Yet Another Attempt At Gun Control-MSN

D

DaleA

New member
An article headlined on MSN home page:

"When should Grandpa give up his guns?"

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/health/hea...nds-when-should-grandpa-give-his-guns-n145501

Dr. Ellen M. Pinholt a retired Army colonel who practices medicine in Rapid City, South Dakota lists some signs the family should look for as to when to take the guns away from someone.

Well it really is a concern and they mention it is similar to when you should take the car keys away from a senior citizen.

The authors, Ellen M. Pinholt, MD, FACP, and Joshua D. Mitchell, MD are both ex-Army, and maybe are raising a valid concern but MSN IMhO seems to gleefully report there is yet another way to 'get' gun owners. Sigh.

The actual paper they wrote, which is described by the short MSN article is here:
http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/health-answers/americas-most-likely-gun-owners-are-65-and-up/
and I, personally, am happy to see all the comments on the article that are pro-gun.

On the third hand, it really is an issue but I think more of a common sense thing and even if the authors really are well intentioned the content of their article I believe is going to get ripped/lost/distorted in the pro/anti argument.

Points to Ponder
1. Did the authors write a legitimate paper or is this another gun grabber attempt? (I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.)
2. Is MSN pandering to the pro/anti debate by their headline and running the article at all? (I say pandering to get more interest in their web site.)
3. Are the anti forces going to try to use this as another avenue. (I don't know...seems weak...as in it is such a personal an individual decision and so obviously a case by case situation I don't think they will push it.)
 
It's a legitimate paper and concern to a lot of folks.

But, NBC News is definitely anti-2nd Amendment. I sincerely doubt this article was written and published as a public service, but instead to create a demand for intervention by a benevolent and caring government. The gun haters will attack on any and all fronts.
 
A lot of issues are best addresses in a family, particularly as various capacities diminish, be it guns, driving or even personal scheduling. Ammo for the anti- maybe, going to change anything, not likely.

Huffington Post did a survey of the believability of various news sources, Fox was tops as credible, MSNBC was literally bottom of the barrel.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that many members of the U.S. military, especially among officers, and strongly against private ownership of firearms.

I guess they weren't paying attention when they gave their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
 
I read the article earlier today. No attempt at gun control, but a real concern for some families. There are times when older folks have to give up the car keys and sometimes their guns too. That is just a fact.

My dad died 1 week short of his 90's birthday and was still mentally capable of owning a gun. He did stop driving 4-5 years earlier because he understood he was dangerous on the road. Vision and reaction times just weren't there.

It wasn't so easy with mom. We had to take the keys, and she wasn't happy. With some families they have to make the same call with guns. A good article that needs to be read.
 
Many years ago, NBC was "caught", in outright lies. They were running stories (at the time) about a certain pickup truck and how "dangerous" it was in an accident, due to the placement of the fuel tank (or some other thing...)

They had some startling footage of the trucks blowing up, catching fire, etc.

It turned out that NBC had rigged the trucks to explode, to provide more "dramatic" footage. Since then, I take nothing that comes from them as unbiased, and nothing not independently verifiable, as fact.
 
The question of removing firearms from a person's home is one that comes to my mind frequently due to my profession: I do level of care evaluations for an inpatient/outpatient psychiatric facility. I deal with people struggling with a range of mental illness diagnoses and severities. Just this weekend, I had to meet with a person in an emergency room who became alarmed at my mere presence, because s/he felt I was there to harm him/her. I see people who have attempted or are planning suicide, who are abusing God knows what drugs, or have severe cases of Alzheimers.

What I have learned is two-fold:
1) There is a time when a person cannot safely own guns- whether that time is permanent or temporary, those times can very easily come. I went through a time in my life (when my wife and father died very close together), that I am glad I did not own a weapon in my home. While I never seriously considered suicide, I am still glad I did not own them.

2) This is a logical progression from point #1- We as responsible gun owners need to have a specific plan for dealing with our firearms when we are unable to exercise control over them, due to medical illness, psychiatric concerns, aging, or our own passing. Our plan needs to be clear, and those we entrust to execute it need to be informed and willing. I am still working on developing that plan, and for now, my wife knows that, if something should happen to me, we have a gun shop that would consign them all for fair prices.

Just food for thought.
 
Have to disagree w you abit JimmyR

If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it. There are simply too many ways to accomplish it. Around here they buy a couple bottles of Whiskey and take a walk down a railroad track. You gonna take away my whiskey next?

When I first got my medical diagnosis I thought about suicide but I have always had firearms and that simply is too damned easy a way out. I know I will die of cancer eventually I absorbed to many toxins working in Bio and Chem Labs but until that time I plan to keep hunting and shooting till I wind up to that point when my body finally gives out. And who the hell are you or any shrink to tell me when that time is?
 
hartcreek said:
If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it. There are simply too many ways to accomplish it. Around here they buy a couple bottles of Whiskey and take a walk down a railroad track. You gonna take away my whiskey next?
Click to expand...

If that were the case, there wouldn't be trends in the methods for suicide. We all know the numbers, men are more likely to use guns, women more likely to use pills, etc, etc. While the "if they wanna do it they're gonna do it" sounds all well and good, it's just not true.


hartcreek said:
When I first got my medical diagnosis I thought about suicide but I have always had firearms and that simply is too damned easy a way out. I know I will die of cancer eventually I absorbed to many toxins working in Bio and Chem Labs but until that time I plan to keep hunting and shooting till I wind up to that point when my body finally gives out. And who the hell are you or any shrink to tell me when that time is?
Click to expand...

When the guns become more of a danger to you and/or those you love than to bambi or your inanimate target of choice, then perhaps the guns need to be removed. How that is determined should be by a medical professional who knows you in conjunction with your family.
 
Each situation is different. My two grandfathers were mentally fit until the end of their lives and both kept firearms to the end. My mother's father hunted into his 90s.

On the other hand, my mother in law, who has a history of dementia in her family isn't fit to keep a gun in my opinion. Most of the time, she is fine but sometimes she can't figure out how to do simple things. More worrying, she tells stories of strangers coming into her home. I would hate for her to shoot one of the home healthcare workers that is coming to treat her so I asked to take her gun with me for cleaning. She hasn't asked for it back and had already given her other guns to the neighbors. I don't know what I'll do if she wants it back.
 
It's a serious. I have seen two cases of older folks be very unsafe and watched in one how a gun had to be wrestled away from an oldster.

I grant you that MSNBC is anti but independent of that, you have to think about it.

One dreadful nuance is whether you act to take away a gun from someone who might commit a rational suicide. That is when you have your mental capacity but are living a terrible life due to illness, etc.

It is not hard to find cases of such in the elderly. Society is not kind to the elderly.
 
This topic hits close to home for me. I loaned my dad a shotgun for HD several years ago (he's never owned any firearms.... doesn't have anything against those who do, just not for him). Anyway, he had a stroke a little over a week ago; not a big one, but still did damage. I felt it was time to take my shotgun back, and my mother agreed. I guess at some point the advantages of being prepared for a home invasion are outweighed by the very real possibility of unpredictable behavior on the part of a senior citizen who has had a debilitating medical event.

as far as an earlier comment that "Keep in mind that many members of the U.S. military, especially among officers, and strongly against private ownership of firearms"... I've been an Army officer for 22 years now and have not come to that same conclusion. Sure, there are some who don't support private ownership ... but most Army officers I know are gun enthusiasts.
 
This one hits pretty close to home for me too. About a month ago I had to "take" all my dad's guns as well. He has frontal temporal lobe dementia (often mistaken with all alzheimers, ie hallucinations, etc) and it just became too dangerous once he remembered he had them. It was a tough day for me. I always expected to be handed those guns instead of just taking them out of his safe and putting them in mine.

I'm all for keeping your firearms until the end, but I knew it was the right thing to do for everyone. I still felt a sense of betrayal though. I'm also glad Tom68 addressed the Army officers issue. I'll be the first to rip on an officer any day ;) but feel that sometimes some loonies make it through the cracks as in all systems. While I can't say I was proud to have served under ALL the officers I did most of them were a good bunch, and I definitely don't see that as being a common consensus.
 
Serving officers are, of course, subject to the UCMJ, and generally keep their politics private. AFTER they separate from service, they can be as sane, or as loony as anyone.

One can even be an actual hero, and still have totally ridiculous political views.

What has come to be called "the greatest generation" is passing, more rapidly every day. When a person is no longer competent, steps must be taken. Its an individual decision, each case should be judged separately.
 
As a citizen whose parents had/have alzheimer's, I feel it's a tough call best made by family on a case by case basis.
In a broader sense, this topic has been in the back of my mind when I hear pro-gun people argue that the militia, anyone age 16-45, has a right to firearm ownership. I think, does that mean the gov't can pass a law that I should turn my firearms in at age 46?
 
I think, does that mean the gov't can pass a law that I should turn my firearms in at age 46?
Click to expand...

I'm not a legal scholar, but I'd say, "no". Despite what the anti-gun bigots would like to have us all believe, the right to arms exists independent of the militia.

All the age limits mean is that the "milita" didn't have to legal authority to call you up, if you were over, or under age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top