US senior citizens to get guns on their medical insurance

BenjAii

Those crazy Americans ... there is a certain irony in medical insurance paying
for something used to kill people.

http://idle.slashdot.org/idle/08/12/04/0433234.shtml
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2008/12/medicare_to_cover_prescription_handguns.html

pierrot

How else are old people going to defend themselves against the terrrrarists out in AI-RAK

Turd Ferguson

BenjAii wrote: »

Those crazy Americans ... there is a certain irony in medical insurance paying
for something used to kill people.

Not really. Dead people dont use medical insurance, therefore the more of them shot dead the less monies is paid out.

Crackerspray

Oh yes, this will surely make America a safer place!:rolleyes:

Smart Bug

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "I'm going to get my shots"...

Manic Moran

Excellent idea. Why should only the physically fit be able to defend themselves?

NTM

ShooterSF

RTDH has a duplicate account surely....

Kintarō Hattori

Manic Moran wrote: »

Excellent idea. Why should only the physically fit be able to defend themselves?

NTM

You are kidding right?

the FDA has formally designated the gun as a medical gadget

Lunacy.

Overheal

I agree NTM but on a lighter note, "Oh your wife left you for the shuffleboard guy? Here, I'm going to prescribe you one of these - use 2 doses and call the police in the morning."

dresden8

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

You are kidding right?

Is it your position that only the fit should be able to defend themselves or do you believe that nobody should be able to defend themselves?

chops1990

Nothing says buy our insurance like "Get a brand new handgun with it!"

Overheal

well you have to assume the cost of this gun versus a typical handgun is bound to be higher, being a new technology and all that. Geared at people who are living off pensions, the idea of subsidising the cost through medical insurance makes sense.

also, ownership of one is probably going to have a positive effect on their premiums, as theres less of a chance of the poor ol coot getting stabbed in an alleyway and being rushed off to the ER

ShooterSF

Well to be fair they have to be able to defend themselves incase the Queen of England comes into thier house ordering them around.

Kintarō Hattori

dresden8 wrote: »

Is it your position that only the fit should be able to defend themselves or do you believe that nobody should be able to defend themselves?

My position is that it's crazy that it will be claimable under medical insurance.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well to be fair they have to be able to defend themselves incase the Queen of England comes into thier house ordering them around.

I think you'll find that was the King of England! :pac:

Hellm0

So they'll prescribe gun's but not marijuana? So much sense these people make. So much to learn we have!

Terry

If they didn't give guns to everyone, then everyone wouldn't have a gun.

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Excellent idea. Why should only the physically fit be able to defend themselves?

NTM

I'm all for the elderly / physically less able feeling secure in their own homes, and indeed at all times ... but handguns? ... and paid for on medical insurance?

I await the stories of elderly people, perhaps with poorer sight, being frightened by neighbours or care workers or indeed the postman happening to call at an unusual time ...

I would be far more supportive of financial help (where needed) with good home alarm systems; with personal alarms; even with defensive weaponry which has less likelihood of being lethal: MACE, tazers (?) ... whatever, I have no expertise in this area, others here probably know much more about such things.

But adapting handguns in this way, and supplying them on the medical insurance ... it's a thumbs-down from me certainly!

Biggins

I'm just shocked RTDH didn't post this first!

Manic Moran

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

My position is that it's crazy that it will be claimable under medical insurance.

Why shouldn't it be? It's a device specifically designed to allow the infirmed to carry out actions which would be normal for the physically able. In this sense, why is it in any way different from any other such device from a wheelchair through spectacles?

I await the stories of elderly people, perhaps with poorer sight, being frightened by neighbours or care workers or indeed the postman happening to call at an unusual time ...

Doubtless some such situations will indeed occur, and doubtless they'll get ample 'airtime' on sites like Boards.ie

On the other hand, you also get incidents like this.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080214_lj_hawes.bfc57dff.html

Investigators say they were definitely going to rob him - possibly even kill him. But an 80-year-old North Texan wasn't about to let that happen, so he took action.

One of the suspects is in the hospital and both are facing charges.

Two men obviously thought James Pickett, 80, was an easy target when they showed up at his home on Saturday with a knife.
"He just came through that door, stabbing and beating," said Pickett.
Captain Clint Pullin said it looked as though the men wanted to kill him.

Firearms are successfully used in defensive situations by OAPs routinely, they just rarely make the news, let alone get airtime on the Irish side of the Atlantic since there's nothing to say "Oh my God, another tragedy, look at those backwards Americans and their guns" at.

For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26294338/wid/22224893/

POINT MARION, Pa. - An 85-year-old woman boldly went for her gun and busted a would-be burglar inside her home, then forced him to call police while she kept him in her sights, police said.

I'm not sure that these stories (and many others like them) would necessarily end quite so well were our octogenarian protagonists reduced to the level of physical, hand-to-hand combat with knives or maybe their walking canes.

NTM

Jeeze, oldies can barely get a free cough bottle here without having to march for it!

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be? It's a device specifically designed to allow the infirmed to carry out actions which would be normal for the physically able. In this sense, why is it in any way different from any other such device from a wheelchair through spectacles?

'Wheelchairs through spectacles' normally don't kill people. That's one hell of a difference in my mind.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doubtless some such situations will indeed occur, and doubtless they'll get ample 'airtime' on sites like Boards.ie

I'd genuinely prefer if they didn't happen at all. The drama queens on Boards will no doubt find enough to whet their appetites elsewhere.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure that these stories (and many others like them) would necessarily end quite so well were our octogenarian protagonists reduced to the level of physical, hand-to-hand combat with knives or maybe their walking canes.

NTM

I never argued in favour of leaving our older folk vulnerable, Manic.

In fact, in the part of my post you didn't respond to, I argued for an alternate approach: financial support for security systems, and, if it was felt to be necessary, self-defence gadgets / weaponry which was less likely to be lethal.

themadchef

Biggins wrote: »

I'm just shocked RTDH didn't post this first!

Shhh dont wake him ffs.

Even RTDH has to sleep some time. His 5 mins must be up now though.

Manic Moran

In fact, in the part of my post you didn't respond to, I argued for an alternate approach: financial support for security systems,

Which are great if your attacker is likely to hang around until the cops get there. Given the sheer size of the country, there are a lot of places where the police can take over twenty minutes to get to. There have been cases (I've linked to recordings of such calls in the past) where the victim has barricaded herself in a room, been on the 'phone to the police, and the attacker broke through the barricades before the police showed up. There was a similar incident down the road from me last week. The police were aware of the problem, but didn't stop the guy inside from killing the woman. (Who had thrown her children out the window for the police to catch)

Great. The police are notified that you're in trouble so that they can draw a line around your body, and then see about bringing the crook to justice. Fine for society as a whole, doesn't do you much good.

and, if it was felt to be necessary, self-defence gadgets / weaponry which was less likely to be lethal.

They are also less likely to be effective. Joe Citizen isn't in a position like a cop where he goes for the spray first, then if that doesn't work he's carrying a Taser on his left hip, and if that doesn't work he can move to the sidearm on his right hip.. Even I, a dedicated gun nut, do not wear a duty belt. Besides, there's rarely enough time for an escalation of force. Go for the most effective thing you have to begin with. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly, you get no do-overs.

NTM

Cunny-Funt

The sheer lack of intelligence is astounding.

............................................________........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:,........
.....................,?......................................................\,.....
.................../...........................................................,}....
................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
.............../...................................................,:”........./.....
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\.......................
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which are great if your attacker is likely to hang around until the cops get there. Given the sheer size of the country, there are a lot of places where the police can take over twenty minutes to get to. There have been cases (I've linked to recordings of such calls in the past) where the victim has barricaded herself in a room, been on the 'phone to the police, and the attacker broke through the barricades before the police showed up. There was a similar incident down the road from me last week. The police were aware of the problem, but didn't stop the guy inside from killing the woman. (Who had thrown her children out the window for the police to catch)

Great. The police are notified that you're in trouble so that they can draw a line around your body, and then see about bringing the crook to justice. Fine for society as a whole, doesn't do you much good.

I take your point, but you are interpreting my use of the term "security systems" as referring only to alarm systems ... and in fairness, my first post did refer to those, but I deliberately broadened it out. Alarm systems certainly, but also add in deadbolts, door chains, cameras, you name it ... all the bits which can make a home more secure.

That said, I do accept that these, while they definitely make a difference, are not foolproof against a determined intruder ... and no-one should be expected to stay behind double-locked doors all their lives anyway.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They are also less likely to be effective. Joe Citizen isn't in a position like a cop where he goes for the spray first, then if that doesn't work he's carrying a Taser on his left hip, and if that doesn't work he can move to the sidearm on his right hip.. Even I, a dedicated gun nut, do not wear a duty belt. Besides, there's rarely enough time for an escalation of force. Go for the most effective thing you have to begin with.

And does the most effective thing HAVE to be a potentially lethal weapon?

A lot of money, I suspect, went into developing that device linked to in the first post. Money has gone into developing projectile weapons which shoot paintballs; into airsoft rifles ... nothing wrong with either of those, btw.

My point is rather that it would be nice to see money being pumped into highly effective but safer self-defense devices which would be suitable for home and personal defence for the elderly, and indeed for everyone, be that a type of taser, or a device similar to the above which shoots anaesthetic darts which send the intruder into sleepyland for a couple of hours (probably not without risk, but still a hell of a lot less likely to be lethal), or whatever ...

Why the hell does it always have to be guns?

Manic Moran wrote: »

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly, you get no do-overs.

NTM

The person shot may get no do-over either, whether it's an actual assailant, or the neighbour who unexpectedly comes barging in the back door in a sudden fit of charity towards her lonely old neighbour, or the child that knocks on the door on Hallowe'en night ...


Anyway, you and I have argued on the subject of guns before, Manic, and I doubt we will ever agree. You describe yourself as a "gun nut" ... had I the power, I would cheerfully launch every gun on the planet into the heart of the sun! I suspect our positions may be just a tad irreconcilable, tbh!


EDIT: Cunny, you just wanted to post the ASCII facepalm, right?! :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

And does the most effective thing HAVE to be a potentially lethal weapon?

Given that pretty much every police force in the world has a sidearm on every officer, and the rest have them available, one would think that if there were a reliable non-lethal substitute then the sidearms would no longer be required. Currently the most reliable and effective self-defense weapon is a firearm. Until that changes, they should be available for use.

I accept your point in theory, but do not believe that any currently existing technology fits the requirement.

NTM

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that pretty much every police force in the world has a sidearm on every officer, and the rest have them available, one would think that if there were a reliable non-lethal substitute then the sidearms would no longer be required. Currently the most reliable and effective self-defense weapon is a firearm. Until that changes, they should be available for use.

I accept your point in theory, but do not believe that any currently existing technology fits the requirement.

NTM

And while we live in a world which worships the gun (and I'm not even going to start on the psychology of that here!) why should industries invest heavily in R&D in the area?

It's circular logic, tbh ... "guns are best, therefore people will buy guns (even have them funded by Medicaid), therefore there is no incentive on the industry to develop alternative / affordable non-lethal alternatives, therefore guns are best, therefore ... " etc.

Nor, for that matter, do I agree that every old-age pensioner needs to be armed to the same level as a police officer.

Are you suggesting that they should be required to be trained to the same extent in their use before being allowed to own one?

That would at least lessen my reservations somewhat, though certainly not entirely.

Terry

randylonghorn makes a good point here.

A tazer is enough to incapacitate any attacker.
Going by your arguement, NTM, about the police taking 20 minutes to reach a house, the tazer would be effective enough to keep the attacker in place until they arrive.

Most guns are made for one reason and that is to kill people.

Hand guns are not used for hunting, so that arguement is irrelevant here.

Here's a little story;
I was walking home from the shops one day and an old lady grabbed me by the arm and asked me to walk her home.
There was a drunk guy just ahead of us and she was really frightened.

He was stopping people in the street and talking crap to them.

I looked up and realised that I knew who it was. He was just a harmless local alco, but that still scared the old woman.

Let's put a gun in her hand, have that guy stop and harass her and see how things work out from there.

It wasn't me!

Bit mad, but I do agree with the notion of elderly citizens being able to protect themselves. I'm quite glad we don't have the possibility to license firearms for self-defence here, but I can see situations like this being a very good argument for it, when police response times are, frankly, very poor. I would say, however, that firearms are a far better form of defence than the less lethal options. In any case where the use of the firearm would be questionable, the use of anything else would be as well, and it's also entirely possible that the person would die anyway. Also, to address the training point, police officers do relatively little training with their arms compared with civilian shooters, so a civilian shooter will often be better trained in any case. Lastly, in many countries, handguns are used for hunting, and in several European countries it's mandatory to carry a pistol while hunting to administer the coup de grace in the event of a botched first shot where a rifle would be less safe to fire. In Ireland, while actively hunting with them is illegal, it is legal and does happen that hunters carry a pistol for the same reason our European counterparts do. On the whole, I prefer a society where firearms aren't licensed for defence, but I recognise there's a good argument to be made for such a state of affairs, highlighted by this thread, and it's important to be aware that pistols do serve uses other than self-defence in society.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

A tazer is enough to incapacitate any attacker.

People's exhibit A: A US Police officer's duty belt will usually contain both a sidearm and a taser. If what you say is true, the sidearm is redundant. Such is not the case, and there are plenty enough incidents of Tasers being ineffective due to anything from the target wearing thick clothing through one of the two electrodes missing. They also tend only to have one or two shots available, so if you miss, you're in trouble.

Hand guns are not used for hunting, so that arguement is irrelevant here.

Not in Ireland, but handgun hunting is pretty popular in some places. It's considered more of a challenge than using a rifle as the effective range is so much shorter one needs to get a lot closer to the animal in question without scaring it off.
However, I accept the point that it's a bit of a red herring. I'm talking about handguns to shoot people with, a utility perfectly legal in the US and some other countries. (Including Italy, of all places)

Let's put a gun in her hand, have that guy stop and harass her and see how things work out from there.

I'll bet he'll stop harassing people...

NTM

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

People's exhibit A: A US Police officer's duty belt will usually contain both a sidearm and a taser. If what you say is true, the sidearm is redundant.

A gun has a much longer range than a taser, and that range is likely to be important to a police officer ... it is hardly as likely to be important to someone defending themselves / their home from an intruder.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Such is not the case, and there are plenty enough incidents of Tasers being ineffective due to anything from the target wearing thick clothing through one of the two electrodes missing. They also tend only to have one or two shots available, so if you miss, you're in trouble.

Fair enough, I don't claim any expertise in weaponry, as I said before, but even I was aware that they are not as yet 100% effective in all circumstances.

However, my response would be as before: improve them / develop alternatives.

If there is no pressure to do so, and the almighty gun is the answer to everything, why should manufacturers bother investing in research and development?

It wasn't me!

I think the problem with things like tazers is very difficult to properly eliminate. If you make it more powerful, both in projection strength and shock, you get closer to the edge of the less than lethal definition, and people start getting killed by them, so you get closer to having a gun anyway. Also, the range is just as likely to be important to a person defending themselves as a police officer, to be fair. Why would it be any less so?

I do agree with your point about it being a cyclic arrangement, but I also believe people should use the best tool available to defend themselves in societies where it's permitted.

Terry

regarding tazers sometimes not working; guns can jam.

It wasn't me!

Terry wrote: »

regarding tazers sometimes not working; guns can jam.

Which is why revolvers are so popular for personal defence and secondary pistols; they can't.

randylonghorn

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I think the problem with things like tazers is very difficult to properly eliminate. If you make it more powerful, both in projection strength and shock, you get closer to the edge of the less than lethal definition, and people start getting killed by them, so you get closer to having a gun anyway.

I don't think they need making more powerful. Guaranteed to be ~100% reliable would be important though.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Also, the range is just as likely to be important to a person defending themselves as a police officer, to be fair. Why would it be any less so?

Because a private citizen will be defending him or herself, or possibly his / her family. Why would s/he need a long range? Unless you are advocating shooting everyone who passes on the other side of the road on a "just in case" basis ...

On the other hand, a police officer may be faced with a situation where another officer, or indeed a civilian, is in mortal danger 30 / 40 yards away, and may feel the need to take the risk ... and it is a risk, especially in built-up areas, and not just to the potential victim he is trying to save.

One of the problems with firing smallarms in urban areas is that they often have too much range for the need ... so a missed shot has every chance of hitting an innocent passer-by, a passing car, etc. causing additional unintentional injury or fatality.

Manic will no doubt correct me if I err, but I have it in my head that most police sidearms are considered to have a maximum effective accurate range of 50 yards, even in the hands of a good shot and with nothing going wrong. The actual distance which the bullet can travel and still be lethal or cause serious injury is considerably greater however.

A trained police office may have no choice in certain circumstances but to take the risk inherent in that reality, but do you really want an 80 year old pensioner firing a pistol with that kind of range in panic in a built-up area? ... perhaps a suburban estate with children around? Can all of modern science and technology not offer that pensioner a better, a safer alternative?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I do agree with your point about it being a cyclic arrangement, but I also believe people should use the best tool available to defend themselves in societies where it's permitted.

By "best", I presume you mean "most lethal"? That seems to be what most people mean, anyway.

We need alternatives to guns, and to lethal weapons. I have no problem with people having the ability to defend themselves against the thugs of society, but preferably using means which are not likely to result in death or serious long-term injury, and especially not likely to result in death or serious injury for those who are innocent of ill intent.

While the "best" weapon is the one which can cause maximum destruction, there is no incentive to develop any alternatives.

Manic Moran

Because a private citizen will be defending him or herself, or possibly his / her family. Why would s/he need a long range? Unless you are advocating shooting everyone who passes on the other side of the road on a "just in case" basis ...

I'd like to be able to aim down the stairs and shoot anyone who tries to come up the stairs in my house. That's about 6-7m, and near max effective range for a Taser (10m for law enforcement models). Not beyond the realms of possibility for Taser usage, until one looks at the 'you get one shot and one shot only' reality of a Taser. If (a ) You miss, (b ) Hit but it fails to have effect, or (c ) There's more than one target, you're out of luck with a Taser, at least as they currently exist.

On the other hand, a police officer may be faced with a situation where another officer, or indeed a civilian, is in mortal danger 30 / 40 yards away, and may feel the need to take the risk ... and it is a risk, especially in built-up areas, and not just to the potential victim he is trying to save

Fair point, but doesn't address the three problems listed above.

Manic will no doubt correct me if I err, but I have it in my head that most police sidearms are considered to have a maximum effective accurate range of 50 yards, even in the hands of a good shot and with nothing going wrong

That would be correct, on a one-way shooting range. US Army pistol qualification has a max target range of 25m with pop-up man-sized targets. However, such ranges are only viable if the shooter is not the object of the target's attention. When the circumstances become a bit more stressful, firefights have taken place with shots exchanged at about three paces with no hits. For example, see the second engagement in this compilation: Both participants have good, two-handed grips and fire multiple rounds. There are other such videos on Yotube of what one would consider point-blank firing with little evidence of a hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o3xyfj6Rko

NTM

Hagar

Parkinson's, dementia and a UZI, a great combination. God Bless America.