Slashdot Mirror
Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled
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."
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.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
indeed, the US has a rate of unintentional gun-deaths per year per 100K citizens (children playing, gun accidentaly goin off ,...) that approaches the TOTAL number of gun deaths (murders included, not just accidents) per year per 100K citizens ... those are HARD facts.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
but my core reasoning stands : countries with STRICT gun control have fewer TOTAL gun-deaths than the US has ACCIDENTAL gun deaths.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Very few people seem to understand the electoral college, true. There is no national election in the United States. There are simultaneous state elections, where electors are chosen. They, at a later date, choose the president.
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.
Something like 99.9% of gun owners in America never commit a crime, and conceal-carry owners typically have better records (and are better shots) than cops.
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.
There aren't droves of criminals out to mug/rape/kill the average person, but here are the facts. Guns are used by those same innocent citizens, on average, ~2million times per year to scare off attackers / stop crimes from happening. Look at, iirc, Kennesaw, Georgia. They passed a law ~30years ago mandating that every head of household must own and maintain a firearm, and within a year crime became almost nonexistant.
Now, look at Australia/Britain, where after the handgun bans were passed, home invasion w/ the family/owner being home SKYROCKETED. Why? Because criminals have nothing to fear from someone they know for a fact will not be able to defend themselves. Nearly every single criminal/former gang member interviewed gives the same answer when asked 'what was your biggest fear when mugging/jumping someone?' "that they have a gun"
Why does this report then show the following on pages 9 and 10:
Between 1995 and 2004/05 violent crime, as measured by the BCS1, has fallen by 43 per
cent and the composition of violent crime has changed.
You're very quick to say this, but I've read the data by the Dutch Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek as well, and there it's even shown that violent crime has been on the decline ever since it started being measured and stored in the 1920's.
And the Supreme Law of the Land says I'm allowed to carry a gun.
True.
The U.S. Supreme Court has gone on record that guns may be used for self-defence
Sort of. Legal precedent related to self-defense comes all the way from English common law, and most states have their own statutes related to it.
for protection of property
False. Protection of property is not a criterion for justifiable homicide anywhere in the United States. Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.
and for overthrowing a tyrannical government.
The Declaration of Independence said that, not the Supreme Court, but close enough.