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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
indeed, the US has a rate of unintentional gun-deaths per year per 100K citizens (children playing, gun accidentaly goin off ,...) that approaches the TOTAL number of gun deaths (murders included, not just accidents) per year per 100K citizens ... those are HARD facts.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
That was a Comment.
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.
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.
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.
You know that the gun control numbers include self-defense shootings in the "gun deaths" numbers right? So, if I have to defend my life, or someone else's life, it gets chalked up as a "gun death" along with murder.
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.
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!
but my core reasoning stands : countries with STRICT gun control have fewer TOTAL gun-deaths than the US has ACCIDENTAL gun deaths.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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?
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'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.
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.
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.
how many people did anthrax or hydrogen bombs kill last year?
i guess they're not dangerous either...
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.
Of course guns are dangerous, that is there point.
Perhaps you mean to say:
"So much for legally owned firearms being more dangerous then many perfectly legal things. "
The touchier the debate, the more accurate you MUST BE with your meaning or you make people with your same opinion look like ignorant hicks.
And if you did mean literally what you wrote, then you are an ignorant hick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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!"