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?
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
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)