US senior citizens to get guns on their medical insurance

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

RTDH has a duplicate account surely....

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."

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

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

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

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!

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.

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 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.

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 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?