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."
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Because that is what an unstable (mentally too?) person needs, something that fires a projectile when accidentally squeezed...
Good times!
Only in the USA?
bring new meaning to the phrase "This is a stick up!"
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?
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?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Prosthetic limbs that are actually rifles, swords in canes.
Just hope the asthmatic doesn't mistake the gun and the inhaler.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
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?
http://www.palmpistol.com/ Key Features * Uses thumb instead of index finger to fire * Optional Picatinny rail for accessorizing * Designed for LaserLyte Subcompact V2 laser sight * Integral 3-position combination lock * Loaded chamber indicator * Adjustable trigger pull * Easy breech access and loading * Grip safeties avoid accidental discharges * Discreet concealment * ATF classified as standard âoepistolâ
America's obsession with guns sickens any normal person.
Instead of this insane scheme to put guns in the hands of the elderly, why not do what we do in england, run outraged stories in the newspaper and on television every time an elderly person is attacked?
Obviously the police can't protect the old as they have their hands full with drivers maybe going briefly over the speed limit occasionally.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/7754092.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317152/Half-of-elderly-fear-attack-at-night.html
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
there even is a fruit here who thinks it cool to tell all about palmguns!! Americahahaha.
On a side note, why does the hand in the picture look nothing like an old person's hand?
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
We cling to it because in the long run it works. We have a problem with expanding executive power, but its emphasis on personal liberty above governmental power is a necessary check that protects us from irreversible damage to our system in periods of brief instability.
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.
But can you mount a holster on your "Hover round" personal scooter?
and I guess painkillers are ordinance now?
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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).
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
My word yes, "Liberty", how quaint!
Has it occurred to you that the USA was formed because they didn't like the way the rest of the world was run?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
It's quite mind
Bogling. 30% of the US population have no medical cover, and far more have inadequate medical cover - and the federal government decides to reimburse a gun with no demonstrated (or even conceivable) health benefit.
Given the amount spent by the public sector on health care in the US, they could have universal health care - this is the sort of decision which leads to the health care mess that exists there.
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
* Carthago Delenda Est *
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.
That was a Comment.
Here ya go, buddy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
And open it up for editing 3 years from now, and right to bear and free speech will be trashed. BOTH sides would love to revise it; that's why neither side should be allowed to.
Archaic? Umm, read the decision from the USSC from the last term, they did a very good job explaining exactly how it is not out of date.
There are a lot of young people that are crazy, too. Probably a higher percentage. I'd rather have everybody over fifty packing guns than everybody between 18-25.
Well, the number is currently around 100/year, so I don't see this as a major issue.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Only the ones on my lawn.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
That was a reply to a comment.
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.
This is great! Finally the disabled can go postal!
They didn't like the way the world was run 200 years ago. The problem is, you now have an outdated system that is struggling to cope with the modern world.
Listen to my latest album here
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.
Smivs on the intertubes!
Suicide is the only reason to have that listed as a medical item.
Most europeans already think any american retard is already in possesion of a gun...
Only the best modifications make it through? That's rather naive don't you think. It's more like the most agreed upon modifications make it through. And given the people that are creating such modifications, I hardly doubt they are in the peoples interest.
If our lords and masters lower speed limits far enough ALL road deaths will have speeding as a contributory factor.
Speeding = being judged to be travelling faster than an artificial and arbitrary limit which does not take account of vehicle or driving conditions, by fallible people using fallible measuring equipment.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
When has it ever worked? When have the people ever used their guns to stop the executive? Answer: Never.
But yes, in a way it works. It works as a band aid. You got guns, the elite say, so anytime you want to, you can overthrow us. Of course it would be 1 of you against millions of us but hey, don't worry. If we abuse you to much, you can always rise up.
The whole "right to bear arms" thing only can be proven to work when it is just once used. Until then, it is a pacifier.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If allowing gun ownership is a matter of ethical principle and human rights, than the "rate of gun deaths" and other such evidence is pretty much irrelevant.
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.
Do you americans still cling to that silly constitution?
In other words, it's "just a goddamn piece of paper"?
Except history doesn't show that. The last amendment made it take longer for Congress to give itself a payraise. It's so difficult to make an amendment (requires 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify and Congress as well) that only popular amendments make it through. Which doesn't always assure quality (Prohibition was a bad idea), but very few bad ones make it through. Even most good ones die.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Having someone pay for you to exercise your constitutional rights is not itself a constitutional right.
It's a constitutional right to rip up Bibles in your spare time to exercise your first-amendment right to demonstrate an antipathy to Christianity, but Medicare is not going to pay for a specialized Bible-ripper if you're too infirm to rip them properly yourself.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just a reminder that Mozambique actually has an AK47 on their flag.
Looks like the award for the country which is the most gun crazy may come down to fine examination of the rules, or the ability of their citizens to afford a gun.
Won't somebody please think of the children!?
Question everything?
One of the worst applications of a radical novelty I've seen.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
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.
Sometimes I hear a piece of news that I never really recover from. They can be little things, but they make me feel older and sadder and forever makes life less worth living.
I am generally optimistic about what we can achieve as a human society, but stories like this...
It makes me want to scream FUCK YOU at somebody very badly, but I feel too sick to figure out who.
Shit.
Consider this argument. One which I do not believe to be used by either political or religious/secular "side."
Life begins at conception, but the babies right to life begins before that. Right to life begins with consensual intercourse. While sex usually brings feelings of pleasure and euphoria, I will argue that the ultimate goal, or reason, is to procreate. When two persons consensually engage, they also agree to any consequences resulting from their actions. Consider this our "Terms of Use." If pregnancy occurs, the babies life is protected, and the parents have the obligation to defend the babies life until delivery. At that point they may feel free to give the baby up for adoption.
In the case of rape, intercourse is not consensual. Because of this the responsibility of procreative powers does not lie on the unconsenting person. There was no agreement made to protect the baby's life, thus the mother (if the one raped) cannot be held responsible if she decides to abort. Here the baby has no clam to his/her mother's protection.
I'm sorry for the coarseness of the argument. If this offends anyone, I would ask for the benefit of the doubt. It's highly unlikely that anyone would have taken the time to read a post long enough to contain the entire argument.
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.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Ok, here's the "prescribed" worst case scenario: tiny Tim finds Granny's piece, identifies what it is, but can't shoot it. He goes online, finds out how to work it, and "accidentally" blows his head off.
Here's the "real world" worst case scenario: ...it's the perfect mugger's weapon... use your imagination!! The sick bastards that designed it obviously have! I can see it now... "Oh those Chinese copies that made their way into the US have nothing to do with us...." Gimme a fu(kin break.
Here's what will actually happen: murders will rise, and Americans will rally around the right to bear arms. So sad.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Once you shoot someone, for whatever reason, you are yourself a violent attacker. The bar has been lowered for you to do it again. And the more that the violent believe they are likely to be resisted by people with guns, the more they are likely to escalate, by e.g. going armed with a machine weapon. I have news for you. There is no such thing as a "good gundeath". There are only cases where it is a less bad outcome for the initiator of violence to get killed than the intended victim. But no ethicist, no theologian, and (in my experience) no professional soldier would call it "good".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
JFK?
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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.
Wow, when was the US a country that didn't have an overwhelming number of guns in the hands of the citizens? Oh, wait, it was never. Our citizens had guns when we first became a country. We strongly believed in gun ownership then because we just won an armed rebellion against a colonial power.
Please, enlighten me, how does evidence from a country with historically strict gun control relate to a country where guns are rampant? How does evidence that apples are red relate to oranges being, well, orange?
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
I hope they include the bullet proof jacket as class I medical device. Suppose you are working in a caring center with Alzheimer patients armed with Class I medical devices. Or even as a visitor: "You, my son? Lyer, ... boum, boum, boum"
Do you americans still cling to that silly constitution? It seriously needs an overhaul.
Just wait until one of the geezers euthanizes himself with one of these babies. And poof, gone is the second amendment!
Oops, sorry, wrong country, wrong constitution.
Umm... maybe because it's the only thing currently that keeps the country from going completely fascist?
Yes, the constitution is about as dated as the way the US vote or judge, but now is probably not a really good time to consider dumping the constitution. It looks like it's the last life raft personal liberty has in that country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
Yes, your crazy paranoiac grandma who clutches her purse at the sight of a black man is definitely the one to give a gun to.
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?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
What sort of sick society defines a handgun as a medical device?
Right to bear arms, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court, the final word on what is and isn't archaic and legal in the United States, is a fundamental right of American Citizens. Period. And yes, like Freedom of Speech and Press and other fundamental rights, it has been eroded over the years, but it remains a right.
Like Toonol's post points out in this thread, the United States is different than most of the other Nations out there in that the vast majority of laws and elections are unique to the 50 member states and 310 Indian Reservations, the only United States spanning vote is for President and even that is handled at a local level with the residents of the States voting to decide who their State is voting for.
States have given up some rights to the Federal Government for purposes of unity, but States still have many powers that the Federal Government does not have. Like in my state of residence, Oregon. The Federal Government does not allow for doctor assisted suicide and has tried to regulate the medication used for it, well the people of Oregon voted and its legal here and in Washington State, but not in any of the other 48 states and is illegal in the eyes of the Justice Department of the Federal Government.
They have been updating it over the years - hence the term "amendment", and this being a "second amendment" issue.
Not where I'm from it's not, and we have free healthcare at point of use. I doubt any country has an official position that State Healthcare is a human right.
Both systems have flaws, if a rich person tries to sue you for $10000, in a loser pays system even if you think you will be found innocent you must risk being found guilty and having to not just pay $10000 but also pay the guys $10000 legal costs.
No Country has fully equal coverage for ALL parties.
Human right/Ethics are not reciprocal arrangements.
Do you only grant free speech to those that respect your right to it?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of or compensation for an injury
I don't see where you miss the point that having a gun can well prevent your own injury... the old and infirm are easy targets, and so people prey on them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Read your Highway Code. The speed limits are a maximum for a car in a good state of maintenance, with clear visibility and a dry road. If conditions of car or road or weather or traffic are poor, you're supposed to SLOW DOWN.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I give respect to all that have not shown any disrespect for me, regardless of their standing or position. When someone shows me disrespect, then they no longer have my respect or consideration.
As for free speech, I grant that to all, and if they do not respect my freedom of speech, they hear it the loudest.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
I'm delighted for you.
But Human Rights/Ethics don't work like that - which is why, as I said, "Gun ownership" is neither an ethics issue or anything to do with human rights. It may be that you feel that you have some form of entitlement there - maybe you do, maybe you don't - but it is not a human right.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
When has it ever worked? When have the people ever used their guns to stop the executive?
American War of Independance, 1775-1783. The result was apparently good enough to have it written down.
Whether it would still work now is debatable... but if more people remembered why the 2nd is there to begin with, we shouldn't need to find out.
I stick by my statement. For the same dry road with good visibility (literally the same geographic patch of real road), a well maintained 70's car with crappy brakes and narrow crossply tyres is perfectly safe at 40mph while a modern car is a huge menace to all at 31mph. Maybe next week it will only be safe at 20mph, or 10. Can we solve the unemployment problem by reverting to a flag-bearing chap walking in front of each vehicle?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Quite correct, it is not an ethics issue, or a human right. It is a constitutional right granted to all citizens of the US.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
Could you imagine some Alzheimer's ridden grandpa with a handgun? WHO ARE YOU!? *BANG* *groan* What the hell Dad!?
Of streets crowded with gangs of octagenarian punks, armed to the teeth, charging around town in the HoverRounds!!!
A prescription that causes lead poisoning!!!
Oh, something more modern, such as the Distress Act of 1267 (still on the books in English Common Law and in full force in the UK)? Or the clauses of Magna Carta still active?
> 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.
It all depends what you consider to be the default behavior.If you think that people who cannot afford medical attention should be left on the streets to die, then indeed, by your definition of 'right', free healthcare doesn't make sense. However, in many civilized countries most people think that when someone is in need of medical attention they should get it, rather than being left to suffer and die. In such a country free healthcare makes sense as a right even with your definition of 'right' (not giving healthcare to those who cannot afford it would be restricting healthcare to those with money).
In most countrys the legal costs are limited to a reasonable level. The rich guy can't go and spend ten million on the best lawyers EVAR, just to punish you.
In a loser doesn't pay system you can be totally, utterly innocent and still be bankrupted by someone with more money. This is terribly unjust.
In loser pays you have a risk, but hey, you only pay if you're found guilty by the court. I like those odds far better.
Whether it would still work now is debatable
Sure it would. I've never bought the argument that the military having bigger guns is justification for taking away the 2nd amendment. The framers didn't buy that argument either. Granted, they didn't have F-22s and tanks -- but the big guns in those days were warships and those weren't exactly accessible to John Q. Public either (from a cost standpoint if nothing else). They still believed in the 2nd amendment.
If the shit hit the fan that badly I'd like to believe that most of our military would upload their oath to the Constitution. Remember that the US armed forces swear an oath to uphold the Constitution -- not to follow the orders of POTUS.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is nothing new. In the 19th century, small Derringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer/ ) pistols were fairly common.
Wish I had some mod points to send your way.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wha? The American War of Independence is an obvious starting place, and similar wars of independence around the globe. The Civil War is sort of an example of a failed attempt. However, the South could have "won" by continuing to fight a "guerilla" war, but luckily Lee helped to stop that from hapenning.
I'm guessing the next paragraph is connected with the argument that small arms are no match for an organized army. Let's see, examples where a relatively small group of people with small arms were able to effectively fight against an organized army. Ya, that's not too common in the modern world. Oh wait, there's Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, and pretty much every other place in the world with an "insurgency" of some kind. Just look what a handful of guys just did in Mumbai.
There's never been a need for an armed insurgency in the US (besides the Civil War). We have had corrupt governments, but never so bad as to require people to overthrow the government. If we did drift towards such a thing, the first step is to remove weapons from the masses. You wouldn't want the Black Marias to get shot at when you start removing the dissidents.
Oh, and I don't know anyone who thinks, "Well, if things get bad at least I have a gun, so I guess I'm fine with this terrible government."
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
sigh. Whemever came up with this idea, deserves to be shot!
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Matewan, or the Battle of Athens?
Pieces of history that don't get taught anywhere because it is...."disturbing". These things do happen, and in the relatively recent past.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
There are grannies out there that are quite capable of defending themselves.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm here for the "get off my lawn" jokes.
You know, I'm a big proponent to Second Amendment rights (I believe anyone should be able to have a firearm, within reason), but this is just wow. I suppose it's good that the elderly would be able to defend themselves in the case of a break-in, but I honestly can't see them being able to actually use it, even if it's "elderly friendly". Their reaction time alone would prevent it from actually coming in use, unless they had a huge jump on the would-be thief (like they shoot the guy while hiding in the closet or something).
The flip side is that as we approach the point where we have Baby Boomers ==> Generation Geriatric the amount of burglaries related to the elderly will increase dramatically, especially if our economy doesn't turn around, so this might prove useful to some.
As for the disabled, that's cool. They'll run into the same problems, though, unless it's someone like Captain Hook. But then, why not use a regular gun? The good thing about this is that it looks like it requires three pressure points to fire, meaning if a little kid gets their hand on it for some reason they'll be less likely to shoot themselves with it.
Remember that the US armed forces swear an oath to uphold the Constitution -- not to follow the orders of POTUS.
You're half right, they also swear an oath to follow the orders of the officers above them(w/ the caveat that those orders are lawful).
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Moral objections aside, the pictured device looks reasonably similar to several dry powder inhaler devices (e.g. http://www.serevent.com/how_to_use_serevent.html) used for the treatment of asthma. Patients get confused about their medications and devices on a frequent basis, and it won't be long before someone tries to inhale a lump of lead.
Testiculos habet et bene pendentes.
These things are all fine and dandy until someone mistakes it for an inhaler and puts a bullet through their head...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
senile , cataract-ridden old fart mistakes this thing for their asthma inhaler?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
It is an inalienable right that every person in every country has. The US Constitution is unique for protecting this right.
No rights are "granted", you have rights.
We must look at the big picture. Individual problems are unimportant and need not be addressed.
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.
You do know that violent crime has been rising in the UK as they tighten their weapons laws, right? I don't believe that you are correct that UK gun crime has been dropping. The last reference I saw indicated that it has in fact been rising.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Maybe we should just build that wall for the minutemen, but omit to tell them that we're doing it to keep them in, not us foreigners out.
Salut,
Jacques
How is the gang world going to prepare for a battle between the Crips and the Crip's ?
I pity the first young man that tries to help the old woman across the street and his intentions are misconstrued.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Gun ownership is absolutely a human right. Freedom of speech doesn't require that you respect anyone's opinion, it guarantees you the right to express disrespect of others opinions, including the governments, without being opposed with government force.
The right to life is the fundamental human right. Without it, all others are meaningless. A gun is what you use in the case of someone disregarding your right to life. Courts ensure your right to free speech, guns ensure your right to life.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Freedom of speech does not mean "respect the opinions of others". There are many people who hold opinions that I have no respect for whatsoever, but I believe that they should be free to express those opinions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Because they are human and you are not god, judge, jury, or executioner.
Quite correct, it is not an ethics issue, or a human right. It is a constitutional right granted to all citizens of the US.
Don't let him fool you, it is an ethics and human rights issue. The constitution acknowledges pre-existing rights of the people. The human rights issue is that you have the right to life, including the right to self defence. This right can only be upheld in a non-discriminatory fashion by the right to keep and bear arms. The ethics issue is that you as an individual or in cooperation with others (eg: a government) do not have the ethical right to deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. I, for example, feel and show no respect toward you. Indeed I am actively dissing you, if I may use that word -- sneering at you, and doing it through the base and scurrilous medium of the Internet to boot. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
You don't aim. There's isn't a round invented which will accurately fire out of a two inch barrel.
This is what's called a "belly gun", because you jam it into the guys belly and blow his guts out.
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.
The problem with "free health care" being a right, is that means that a doctor is required to give health care to whoever shows up...it is their right to have free health care.
If free health care is a right, then it should be illegal for health care providers to charge for their services. There's the answer for you: make it illegal for health care providers to charge for their services and the health care problem is fixed without requiring any government expenditure.
Rights as understood by those who wrote the U.S. Constitution are things that people have the right to do, not things that they have the right to receive.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The biggest problem I see with this thing is that it doesn't look at all like a gun. Because of that, there is *no* deterrence value in having one. If you pull that silly looking plastic thing on someone, you are going to have to *use* it.
Old people are all senile. There will be one retirement home shooting spree and then some baby boomer's kid will be trying to ban guns and violent episodes of The Price is Right.
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.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point.
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?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Neither are they.
Had they not chosen their actions, they wouldn't be in the situation.
I really don't like that some people feel that the victim of a crime should just lie back and take it, while the criminal gets away with whatever they want.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
This drawing board nonsense is not recognised by the FDA as a medical device and never will be. For PR purposes, or perhaps for other reasons entirely, Constitution Arms merely registered the company and device with the FDA - and as the fpfd clearly states, registration "does not, in any way, constitute FDA approval of your facility or your devices."
Good for a laugh, maybe but nobody's getting an RX for a 9. Chill ffs.
- js.
What?
Free speech requires no respect of the opinions of others! That is RIDICULOUS and I have no idea how the hell you could have come to such a wrong-headed and stupid conclusion.
I am under no obligation to respect your opinion. I can call you all kinds of childish names, commit any number of ad hominim attacks (so long as I don't get in to libel / slander -- though in america there's a great deal of freedom given there, too). Any time you speak, I could stick my fingers in my ears and go "LALALALALALALALA", or simply stand there with a shit-eating grin and raise my middle finger at you while clearly not listening or respecting a single thing you say.
Freedom of speech requires no respect. Freedom of speech simply requires allowing people to speak their opinions. Even if you have absolutely no respect -- and you're free to express that lack of respect.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
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.
If I recall, they did have, at some point since the whole thing started, a drop in *gun* crime.
But an overall increase in crime, and especially *violent* crime. It's been fluctuating around quite a bit.
And then of course there's the example of US states allowing concealed carry and removing onerous restrictions and requirements on gun ownership *lowering* crime... but that's CLEARLY a bad example and should be ignored, because it doesn't match up with the LIBERALLY-KNOWN FACTPINION that GUNS=BAD! And we all know that when reality doesn't match your expectations, reality should be discounted and ignored.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
If you feel that standing up and speaking out for one's beliefs and rights makes one an ITG, then I guess that label fits me in your eyes. I find it very sad that you would go through life letting others trample your beliefs and ideals without standing up for yourself. If my choice is to be an ITG, or a pathetic creature such as yourself that lashes out against what it doesn't understand while refusing to stand up for its own ideals, I would rather be the ITG. You have both my sympathy and pity.
I only get to disrespect and diss you. I don't get to shoot you, unless you also commit criminal acts against me.
I do not smell, and my tie... hey, wait, what do you know of my tie, you aren't that person that keeps stalking me are you?
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
Just wanted to mention that although this version pops up pretty regularly, it appears that it was not written by "Maj. Caudill, USMC".
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I can tell you're not American, so I'll forgive your ignorance. The Constitution has been updated over the years. So far, a total of 27 times.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
If the snake is about to bite you, you'll not be quick enough to shoot it. You probably were fumbling around in its vicinity and you scared it.
.22 Mag round and quickly put down the animal that's
eating his inventory. That's a lot cheaper and more effective than calling a government employee to beg for the services of a contractor who
will have to then camp out on the farm to deal with a fleeting, intermittent, difficult to nail down opportunistic scavenger/predator. The
farmer is out on his grounds all day, every day. Why do you feel the need to add a taxpayer-funded government layer to the picture? I suspect
I know.
.44 Mag revolver will usually do the job if it comes down to it. And if you're really up against a gigantic
Kodiak or Grizzly that's pissed at you, it's a little academic, isn't it? But a starving, scrawny immature bear that sees you across
your campsite and gets nuts? Or a typical black bear? One shot, no problem. Running from either of those bears? Disaster. Standing there and
singing Kumbaya to it? Roll of the dice. Standing there and singing Kumbaya while also holding a .44 Mag in your hand, just in case? Much better.
Yeah, except your "probably" scenario is full of crap. Have you ever confronted a large rattlesnake in a stock paddock or a dog pen? I have. With the nearest Helpful Snake Catching Wildlife Ranger Guy hours away after a call (during which call, of course, their first advice would be: "Uh, why don't you just shoot it?"). I've encountered deadly snakes in domestic circumstances. I feel absolutely no urge to try to catch it myself, and even less of an urge to wait hours for a Certified Poisonous Snake Wrangler to make the trip out... only to have had the snake get bored and disappear under your front porch, into your firewood pile, or into a crack on the sunny side of your barn's foundation.
Same applies for rabid foxes and other varmits. Or how about the time I came across a 150-pound whitetail deer, caught with its rack tangled in some wild grape vine while jumping a hedgerow? It was in agony, with a broken back. Response time from a Department Of Natural Resources officer on a Sunday morning? "We can have someone out there Monday, would that be OK?" Bang. Animal out of misery. I suppose you would have attempted to put in an IV and administer a sedative so that the animal could hang peacefully from its neck until the next day? You're very thoughtful, I can tell.
The farmer should call the organization responsible for the management of wild-life to get his coyote problem handled.
Ah. Which organization would that be, exactly? Obviously you don't know any farmers. Predatory pest control is not handled by the government. As much as you'd obviously like to raise taxes to pay for more Nanny State services so that a professional government trapper could get hold of the coyotes and move them (where? to some other zip code where they promise to say put and only eat the taxpayer-provided food that you'll arrange for them?), actual, real-life farmers would rather spend $0.35 on a
The hiker/camper would do well not to shoot a charging bear, because unless you have an elephant gun and kill it in one shot, that bear will go medieval on the hiker/camper's ass
A nice, tidy, fits in your fanny-pack
Ever been in a rural, bear-populated area where there's a beefy handgun hanging on a hook next to the door so that you'll remember to grab it on your way to the outhouse at night? Didn't think so. But then, sounds like you've never been in such a setting, or had to think about mountain lions, rabid badgers that can tear a chunk out of your leg, or anything else, for that matter.
There seems to be at least a correlation between weapons and violent crime
Yes, there is. The correlation is inverse: when a population is legally allowed to own firearms, violent crime in that area goes down. When a population is deprived of that
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Gun crime in the UK may be dropping, but knife crime has shot through the roof. When criminals can't get access to one tool, they'll just grab the next.
>
The inventors of the Palm Pistol , as the ARTICLE NOTED, most likely died before 1900.
Old idea reworked, but nothing wrong with that.
Get off my lawn!
Who is this prescribed by Dr. Kevorkian ?
Only 1 dose needed, stare at white thing in front and squeeze..
No more problems.
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
I just knew that the Palm people would have to come up with something now that their OS is on the way out.
When I read the summary and looked at the pics, the only thing I could think was that this device was designed to be prescribed to those wishing to end their life. It looks like it should be used inhaler style. Is this just another method for helping those who no longer wish to live fulfill their wish?
Just a show of force is usually enough to deter the rogue pick-pocket/purse-snatcher. Been there, done that, in Times Square, NY actually. Had some cat paying more attention to my camera than he was to me. I tucked the camera under my jacket, he then went from looking at my camera to looking at my face, to looking at the menacing way I was now holding my tripod. He turned and walked the other way. If you are aware of your suroundings, you can generally detect potential threats and avoid/prevent a situation from even starting. If someone is already in the act of something, how can you determine how far they will go. I don't want to die or end up in a hospital because someone is a crack-head.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
Because criminals aren't animals. You're making the PETA mistake of equating human and animal rights.
Farmers here in the UK have guns, a lot of people in the UK countryside will have either had experience shooting things like rabbits or at least know people who do it. Guns in the city, however, are verboten.
Nick
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?
Washington.
And how is an armed militia of geriatrics going to help in this coming war?
See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens made life particularly uncomfortable for its occupiers with small arms and improvised explosives. In a worst-case scenario, it's not quite as simple for a jack-booted thug to terrorize the locals into submitting to the government's will if anyone -- even Grandma -- might be armed. And given that the government has already violated the 2nd Amendment during a natural disaster -- one of those times when guns are needed the most -- you'll have to excuse those of us who believe that Washington is full of shit when they say they support the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they'd really would LOVE to take guns away from the citizenry in order to make us easier to control.
That is a very good question when this report ( http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf ) says that it rose 26% from 1997 to 2001, while violent crime rates in the US FELL 12%.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Guns aren't known as equalizers for no reason. I would rather have everybody equally able to inflict harm rather than "might makes right".
All you gun grabbers -- did you know that doctors' bad handwriting kills more people every year than gun accidents? Did you know that most gun murders are gang wars caused by the War On Some Drugs? There are more deaths in the US from car accidents (45,520) than guns (30,694) in 2005.
Go here to find out for yourself.
So much for guns being dangerous. What is your next argument?
Infuriate left and right
this concept has been around for over 100 years.
this was a small concealable pistol for protection
http://www.micksguns.com/images/protector%201.jpg
They're using their grammar skills there.
I do not want to live in a society/state/city where the in-ability to access deadly force is the only thing keeping them from killing each other. So if banning/not banning guns makes a significant change in crime and safety, that is not the place for me, then guns are not the problem, it is something inherit with that society. (Gun violence in 99+% of the US is not a significant risk to anyone) Because a gun is usually so precise, when handled correctly, that whenever someone is hurt by one, we know it was intentional or neglect immediately. Unlike cars, trucks, explosives, etc that are used more often than guns, even in the US, as a weapon to attack others it is not until days later, if ever that the motive is found, and then isn't news. The traceability and evidence that a gun creates, when used, has to make it a poor choice if used as the first choice of a smart criminal anyway. Now because people falsely vilify guns it creates a irrational fear of them, now that is what makes them useful as a terror tool. People are trained by the liberal agenda to be so terrified of guns in the US, that they will act irrational around them, rather than take cover, or take out the shooter, or plan a escape, most just stare at the gun, and can't even identify the person holding it. Those trained in the true force of a gun, have respect, but not a irrational fear.
Now in most of the US, guns are also a useful tool. When properly introduced the require respect, they are a good opportunity to teach a discipline that is really needed. They are used for hunting, controlling over population of species, and encourage many safe recreational activities.
Can I get a phased plasma prescription handgun in the 40 watt range?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Hey, I'm not the one making the decision to break into people's homes, or randomly mug people on the street, or whatever. I'm saying I have a right to defend myself and my property. Like it or not guns are rampant here, restricting them will only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of the criminals, who will only become more brazen.
If one chooses to live a life of crime, one chooses a lifestyle that could have dire consequences. Much the same as if you chose a lifestyle that included unsafe, unprotected sex, you would have chosen a lifestyle that could lead to your premature death as a result of AIDS, some other nasty STD, or even a jealous husband. There are consequences to the lifestyles we choose, and like it of not, we have to live, or die, as a result of those choices. The criminals, whatever their motive, chose a riskier lifestyle than most of the rest of us. If put in the situation of dealing with a criminal, I will do what I can to get out of the situation with minimal loss or damage to myself. If it's a show of force, no harm no foul, fine, if I'm left with no non-lethal solution, heaven forbid, fine too. We choose our own lifestyles, we choose our own risks. If you choose the criminal lifestyle, you know there are people like me in the world and you know you know you are placing the value of your own life below whatever potential gain you may see.
Probably a product of the culture in which I was raised. Had we been neighbors growing up, we would probably see eye-to-eye on the issue. Depending on which location that would have been would determine which of our views we would believe to be correct.
Don't feel bad, you are not alone. So far, no one has convinced me that I should not be able to use force to defend myself, my family, or my home.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
I think the problem there is choice of words. Universal healthcare is an entitlement, and calling it a right (in the way that Americans tend to use the word in this context) seems like a pretty long stretch.
Personally I'm in favor of doing it, I just don't think that it fits the definition of being a right.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I'm not an anti-gun nut, but I don't think that it should be listed as a medical device for reembursement. If some old codger wants to buy this gun, they just need to leave the taxpayer/insurance out of it. Free loading bastards.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
for a prescription would be that it appears to be illegal almost everywhere. So a prescription would be needed just like it's needed for med mary jane. I can't really see them charging it too insurance though.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
That is what rich folks do. When I hear a Kennedy or a celebrity like Rosie O'Donnell rail against guns in our society, I just shake my head and think "hypocrites"! Those people have security people that are armed to the teeth. What they really mean is that they do not want us hoi polloi peons to have guns to protect ourselves.
Gun ownership is becoming a class issue.
I wonder if it dawned on anyone at the manufacturer that this thing looks just like an asthma inhaler. Maybe it was designed by Dr. Kavorkian.
The essential problem with gun ownership is that you need them in rural areas but they're undesirable in urban areas coupled with the fact that people drive.
Let's say you live in Wyoming and Dick Cheney comes over with a gun. You know he's not there to shoot quail, but probably to shoot Quayle (i.e. Dan). You could call the cops but they won't be there for a good hour since the nearest police station is so far away. Honestly, what are people expected to do? Especially the elderly?
In NYC, you have a situation where anything happens and a cop can be there in minutes (granted someone actually calls the police) so using a gun is probably not the ideal circumstance since it's a bit more heavy handed than necessary.
That said, people are going to drive. You can't keep guns out of cities due to that nor can you keep guns out of rural areas since they're needed. But guns don't kill people. Kids who play Doom do.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
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.
You do realize that by changing "murdered" to "slandered" and changing the number you could apply your argument to the 1st amendment instead of the 2nd?
Let's take breaking and entering in my state. If the entry was with larcenous intent, that's a Class H felony which gets you max 10 years or fine or both.
It's legal to shoot someone as they are breaking into your home in that case regardless of whether you feel threatened.
Good to see a clear explanation of how things actually work in the real world.
.
I almost laughed out loud about the bear comment (that a gun wouldn't do much about a bear).
.
I was reminded about the Alaskan Park Ranger who was confronted with a grizzly bear last year. He had to unload the whole magazine from his .44 magnum pistol into the bear but he did kill it in time to save himself. The Park Service later found that the bear contained the remains (incl. bits of shoes and clothing) of three different hikers. Too bad one of them didn't have a good gun on hand.
.
Ideas and Guns can both be very dangerous things in society, and both are necessary to a functioning society. Yes, occasionally, someone will go off irresponsibly shooting off ideas or bullets, and both can cause much harm to others in society. But, once you take either one away from the people, you no longer have a society, you have a totalitarian state.
I can't wait to get old and purchase my insurance-covered Rascal scooter with auto-youth-targeting minigun. Brings a tad more menace to the traditional old man threat of "Get off my lawn, you young whipper-snappers!"
Looking at the picture of the Palm Pistol, what does it shoot? Air??? It looks more like a squeeze bulb. I doubt this would work, which makes it dangerous because it gives false hope to its user.
Those crime rates have nothing to do with gun ownership at all.
Crimes rise and fall do to financial strength.
Your number are homicides, not murder.
If someone comes into my house threatening my family, and I kill him that is a homicide. In fact, killing the person may ahve just SAVED 4 lives. a net gain of 3 lives.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Hogwash. Freedom of speech does not require that I respect the opinions of others; it merely restrains the government from inhibiting their ability to speak. In fact, this post illustrates my point: I have no respect for what you wrote in your post, though you still have the right to express such ridiculous ideas.
If you deny me the right to defend myself, you are denying the most fundamental of all human rights.
You get old, your hearing goes, your eyesight goes, your cognition goes, your temper goes. So are we going to have old geezers shooting their caregivers when they show up, shooting the meals-on-wheels guy, the neighbor who drops by to check up on them?
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!"
In the US, the right to keep and bear arms is not based on principle; it's based on a specific written legal framework -- the Second Amendment to the US Constitution -- the first thirteen words of which everyone conveniently ignores. What happened -- did Madison and Jefferson sit down, and look over the list, and Jim said, "Tom, this one's too short"? And Tom said, "All right, Jim, let's add a few words to it. How about these?" Et la voila?
What is wrong with you people?!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Americans like to keep things like they were in the Wild West.
You're perfectly at liberty to shoot a stranger on your property in America. People don't even blink. "Well, he was on someone else's property. So what." And life goes on.
As long as it stays in America, who cares? It's what Americans want. Who are we to judge?
Stick Men
As a UK resident, I am looking forward to NHS weaponry when I start to collect my pension.
I'm afraid we'll be limited to walking sticks. I can't wait to be the one in the Post Office queue having the arbitrary rant at some innocent young bystander, whacking them around the shins with my stick and getting away with it to rounds of applause from the other spectators who are shouting, "National Service! That'll sort 'em out!"
Stick Men
Yup, both the Electoral College and the Right to Bear Arms have been around a long time; the former for 200-odd years, the later goes back a further than that. So what? It's old throw it out? Do you actually have a real argument, or do you just dislike the dusty smell?
1) Free healthcare at the point of treatment (viewed as a human rights violation in most of the civilised world)
I find it funny that this is brought up over and over again, and it's actually wrong. The US Federal Government passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986. If a person is having a medical problem, they can walk into an Emergency Room and they will be treated regardless of their ability to pay.
Now, the one thing this doesn't do is cover routine medical care, which might be cheaper in the long run. However, the US doesn't exactly toss dying people into the streets as you seem to be implying.
As for the viewed as a human rights violation in most of the civilised world. So what? Ever hear of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" a subset of which is often called "appeal to consensus"? Back to the question I asked above, do you have a real argument?
2) Loser pays court system (people can't afford to defend themselves against legal bullies - you win, you still lose)
I'll go with you on this one being a problem we need to fix. It's unfortunate that Tort Reform has fallen out of vogue in recent years. I had hoped that we could move to a system which socialized the legal system and allowed for the poor to be able to effectively fight a much richer opponent, and prevent the rich from winning via exhaustion.
Unfortunately, this is going to be a very difficult and costly overhaul, and is not something we should rush into. How do we balance the desire to let someone bring suit, and perform a reasonable discovery, without sinking tons of money into publicly funded fishing expeditions? This is probably going to involve filtering what types of suits can be brought and some sort of rubric for allocating resources to cases for discovery. I personally don't have a good answer for this, and I don't have as much time to think about it, or the training to think about it effectively, which many of the people who have looked into it do.
I agree, it's a problem, but not one worth tossing the whole US system of government out over. Heck, it's probably not going to even require a Constitutional change, just changes to normal Tort law.
3) Equal access to the media for ALL political parties during an election (stops there being an advantage based on wealth)
And how do you propose to do this? Require that all forms of media give a certain amount of time and space to all candidates? What if I want to say more as a candidate, am I not allowed to say more? What happens to a news program which happens to report on something which involves me but not another candidate? In other words, how do you plan to do this without strangling free political speech in the process?
It's a nice, pretty, egalitarian idea. Unfortunately, while it looks nice on paper, implementing it is fraught with way too many problems. The current system of staying out of the way and letting all sides buy whatever coverage they can afford doesn't restrict anyone, though I agree that the better financed candidates can drown out the worse financed ones. This isn't ideal, but it doesn't create the sticky problems of government censorship which the "Equal Access for All" idea is going to run into.
But hell, isn't Free Speech an archaic idea as well? After all, it's also been in place in the US for the past 200-odd years. Out with the old, in with the new.
The US system is far from perfect, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near the worst.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Looks like someone hasn't cracked open a political science book since the 17th century.
The Bill of Rights is not an authoritative list of the rights that you have. As much as you seem to support the Constitution, you may need to check out Federalist #84.
Only in the USA, Your country never stops making me laugh there's always something stupid and ridiculous going on
Now wait a second here, I am proudly a War-mongering Pacifist Conservative Hippy. I'm not bitter, science is my religion, and the only guns I cling to are the ones I made myself that require AC power.
Turning the other cheek, diplomatic sanctions, and peace talks have no chance of success if your opponent is a religious extremist who believes to the core of their being that your way of life is evil and must be wiped from the face of the earth. There comes a point when delay will only lead to greater losses, and military action is the only viable solution.
When your opponent believes that by sacrificing their life they will gain rewards in heaven, or bring honor to their families, drastic measures must be contemplated. In WWII, it is widely agreed, even by Japanese historians, that the detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only way to bring that theatre of conflict to a close without many more years of bloody island hopping and carpet bombings. Due to the ingrained belief in Bushido, where it is far better to die honorably in battle than to surrender to possible indignities, it required a display of force that could not be defended from to show that strength of honor, and a willingness to die for your cause, were not enough for victory, and so diplomacy must be tried.
It is unfortunate that this approach would not be feasible for dealing with terrorists, since they hide in civilian populations that do not always hold the same beliefs, generally do not care about civilian casualties themselves, believe it is their religious duty to exterminate the infedels, and then there is the whole mutually assured destruction thing.
Sometimes a long, drawn-out, ground war is the only solution. I still believe there were WMDs in Iraq, Hussein had certainly used enough in his ethnic cleansings. How hard is it to move something you don't want found if you are told in advance when and where the searching will take place? Load up a few 18-wheelers with the logos of a grocery store on the side of their trailers and move the chemical weapons over to a different secure location, and rotate between the sites as the inspectors move on, telling you where they will be next month. Probably wouldn't find any nukes in Iran for the same reason.
So in closing, yes, I am Pro-War, not as a first solution, but it should never be left out of consideration.
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
> The AARP does it's best to keep states from requiring
...), while reading a book, or having had less than eight hours of sleep in the last twenty-four should carry a minimum penalty of six months' license revocation on the first offense, two years on the second offense, and permanent on the third.
> vision tests for driver's license renewal after a
> certain age.
I actually agree with that. If the vision test is only required after a certain age, it's discrimination based on age.
Now, if you require the vision test for driver's license renewal EVERY TIME, for every driver, then age has nothing to do with it. The AARP would have no business complaining in that case. You might occasionally have to deny a license to a younger person who can't see well, but I fail to see a downside there.
I also think the vision tests they give you for getting a driver's license in the first place are nowhere near strict enough. The smallest line at the bottom is enormous bold-face type that you don't have to actually be able to see clearly to read, but do they even ask you to read that line? No, they ask you to read the next line up, which is even more enormous. I think you ought to have to be able to read the bottom line on a normal eye-exam chart at the normal distance, with zero errors, on the first try (and, obviously, they should have a number of different charts so you can't just memorize the answer ahead of time). The roads are dangerous enough.
I also think driving while intoxicated, while operating an additional device (such as a cell phone, GPS, razor, make-up applicator,
And I don't want to hear nonsense about "how can I get to work I must drive". You can get a job closer to home, a home closer to the job, use public transportation, pitch in for gas and ride with somebody else, get a bicycle, or any number of other options that don't endanger everybody on the road if you're too irresponsible to handle driving in a safe and sane manner.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Looking at crime statistics from nationmaster.com it appears the United States has slightly higher rates of most violent crimes and a significantly higher murder rate (4 times as high .4/1000 vs .1/1000), while the UK has slightly higher rates of most property crimes and significantly higher rates of burglary (about twice as high 14/1000 vs 7/1000). Since the US and the UK are different in many ways other than their gun laws (culturally, demographically etc. plus the methodologies behind the statistics are different) I'm not convinced that the differences in crime rates are entirely the result of having different gun laws. But, it does make a certain amount of sense. The increased likelihood that guns will be present during the commission of a crime seems like it would raise the stakes so murder become more likely, by the same token those increased stakes probably serve as a deterrent for lesser crimes, so robbery becomes a less appealing occupation since there's a small chance the victim may be armed and burglary becomes much less appealing since there's a good chance (in some places a near certainty) that the victim (if they're home) will be armed.
Where's the logical problem with that? An unborn baby can't make any decisions and so can't choose to do anything to hurt anyone else. After being born, though, a person can choose to hurt or kill another person. If he does decide to hurt or kill someone else, the only practical response is for his victim to respond in kind.
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
Quick, better ban all the crowbars and jackhammers then! Of course, one might argue that the hundreds of millions of dollars that hunting brings into the Colorado economy is a productive use of guns. Then there's the fact that > 80% of the money for ALL game conservation programs in the US are funded by hunting licenses. And the fact that armed citizens are responsible for stopping millions of crimes every year in the US. And the fact that recreational target shooting is sill one of sports most commonly practiced by Americans......
Hmm, seems like there actually are some constructive uses for guns after you think about it for a while.
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
I think it's fine to have a debate about gun rights, but my question is about the ergonomics of this modified gun in particular. The trigger is ok at the thumb, but I am concerned about the stability of aim with the barrel between two relatively weak fingers that don't get a lot of practice in holding items still between them. So, speaking as a gun owner, I think it's fair to say that this weapon, or medical device or self-protection device or whatever you want to call it, will need considerable practice to master and probably ongoing training with it to keep the fingers strong enough to steady the thing in an emergency.
Another question that comes up, what caliber is this gun? What is the recoil like? I sure wish it was a 2-handed hold instead of 1.
And lastly, there are a large number of young people with rheumatoid arthritis or other degenerative joint diseases that would be able to use this. So, while made for the elderly, whose hand joints tend to be less mobile than the young, it could be a benefit to quite a large swath of our population.
Considering there seems to be more personal freedom in China these days I'd suggest you are delusional.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
It's funny, but I read your post and couldn't tell which side of this debate you fall on. Regardless, I can't disagree with the point you are making, which is that people should look at the facts very carefully when making a decision about this.
J.
I respect anyone's right of free speech, as long as they are not out to kill me. If they are, then I don't respect them at all, I kill them.
At the end of the day, the rights, the respects, it's all for nothing if you get hurt/killed.
You can't handle the truth.
Shoot em down, let god sort em out. In any case, there will be an investigation and if the shooter is found to be guilty, guess what, he'll be punished. Until then, it's self-defense.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, a typical old person needing such "gun for disabled" won't necessarily have all her/his mind.
There are lot of elderly people that feel menaced in situations that they just don't fully understand. Slight paranoid tendencies is something that occurs very often with age.
(/. featured not so long ago articles about how ultra-sound-mosquitoe emitters were used by old person, just to discourage younger to meet and hang around some places)
Giving a gun to such paranoid persons is at risk of increasing un-necessary gun firing.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Actually, no. I have a stance on gun control that says I should be able to enjoy the property I have legally purchased. The fact that a friend of mine was hospitalized because he was legally prevented from defending himself just strengthens my stance.
So go get cancer and die. :)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Once an intruder is already in your home, you have to show that you were in fear of your safety (or sexual assault for women) in order for shooting to be justified. Automatic justification only applies as the person is breaking into the home.
Govt must freely give Handguns to all Dalits and Tribals for their self-defense.
Every day:
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Your statistics are Bullshit. They aren't even close to right.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crimes-have-been-underrecorded-970172.html
Once you become elderly and disabled, wouldn't you want a tool to pump hot lead into someone?
I was being sarcastic. You are, or course, absolutely correct. My only fear is that the person/persons who modded that up may not have understood that. . .
None of what you said justified killing a person in the same way you would kill an animal. Sure, if you're being attacked and you have a gun then you have a right to shoot. It's not OK to shoot an unarmed robber in the back as they are trying to escape - not that you directly said that, but it did seem implied what with the animal comparison.
A guy in the UK called Tony Martin turned into a tabloid hero for doing that, the press went mental when he got sent down for murder. But still, a jury of twelve peers decided that it was murder.
So yea, if shoot em if you got em, but only for defense.
Nick
Actually, rattle snakes are quite peaceful creatures. They give you a little warning if you startle them or get to close. You then can back away and all is cool with the world. It's those damned cotton mouths you need to shoot on site. They are vicious, nothing but plain vicious. They will come at you for no reason at all.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
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.
That is not a good defense of the current system. National elections are by definition about making laws for the entire country and there is no reason why strong state governments cannot co-exist with direct elections of national politicians (especially with a constitution that limits the power of the national government). The current system is extremely flawed. For example:
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.
The right to bear arms is completely different from the right for self-defense. Bearing arms is only one way to protect yourself. You can also protect yourself by placing mines around your house, but we don't recognize that as a right. The founding fathers decided that arms were the best way for people to protect their home, but many disagree. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree on this issue. That doesn't mean that those dissenters do not believe in the right of self-defense. It means that they don't think that allowing people to own guns is the best way for people to maintain their rights.
You have to keep in mind that a lot of things changed since the constitution was written. Alternative, less-lethal weapons such as pepper-spray are now available. Guns can now be had in fully automatic or in very small size, in contrast to the big, single shot rifles and pistols from the past. There is no way Americans can fight the US army in open combat today and IEDs seem to be a lot more effective than rifles in guerilla warfare. Ignoring these changes, instead of debating their impact and whether they require changes to the constitution is wrong. The founding fathers were the first to admit that their constitution cannot be suitable for all time:
"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson
So easy even Plaxico Burress could handle it.
I'm not sure if you're aware that you largely made my point for me.
It does not indicate cowardice and hypocrisy more than any of the other secrets that so many people keep. Why single out this one secret?
My university already bans knives. I wonder how long it will be until the UK follows suit.
~= scwizard =~