Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled 1093

Posted by samzenpus
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."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled

Comments Filter:
  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:14AM (#25985823) Homepage Journal

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

    LK

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by philspear (1142299)

      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...

      • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @05:07AM (#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 couchslug (175151) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @09:30AM (#25987877)

        "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.

        • by Bishop Rook (1281208) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:45AM (#25988605)

          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.

    • by adisakp (705706) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:29AM (#25985901) Journal
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by philspear (1142299)

        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.

        • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @08:50AM (#25987565)

          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.

          • by theaveng (1243528) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:14AM (#25988269)

            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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Lordnerdzrool (884216)

        No, that's not the reason. The reason is that their afraid of getting shot!

    • by NIckGorton (974753) * on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:33AM (#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?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sumdumass (711423)

        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 suppose

      • by WTF Chuck (1369665) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @04:20AM (#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, 2008 @04:58AM (#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, 2008 @06:41AM (#25986941)

            "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 John Courtland (585609) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @09:24AM (#25987825)
            Part 1 is ridiculous: You will only disarm the law-abiding. No serious career criminal will give a shit about any weapons ban. Also, in what scenario do you envision a person walking down the street, possibly about to commit a crime, when all of the sudden the police arrest them? Contrived.

            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.
          • by goose-incarnated (1145029) <lelanthranNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @09:55AM (#25988125) Homepage Journal

            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: (Score:3, 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.

            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
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Or you could just accept the fact that society creates (for whatever reason) a certain percentage of people with malicious intent, and focus your efforts on trying to get this percentage as low as possible. And insure yourself against burglary so you don't _have_ to shoot them or risk your own life for some materialist artifacts.

          Seriously, the 'when a burglar with a gun comes into your house' argument is laughable. If you think taking someone's life because he wants to take your flatscreen is ok, that's alr

          • by WTF Chuck (1369665) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @06:26AM (#25986859) Journal
            How do I insure myself against being dead when someone breaks in would rather not have me whining to the cops with their description etc... in your world? In mine, it is with self defense using whatever force necessary to neutralize the situation until law enforcement arrives. If the necessary force is a gun pointed at the guy till the cops arrive to cuff him and haul him away, fine. If the necessary force is a bullet in his brain, fine. I am not the one who decided to commit a criminal act. Gun, knife, baseball bat... either lethal or deterring force can be applied with any of those items, as well as many other common items about the home.
        • by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @10:11AM (#25988251)

          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?

      • by Arivia (783328) <arivia@gmail.com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @04:24AM (#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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Confused (34234)

          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), [...]

          Do you think the same about my personal right to

          • drive the way and at speeds I see fit?
          • drive home after a getting drunk in the pub?
          • end unwanted pregnancies as I see fit?
          • smoke or inject fun substances?
          • sell those substances to kids because it's good money and I need to make a living anyway?
          • own my personal nuclear warhead as protection against neighbour's dog?
          • by Neoprofin (871029) <neoprofin&hotmail,com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @05:53AM (#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, 2008 @04:34AM (#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 Livius (318358) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:36AM (#25985941)

      So that means if they shoot someone, it would be a medicinal homicide?

    • This probably has more to do with "conservative" lobby groups than the "socialism" of medical insurance.

  • 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?

  • by Pathwalker (103) * <hotgrits@yourpants.net> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:21AM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:22AM (#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.

  • And, all this time, we thought viagra gave old people a gun to shoot...

    Now they take it all literal and stuff?

  • Prosthetic limbs that are actually rifles, swords in canes.

    Just hope the asthmatic doesn't mistake the gun and the inhaler.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:41AM (#25985961)

    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?

    • More like:

      Victim (clutching chest and gasping): Give me my inhaler... under my pillow... bulbous thing... has a nozzle... HURRY!!!

      Robber (shaking gramp to death): don't you die on me before you tell me were your cash is grandpa!!

  • Funny? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:51AM (#25986003) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by elthicko (1399175) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @03:59AM (#25986021)
    Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's because I'm Canadian and don't see the big deal about this Second Amendment right, but how is this a medical device?

    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).
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      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).

      And even then I'd say that's a dubious argument (i.e. only one that a gun lover would support).

      Two scenarios:

      1) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has no weapon therefore not a threat, generally going to be left alone.

      2) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has "palm pistol", old person becomes threat to self as much as criminal, criminal m

    • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Thursday December 04, 2008 @04:28AM (#25986191)
      Following correct application in accordance with manufacturer directions, one or more persons will not suffer from any of the diseases that previously afflicted them. 100% effective treatment of schizophrenia, depression, cancer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Toonol (1057698)
      Support of anatomy, I'd presume. An infirm person may not be strong enough to fire a gun. Not being strong enough to fire a gun puts them at risk; assailants can reasonably assume that weak, disabled people are easy victims. Self-defense is a human right; bearing arms is a consitutional right, and infirmity may prevent a patient from exercising that right.

      No different than a cane, or a speech synthesizer for someone who has difficulty talking.
  • 911 call (Score:5, Funny)

    by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs@@@ovi...com> on Thursday December 04, 2008 @04:12AM (#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

  • It seems to me if your too disabled to use a normal gun this device would be a bad idea. The only logical conclusion would be to mount a head controlled turret on the top of their wheelchair instead for greater stability, it could be adapted for rpg's as well. If your mentally handicapped as well, some AI could be employed to help locate and destroy potential threats to your personal security.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...