TexasCHLforum.com

More gun expert Doctors:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne ... ns-n145501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmmmm. My 98 year old F-I-L has "given up" all but ONE firearm by passing them on to his children and grandchildren. He is no longer able to enjoy recreational shooting, but STILL has his drivers license and says that his grandson may have his remaining S&W Victory Model .38 "when the time comes." This is a discussion for families, don't need more people here to help.

Give them up!?!?!? Why do they think I'm collecting them?

Families have to make decisions regarding taking away the car keys, in home assistance, assisted living, elder care, nursing homes, finances, general and specialized health care for their elderly loved ones. Firearms should be a part of that family decision making process when their loved one reaches the stage where they would be unable to safely handle a firearm and unable to exercise sound judgment with regards to a firearm.

Having Physicians getting involved is a poor solution looking for a problem that generally doesn't exist. Like most things in life, people should take care of their families and loved ones. I don't need a Dr to tell me not to eat yellow snow. Or to eat healthy. Or to not let an Alzheimer's loved one have a gun.

One family I know had an older male member who had Alzheimer's yet still drove
and carried a handgun. Maybe a wheelgun, maybe a semi-automatic, I just don't know for certain.

He would drive around lost for hours, end up in Timbuktu, and family members had to drive miles to go get him.

One day Dallas Police observed him in a bad neighborhood (Oak Cliff), about to let a local
of questionable legality into his car. Just by dumb luck the DPD was right there, stepped in, and told the local
bad guy to get lost. Then DPD called his family to come down from Denton County and get him.

I never got the details of how the family sabotaged his handgun, but since they didn't trust him
to use it well, they somehow disabled his handgun so that it would not fire. He never realized
that the gun he would not give up was no longer a working firearm. :-)

SIA

When they pry his cold dead fingers...

This is yet another plank in the "Let's Disarm Americans" anti-gunners' platform. The so-called "5-L's" are hardly age-specific, but are factors that every gun owner should consider for themselves, their lifestyle and home environment.

I resent the implication that it's not a matter of if an elderly person should be disarmed, but when. I know far more older people with full mental faculties than I do with diminished capacity. While I do agree that this issue is none of a doctor's business, with rare exceptions I also feel it's none of the family's business either. Unless a person develops Alzheimer, significant dementia or some other debilitating mental or medical malady, then guns, cars, finances and lifestyle of the elderly are none of the family's business. There's a big difference between slowing down both physically and mentally due to age and becoming incompetent to handle one's own affairs. I've seen more allegedly concerned family members decide to take control of their Mom's or Dad's life through greed or laziness than to protect their parents. My son's would never try that not only because of their character, also also because they know it wouldn't be "well received."

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is yet another plank in the "Let's Disarm Americans" anti-gunners' platform. The so-called "5-L's" are hardly age-specific, but are factors that every gun owner should consider for themselves, their lifestyle and home environment.

I resent the implication that it's not a matter of if an elderly person should be disarmed, but when. I know far more older people with full mental faculties than I do with diminished capacity. While I do agree that this issue is none of a doctor's business, with rare exceptions I also feel it's none of the family's business either. Unless a person develops Alzheimer, significant dementia or some other debilitating mental or medical malady, then guns, cars, finances and lifestyle of the elderly are none of the family's business. There's a big difference between slowing down both physically and mentally due to age and becoming incompetent to handle one's own affairs. I've seen more allegedly concerned family members decide to take control of their Mom's or Dad's life through greed or laziness than to protect their parents. My son's would never try that not only because of their character, also also because they know it wouldn't be "well received."

Chas.

While not clear, my comments above are based on a person who is no longer able to make decisions due to Alzheimers, dementia, etc. If a person has their mental faculties, the decisions should be theirs alone, without regard for age.

As far as children, taking advantage of elderly parents, perhaps my view is jaded. This would not even occur to me. We are currently in this situation with my elderly (90) father in law who has dementia. He has good days and bad days. He is not capable of caring for himself. We , especially my wife and her mother are doing everything they can to keep his life as normal as possible, in his home. It is a challenge, it wears them out physically and emotionally, but it is the right thing to do. He is getting loving care in the midst of his family. Loving doesn't mean you don't take the car keys away. That was probably the hardest thing they had to do.

As long as he is still mentally capable of owning firearms then it is nobody's business. Only other time he should be disarmed is by his own decision.

Age is not a consideration for determining whether to remove one's rights. Rights have no expiration date.

BTW - Note this "back door" article is published by the liberal MSNBC. It is referred to as a "push". A push is a manipulative strategy and is a common promotional tool of the political industry. It is often disguised as a survey and is employed to introduce an idea and influence opinion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is yet another plank in the "Let's Disarm Americans" anti-gunners' platform. The so-called "5-L's" are hardly age-specific, but are factors that every gun owner should consider from themselves, their lifestyle and home environment.

I resent the implication that it's not a matter of if an elderly person should be disarmed, but when. I know far more older people with full mental faculties than I do with diminished capacity. While I do agree that this issue is none of a doctor's business, with rare exceptions I also feel it's none of the family's business either. Unless a person develops Alzheimer, significant dementia or some other debilitating mental or medical malady, then guns, cars, finances and lifestyle of the elderly are none of the family's business. There's a big difference between slowing down both physically and mentally due to age and becoming incompetent to handle one's own affairs. I've seen more allegedly concerned family members decide to take control of their Mom's or Dad's life through greed or laziness than to protect their parents. My son's would never try that not only because of their character, also also because they know it wouldn't be "well received."

Chas.

...and more wisdom....

I wouldn't want to be the person, or even the family member that tried to disarm Charles! But I am curious what the 5-L's are...

sjfcontrol wrote:I wouldn't want to be the person, or even the family member that tried to disarm Charles! But I am curious what the 5-L's are...

They are the factors that were listed in the article that was linked in by the OP. Here's the referenced article: http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/h ... 65-and-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is yet another plank in the "Let's Disarm Americans" anti-gunners' platform. The so-called "5-L's" are hardly age-specific, but are factors that every gun owner should consider for themselves, their lifestyle and home environment.

I resent the implication that it's not a matter of if an elderly person should be disarmed, but when. I know far more older people with full mental faculties than I do with diminished capacity. While I do agree that this issue is none of a doctor's business, with rare exceptions I also feel it's none of the family's business either. Unless a person develops Alzheimer, significant dementia or some other debilitating mental or medical malady, then guns, cars, finances and lifestyle of the elderly are none of the family's business. There's a big difference between slowing down both physically and mentally due to age and becoming incompetent to handle one's own affairs. I've seen more allegedly concerned family members decide to take control of their Mom's or Dad's life through greed or laziness than to protect their parents. My son's would never try that not only because of their character, also also because they know it wouldn't be "well received."

Chas.

While I don't see the same conspiratorial aspect that Mr. Cotton does, I do acknowledge his concerns. I also have seen attempts to acquire an elderly persons assets simply because the heirs just got tired of waiting. I've also got the same number of instances where well-meaning family members refuse to acknowledge Grandpa's issues and harm comes to him or others. Most of those are automotive in nature or gullibility to phone solicitors, but I also have a doozy concerning an octogenarian, his child-bride to be and a Colt 45.

Anyway, this issue truly has at least two sides, if not more, and should not be ignored.

myntalfloss wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is yet another plank in the "Let's Disarm Americans" anti-gunners' platform. The so-called "5-L's" are hardly age-specific, but are factors that every gun owner should consider for themselves, their lifestyle and home environment.

I resent the implication that it's not a matter of if an elderly person should be disarmed, but when. I know far more older people with full mental faculties than I do with diminished capacity. While I do agree that this issue is none of a doctor's business, with rare exceptions I also feel it's none of the family's business either. Unless a person develops Alzheimer, significant dementia or some other debilitating mental or medical malady, then guns, cars, finances and lifestyle of the elderly are none of the family's business. There's a big difference between slowing down both physically and mentally due to age and becoming incompetent to handle one's own affairs. I've seen more allegedly concerned family members decide to take control of their Mom's or Dad's life through greed or laziness than to protect their parents. My son's would never try that not only because of their character, also also because they know it wouldn't be "well received."

Chas.

While I don't see the same conspiratorial aspect that Mr. Cotton does, I do acknowledge his concerns. I also have seen attempts to acquire an elderly persons assets simply because the heirs just got tired of waiting. I've also got the same number of instances where well-meaning family members refuse to acknowledge Grandpa's issues and harm comes to him or others. Most of those are automotive in nature or gullibility to phone solicitors, but I also have a doozy concerning an octogenarian, his child-bride to be and a Colt 45.

Anyway, this issue truly has at least two sides, if not more, and should not be ignored.

Dont be lulled. Many advocate groups do not operate in the sunlight. Liberal conspiracies abound and this fact is what caught us conservatives flatfooted on many issues.

Once again James Okeefe revealed how the left scheme when he stung a Hollywood environmental group of celebrities. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... cking-Film