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."
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?
The Deer Gun was the successor (though never widely produced, as I understand it) to the Liberator pistol of WWII, which itself was never widely distributed to groups like the French Resistance, though that was the original idea. Cheap and nasty guns, for which the use case was "First, approach a Nazi soldier and ask him for a light for your cigarette. Then, after you've killed him, take his much nicer gun."
The Deer Gun was the same concept, different war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_gun
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
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.
The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
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
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 already a twisted way to 'deal' with such a situation in the almost infinitesimal chance it will happen to you. Thinking you can 'insure' yourself against such a thing by arming yourself is even more ridiculous.
Where I live (in Europe) we don't have more burglary or (armed or unarmed) robbery, and in my lifetime I can't even remember a case where someone got shot by a burglar. Burglars here don't carry guns because they don't need them, they might run into someone with a baseball bat or a big knife but when that happens they just run instead of shooting you.
I do remember innumerable incidents where people accidentaly got shot playing with guns, insane people shooting other people with legally obtained guns, but in most cases that was in the 'land of the free'...
JFK?
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.
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?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else. I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide. Even just across the border, in Shenzhen, which belongs to the world's most criminal cities, no-one carries a gun.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
And yes I may suffer some mental illness. It's called "common sense". Something that's absent in many "I need a gun!" kinds of people.
Countries that "ban" guns ususally allow full-size shotguns. The thinking is that a gun like that is normally used for hunting, is very good at killing most all kinds of animals, and sticks out like a sore thumb if you try to hide it (sure, you could pretend it's a cello, but then you're carrying around a huge cello case).
Basically, the idea is that if you are owning a gun, and you have it with you, it's so damn obvious it's not even funny. It clearly marks you as a non-criminal because you've already shown everyone "Hey, I'm carrying a shotgun!". And most of those countries also require trigger locks at all times when you are in public situations (eg: On the sidewalk/road/in stores [if they allow it]/etc). And, while stored in the vehicle, they further usually have to be locked in a gun case that is attached to the vehicle. Obviously, the gun must be unloaded at all times until the trigger lock is off.
So, in the case of an angry person:
- Find keys for gun case and trigger.
- Stop vehicle (gun case isn't convenient for the driver).
- Unlock gun case.
- Remove gun.
- Remove trigger lock.
- Insert ammunition.
- Realize the other person has run a half mile in this time and that since you have a shotgun, and not a sinper rifle, they're out of range.
- Go to jail, since half the townsfolk have called the cops on you.
That's how it works.
>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?
In my country, there is no self-defense case for murder or attempted murder, period. I expect much of where you live is actually the same, and that your local gun clubs have misinformed you (check with your local police). Pointing a gun at someone with the intent to fire will get you slapped with an attempted murder charge.
You can, of course, use any non-lethal means to defend yourself against someone armed with a lethal weapon, even including manslaughter, but it would need to be with a weapon that normally wouldn't cause death if used properly, for example, a baseball bat or (maybe--IANAL) a knife. But a gun? Especially a shotgun? Nope, go straight to jail for 5+ years.
Most firearm owners I've ever known are stable people. They really don't like the thought of having to shoot someone, but they're not so stupid as to say to a violent criminal "oh, I see you are a victim of poverty. Here, let's discuss the social issues and see if we can channel your rage against the capitalist machine into something that doesn't end up with me getting raped|robbed|murdered."
People like you are the reason we have a problem with violent crime. On the hand, you'll say "violence never solved anything," but on the other hand, you won't ruthlessly deal with someone who commits a serious violent felony.
When people say to me that the death penalty is no deterrerant, you know what I tell them? If people knew that first degree murder **always** resulted in execution, and that nothing less than life could be given for second degree murder unless there were extreme extenuating circumstances, it would be.
If you want to address those social issues, you have to address crime. You can pump as much money into a poor community as you want via the welfare state, but if the government doesn't bring crime down to very low levels, there won't be an economy there capable of sustaining the community's material needs.
I assume that one day when your wife gets spooked at night in an alley somewhere by some street-bad looking kid, pulls her gun and shoots him dead, only to find that he was trying to ask her directions to the closest 7-11, that you will happily surrender her to the justice system on a murder charge?
Or perhaps it is a mugger, and your wife shoots him dead (after all he pulled a gun..), then she turns around just as someone else walks in the the alley, they see her with a gun having just shot someone, turning towards them still holding her gun, so they grab theirs and open fire.. Will you uphold the third persons right to self defense?
Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen..