This is so beautiful and I want one so badly:

A US company claims to have received federal approval to market a 9-mm handgun as a medical device and hopes the US government will reimburse seniors who buy the $300 firearm. But the US Food and Drug Administration says there are currently no formal designations of the gun as a medical device.

Called the Palm Pistol, the weapon is designed for people who have trouble firing a normal handgun due to arthritis and other debilitating conditions.

"It's something that they need to assist them in daily living," says Matthew Carmel, president of Constitution Arms in Maplewood, New Jersey, which hopes to manufacture the Palm Pistol - now just a patent and specifications.

"The justification for this would be no more or less for a [walking aid] or wheelchair, or any number of things that are medical devices," he says.

The sales information reads: "It is also ideal for seniors, disabled or others who may have limited strength or manual dexterity. Using the thumb instead of the index finger for firing, it significantly reduces muzzle drift, one of the principal causes of inaccurate targeting. Point and shoot couldn't be easier."

Constitutional Arms informed a medical technology blog that the FDA had approved the Palm Pistol as a medical device, classifying it as a "Daily Activity Assist Device".

The company reportedly said that they are now seeking a Durable Medical Equipment coding for the gun, which if awarded would allow it to be prescribed and reimbursement paid through Medicare or private health insurance.

rest of article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16207

This is so beautiful and I want one so badly:

rest of article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16207

Thank god the chances of it happening are low. "Daily living", my ass. Dude's a greedy prick.

gun classified as a medical device

This comes as no shock to me, I've been performing surgery with bullets for years ;) .

This comes as no shock to me, I've been performing surgery with bullets for years ;) .
I approve. :)

Thank god the chances of it happening are low. "Daily living", my ass. Dude's a greedy prick.

Protecting one's self from society's unwholesome elements most certainly is "daily living"

That "gun" is gay as fuck.

Protecting one's self from society's unwholesome elements most certainly is "daily living"

I'm sorry, but how many old folks do you know are actually living hard street life, where it really IS part of daily living. I have a hard time believing that you're stupid enough to think it's part of normal daily life. Honestly, you think having an easier to use gun makes an arthritic ailing old person a match for those unwholesome elements, even on the off chance they had anything that person wanted?

"hey look, he's got a gun, lol."
*beats up old man and pawns it for 50 bucks*

I'm sorry, but how many old folks do you know are actually living hard street life, where it really IS part of daily living. I have a hard time believing that you're stupid enough to think it's part of normal daily life. Honestly, you think having an easier to use gun makes an arthritic ailing old person a match for those unwholesome elements, even on the off chance they had anything that person wanted?

"hey look, he's got a gun, lol."
*beats up old man and pawns it for 50 bucks*

Its a possibility no matter where you live, and you're a retard if you think otherwise.

Plus, just because none of your upscale living-home grandparents have to face this stuff, doesn't mean elderly all over the country don't.

I'm sorry, but how many old folks do you know are actually living hard street life, where it really IS part of daily living. I have a hard time believing that you're stupid enough to think it's part of normal daily life. Honestly, you think having an easier to use gun makes an arthritic ailing old person a match for those unwholesome elements, even on the off chance they had anything that person wanted?

"hey look, he's got a gun, lol."
*beats up old man and pawns it for 50 bucks*
I don't know where you're from but in my city a fairly large percentage of the elderly population live in unsavory areas that were essentially turned into ghettos starting in the late sixties. And to suggest that the elderly can't handle a firearm is simply insulting. Obviously you've never been to the range.

Its a possibility no matter where you live, and you're a retard if you think otherwise.

There's a difference between possibility, and daily living, and you're a retard if you think otherwise. If you base your entire life on possibilities, you will end up a fear-cripped shell.

Plus, just because none of your upscale living-home grandparents have to face this stuff, doesn't mean elderly all over the country don't.

Yeah, I'm sure my grandparents would appreciate an upscale retirement home, but as it is, they have to settle for assisted living on one side of the family, and living at home in the other side.

Yes, I know that life really isn't so simple that one can just pretend that crime against the elderly doesn't exist. However, that isn't the same thing as a medical issue and any dumb motherfucker who thinks that taxpayers owe them a living (and I am talking about the gun dealer who wants medicare to cover his bills) because he can find a way to vaguely relate the use of his product to "medical use" needs to shut the fuck up.

Because yeah, while it may happen, it's not standard daily living, and it has nothing the fuck whatsoever to do with helping someone medically, and instead is damned likely to create more problems, like when some elderly fucker thinks he's handy with a gun and gets himself hurt, or even better, hurts someone else.

I don't know where you're from but in my city a fairly large percentage of the elderly population live in unsavory areas that were essentially turned into ghettos starting in the late sixties. And to suggest that the elderly can't handle a firearm is simply insulting. Obviously you've never been to the range.

Who said the elderly in general couldn't handle a firearm? This product is marketed to people who're arthritic, who can't handle it as well as others. Do you believe that having this weapon not only counters the arthritis, but also the other shortcomings of old age, reflex, and otherwise? Do you think it's really that good an idea to present this as a safety item when it isn't? It sure as FUCK isn't healing someone.

Also, let's not pretend that shooting at a target on the range is ANYTHING like getting mugged, robbed or attacked. This would make you ignorant, and the kind of fool who probably shouldn't be owning any kind of weapon in the first place.

One has to make the distinction between sufficient and necessary causes. Someone serving a high risk warrant can't do so effectively unless they shoot well at the range as well as in a shoot house. Just because you're a great Olympic shooter doesn't mean you'll be able to go snipe Al-Sadr in the streets of Sadr City.

Plenty of elderly people shoot and kill younger individuals all the time. I'm all for improvements in ergonomics in handguns, however I think getting medicare/medicaid approval for a firearm is extremely silly. That said, I'm so amused, I passively support it.

There's a difference between possibility, and daily living, and you're a retard if you think otherwise. If you base your entire life on possibilities, you will end up a fear-cripped shell.




Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of your seat belts and life insurance.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of your seat belts and life insurance.

Confirmed bus-rider and life insurance is a rip-off. Try again with the assumptions, you're still failing.

And no, I'm not some asshole kid trying to pretend I know the real world. Taxpaying adult who knows what life is like, who likes guns, likes what they have to offer, and thinks you might just hear a little better if you remove your head from your ass.

Assuming you know anything about me just because I disagree with you is asinine. I understand perfectly well that there are low-income neighborhoods, poor neighborhoods, trash neighborhoods where a lack of safety is a part of daily life. That doesn't mean I think we should contribute to making it worse by giving them more guns. That's fucking idiocy, and doesn't take into account that in many of those places, guns are readily available.

Yet you want to pretend they're really going to make the poor old folks safer than they are? That they're really a HEALTH promoting advice? Don't be ridiculous.

That doesn't mean I think we should contribute to making it worse by giving them more guns. That's fucking idiocy, and doesn't take into account that in many of those places, guns are readily available.

I disagree with you here. Adding more guns does not necessarily make a situation worse. That's an assumption in my opinion.

If the criminals already have firearms, I see no harm in giving law-abiding elderly citizens the same tools.

Also, the ready availability of firearms is not relevant to law-abiding citizens as many of those firearms are not necessarily legal in those areas.

I see no problem in allowing disabled, or at the very least inconvenienced law-abiding citizens with a background check to have the ability to purchase new, warrantied, and "clean" weapons to defend themselves as is their Constitutional right.

I disagree with you here. Adding more guns does not necessarily make a situation worse. That's an assumption in my opinion.

It's an assumption to say that it makes it better. When you don't know the answer, you study it. Not throw money, guns or what the fuck ever else at it and hope it doesn't get worse.

If the criminals already have firearms, I see no harm in giving law-abiding elderly citizens the same tools.

I have no issue with them owning said guns. I do take major issue with pretending it's a health issue and demanding we pay for some greedy motherfucker to turn this into a market.

Also, the ready availability of firearms is not relevant to law-abiding citizens as many of those firearms are not necessarily legal in those areas.

For it to be given to those people, it must be legalized. If that's the problem, then legalize the fucking gun and let them buy it if they can afford it.

I see no problem in allowing disabled, or at the very least inconvenienced law-abiding citizens with a background check to have the ability to purchase new, warrantied, and "clean" weapons to defend themselves as is their Constitutional right.

I have no problem with that either, but then this issue isn't about allowing them to own one, it's about demanding everyone else pay for it so they can have one.

It's an assumption to say that it makes it better. When you don't know the answer, you study it. Not throw money, guns or what the fuck ever else at it and hope it doesn't get worse.


However, I never claimed it would make it "better" if you take "better" to mean there would be less crime. It would be more equitable, and wouldn't infringe upon Constitutional rights.

I have "studied" the effects of firearms concentrations and crime rates, and I have found no correlation yet. Of course, I use the term "study" liberally as I have a job and have really only talked with and read reports based on those who actually have studied this in great detail instead of just using police department crime statistics on the weekends like I do.


I have no issue with them owning said guns. I do take major issue with pretending it's a health issue and demanding we pay for some greedy motherfucker to turn this into a market.
Then we both agree on owning firearms, and can probably both agree medicare for guns is silly.


For it to be given to those people, it must be legalized. If that's the problem, then legalize the fucking gun and let them buy it if they can afford it.
The issue here is that to be legal, the firearms must not be stolen, etc. Most criminals statistically use stolen weapons, so in a crime-laden neighborhood, most firearms being sold in that neighborhood instead of in a gun store are at least suspect. In that case, it would be much better to just get one at the store that's either been run through a LEIN or is brand new.

And I agree with you that I think weapons should be legalized and then left up to the purchaser to buy. I donate enough to charities who feed/clothe people.



I have no problem with that either, but then this issue isn't about allowing them to own one, it's about demanding everyone else pay for it so they can have one.
Alright. The whole "That doesn't mean I think we should contribute to making it worse by giving them more guns." thing kind of gave me the impression you were operating on what I believe to be false assumption that more guns equates to more crime.

It's an assumption to say that it makes it better. When you don't know the answer, you study it. Not throw money, guns or what the fuck ever else at it and hope it doesn't get worse.



I have no issue with them owning said guns. I do take major issue with pretending it's a health issue and demanding we pay for some greedy motherfucker to turn this into a market.



For it to be given to those people, it must be legalized. If that's the problem, then legalize the fucking gun and let them buy it if they can afford it.



I have no problem with that either, but then this issue isn't about allowing them to own one, it's about demanding everyone else pay for it so they can have one.

We already pay for a group of people to get guns and drugs to commit crimes. Their called street niggers (not to be confused with law abiding blacks) and you support them.

Just to make my position clear, I wasn't necessarily supporting medicare covering this(for that matter I don't necessarily support medicare at all). I just took issue with the fact that you were suggesting that protecting yourself shouldn't be considered a necessary part of your daily life.

I stopped reading half way through because I have to leave fast. So the only thing I have to say is there are plenty of rich old people out there, I don't mean MILLIONAIRE rich but rich thanks to retirement and not having many bills and are easy targets for muggers. When I used to bank on the other side of town EVERY week there was this one old dude that I assume owned his own buisiness that ALWAYS went in and got at least $10,000-100,000 out from cashed checks. This dude was at least 60years of age, and even though he was unarmed he damn well should of been because that much money was tempting for me to kick his ass and im very law abiding citizen but old people look like easy targets. So the point is old people look like they make easy targets so if you give them guns then less people will think they are easy targets.

We already pay for a group of people to get guns and drugs to commit crimes. Their called street niggers (not to be confused with law abiding blacks) and you support them.

If you're talking about welfare leeches, I don't "support" them. I'd just soon they be taken off the roles, but what's done is done, and that's a broken system in need of fixing. I only "support" them in that I pay my taxes, and that's it.

I assume that's what you mean by street niggers, because I have no idea what the fuck else you could be talking about. Understand that paying my taxes doesn't mean support for everything they're used for. There ARE plenty of worthy programs in effect.

However, I never claimed it would make it "better" if you take "better" to mean there would be less crime. It would be more equitable, and wouldn't infringe upon Constitutional rights.

The idea that this tool is presenting is that he is making seniors safer by giving them his product. That directly implies a correlation that you've pointed out doesn't exist.

I agree that it is unlikely to improve or make the matter worse in any significant way, and THAT is more than enough reason not to blow taxpayer dollars on it.

Then we both agree on owning firearms, and can probably both agree medicare for guns is silly.

Oh yes, I believe strongly in the right to bear arms. This garbage, however, I would say goes beyond silly and into the realm of dishonest. It also reeks of a disgusting entitlement attitude that's way too prevalent these days.

The issue here is that to be legal, the firearms must not be stolen, etc. Most criminals statistically use stolen weapons, so in a crime-laden neighborhood, most firearms being sold in that neighborhood instead of in a gun store are at least suspect. In that case, it would be much better to just get one at the store that's either been run through a LEIN or is brand new.

I am sure there are issues in legalizing it, but since those are issues that arent going to go away even if it became a medicare item, the point is moot. I'm not sure I'd care even if it DID make it easier.

And I agree with you that I think weapons should be legalized and then left up to the purchaser to buy. I donate enough to charities who feed/clothe people.

Aye, and we also have taxes to that end. I've no problem with that. As a society we help those that can't help themselves,and unfortunately a few welfare leeching assholes as well.

There are other issues there, but I'm not goint to open them up in this thread.

Alright. The whole "That doesn't mean I think we should contribute to making it worse by giving them more guns." thing kind of gave me the impression you were operating on what I believe to be false assumption that more guns equates to more crime.

Oh no, definitely no. What I have issue against is the idea that guns are magic bullet that makes people safer and less prone to crime and violence.

We seem to basically agree on most issues, but I still disagree with a couple minor points. They're not really worth arguing over, but I'd like to clarify my views. The idea that this tool is presenting is that he is making seniors safer by giving them his product. That directly implies a correlation that you've pointed out doesn't exist.

Neither of us know for a fact it doesn't exist; I just haven't found there to be such a correlation in general. I've seen numerous crimes prevented by the brandishing of weapons, and that has in fact made individuals safer.




I am sure there are issues in legalizing it, but since those are issues that arent going to go away even if it became a medicare item, the point is moot. I'm not sure I'd care even if it DID make it easier.

They would go away to an extent as medicare would supplement payments towards a new firearm with a clean history. I don't think it's the proper solution, but it is a solution.

I am a noob at guns, having only ever owned a measly victor .22 pistol. Can someone be kind enough to explain to me what a LEIN is?

Law Enforcement Information Network. You can run a search for police reports on stolen firearms from a PDT or MDT. They're a police thing. If it's a stolen gun, it theoretically shows up because the serial number was recorded and is in the local system.

So it is a computer program that database all of the serial number that were input? does every state have an individual one or is the one nationwide database?
So every PD has this LEIN thing in effect?

Don't worry about it.

You guys sound like you might benefit from male enlargement therapy.

Do you think it's really that good an idea to present this as a safety item when it isn't?

How isn't it a safety item?

What are firearms then?

How isn't it a safety item?

What are firearms then?

Having one doesn't make you safe. The idea that it does is ridiculous. It -does- give you the means to defend yourself, but even then, that defense is limited.

To answer your question, what are firearms?

A tool with many different uses.

At first when i read this, i thought it would be cool, but god damn, that thing is gayer than rickie martin in a pink jumpsuit.

I'm sorry, but how many old folks do you know are actually living hard street life, where it really IS part of daily living. I have a hard time believing that you're stupid enough to think it's part of normal daily life. Honestly, you think having an easier to use gun makes an arthritic ailing old person a match for those unwholesome elements, even on the off chance they had anything that person wanted?

"hey look, he's got a gun, lol."
*beats up old man and pawns it for 50 bucks*

You're a total dickhead with no respect for self-defense.

You're a total dickhead with no respect for self-defense.

You're a total dickhead who overestimates the power of having a weapon in self-defense. They have a role, yes, but they are not the fucking magic pill to save you from a robbery, mugging, or beating. That attitude is an embarassment to the respect that weapons deserve.

I'm sorry, but how many old folks do you know are actually living hard street life, where it really IS part of daily living. I have a hard time believing that you're stupid enough to think it's part of normal daily life. Honestly, you think having an easier to use gun makes an arthritic ailing old person a match for those unwholesome elements, even on the off chance they had anything that person wanted?

"hey look, he's got a gun, lol."
*beats up old man and pawns it for 50 bucks*

That is not the point. I am not sure how it is in your city. But in mine you hear about elderly getting homeinvaded and robbed almost weekly. Some of them are murdered.criminals pray on the elderly bbecause they are weak. A weapon like that would be a wonderful idea for those who cant handle a traditional hand gun as well. Just like some youger people carry a firearm for protection in their daily life, why cant the elderly protect themselves also? you reall ysound like an asshole dude. why should elderly not be able to defend themselves? if i am staring down the barrel of a firearm(im not a criminal but) I dont care if the dude is old, i am not going to try and pull anything and get my ass shot.

the fact of the matter is that elderly are more likely to be robbed than younger people and that is why it is a part of their daily life to carry a gun.

That is not the point. I am not sure how it is in your city. But in mine you hear about elderly getting homeinvaded and robbed almost weekly. Some of them are murdered.criminals pray on the elderly bbecause they are weak. A weapon like that would be a wonderful idea for those who cant handle a traditional hand gun as well. Just like some youger people carry a firearm for protection in their daily life, why cant the elderly protect themselves also? you reall ysound like an asshole dude. why should elderly not be able to defend themselves? if i am staring down the barrel of a firearm(im not a criminal but) I dont care if the dude is old, i am not going to try and pull anything and get my ass shot.

the fact of the matter is that elderly are more likely to be robbed than younger people and that is why it is a part of their daily life to carry a gun.

You know what's assholish? Not reading my previous posts before calling me down for something.

I have nothing against the elderly having weapons. Nowhere in here have I argued that they shouldn't have weapons, hell, even weapons specially suited so they can use them. That's FINE. What I object to is paying for it with taxes, especially on the bullshit excuse that it's medical coverage.

You're a total dickhead who overestimates the power of having a weapon in self-defense. They have a role, yes, but they are not the fucking magic pill to save you from a robbery, mugging, or beating. That attitude is an embarassment to the respect that weapons deserve.

Indeed.

However what other options do seniors have when it comes to self defense?

I surely wouldn't expect anyone's grand parents to go hand to hand with an attacker.

Indeed.

However what other options do seniors have when it comes to self defense?

I surely wouldn't expect anyone's grand parents to go hand to hand with an attacker.

Robbery/Mugging: Option - Give them what they want, or go out and buy your own gun. If you can't afford it, sorry, but it sucks to be you. Make do with what you got.

Beating: Option - Take it and hope you survive. Pulling a gun in that situation is a mistake. You're upping the stakes.

Robbery/Mugging: Option - Give them what they want, or go out and buy your own gun. If you can't afford it, sorry, but it sucks to be you. Make do with what you got.

Beating: Option - Take it and hope you survive. Pulling a gun in that situation is a mistake. You're upping the stakes.

People on a fixed incomeor living on savings dont have all this money to throw around on guns.

Not knocking the idea but it seems like hes just in it for the money.

Not knocking the idea but it seems like hes just in it for the money.
serioulsly this is capitalism, who isnt in it for the money?

People on a fixed incomeor living on savings dont have all this money to throw around on guns.

Then they don't get a gun. That fucking simple.

Then they don't get a gun. That fucking simple.

well they do if taxes pay for it, that fucking simple.

well they do if taxes pay for it, that fucking simple.

No shiiiiit, Sherlock. The point here is that if they can't afford it, they don't get it, because we -shouldn't- be paying for that, especially not on some bullshit excuse like medical expense.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence with some "durr" definition style point.

No shiiiiit, Sherlock. The point here is that if they can't afford it, they don't get it, because we -shouldn't- be paying for that, especially not on some bullshit excuse like medical expense.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence with some "durr" definition style point.

it is a ligitimate thing to be paid for by taxes. You could divert a few hudred million of that bail out money for the crooks they call businesses to pay for it. i would rather it goto that than giving those crooks more money to line their pockets.

Damn you ilovechronic, I was just gonna post about these people bitching about paying for a $300 gun, when we're already paying at minimum a $700 billion dollar bailout, along with lots of other things, if you wanna bitch about somebody only doing shit for the money, and then extorting it, why don't you complain about the patents on drugs, there are prescriptions that easily cost more than $300 a month, and drug companies not only have 10 year (?) patents, but it seems like half the time, they get these extended. The idea of this isn't really that bad, if we can get the government to recognize guns are a necessity, even better, might lead to less regulation. Further, now that it's recognized as a schedule 1 device, someone will see this guy's doing this, and getting decent money, and improve on the design, and do the exact same thing, and then there's competition b/c one would be cheaper to undercut the other, or one would be better. This is easy to improve upon the design, and if it's 10% change I believe they can get their own patent, which unlike drugs is much easier to do without changing the mechanism of operation. I however agree with you, that there is too much of this I deserve it attitude, and I am against the whole principal of giving people stuff, when they haven't earned it, unfortunately, that's the system, and we have to work to change it or accept it.

Damn you ilovechronic, I was just gonna post about these people bitching about paying for a $300 gun, when we're already paying at minimum a $700 billion dollar bailout, along with lots of other things, if you wanna bitch about somebody only doing shit for the money, and then extorting it, why don't you complain about the patents on drugs, there are prescriptions that easily cost more than $300 a month, and drug companies not only have 10 year (?) patents, but it seems like half the time, they get these extended. The idea of this isn't really that bad, if we can get the government to recognize guns are a necessity, even better, might lead to less regulation. Further, now that it's recognized as a schedule 1 device, someone will see this guy's doing this, and getting decent money, and improve on the design, and do the exact same thing, and then there's competition b/c one would be cheaper to undercut the other, or one would be better. This is easy to improve upon the design, and if it's 10% change I believe they can get their own patent, which unlike drugs is much easier to do without changing the mechanism of operation. I however agree with you, that there is too much of this I deserve it attitude, and I am against the whole principal of giving people stuff, when they haven't earned it, unfortunately, that's the system, and we have to work to change it or accept it.

haha its true though. I would much rather my tax dollars goto that than line those crooks pockets with MORE money.

You know, with that kind of money we could do what the Swiss do. Issue a rifle to every household, and 100 rounds of ammo, plus maybe 100 rounds for practice, and a shooting course. But no, instead we have to have the government help out companies, drive America into an even larger deficit, and keep alive companies, that are just a drain. Sorry to get off on this topic, but you guys complaining about the leeches, and paying taxes on this, how many of you wrote your reps about the bailout? How many of you have written about the possibility of an additional 15 billion for the automakers, that didn't bother keeping up with competition, didn't bother keeping up with innovation, then were left sitting there pulling there puds, and asking "duh, why are we not selling as many cars?"

it is a ligitimate thing to be paid for by taxes. You could divert a few hudred million of that bail out money for the crooks they call businesses to pay for it. i would rather it goto that than giving those crooks more money to line their pockets.

Dude, fuck that. It's a waste of money for bailout purposes, and it's a waste of money to buy somebody who wants to "feel safe" their own gun. Businesses should fail or succeed on their own merits, and the people that want guns should either afford them or shut the fuck up with this leechish attitude about how we should pay for them to have them.

It's nothing but greed on the part of the salesman, expecting the taxpayer to fund his gun business. No more legitimate than handing it to the ridiculous morons that can't run their own big businesses.

Dude, fuck that. It's a waste of money for bailout purposes, and it's a waste of money to buy somebody who wants to "feel safe" their own gun. Businesses should fail or succeed on their own merits, and the people that want guns should either afford them or shut the fuck up with this leechish attitude about how we should pay for them to have them.

It's nothing but greed on the part of the salesman, expecting the taxpayer to fund his gun business. No more legitimate than handing it to the ridiculous morons that can't run their own big businesses.

How do you know it is about greed? Sure, he wants to make money. That is capitalism, noone does this stuff for free. You are making BIG asumptions about this guy and you don't know his motives behind doing this. But if taxes do not pay for it do you think that is going to stop him? probably not. The government gives grants all the time for useless shit that benefits NOBODY. If you want to bitch about it and call him greedy, bitch to HIM not me dude. My point was that it is a good idea and the elderly deserve it.
They have payed taxes all their lives, why cant they see something in return to protect themselves? You have paid jakshit compared to the average elderly person, who are you to say they shouldn't get something like that. Who is really trhe one greedy one here, the guy who is bitching and moaning about tax money that is going to be spent anyway. it is not like that money will end up back in YOUR pocket dude. It will just get spent on some other useless thing that does not work. All i was saying is that the money that is going to be WASTED anyway on these failing businesses could be used towards something that is beneficial to a pretty large portion of the population.
The bottom line is it is a great idea whether taxes pay for it or not is notimportant. What's important is this product can pontentially save many lives and prevent many predatory crimes that happen to the elderly.
havent you ever heard the saying "respect your elders?" Because you seriously need to start having some respect for them!

How do you know it is about greed? Sure, he wants to make money. That is capitalism, noone does this stuff for free.

Oh sure, that's capitalism... until you start expecting the taxpayer to fund it, at which point it is no longer competing in the market, but a free ride. They don't have to compete, and have guaranteed customers, because the people who want them are getting them for "free".

You are making BIG asumptions about this guy and you don't know his motives behind doing this.

It's a conclusion based on his action, not an assumption. He wants to start a business, he can get in the market and compete against other gun businesses like a real business.

But if taxes do not pay for it do you think that is going to stop him? probably not.

Not a problem at all. He can be a good little business and compete like everyone else, rather than getting a free ride.

My point was that it is a good idea and the elderly deserve it. They have payed taxes all their lives, why cant they see something in return to protect themselves?

They get social security, and the benefit of every other program geared to them out there. They "deserve" more? Bullshit, we can barely afford what we're doing, and soon we won't be able to afford even that much. Yet you want to blow another wad?

You have paid jakshit compared to the average elderly person, who are you to say they shouldn't get something like that.

Hey, fuck you, I'm an equal contributor to the system. I have the same "say" every other fucking taxpayer has. And it's fucking ridiculous to sit there and imply that all the people who benefit from something should have a say in whether they get it or not.

Who is really trhe one greedy one here, the guy who is bitching and moaning about tax money that is going to be spent anyway. it is not like that money will end up back in YOUR pocket dude.

That's right. It doesn't end up in my pocket. So how am I greedy? Don't talk shit you can't back.

It will just get spent on some other useless thing that does not work. All i was saying is that the money that is going to be WASTED anyway on these failing businesses could be used towards something that is beneficial to a pretty large portion of the population.

It'll get wasted elsewhere, so let's waste more? That's the same sort of sick thinking that drives the dumbfucks in office. "Hey, everyone else is doing it, we might as well bankrupt the country even further, haha!" Fucking asinine.

The bottom line is it is a great idea whether taxes pay for it or not is notimportant. What's important is this product can pontentially save many lives and prevent many predatory crimes that happen to the elderly.

It also may take lives, and cause more violence. That's why it's a horrible idea, because you have no facts to prove it one way or the other. It has benefits, good ones, and downsides that are outright horrible. Not to mention being absolute waste.

havent you ever heard the saying "respect your elders?" Because you seriously need to start having some respect for them!

Respect is earned. You don't earn respect just for being old. That's fucking moronic, and that phrase is one of the dumbest pieces of shit ever invented. Should I respect some racist vile asshole just because he happens to be old? Of course not. Age means shit.

blah blah blah.
dude, do you seriously have to fucking break it down and respond to every word I say? just fucking qoute what i said and give me your response in a paragraph.
Oh sure, that's capitalism... until you start expecting the taxpayer to fund it, at which point it is no longer competing in the market, but a free ride. They don't have to compete, and have guaranteed customers, because the people who want them are getting them for "free".
It's a conclusion based on his action, not an assumption. He wants to start a business, he can get in the market and compete against other gun businesses like a real business.
Not a problem at all. He can be a good little business and compete like everyone else, rather than getting a free ride.
They get social security, and the benefit of every other program geared to them out there. They "deserve" more? Bullshit, we can barely afford what we're doing, and soon we won't be able to afford even that much. Yet you want to blow another wad?
Hey, fuck you, I'm an equal contributor to the system. I have the same "say" every other fucking taxpayer has. And it's fucking ridiculous to sit there and imply that all the people who benefit from something should have a say in whether they get it or not. That's right. It doesn't end up in my pocket. So how am I greedy? Don't talk shit you can't back.
It'll get wasted elsewhere, so let's waste more? That's the same sort of sick thinking that drives the dumbfucks in office. "Hey, everyone else is doing it, we might as well bankrupt the country even further, haha!" Fucking asinine. It also may take lives, and cause more violence. That's why it's a horrible idea, because you have no facts to prove it one way or the other. It has benefits, good ones, and downsides that are outright horrible. Not to mention being absolute waste. Respect is earned. You don't earn respect just for being old. That's fucking moronic, and that phrase is one of the dumbest pieces of shit ever invented. Should I respect some racist vile asshole just because he happens to be old? Of course not. Age means shit.is that sof ucking hard dude? jesus. lol at wasting your time! have a nice evening. and I wasnt saying you don't contribute to the system. i said you are not an equal contributor compared to someone who has paid taxes for 55-90 years. i never suggested wasting more money dude. i only suggested you could take some of the money that is GOING to be wasted and use it for SOMETHING GOOD. "it may also take lives" are you really pointing out something that obvious? That is a point of a FIREARM(deadly weapon) sherlock. "Should i respect some racist vile asshole?" now you are just stereotyping/generalizing a bunch of people into one group of "racist vile assholes." that goes back to that respect thing dude. your post made it clear you have no respect for the elderly in general and that is what i was saying. You think "they are just going to die anyway" so they don't matter. Well they do matter and they have just as much right to protect themselves from criminals as any young person.
you sir are the one who is a prejudice vile asshole. prejudice against the elderly apparently. maybe you are scared that you will be in their position one day, i dontknow. what i do know is i am done arguing with you. You are the greedy asshole. if you are so concerned about your tax dollars being wasted then why are you paying them? if you want to bitch about this guy get his contact information and BITCH TO HIM. if you want to bitch about your tax dollars getting wasted, BITCH TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, I however am done. Have a goodnight.

snipped

As for quoting, it's a habit. That's my style of posting. Want me to use a different style? Simply ask.

As for the rest, the amount one person contributes in taxes has no relevance to the amount another contributes as far as their say goes. If that were true, those companies who already get more than their fair share of say would have the RIGHT to it, instead of it just being exploitation. Those elderly aren't being cheated, they have a say, and they get benefits back on all the taxes they paid.

You suggest that taking lives with a firearm is a good thing. The fuck is wrong with you? The point of a firearm for the elderly is so that they can defend themselves if need be, a threat of force. Self-defense may be a good thing, taking lives is not, even when it's in self-defense. Justified in extreme cases, yes. Good? No. Causing someone to get beaten and robbed of their gun? Even worse.

You seem to believe that if I don't support this idea that they deserve weapons just for being old, I'm disrespecting them. That's fucking stupid, and I think you know that. Yes, they DO have a right to carry a weapon, as much of a right as any young person. They don't have a RIGHT to demand I pay for that weapon.

What it boils down to is that you are a idiot, you continue to suggest that I am a greedy asshole, yet I do not benefit from this no matter what happens. Do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever, or do you just assume that anyone who has a stance opposite your own is the devil? Seriously, fuck off it.

This is an on-line argument. There is no point in taking it to my representative, when my representative isn't stupid enough to support this idea, and no point in me chastisting the greedy fuckhead who thinks I should pay for his business. You want to step in and talk shit, then do it, but spare this pussy bullcrap where you start whining about how I should whine to them.

I'm not whining. I'm pointing out what's wrong with the idea, what's wrong with the people who want to do it, countering arguments and trying to explain that to you, but you're too gutless to accept a contrary viewpoint.

As for quoting, it's a habit. That's my style of posting. Want me to use a different style? Simply ask.

As for the rest, the amount one person contributes in taxes has no relevance to the amount another contributes as far as their say goes. If that were true, those companies who already get more than their fair share of say would have the RIGHT to it, instead of it just being exploitation. Those elderly aren't being cheated, they have a say, and they get benefits back on all the taxes they paid.

You suggest that taking lives with a firearm is a good thing. The fuck is wrong with you? The point of a firearm for the elderly is so that they can defend themselves if need be, a threat of force. Self-defense may be a good thing, taking lives is not, even when it's in self-defense. Justified in extreme cases, yes. Good? No. Causing someone to get beaten and robbed of their gun? Even worse.





.
I never said taking a life is a good thing, you are putting words in my brain now. I SAID THAT FIREARMS TAKE LIVES ,THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE MADE FOR. I didn't say I like it, but it is a necessary thing sometimes, kill or be killed. After all whos lives are you defending, killers, rapists, armed robbers not the honest citizens that contribute to society. these criminals dont contribute they do the opposite they take from society and prey on society.

If someone is beaten and robbed of their gun then they did not feel threatend enough to to use lethal force, so they shouldn't have produced a gun in the first place. You are just going into scenarios and what ifs now dude. An elderly person is just as capable to defend themselves with a firearm as anyone else given they have a firearm that is modified for their disabilities. thats what this is about. Maybe they could be trained in the use of the firearm as a condition of receiving it.

If you want to be a little greedy person and support the country going broke paying for big businesses to last a little longer and then fail, that is FINE. But i would rather some of that money that is going to be wasted on failing companies goto something good and beneficial. Lives may be lost which are criminals lives, they chose that profession so they have to accept the risks and consequences that come with their profession which is DEATH at the hands of a ligitimate citizen defending themselves. If it doesnt have an effect on you either way then why do you care so much? This is going to help a large portion of the population.

I am sure wwhen you get old you will want a defensive weapon also. Then you will be wishing you supported this because you are stuck on a fixed income and can't afford it.

i understand you have a stance opposite of mine dude, as this is why i tried to end this argument 2 posts ago. Yet you keep trying to change MY OPINION about it. I never said that my OPINION was absolute fact, it is an OPINION! I told you that i don't care if you don't like it but this is beneficial to society, utilitarian nature, it does good for the people of this society as a whole. It does not benefit criminals yes but they are not contributors to this society. They are takers from this society only they do not give back.
And when did i say your argument was wrong or the devil, I was simply stating I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT OR STANCE.
Our representative support some pretty useless shit so you may want to contact whoever may concern about the issue and give them YOUR OPINION on the matter.
So let me get this straight, your arguments are:
-your tax dollars may or may not pay for it.
-criminals may get killed by the guns

yet I do not benefit from this no matter what happens. Do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever

Wow, you first claimed not to be a greedy asshole, then you put this line up, however, I would definitely disagree with this. The FDA approved this as a medical device, IF medicare decides to allow people to apply for them, then your tax dollars may fund them, however, insurance companies would also start paying for them. So many old people will get them through their insurance. Further, if you ever became arthritic to the point of being unable to use a trigger, you could get one. If you developed a muscular or any other disease that didn't allow you to pull a trigger you could get one and benefit. So it could benefit you, maybe not right at this moment, but you should consider the future. Further, this means maybe insurance companies will start buying guns as part of a daily necessity, which means I need a lower premium and A LOT more coverage. :P

Wow, I just realized, weren't you the one bitching about the attitude of I deserve this. Well this idea of the benefit ME NOW! Goes along with it, it seems like you have a problem with other people getting something that you don't get, but you're more than happy to get something no one else gets.

Wow, you first claimed not to be a greedy asshole, then you put this line up, however, I would definitely disagree with this.

The reason I pointed that out was to make him understand that I have nothing to gain or to lose from the elderly getting guns. He wants to ascribe some sort of personal agenda to why (he thinks) I'm hating on the poor old elderly. None exists. I object because I believe that it is a waste of money, yields as much harm as benefit and so on.

Further, if you ever became arthritic to the point of being unable to use a trigger, you could get one. If you developed a muscular or any other disease that didn't allow you to pull a trigger you could get one and benefit. So it could benefit you, maybe not right at this moment, but you should consider the future.

Sure, and if I ever feel the need to carry a firearm for self-defense, I'll buy one.

Wow, I just realized, weren't you the one bitching about the attitude of I deserve this. Well this idea of the benefit ME NOW! Goes along with it, it seems like you have a problem with other people getting something that you don't get, but you're more than happy to get something no one else gets.

No, not at all. After all, everyone gets old someday. I'd "benefit" as much as they do from it. The problem I have is with the entitlement attitude, people who think that life and everyone else owes them something just for living. It'sa piss-poor attitude.

haha, now i dont have to argue with this dude.

The reason I pointed that out was to make him understand that I have nothing to gain or to lose from the elderly getting guns. He wants to ascribe some sort of personal agenda to why (he thinks) I'm hating on the poor old elderly. None exists. I object because I believe that it is a waste of money, yields as much harm as benefit and so on.

Last I checked they'd only been fda approved, meaning it's not yet medicare/medicaid approved, so there's no guarantee it's going to be funded by tax dollars.


No, not at all. After all, everyone gets old someday. I'd "benefit" as much as they do from it. The problem I have is with the entitlement attitude, people who think that life and everyone else owes them something just for living. It'sa piss-poor attitude.

And your attitude of total selfishness is saint like. But, even so, it's not the attitude of feeling like you deserve something just for living, it's entitled by having paid into medicare/medicaid while working, it's like social security, you get from it because you paid into it, sure there are exceptions but that's generally the case. It might be a waste of money to you, but it's probably not to someone else, so you can't just make a blanket statement that it's a waste of money. Further if it doesn't receive medicare/medicaid approval, it'll probably be bought by insurance companies, which the people don't feel entitled to because they are living, they feel entitled to it because they pay for health insurance. I'll tell you how to not get your money wasted by them, don't buy health insurance, you claimed you didn't have any, didn't you? Also petition the government to get rid of medicare, but that's not gonna happen because the government owes these people money, after they've paid into it for so long. It's not like they're taking your money because it's the old people's fault, it was mismanaging by the government, and I'll tell you what, you wanna start bitching about all the stupid shit they've done, I'll be right there bitching about them too.

Last I checked they'd only been fda approved, meaning it's not yet medicare/medicaid approved, so there's no guarantee it's going to be funded by tax dollars.




And your attitude of total selfishness is saint like. But, even so, it's not the attitude of feeling like you deserve something just for living, it's entitled by having paid into medicare/medicaid while working, it's like social security, you get from it because you paid into it, sure there are exceptions but that's generally the case. It might be a waste of money to you, but it's probably not to someone else, so you can't just make a blanket statement that it's a waste of money. Further if it doesn't receive medicare/medicaid approval, it'll probably be bought by insurance companies, which the people don't feel entitled to because they are living, they feel entitled to it because they pay for health insurance. I'll tell you how to not get your money wasted by them, don't buy health insurance, you claimed you didn't have any, didn't you? Also petition the government to get rid of medicare, but that's not gonna happen because the government owes these people money, after they've paid into it for so long. It's not like they're taking your money because it's the old people's fault, it was mismanaging by the government, and I'll tell you what, you wanna start bitching about all the stupid shit they've done, I'll be right there bitching about them too.i will also.

And your attitude of total selfishness is saint like.

I make no claims to selflessness, anymore than I claim to be selfish. I'm as human as anyone else. The point is, that it's irrelevant to the issue. Attempting to make it about my motivation is nothing but a waste of time.

But, even so, it's not the attitude of feeling like you deserve something just for living, it's entitled by having paid into medicare/medicaid while working, it's like social security, you get from it because you paid into it, sure there are exceptions but that's generally the case.

Er, I was talking about the entitlement attitude being displayed by the gun-seller originally, and expanded that to refer to Chronic's ridiculous attitude that it's somehow owed to them/us. We paid into it... and we get back in the form of what already exists. The idea that we should keep heaping onto that is counter-productive.


It might be a waste of money to you, but it's probably not to someone else, so you can't just make a blanket statement that it's a waste of money.

I'm not making a blanket statement, I applied two (at least I think I got both) arguments to support it.
1. That the system cannot sustain itself, and breaking it sooner by adding shit onto what's already there is wasteful.
2. The the idea of guns as a benefit to society (and yeah, medicare provides benefits to society) is terribly flawed. It has downsides that match the upsides, and ends up being a zero sum, wasting the taxpayer dollars.

Also petition the government to get rid of medicare, but that's not gonna happen because the government owes these people money, after they've paid into it for so long.

A question. Did we already cover (outside of this post) just how broken the medicare system is, and how it's probably destined to fall within our lifetimes, despite what is "owed"?

I'm not arguing that those benefits aren't owed to an extent, but the idea that unlimited benefits are owed and should be heaped on and continue being heaped on is a ridiculous one. That's what it amounts to when you start adding on something with minimal social benefit like this into a worthwhile program.

... snipped for response purposes...

You suggest that the goal is worthwhile, giving them guns, and go on to point out that these people are unworthy of living and that the only reason a person should carry a gun is to kill, not for self defense. This implies it to be a good thing, and if that is not how you feel.... okay, let's assume for a second that you feel it's necessary.

The fuck is wrong with you, how is that necessary? You want to turn a robbery or any crime against another person into a justification to kill. You aren't defending your life unless you know the person is a murderer, you're defending your property or personal safety. No attack on those is a capital crime. You can't even murder someone in self-defense except in extreme cases or states where castle domain exists.

I'm not defending criminals, I'm pointing out the truth and reality of the matter.

My scenarios are based on reality. That's something you need to face - even IF the elderly were granted guns at taxpayer expense, that's not going to change gun laws. You don't have the right to blow someone away for robbing or attacking you unless your life is in danger. My "what-if" scenarios are how the legal system works, your kill or be killed nonsense is not. This isn't the Stone Age.

I don't support the country going broke for big businesses.... or for anyone else either. Our country wastes money left and right like there's no tomorrow, and it's hurting us in a bad way. This means EVERYTHING, not just fixing things a little and hoping it goes away. That's not greed, that's getting your shit in gear and fixing the country. Granted, my opinion means diddly in the grand scheme, but equalizing "fairness" by means of fucking up one's country is downright stupid.

Note, we're talking about me as a taxpayer, not my personal motivations. As a citizen of this country as well as a taxpayer, that DOES effect me.

It's called planning for my future, dude. Don't assume shit about me, just to make some pathetic ass point. I don't carry a weapon now, because I won't need one. If I have reason to believe I'll need one before I can no longer make money for myself, you're damned tooting I'll get it before then.

What i'm doing is arguing your points, as you're not the only one reading it. If you fear that your opinion may be changed, or don't want to continue arguing, then by all means.... stop. Just stop posting. If you have some sort of "last word syndrome", that's your problem, not mine.

As for my arguments, they are actually
- Since it's funded by the government, tax dollars would pay for it. This is wasteful spending, for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere.
- Criminals may get killed by the guns, and elderly may be killed, robbed or beaten simply for having them. Guns are not an equalizer, they don't turn every confrontation into a fair fight. The idea that they do is ignorant and an insult to the idea of carrying a weapon in self-defense.

You suggest that the goal is worthwhile, giving them guns, and go on to point out that these people are unworthy of living and that the only reason a person should carry a gun is to kill, not for self defense. This implies it to be a good thing, and if that is not how you feel.... okay, let's assume for a second that you feel it's necessary.

The fuck is wrong with you, how is that necessary? You want to turn a robbery or any crime against another person into a justification to kill. You aren't defending your life unless you know the person is a murderer, you're defending your property or personal safety. No attack on those is a capital crime. You can't even murder someone in self-defense except in extreme cases or states where castle domain exists.

I'm not defending criminals, I'm pointing out the truth and reality of the matter.

My scenarios are based on reality. That's something you need to face - even IF the elderly were granted guns at taxpayer expense, that's not going to change gun laws. You don't have the right to blow someone away for robbing or attacking you unless your life is in danger. My "what-if" scenarios are how the legal system works, your kill or be killed nonsense is not. This isn't the Stone Age.

I don't support the country going broke for big businesses.... or for anyone else either. Our country wastes money left and right like there's no tomorrow, and it's hurting us in a bad way. This means EVERYTHING, not just fixing things a little and hoping it goes away. That's not greed, that's getting your shit in gear and fixing the country. Granted, my opinion means diddly in the grand scheme, but equalizing "fairness" by means of fucking up one's country is downright stupid.

Note, we're talking about me as a taxpayer, not my personal motivations. As a citizen of this country as well as a taxpayer, that DOES effect me.

It's called planning for my future, dude. Don't assume shit about me, just to make some pathetic ass point. I don't carry a weapon now, because I won't need one. If I have reason to believe I'll need one before I can no longer make money for myself, you're damned tooting I'll get it before then.

What i'm doing is arguing your points, as you're not the only one reading it. If you fear that your opinion may be changed, or don't want to continue arguing, then by all means.... stop. Just stop posting. If you have some sort of "last word syndrome", that's your problem, not mine.

As for my arguments, they are actually
- Since it's funded by the government, tax dollars would pay for it. This is wasteful spending, for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere.
- Criminals may get killed by the guns, and elderly may be killed, robbed or beaten simply for having them. Guns are not an equalizer, they don't turn every confrontation into a fair fight. The idea that they do is ignorant and an insult to the idea of carrying a weapon in self-defense.
I did not say that these people are entitled to these guns, I said that they have paid into taxes for 55-80 years so they could get something back with all that bailout money going to waste for these companies to last another month. Do you honestly think that they get back EVERY PENNY they have paid into the tax system? the other guy makes a good point that insurance would likely pay for it if it were classed as a medical device.

I understand that a gun is for self defense. I only said that guns are designed to kill whether it is used as a defensive tool or offensive tool was irrelavent, my point was it is designed to kill. there is nothing wrong with me either, i understand that a gun should be used for self defense only in a civillian situation. When your life is in imediate danger or in some cases when someone elses life is in dange it can be used. When I was reffering to a robbery or crime i was referring to a armed robbery or violent crime, where typically people are attacked violently. In a situation like that it is justifiable to use lethal force to defend oneself. With the "kill or be killed thing" i was referring to when someones life is in danger once agains. I was assuming you understood when a firearm can be produced and used to defend oneself and that is why I was IMPLYING these things. The justice system does not break it down into what-if scenarios, that is rediculus to think that, if that were the case there would be a million guidelines and combinations of guidelines for defending ones self. That is not the case, there is usually only a few sentences or paragraphs of guidelines to self defense with the use of lethal force.


"It's called planning for my future, dude. Don't assume shit about me, just to make some pathetic ass point. I don't carry a weapon now, because I won't need one. If I have reason to believe I'll need one before I can no longer make money for myself, you're damned tooting I'll get it before then." that is not the point of these firearms, these firearms are for those who cannot use the conventional firearm you may or may not get.


As for my arguments, they are actually
- Since it's funded by the government, tax dollars would pay for it. This is wasteful spending, for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere.

I have pointed that there is much more wasteful spending to worry about. And that is your OPINION that it is wasteful spending because it does not benefit you. Maybe you don't have elderly family or something but it does benefit a decent portion of the population.
- Criminals may get killed by the guns, and elderly may be killed, robbed or beaten simply for having them. Guns are not an equalizer, they don't turn every confrontation into a fair fight. The idea that they do is ignorant and an insult to the idea of carrying a weapon in self-defense.
Criminals don't care about fair fights, this is why they like to prey on weaker people. I never said a gun was an equalizer, I however feel that it could benefit these elderly people that are being preyed on. If a criminal is killed by the gun then it will be decided in court if it was justified. And my point was that elderly people are ALREADY getting robbed, beaten, and killed for NOT having the guns. I did not mean that all criminals from criminal speeders to shoplifters to druggies should be executed automatically, I was simply saying that if someone is threatening an elderly persons live then the person has a right to defend themselves against the criminal with the use of lethal force. I apologize that I had assumed you automatically knew that this was what I was implying.

... reply...

Taxation is not an alternative bank account. The money you pay in taxes goes to keeping your city, your state, your country maintained. It is rare that you will -ever- get anywhere near what you put in back. You're not supposed to. Unfairly enough, some poor and some rich get away with not putting anything in at all. Shit system, but nothing's perfect. The point about insurance is incomplete - insurance that is backed by the government is paid by the government. Insurance companies are not non-profits, and they will not simply give it away because the government says they should.

The point about guns is that they escalate a situation. They offer a form of defense in a situation where your life is in immediate danger, but the reality is that using it to protect yourself against a mugging or some other less threatening situation carries the risk of getting you killed. It's turning something that wasn't a serious issue into a matter of life or death. Okay, great, so you managed to yank your weapon out and scare the mugger off? What's stopping him from ambushing your elderly self and beating the shit out of you in addition to pawning your weapon AND the possessions you couldn't bear to part with before? What's to stop him from killing you if he's a gang-banger? You threatened his LIFE, after all.

You are partially correct - the law does not break down into what-if scenario... those what-if scenarios are broken down on the laws and judged in court. The court isn't going to say "ah, okay, kill or be killed. you're free". They're going to judge your case against what's on the books.

You can, however, plan around your medical future. After a lifetime of doing whatever it is you do, you know what has and may go wrong with you. Potential medical problems or arthritis? Get one beforehand.

You're assuming things again. It is very likely that such a program -would- "benefit" me in the future. Which is why I should be planning for it now if I think I'll be in a situation where I need it. Despite the potential to benefit me, it is -still- wasteful spending in my opinion. It offers nothing, and therefore is a a waste. That simple, comparing the benefit to me as a taxpayer to the potential benefit as someone who might use it. Sure, there's more wasteful programs, but that doesn't mean implementing less wasteful programs is a good idea.

Ultimately, your the benefits of what you are offering are zero. The upsides are that the situation may be escalated, resulting in the elderly being robbed and killed for having the gun, the downsides be that they may protect themselves in some cases. That zeros out. Guns are simply an added element of risk. More so because of exactly what you said - criminals don't care about fair fights. Someone pulls a gun on them, they're going to come back and ambush them later for the win.
[/QUOTE]

criminals are not rational beings. What you think they are going to do does not matter. Elderly are violently beaten and murdered all the time, that is where a gun like this would be useful. if it stopped even a small percent of that stuff from happening it would be good.