×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-two-bullets-and-call-me-in-the-morning dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 1093

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1093 comments

God, please let this be true. (5, Funny)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985823)

I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.

LK

Re:God, please let this be true. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985853)

Heh. Assisted Suicide. Not real popular with the religious right I hear. Perfectly in line with the godless atheist liberal agenda.

Re:God, please let this be true. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985893)

I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.

Better yet, see their heads shot off.

Hypocritic Oath? (4, Insightful)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986267)

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.

Re:God, please let this be true. (2, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985895)

Uh, you consider this a conservative victory? Big government buying crazy old people handguns, under medicaid?

Gee, I was expecting a conservative conspiracy theory amounting to "they're just trying to trick us into supporting socialized healthcare while making gun owners look ridiculous." I keep promising myself I won't overestimate trolls...

Re:God, please let this be true. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986217)

"they're just trying to trick us into supporting socialized healthcare while making gun owners look ridiculous."

It's okay, I think the gun owners manage to make themselves look quite ridiculous enough without needing this new "guns for old people on prescription" story.

Re:God, please let this be true. (4, Insightful)

adisakp (705706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985901)

Find me a single "conservative" politician who will vote to kill Medicare and Medicaid. Or to eliminate the socialist pyramid scheme of Social Security.

There isn't one because they all know old people are a huge voting block and they'd be out of office faster than they could blink.

Re:God, please let this be true. (2, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985945)

There isn't one because they all know old people are a huge voting block and they'd be out of office faster than they could blink.

There might also be a few that want to see fewer elderly citizens forced to live in homeless shelters, and a few more who support it because most people who are thinking clearly do too.

Re:God, please let this be true. (5, Insightful)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985925)

Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.

A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.

Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?

Re:God, please let this be true. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986057)

I always thought the same thing about liberals who are pro-abortion but anti-war. Say what?

Re:God, please let this be true. (3, Insightful)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986187)

Well I'm a liberal and I'm not anti-war. I think WWs I and II were a good idea. The US Revolutionary and US Civil War were also necessary and justly undertaken.

I'm just anti-stupid-wars. Like say for example, Iraq.

War is a tool that can be used to good or bad ends. Saying that someone is anti-war is like saying that someone is anti-screwdriver.

Re:God, please let this be true. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986285)

That's always amused me. Somebody complaining about the cognitive dissonance of being pro-gun (or pro-death penalty) and anti-abortion... who can't even see what that implies about the people with opposite stances...

Really, though, a modicum of understanding of either side will reveal that there's no contradiction; any apparent similarity between, say, abortion and war, is pretty simplistic, and overlooks the real and fundamental issues motivating both sides.

Re:God, please let this be true. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986083)

Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?

To them life is sacred since you're conceived......

Re:God, please let this be true. (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986131)

Well, lets ignore your ignorance and forget about all those conservatives who think there are exceptions to their abortion beliefs for rape and incest and where the mother;s life is at stake and assume that you can lump every conservative into the same group within your fictional mind. We will do this for the sake of exploreing your argument.

Now, suppose the same girl kills the kid when it is one year old, is she a murderer? I mean killing innocent babies isn't exactly a good thing is it? All of the supposed things that you could say about why she needed an abortion are still true when the kid is one years old. I mean the rape is there, the incest is there, the potential for birht defects, the mental trauima and stress is still there. How about when the kid is 4 years olf, is killing then off limits and if so, what makes anything go away that changes the right to kill the kid?

You see, people who are against abortion aren't so because it will punish someone, they are because they believe life starts at conception and that there is no difference between an abortion or killing the kid at one or four years olf.Just because you can rationalize it away doesn't mean that others need to. I know, it is just a fetus, a parisite that can't live without the body, and a baby can't live without someone caring for it. still not much difference.

Now I don't care to argue the merits of an abortion. I have already heard it all from both sides. I don't care to argue the differences between a fetus and a baby, I have heard it all too. What I do want you to know is that the only difference between you and that conservative is the timing of the termination of life. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if you can rationalize one of those rights to yourself somehow. This is something you need to understand because it is obvious that you are clueless with your cognitive dissonance. and fair game comment. The right to protect yourself from those that wish to harm you or someone close to you even if it results in their death is in no way conflicting with the wanting to save a life.

Re:God, please let this be true. (-1, Troll)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986273)

"Now I don't care to argue the merits of an abortion."

That's funny, because you do just that. In addition your innocent claim that you don't want to argue the points is a slimy rhetorical technique intended to at best hamstring the opposing view and at worst force that view to be suppressed.

Of course such sophomoric rhetoric is often used by people who can't win an argument based on the merits of their argument alone.

So given that your starting volley is rhetorically sleazy as well as being a logical fallacy extravaganza, I won't debate you on that point. Credulous wingnuts are simply not worth the time.

Re:God, please let this be true. (5, Interesting)

WTF Chuck (1369665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986133)

But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.

This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.

The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.

If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.

Go ahead, mod me a troll for this one but I feel I just have to. What's to stop some nut job, (who has no regard for life, his or others), with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people? It's definitely not some law abiding citizen carrying a gun because it is illegal to carry a weapon on most campuses. Do you think such a thing could happen? You are an idiot if you answered "no" because recent history has already proven that answer to be false.

-- The sig should not be applied to any of the preceding paragraphs

I am of the belief that no material possession is worth a life. I really don't understand why some people believe that their life is worth less than anything they would be able to steal from a place they break into, but I will do what I can to honor their belief if they test it here.

Re:God, please let this be true. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986279)

If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.

I'm not saying you're a troll, but you have no idea how ignorant you're being. Can you not see that this method of thinking is a self-feeding cycle of fear? This is what I don't understand about this type of American. You are afraid that someone is going to attack you with guns, and your solution is more guns, which makes people afraid of you, which makes them want guns to protect themselves, which makes people afraid of them... It's like you all have a mini cold war going on where every house is USA and everyone else is Russia.

Re:God, please let this be true. (5, Interesting)

Arivia (783328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986155)

It took awhile, but I eventually figured out why I am not generally in favour of programs against gun ownership. Simply, if I support the rights of individuals to own property for their own reasons and to conduct themselves as they see fit according to their personal morals and philosophies (classical liberalism), then I cannot say that someone cannot own a gun, because my reasoning for that would be "Because you're only going to use it to shoot someone some day." That's inflicting my viewpoint on their life and lifestyle, and I don't have the right to do that. And before you go jumping down my throat, I work for a magazine too leftist for the campus it's on (which in and of itself, is the most left of all Canadian campuses.) Communism? sure. Socialism? Hell yes. Anarchism? Go for it. Anti-gun ownership? No thanks.

Re:God, please let this be true. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986161)

Who said life ceased to be special? The difference is a criminal preying on an elderly person (in this situation) has made the decision that they no longer recognize personal freedoms.

Choose to eliminate a fellow humans right to safety you also choose to give up your own. You make it sound like people that support gun rights actually _want_ to use them on people.

The right to own a gun in your home is the single greatest deterrent against home breakins, short and simple. Same argument as the possession of nuclear weapons. As horrible a weapon as they are, as terrible as they would be to use, they have saved incalculable lives in wars prevented.

Re:God, please let this be true. (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986219)

You are caricaturing their position (I agree with them on some things, but I have no opinion on gun ownership, and American conservatives would regard a good many of my opinions as socialist).

Most people, liberal or conservative, would agree that:

  1. It is acceptable to kill in self defence if you have no alternative
  2. It should be a serious crime to kill someone except in such very limit circumstances.

No one says "its OK to own a gun and to kill people with whenever you think its useful to get rid of them". I known lots of people who have owned guns (for protection, to kill animals, etc.) but I do not know anyone who has killed someone. "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people", is atleast partly true.

Most people opposed to abortion do not describe women who resort to them, especially under difficult circumstances, as murderers - there are too many extenuating circumstances. Even the most hardline opponents of abortion reserve the label for those who carry out abortions.

Where's the cognitive gap, now? (5, Insightful)

booyabazooka (833351) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986223)

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.

Re:God, please let this be true. (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986239)

Really. Imagine being an elderly person. Unbeknowst to you, your doctor gets a kickback for proscribing a gun. You go to the doctor because you are getting old, ailments, flu, etc....and he gives you a gun. WTF are you going to think?

Re:God, please let this be true. (2, Insightful)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986271)

A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.

There is a logically consistent view, long acknowledged in law, that killing in self defence is not the same as murder and is not wrong. Equating the killing of an innocent human for no other reason than a desire to do so to the killing of a person threatening ones own life requires either dishonesty or sub-moron intelligence. Nobody is advocating the right to murder on demand (unless a foetus is human, then there is a large number of people advocating the right to murder on demand), you would obviously know that, so I have to conclude dishonesty on your part.

Re:God, please let this be true. (4, Funny)

Livius (318358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985941)

So that means if they shoot someone, it would be a medicinal homicide?

Re:God, please let this be true. (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986067)

This probably has more to do with "conservative" lobby groups than the "socialism" of medical insurance.

YaY! (2, Insightful)

278MorkandMindy (922498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985831)

Because that is what an unstable (mentally too?) person needs, something that fires a projectile when accidentally squeezed...
Good times!

Only in the USA?

Re:YaY! (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985867)

Well, perhaps legally only in the USA (not sure), but historically, No; there have been palm pistols for quite a while, though this is the only one of recent or current (post '50s) manufacture of which I'm aware, and not counting the CIA's "Deer Gun" which is more the fetal form of a more conventional pistol :)

Perhaps there are many others, besides, but prior to this new one (which has grabbed Google's top spot for "palm pistol" -- drat!), there were several based on patents held by Jaques E. Turbiaux of France, known as "protectors" (Minneapolis Protector, Chicago Protector), and marketed similarly to the way that this one is -- as a last-ditch weapon such that, as the saying doesn't quite go, 98 lb weaklings don't necessarily have to exercise their right to wrestle with 200lb attackers.

Informative overview: http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/106/197/ [www.nfa.ca]

timothy

Re:YaY! (2, Insightful)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985935)

and not counting the CIA's "Deer Gun" which is more the fetal form of a more conventional pistol

What's that? Guns for unborn babies? You yanks have it all covered as far as guns are concerned, from cradle to grave...

Re:YaY! (2, Interesting)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985955)

The Deer Gun was the successor (though never widely produced, as I understand it) to the Liberator pistol of WWII, which itself was never widely distributed to groups like the French Resistance, though that was the original idea. Cheap and nasty guns, for which the use case was "First, approach a Nazi soldier and ask him for a light for your cigarette. Then, after you've killed him, take his much nicer gun."

The Deer Gun was the same concept, different war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_gun [wikipedia.org]

timothy

 

Re:YaY! (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986263)

I thought that gun looked familiar... reminds me of the lemon squeeze palm pistol (I think it was called that; I'm translating the Croatian translation back to English, so I might be a bit off).

Re:YaY! (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986291)

I think it's called a "Lemon Squeezer," though that nickname may have been given to more than one gun; there are definitely revolvers of a certain variety that are also called "lemon squeezers."

kill each other till last breath of our life (0, Flamebait)

shineOnMe (1230440) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985849)

kill each other till last breath of our life even if hand unable to press the trigger..... make automatic weapon controlled by human mind .... that's the best for disabled and old guys...

going to the pharmacy... (0, Troll)

i*i+1 (1414943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985851)

to get my prescription for hand grenades filled. while i'm there I might pick up some over the counter RPGs.

Class I medical device? (5, Interesting)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985857)

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?

Re:Class I medical device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985931)

To bad I don't have mod points today, that's damned insightful!

Re:Class I medical device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986091)

o_O

Do you sometimes have mod points?

The rabbit hole of anonymous cowardice must be deeper than I'd imagined...

Re:Class I medical device? (5, Informative)

Caraig (186934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986089)

That's... actually a really good question.

A quick bit of research, though, seems to indicate that Class I Medical Devices aren't critical to the life support needs of the patient, and so the TSA will probably confiscate them and/or require their transport in a firearms case.

Re:Class I medical device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986143)

Its not required medication so it will have to be declared and checked with your luggage, the one problem I can see with flying with that though is that I don't think it can be unloaded. FAA regulations require that during check-in the firearm is verified to not be loaded.

The perfect weapon for the elderly ....... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985863)

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.

give them a gun? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985881)

And, all this time, we thought viagra gave old people a gun to shoot...

Now they take it all literal and stuff?

Why oh why.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985885)

Do you americans still cling to that silly constitution? It seriously needs an overhaul.

Re:Why oh why.. (2, Insightful)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985977)

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.

Re:Why oh why.. (-1, Troll)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985987)

Exactly. It's 200 years old and out of date with the modern world. I can't think of any other country that has something so archaic at the centre of it's political/justice system - and even if they do, they will have updated it over the years.

Re:Why oh why.. (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986029)

<sarcasm>My word yes, "Liberty", how quaint!</sarcasm>

Has it occurred to you that the USA was formed because they didn't like the way the rest of the world was run?

Re:Why oh why.. (1, Troll)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986245)

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.

Re:Why oh why.. (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986159)

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.

Re:Why oh why.. (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986027)

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.

Re:Why oh why.. (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986151)

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.

Classic Concealment (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985891)

Prosthetic limbs that are actually rifles, swords in canes.

Just hope the asthmatic doesn't mistake the gun and the inhaler.

Grandma What Happened to Your Nose?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985899)

Yea this is just great; first we give them huge cadillacs that are thrice the size a normal vehicle. Then we give them "blue blockers" which block out the small bit of light that was getting in. And now we are going to arm granny with a handgun that resembles a medical device? Guns look like guns for a reason. What happens when senile grandma thinks that it's her nasal spray; or little jimmy loves the new inhaler grandma got him...? To all you gun lovers don't worry I don't want to pry one out of your hands but if your too old to hold a plastic glock, how can we count on your aim?

Re:Grandma What Happened to Your Nose?! (4, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985981)

To all you gun lovers don't worry I don't want to pry one out of your hands but if your too old to hold a plastic glock, how can we count on your aim?

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.

soooooo awesome..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985911)

i may be goin' soon... but i'm takin' every last gdamn one of you rotten commie sunsabitches with me!

lolololol!!! oh man! that's awesome....

jin

Dangerous (1)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985943)

There are plenty of old people that are kind of crazy. The idea of them having their own little old people gun is kind of scary. If they kill somebody they really don't have much to lose since they are so old they are probably going to die soon anyways. I really think this is a bad idea. It is a good way to possibly cause a lot of problems. On the upside old people are a target for several crimes and this could potentially help them

Re:Dangerous (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986165)

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.

How a disabled person robbery goes down (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25985961)

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?

Re:How a disabled person robbery goes down (1)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986149)

More like:

Victim (clutching chest and gasping): Give me my inhaler... under my pillow... bulbous thing... has a nozzle... HURRY!!!

Robber (shaking gramp to death): don't you die on me before you tell me were your cash is grandpa!!

a "McCain Special" (1)

bullypulpiteer (1316553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985963)

http://www.palmpistol.com/ [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

Crazy Yanks! (1, Informative)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#25985971)

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 [bbc.co.uk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317152/Half-of-elderly-fear-attack-at-night.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:Crazy Yanks! (-1, Troll)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986037)

First of all, stop acting like all Americans are all alike. We're no more alike than all Brits are.

Second of all, mind your own business.

Re:Crazy Yanks! (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986077)

They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty or security.

I thought the right to bear arms was an essential liberty, as elaborated in the US Constitution?

Re:Crazy Yanks! (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986081)

going briefly over the speed limit occasionally.

we're talking 1 x 9/11 per year in the UK. (3000+ deaths), a large part of these due to speeding.

Re:Crazy Yanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986115)

Sir, I tip my hat to you. It is unfortunate that those who have so far replied to you missed the sarcasm.

A gun is a medical device (1)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986001)

and I guess painkillers are ordinance now?

Re:A gun is a medical device (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986175)

Have you not heard of the "Holy Painkiller of Antioch"?

"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less..." ;)

Funny? (3, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986003)

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.

Re:Funny? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986193)

This is clearly a joke. Right? A gun classified as a medical device? ha ha! In what universe would that happen! ha ha!

Re:Funny? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986237)

This is medical care. It will help stop the old person's medical complaints...when they either accidentally shoot themselves or when they have a cardiac arrest while getting stressed taking on the criminal.

Well, that's about the only way I can interpret it.

What the? (4, Insightful)

elthicko (1399175) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986021)

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).

Re:What the? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986153)

Referencing the Global Harmonization Task Force on the term "Medical Device" it defines it as:

The official motto of the "Global Harmonization Task Force": All your medical devices are defined by us.

Re:What the? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986157)

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).

And even then I'd say that's a dubious argument (i.e. only one that a gun lover would support).

Two scenarios:

1) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has no weapon therefore not a threat, generally going to be left alone.

2) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has "palm pistol", old person becomes threat to self as much as criminal, criminal may run but depending on the situation then injury through accidental firing or not having gun with them or cardiac incident due to stress of taking on criminal likely to cause more threat to old person's life.

Ahhhhh, America. How we love to stare in amazement at you!

Re:What the? (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986253)

Your scenarios are off base. Many home invasion robberies are drug fueled and lead to the physical assaults of the people at home, armed or unarmed.

A more realistic scenario...
1a) Old person is in house, criminal comes in, old person has no weapon therefore not a threat, going to be assaulted and/or killed because they are a witness.

It is a medical device (3, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986191)

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.

Re:What the? (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986197)

Support of anatomy, I'd presume. An infirm person may not be strong enough to fire a gun. Not being strong enough to fire a gun puts them at risk; assailants can reasonably assume that weak, disabled people are easy victims. Self-defense is a human right; bearing arms is a consitutional right, and infirmity may prevent a patient from exercising that right.

No different than a cane, or a speech synthesizer for someone who has difficulty talking.

Re:What the? (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986247)

You may disagree, but I bet the manufacturer believes it falls under the "Supporting or sustaining life" line.

You can probably imagine situations in which you'd prefer to be armed; even football players sometimes wish for more than their own muscle. (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/)

timothy

Old ideas... New Ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986035)

I might get one of these guns just for the whoopee appeal and because I can't afford an antique palm pistol. I wonder if anyone reading this has the capabilty and knowhow to make working reproductions of that antique.

30% without medical cover (1)

tjark (411929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986055)

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.

Re:30% without medical cover (2, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986121)

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 [gun-control-network.org]

Re:30% without medical cover (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986213)

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.

Re:30% without medical cover (2, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986283)

but my core reasoning stands : countries with STRICT gun control have fewer TOTAL gun-deaths than the US has ACCIDENTAL gun deaths.

Re:30% without medical cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986235)

That link gives the total rate at 10.26 per 100K citizens and the rate of accidental deaths at below 0.36. How is something smaller than 0.36 "approaching" 10.26?

Re:30% without medical cover (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986209)

If it deters or kills an assailant, it has a STRONG and IMMEDIATE health benefit to the intended victim. That's the whole point.

Perfect weapon for a hit man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25986103)

Since this doesn't look like a conventional gun, some gangster/mobster/whatever can board a train or bus, stick that up against their target's back, fire, and get out before being identified.

Sounds like a great weapon to off someone if you ask me!

911 call (4, Funny)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986105)

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

Thats just crazy... (2, Funny)

Tyrus Perises (1366773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25986113)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...