Skip to comments.Seniors and Guns: Goldilocks Gun Control
Posted on 05/05/2012 1:23:26 PM PDT by marktwain
A friend of mine describes the antis crusade against specific guns as Goldilocks gun control. This is the idea that some guns are too big (vest busters), some guns are too small (pocket rockets), some guns dont have a sporting purpose (assault weapons), some guns are too cheap (Saturday night specials), etc. ad infinitum. I say ad infinitum instead of ad nauseum because, unlike Goldilocks, the antis will never find the just right gun. I see that Johnathon Purtle of Philly.com/Health is now trying to apply this same illogic to the age of gun owners. But of course, this isnt a matter of discrimination its a matter of "public health".
Most discussion about the public health implications of the aging of America has focused on issues related to long-term care, chronic medical conditions, and rising health care costs. Now researchers at the University of Pennsylvania are raising another: gun safety.
In their commentary this month in the American Journal of Public Health, Brian Mertens and Susan Sorenson point out that many of the questions that have come up about senior citizens and driving such as those relating to memory, cognitive impairment, and judgment apply to firearms, as well.
(I should probably mention here, Mom is 84 and my father passed a few years ago at 82, so Im not completely unfamiliar with problems associated with aging.)
I must admit this is a new one for me. I have seen this argument the other way around (driving is more complicated than operating a gun) but I have never seen anyone try to argue it the other way. There is a huge difference in the mental acuity needed for driving a car and that needed for using a gun in self-defense. When you are driving a car you must pay continuous attention to conditions around you. You have to look at what other traffic is doing, road hazards, pedestrians, road conditions, street signs, traffic control devices, navigation; all of this must be combined into a gestalt that we call driving a car.
When driving a car on the highway, a lapse of attention lasting only 5 seconds means that your car has traveled 440 feet essentially uncontrolled. Traveling in town that same lapse will last for 220 feet. Either one of these could cause an accident that could wind up hurting or killing people.
Now compare that to carrying a pistol. A 5 second lapse means that you are in Condition White for that period, but that doesnt translate to 10 bodies strewn across a farmers market. Memory, cognitive impairment and judgment do indeed apply to firearms, but so what? If you dont remember how to unsafe your weapon then youre not going to shoot someone. Cognitive impairment and judgment? If you are too gaga to be able to differentiate between a deadly threat and a mother pushing a stroller then you shouldnt be walking the streets alone regardless of whether you are armed or not.
It all boils down to that David Codrea quote I keep using: If someone cant be trusted with a firearm then they cant be trusted without a custodian. JP continues:
A mound of evidence tells us that risk of violent death increases immediately after the purchase of a handgun mostly due to suicides and accidents and remains high for at least five years. This risk, however, is particularly high among those age 65 and older.
Well whod-a thunk it. Someone who wants to commit suicide is going to obtain the means to do it before they, well, actually do it. But again that is completely irrelevant because numerous studies have shown that overall suicide rates are independent of method. When Canada put strict controls on firearms, firearm suicides dropped. Yay! But non-firearm suicides went up enough to more than make up the difference.
And I wouldnt tout that mound of evidence too loudly JP, since most of those studies have been thoroughly debunked. More guns lead to more suicides? That must be why virtually gun-free Japans suicide rate so much lower than ours, right? Oh, wait. And if more guns cause more homicides, then why is the UKsnon-firearm homicide rate so much lower than ours? Again, cultural and societal differences.
On top of all that is the simple fact that correlation does not equal causation. In fact many of the authors of those studies made just that point when they attacked Dr. Lotts more guns, less crime thesis, saying that it was impossible to account for all the different factors which went into crime rates and stating repeatedly that correlation does not necessarily show causation.
As for firearm accident rates among seniors, according to the CDCs data from 1999 through 2009, the accidental death rate due to firearms was 0.21 per 100,000. Keep that number in mind, itll be important later. But lets break out a table of comparisons, shall we?
Accident Type Avg. Annual Deaths Deaths per 100K
Falls 14,944 40.79
Suffocation 3,261 8.90
Car Passenger 3,028 8.27
Pedestrian 1,245 3.40
Fire/Burn 1,146 3.13
Poisoning 960 2.62
Residential Fire 950 2.59
Environmental 655 1.79
Drowning 452 1.23
Firearms 76 0.21
Cut/Pierce 39 0.11
Hmm, maybe guns in their homes arent what we need to be really worried aboutvis-à-vis our seasoned citizens.
JP continues with some information on gun ownership:
Survey research indicates that 37 percent of people 65 and older live in a home with a firearm, compared with 26 percent of those younger than 30. The authors of the commentary article note that many people cite protection as a key reason to buy firearms.
Survey research done on the CDCs WISQARS website by your humble scrivener indicates that people younger than 30 have an accidental firearm death rate of . . . Im just going to do another table.
Cause of Death Rate for under 30 Rate for 65 and older
Gun Accident 0.26 0.21
Gun Homicide 5.39 0.83
I excluded suicides because, again, suicide rates are independent of method. So when we look at the facts we see that, even though 42% more seniors than under-30s have access to guns, seniors have lower rates of deaths from accidents and homicides. Sort of stands that whole guns cause__________ argument on its head.
But JP tells us why senior citizens really dont need to be able to protect themselves:
While one might think it makes sense for senior citizens, in particular, to arm themselves against criminals, the evidence suggests otherwise. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the risk of being a victim of robbery, rape, or violent assault is substantially lower among the elderly than any other age group (2.4 of every 1,000 people age 65 and over experience such a crime annually, compared with rates of 10.9 per 1,000 for people ages 50-64 and 26.9 per 1,000 for ages 21-24).
Did you catch that? Two paragraphs before, JP finds the firearm accident rate among seniors significant, but here a violent crime rate ten times as high is brushed off as the veriest bagatelle. And why doesnt he include murder in with the crimes against seniors? Is it so low as to be negligible? HA! The homicide rate per 100,000 among those 65 and older is 2.29 which would make the violent crime rate against seniors TWENTY times as high as the accidental death rate he finds significant above.
And I dont care how much lower crime rates against XYZ demographic are: the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. And since a gun is the most effective and safest self-defense tool in existence I believe it borders on the criminal to try to disarm some of the most physically vulnerable among us.
But JP doesnt blame seniors for not thinking straight; it is all the fault of the Eee-vil Gun Industry®, as he explains:
Nevertheless, the firearm industry has tried to take advantage of seniors fears and developed guns specifically for people with arthritis and mobility limitations.
I see, so JP is opposed to the ADA and making reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities? So would he do away with walkers and wheelchairs too? But why the hell shouldnt a paraplegic be able to defend him or herself? What does he have against people whose hands are so arthritic that they cant even hold, much less fire a pistol? Is it wrong for companies to look at a growing demographic and try to fill a perceived need? JP continues with either some outright lies or just plain ignorance:
The maker of one such weapon tried to register it as a medical device in hopes that Medicare would pay for it a proposal that the Food and Drug Administration rejected.
Actually what happened was the maker wanted to start advertising to seniors so he called his friendly neighborhood FDA office and was advised to register his company, Constitution Arms, as a medical device facility and list the Palm Pistol as a recreational adaptor. Remember boys and girls, the federal government is not bound by the statements of its employees. Better still, the FDA initially approved the device. It was only when word of the approval hit the net that they rapidly backpedaled. So JP, dont try to blame a manufacturer for doing as some govt bureaucrats advised him.
Next JP falls back on platitudes:
There is no easy solution to the issue of firearm safety among older adults. According to Penns Sorenson, We need to consider multiple options that address multiple aspects. Possibilities include reducing access to firearms, especially for the cognitively impaired, increasing neighborhood safety and household security, and improving health care options for those with chronic debilitating illnesses.
There is too an easy solution: teach seniors the Four Rules and, until they become so cognitively impaired that they cant remember them, bugger off! Do you want to increase neighborhood safety? Arm the neighbors and teach them how to use their weapons.
The Alzheimers Association recommends that individuals with Alzheimers should not handle, or have access to, guns. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has produced informative materials on dementia and firearm safety, as well, indicating that it sees the issue as a cause for concern.
Some people might have a hard time believing this, but I actually agree; people who are suffering from dementia to the extent that they cant live on their own should not try to and should not have access to guns. But JP then veers off into another world again:
Anyone who has tried to convince an elderly parent to stop driving knows how difficult such conversations can be. And cars dont carry the emotional, cultural and political power that firearms do especially when the subject is whether or not to take away Grandpas gun.
Seriously? You think that telling a senior that they are no longer independent, that from now on they have to rely on others to take them shopping or to the beauty parlor, or out to a restaurant or a movie or a play or to watch the fireworks on Independence Day, does not carry powerful emotional, cultural or political freight?
Do you have an older loved one who owns firearms? Do you worry about his safety, or the safety of others? Have you addressed it?
When Mom and Dad lived out on the farm, I did worry a bit about their safety. They were 3/4 of a mile from the nearest neighbor and 25 miles from the nearest cop shop. But Dad had a pistol in the nightstand and a shotgun in the closet which made me feel a lot better. Same with moms parents. They lived out in the boonies and would have been extremely vulnerable to a home invasion if they hadnt had 1) a good alarm system and 2) my grandfathers .38 in his nightstand.
If you have an older loved one with access to guns whose mind is so far gone that you worry about their safety or the safety of others, then those loved ones should not have access to firearms, to matches, electricity, stoves, gasoline, hammers . . . you get the picture.
In other words, if your loved one cant be trusted with a gun then they cant be trusted without a custodian.
The hoplophobic loonies can kiss my ass. Now, where did I put that 40mm grenade launcher?
Oh. And...all guns have a sporting purpose. Shooting is a sport.
Despite their other arguments, I would like to point out that it is a lot harder to involuntarily “euthanize” someone who has a gun than someone who is unarmed.
Because, after all, “it’s for the *good of society*” that “greedy geezers” be held down and injected with poison so that the youthful government can take their assets for important social spending. The old ones would just waste it on food and air conditioning for their own benefit, which is bad for the environment.
How unfair that three or four “social workers” get air conditioned while trying to put down some senior citizen so they can harvest their organs.
If you have an older loved one with access to guns whose mind is so far gone that you worry about their safety or the safety of others, then those loved ones should not have access to firearms, to matches, electricity, stoves, gasoline, hammers . . . In other words, if your loved one can't be trusted with a gun then they can't be trusted without a custodian.
Actuary if the 2nd Amendment makes any distinction it is specifically prohibiting congress from interfering with our right to keep and bare Military arms. The security of a FREE state in all.
That is why the hunting application makes no sense, our forefathers were not concerned with arms for hunting. They were concerned with a despotic Federal government becoming a military empire and ruling the people and their States without the Constitutional consent of the Governed much as it did 1861 on.
But it is a matter of specified interest that the Federal Constitution also enumerates for congress no power to prohibit arms for hunting or personal defense. See 10th Amendment.