US gun company Constitution Arms says its guns for elderly will be subsidised

US gun company Constitution Arms says its guns for elderly will be subsidised

www.theaustralian.news.com.au

A GUN company will market a pistol to elderly Americans that will be subsidised by the government in the same way as a wheelchair or walking frame.

The company, Constitution Arms, claims its gun, called a Palm Pistol, has won approval as a medical device for people with arthritis or other disabling conditions who have trouble squeezing the trigger on a normal firearm.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 7/12/08 by Shere Khaan]

Wow. Does it feel good knowing that dollars for health care are going towards arming elderly and disabled people?

The company informed a medical technology blog that the US Food and Drug Administration had approved it as a "Daily Activity Assist Device".

It says it has already been fielding "lots of calls" about the device, expected to available by 2010.
However, a FDA spokeswoman denied the agency had formally labelled the gun a medical device, telling the magazine no determinations had been made about the weapon.

It may not come about as the FDA haven't officially stamped it but I imagine the company got an unofficial nod before launching an advertising campaign. What a world.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hey, If I was elderly with arthritis this would be on my shopping list. The elderly are the prime targets of home invasion and muggings... To bad the elderly in the UK are unable to defend themselves, targeting the elderly is epidemic there.

instead,why not tackle the reasons why elderly folks would need to carry a gun?,ie crime and the existence of guns in the wrong hands!

but that doesnt depopulate us so obviously its not on the agenda.

reply to post by welivefortheson


LOL... the reasons are simple... Crime, and there will ALWAYS be criminals. Doesn't matter what Utopia you try to create, crime will happen and the strong will target the weak. Some may hate to deal with this fact but show me one true example of a country without crime.

And "guns in the wrong hands" will always exist. The logic is simple: criminals will always find ways to get guns, whether legally or not. If the average civilian cannot own a gun for self-defense, the chances that a criminal will use a gun against a civilian become much higher.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by infolurker]

Not to try to disrespect the elderly, but as you age, so does the mind.
Is custom making firearms for those whom possess a mind which is decaying a good idea?

I know many who have had to deal with their family members minds slipping. One friend of mine had been chased out of her own home at the end of a knife by her grandmother, because her grandmother no longer remembered who she was, and chased her out at knife point thinking she was an intruder.

Drivers licenses are revoked because people eventually become mentally unaware, and incapable of safely operating a vehicle.

I fully understand that not all people lose their minds as they age, so don't bother flaming me for saying it. If you think I'm assuming all elderly are unstable, you're severely wrong, and you should probably think before responding... or I'll have a field day with you. lol.


So what I'm proposing is that there should be a mental screening process prior to being issued these guns. (There really should be one before issuing guns of any kind).
If they merely have a frail body, and a sound mind, great, I have no quarrels.
But if they're the type that thinks anyone walking within 5 meters of them is automatically out to get them... they probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon.

Very tactfully put Johnsky.

It It worries me a little given some of the older people I have known. But I can definitely see the need for protection being elderly and perceived as vulnerable. I figured there might be other ways to tackle the problem though than giving them weapons.

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by welivefortheson

 

LOL... the reasons are simple... Crime, and there will ALWAYS be criminals. Doesn't matter what Utopia you try to create, crime will happen and the strong will target the weak. Some may hate to deal with this fact but show me one true example of a country without crime.

And "guns in the wrong hands" will always exist. The logic is simple: criminals will always find ways to get guns, whether legally or not. If the average civilian cannot own a gun for self-defense, the chances that a criminal will use a gun against a civilian become much higher.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by infolurker]

ahh such is ones belief system when living in the usa.
there are many countries who have low crime rates,where guns are hardly seen and are uneeded for the society and public services are developed enough to deal with the causes of crime,and the public have more aspiration and morality to resort to criminality.
broken societies results in crime,many parts of the us are broken through poverty,the breakdown of the community and ethics of its people.

the logic is simple,guns are a cause of crime,reducing the supply of guns will reduce the number of crimes in which guns are used.
by reducing the causes of crime itself you not only reduce the number of criminals you also reduce the number of criminals with guns hence the need to own a gun.

not only that,if civilians are armed with guns,it neccesitates that criminals are going to compete with them and thus also carry guns,an arms race so to speak.
such as with 4x4,people percieve them as safer to drive,but there more dangerous to others,thus in order to be safer one must also purchase a 4x4,the result is that everyone is driving around in dangerous 4x4 making the roads more dangerous to everyone!.

the free existence of weaponry only causes an arms race between those who use them agressivly and those who seek to defend themselves,we see it in the world as a large......remember the cold war,a constant build of weaponry and thus increase in dnager and decrease in safety not only between the us and russia but the whole world.
how were the danger stopped,they disarmed!,simple as that!.

its clear that neither civilians,nations or most human organisations are responsible enough to use weaponry with respect and intelligence,simply put, the world would better of without weaponry,but of course depopulation agendas mean the opposite,the world is arming itself to the teeth.

you know it was kinda conveniant that in the hieght of WW2,suddenly a weapon appeared that had the potential to cause a global armegeddon,the atom bomb.
i would go so far to say that WW2 was an attempt to get the wolrd to blow itsefl to kingdom come,praise those who were brave enough to defeat the evil
and for hitlers mistake,invading russia!,two fronts they couldnt handle!


[edit on 7-12-2008 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by welivefortheson


guns do not cause the law to be broken! what a mixed up statement. Places where guns were taken away or banned have had an increase in shooting deaths here in the US, no one had a legal gun to defend themselves with, but criminals were still able to get them of course. places here in the US where every citizen had a gun saw a dramatic drop in crime rates...the criminals knew that everyone had guns, and it made them think twice about robbing those folks. Also, you cannot compare what works for one country to our necessarily, sometimes it translates well, and other times it fails miserably. America has more rural areas and semi suburban areas than most other countries, guns make more sense to have here in these places than in some other countries.

Areas that have instituted tougher restrictions on the legal access or ownership of firearms have seen increases in the violent crime rates. Canada and Britain have both increased the restrictions on firearms owners in the last 15 years, and have seen dramatic increases in violent crime and the use of illegal firearms. Areas of the US (and several countries) that have liberal restrictions, or have eased their restrictions on legal gun owners have low crime rates, or have seen their crime rates drop. Prior to January 1978 when Bill C-51 came into effect, Canada had very liberal gun laws. From 1977 to 1991, Canada's violent crime rate has increased 89% (583 to 1099 violent crimes per 100,000 population) compared to a 59% for the US in the same period. (476 to 758 violent crimes per 100,000 population). [10]

God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.

I think that old quote applies today, especially to older folks.

Hmmm... besides a totalitarian government or a country that has an "isolated" population (little or no immigration for generations and has a clear sense of national identity) can you give me an example of this gentle and almost crimeless society?

Being in the US, I always base comparisons of "working" or "failed" social policies on Canada, UK, & Australia/NZ since these are the people that I communicate with well since we share a common language. When it comes to gun control, I haven't seen an advantage of disarming the public when it comes to crime.

news.bbc.co.uk...
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.newsmax.com...
UK Gun Crimes Soar After Gun Ban
www.timesonline.co.uk...
THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.


And this is a great article! www.britainneedsguns.co.uk...

Australia:
Summary of first-year results (1999):

* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

Even a moron can see that an anti-gun position is a pro-crime position. Are you voting for politicians who want to help criminals hurt you?
www.mindconnection.com...

Crime had been decreasing for over twenty years, until the government interfered with the gun laws. After the ban, the crime rate exploded.

The Australian gun ban was supposed to halt gun crimes....the opposite has happened. "On November 1 last year, gang members fired a hail of bullets at a Sydney police station using high-powered 9 mm automatics or semi-automatics. Five police were inside. This barrage of shots in a city street was exactly the sort of scenario the buy-back was supposed to stop." Apparently the bad guys didn't get the memo.

According to Australian officials, despite the government buy-back program, firearms activity has increased, especially in Sydney.

Inspector McComb said he had estimated about half of guns in Queensland were now held illegally. "We did a 'guesstimate' before all this started and we conservatively estimated between 1.2 and 1.3 million guns in Queensland. We've now got about 520,000 guns licensed. Even when you take into account 130,000 guns handed in, we're well and truly short."
www.calnews.com...

# "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
# "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
# "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
# "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
www.nzherald.co.nz...

So, given the examples I will stay pro-self-defense in my stance on firearm ownership.

Null to the points above on crime, the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) is there for the people to defend themselves, even against a corrupt government (god forbid). It is a unique ideal but one that still holds merit. One of the reasons I also hold it dear is the nature of man.. how many times even recently have we seen genocide? I remember watching the holocaust on TV as a young boy..... I am not going out like that!

Originally posted by welivefortheson
ahh such is ones belief system when living in the usa.
there are many countries who have low crime rates,where guns are hardly seen and are uneeded for the society and public services are developed enough to deal with the causes of crime,and the public have more aspiration and morality to resort to criminality.
broken societies results in crime,many parts of the us are broken through poverty,the breakdown of the community and ethics of its people.

Yeah, Britian has very tough gun laws. Did you hear that knife crimes are now on the rise? Gonna ban them, too?

Originally posted by welivefortheson
the logic is simple,guns are a cause of crime,reducing the supply of guns will reduce the number of crimes in which guns are used.
by reducing the causes of crime itself you not only reduce the number of criminals you also reduce the number of criminals with guns hence the need to own a gun.

So, let me guess: It's the fault of the citizens that criminals have guns? Now that's a new way of thinking.

The Second Amendment allows me to have a weapon, at least until the Dems and the Obamanation get around to repealing it.

take a look at the site;


www.constitutionarms.com...

the site says it is still developing the 'hand pistol',
which interestingly uses one's thumb to trigger the device...


to my conspiracy mind... this is only a promotion stunt to gain recognition,

i sure don't see the democrat congress & Obama allowing the purchase of these pistols.

Dang I wish I could get one of these for free.....

Started here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

but this one has more attention. I wish there was a way to merge posts so those interested didnt have to make the same comments twice.

Anyway, I think this opens the door to any and all defensive firearms being technically classed as medical devices for those in need be they weak physically, ill, elderly or just happen to live in unsafe circumstances be it alone in a rural area or in an urban apartment surrounded by all the city scum.

This little blue pistol is no different in intended usage than my grandmothers Benelli M90.

reply to post by welivefortheson


Brilliant post, if brilliance were characteristically marked by poor grammar, pompous attitude, and a general inability to effectively argue your own illogical points.

Your post gives me a pretty good idea as to why your post not only lacks merit, but intelligence as well.

What I can determine from your post is you are probably the following:

You aren't a United States citizen, in fact you aren't even a North American citizen, yet you shows incredible arrogance by assuming to know anything about American society, since you have little or no contact with it, aside from media. That alone is pretty ironic seeing as you are one of those "that's not what the power that be want us to believe" yet rely on information about a foreign societies heavily given to you by those same people. Given the fact you spell Organization with an S, I know you are coming from somewhere over the ocean. (that and your pompous attitude, looking down on "American way of thinking"). Judging by your terrible grammar though, you are either A. uneducated B. A kid who's uneducated or C. English isn't your first language.

If you are A or B, I would suggest educating yourself, rather than attempting to sound intelligent. Learning the simple "proof reading" technique would save us the pain of having to read gross run-on sentences and other errors like: "there are many countries who have low crime rates,where guns are hardly seen and are uneeded for the society and public services are developed enough to deal with the causes of crime,and the public have more aspiration and morality to resort to criminality." I mean...seriously, that last part didnt even make sense.

If it is C....well, the above still applies. Learn better english and proof reading before attempting to argue points you consider intelligent with unintelligent communication skills.

In short, you are a walking, talking, pompous, yet poorly informed, contradiction. You talk much, but know little.

Now I include the bit above because it tells us a great deal about where your poorly informed belief system has originated, and why you are sounding so illogical when you speak.

When you say things as utterly ridiculous as "the logic is simple, guns cause crime" you make us believe that the electrical firings in your brain might be a seizure rather than some intelligent thought going through your mind. Reason being, the above wasn't remotely logical. Tools don't cause crime. Tools don't commit crimes. Tools are used in crimes. Hammers are used in crimes, a wide variety I might add. (Breaking in to a home, assault, etc. ) This does not mean that the hammer CAUSED this person to commit the crime, like this was some creepy Stephen King world. I mean, I have yet to hear a murder charge acquitted because the murderer pleaded "the gun made me do it".

Next, stop talking about American society, and how its "poverty" stricken areas have led to the collapse of our society. We already know you aren't from here, and therefore most likely have little or no experience about what its like to live here. Crime in America, and in poor urban areas, is much more complex than "we are poor, lets go commit a crime." Poverty is a factor, not a cause.

You want to get rid of the causes of crime? Find a way to get rid of human greed? How about manipulation? Have you found a way to rid the world of passion? How about sexual urges? You would be incredibly surprised how many crimes have nothing to do with circumstances, and everything to do with people. You want to cure people of their ill intent? Good luck. In a country of 300+ million people all looking to "get mine", good luck getting rid of ill intent and selfish greed.

The fact you said "How was the danger stopped" when referring to the cold war, and said anything other than "it wasn't", shows just how misinformed you really are. The nuclear arms race ended because one side of the competition went bankrupt and collapsed. The world is just as dangerous as ever. You talk as though nuclear weapons have become part of history. The FEAR of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is a thing of the past because the profitability was no longer there. With the USSR gone, there was nobody left to have a race against. Terrorism became the new big thing. We have been dumping massive amounts of money into that war ever since.

A world without weaponry? I can go grab a 2x4 at a construction site or a baseball bat at walmart and I have a weapon. I know a guy that was stabbed 40 times with a small knife meant to peal fruits. Just about everything can be used as a weapon. I could sufficate somebody with a pillow. Want to get rid of pillows?

I'm not even sure what you are babbling about when it comes to that last paragraph, but I know it doesn't make much sense logically or historically. Wars increase the speed at which technology comes into existence because both sides are COMPETING for the edge in that war. This competition is what drives AMERICAN society. Capitalism is competition in the free market for money and power. War is competition in the world for money and power. War is productive, thats why so many advances were made. Capitalism is productive, thats why so many advances have been made.

I hope that during this post, you come to understand that you were neither logical or intelligent in your previous post. Stop making assumptions about foreign societies, stop making poor logical connections, and stop posting without proof reading your post.

Oh, and stop being so arrogant when your post gives you no reason to be.

Originally posted by infolurker
Being in the US, I always base comparisons of "working" or "failed" social policies on Canada, UK, & Australia/NZ since these are the people that I communicate with well since we share a common language. When it comes to gun control, I haven't seen an advantage of disarming the public when it comes to crime.

Here you go, direct from Wikipedia.

The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[7] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[8]

By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The murder rate dipped below 6 for the first time since 1966 in 2004. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3.[6]

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[9]

Our homicide rate per capita is WAY lower than yours.
Your country has always had more than 3 times the murder rate ours has per capita.
You have the guns, we have the gun laws.

Clearly it's not a failed system.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by johnsky]

reply to post by johnsky


I don't think that is a very accurate response. Here in the US, we have many gun laws, just not very many FEDERAL gun laws. Here in NJ, I need a firearms ID card to purchase any rifle or shotgun. On top of that, I need a pistol permit, and be at least 21, to buy a handgun. That permit is good for 1 pistol and lasts 6 months. You must be 21 and have a firearms ID card to purchase any ammo that can fit into a handgun.

Guess what? In this same state, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, we are home to one of the murder capitals of the united states. Camden, New Jersey. In 2004, this city of roughly 80,000 people hit 49 homocides in 1 year. Safe to assume, the gun laws didn't work.


query.nytimes.com...
Some things never change.

Murderers stopped caring about laws long before they decided to get a gun. Gun laws won't EVER get guns off the street. The idea behind Gun laws is that if there are less guns sold, there are less illegal guns. Not true. Gun runners can transport them over the border. Illegal gun makers exist all over the country.

You know what exists in cities that doesn't exist in these rural areas? Gangs. Gangs are the same reason some of the smaller cities in my area are suddenly experiencing homocides. Gang members going into a rival gangs home and shooting anyone inside. If the gun hadn't jammed, that single homocide would have been a triple homocide.

How bad is gang violence in canada?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by johnsky



I have always thought something similar with old people and drving, and t have tests more frequently. The problem is the precedent this sets. Firstit's old people, then it's the poor and the races we don't want arming themselves. or at least that is the argumentou are going to get form a lot of people.

I do agree that ayone wanting to buy a gun should have some sort of quick few minute test to make sure they are aware and not drunk/crazy when purchasing.

Yes, I know those tests can be messed with and you can do what youw antth the answers. If youa re smart enough to pass the test and give the answers they want to hear, you are not crazy, you are a sociopah, there is a difference.(we only hurt people on purpose, not cause we think they are toast or something.)


[edit on 12/8/2008 by Finn1916]

Edit: Nevermind, I'm not even going to touch this one.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]