime exists, and we all have the choice to modify our behavior based on that reality, or not.
I was responding to the person who suggested the only possible way for someone to defend himself from victimization is to "shoot the asshole dead." That's one, legitimate way. But there are a plethora of other ways that are more proactive and, generally, more effective.
PS: by all means shoot someone if they break into your home. Castle doctrine and all that. But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW in my state a man shot a thief he found wandering around in his home. The Pennsylvania prosecutor declared that the PA Constitution upholds the right to defend one's life or property. No charges were issued.
That's how it should be, because property is an extension of your life. For example my car cost me a year of my life in order to buy it. Why should I lose a year of my life to some asshat thief? I cannot think of any reason.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Insightful)
You just described the way america is trying to deal with drugs. If you are caught in possession, you go to jail. Despite that, drugs are very common and little progress has been made in thwarting their use. It would be the same with guns. We might get the guy off the street that night, but he'll be back out the next day with another gun and doing whatever it is he intended to do in the first place. I know its cliche, but its true. "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns." I'd rather law-abiding citizens have a legal option to defend themselves against those criminals.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:1, Insightful)
Find me a single "conservative" politician who will vote to kill Medicare and Medicaid. Or to eliminate the socialist pyramid scheme of Social Security.
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.
...And now they're packing heat!
Re:So you favor "might makes right" then? (Score:3, Insightful)
how many people did anthrax or hydrogen bombs kill last year?
i guess they're not dangerous either...
Re:Hypocritic Oath? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is also still a fact that 1-2 million crimes are prevented in the US every year by people using guns to scare off criminals/protect themselves. It's also a fact that the most dangerous places in the US are those with gun bans. Look at washington DC, or hell, all of the 'gun free zones' in the US where mass, or attempted mass, shootings have occurred.
Re:So you favor "might makes right" then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course guns are dangerous, that is there point.
Perhaps you mean to say:
"So much for legally owned firearms being more dangerous then many perfectly legal things. "
The touchier the debate, the more accurate you MUST BE with your meaning or you make people with your same opinion look like ignorant hicks.
And if you did mean literally what you wrote, then you are an ignorant hick.
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, Bishop Rock. Awesome. I need somebody to be Cardinal Metal now.
But no, you cut off the sentence. It is:
But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Shooting someone invading your home: justifiable homicide. Shooting someone stealing a car stereo: not justifiable homicide.
Refills? (Score:2, Insightful)
So how does the "prescription" work in this case? If you get drugs, you take them, you run out, you get a refill until the refills run out. Unless you're shooting someone every once in a while, this prescription will never run out. What happens when your mental capacity changes so you're no longer competent to decide who to shoot (assuming, just for argument's sake, that you were before)? Does the doctor ask you to turn it in? "You'll get my Palm Pistol when you pry it from my cold, dead hand -- unless I get you first, suckah!"