You have GOT to be joking me
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24767036-12335,00.html
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.
Under the deal, seniors who buy the $US300 ($460) 9mm handgun will be reimbursed by the federal government in the US, magazine New Scientist reports.
Matthew Carmel, president of Constitution Arms in Maplewood, New Jersey, said the gun was "something that they need to assist them in daily living".
"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," Mr Carmel told the magazine.
The company's sales information states: "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."
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.
First off, Maplewood, NJ is a hole, which should immediately disqualify this company from consideration from anything. Ever.
Secondly, WTF? People who are apparently incapable of controlling their own bodies should be given a device that makes it easier for them to shoot people. How is this is any way a good idea?
But what was really jarring was this: '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'. Oh really? A device primarily used for, you know, killing people quickly and effortlessly, needs no more justification than a device enabling old ladies to move around at .06km an hour rather than .02km an hour. I think I'm being fairly reasonable when I say a person unable to differentiate between the two should not be in charge of a miniature toy tractor, nevermind a company making gun accessories.
And then there's this: 'Point and shoot couldn't be easier'
Oh GOOD. Because a well-known cause of death has been inability to shoot ('I would've killed all those kindergarteners, but I missed and hit the swing. Make it easier for me to kill people! Hurry -- the voices in my head are getting louder!'). Being too hasty to shoot? I don't know what you're talking about. No, we should make it easier to shoot people, and eliminate any and all obstacles that might cause a moment of consideration before taking someone's life.
'The company informed a medical technology blog that the US Food and Drug Administration had approved it as a "Daily Activity Assist Device".' (emphasis mine)
If you're shooting people on a daily basis, I think we should not be making it easier for you to shoot people. Just a thought.
They have a website you might want to visit if you're ever feeling optimistic about the direction America's heading in: http://www.palmpistol.com/
I'll ignore for a moment the image of the palm pistol and its striking resemblance to the cap of a tube of toothpaste, and focus on the text. Basically: blah blah blah, great for home defense, fully refundable deposit, we're money-grubbing tards, rear isometric view, discreet concealment . . . discreet concealment? So not only is it easier for lovely Mrs Baudelaire next door with a bad case of Alzheimer's to shoot me, it's easy for her to conceal it in her print dress, so I won't have much warning before I'm shot to bits because she walked into the wrong house and mistook me for a 6 foot tall male intruder. Great!
I love the bit at the bottom: 'NRA Business Alliance: The business of freedom'. Three cheers for the freedom to die. Also, I think it's great that we're turning basic human rights into commodities. So how much does freedom cost? Are there discounts? (Yes, but only if you're a white middle-class, Republican voting, church-going, US born male. Everyone else . . . well, we're out of stock.)
The bit that grates the most about this whole thing is the reimbursement from the government to cover part (or all -- it doesn't say) of the cost. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those most in favour of the second amendment are also the first to bitch about communism and government subsidies (especially welfare and healthcare). I understand, you still want to right to shoot people because you're a crazy fuck, but if you baulk at the thought of someone earning $6 an hour getting government aid in the form of, oh I don't know, live-saving drugs because it's 'wasteful government spending' and 'socialism', then fuck you and your ten-dollar discount on the ability to shoot people with even less effort on your part.
Since I love Chris Rock, and this is vaguely on topic, I'm going to stick this in because I like it so much:
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000. Because if a bullet cost $5,000, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, ''Damn, he must have did something. Shit, they put $20,000 worth of bullets in his ass.'' People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. ''Man, l would blow your fucking head off, if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job, l'm gonna start saving some money, and you're a dead man! You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.'' So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you won't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back. ''l believe you got my property.''
Fox News wins with the headline of the week: 'Easy-to-Use 'Palm Pistol' Aimed at Elderly, Disabled' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461928,00.html
Personally I'd be more comfortable aiming the 'palm pistol' (what kind of name is this anyway?) squarely at the idiots promoting this thing, but given the percentage of fox news viewers who are over the age of 65, this might be one of those problems that solves itself.