View Full Version : When Should Grandpa Give Up His Guns?
Surf n Turf
07-05-2014, 22:35
When Should Grandpa Give Up His Guns?
Lets disarm Grandpa... he probably votes Republican, and would certainly pose a threat if his home was broken into, or his person was threatened.
I have a personal interest in being old and armed, thank you very much ;)
What shite
SnT
When Should Grandpa Give Up His Guns?
any Baby Boomers already dread “the talk” –- suggesting their aging parents surrender car keys –- but now two geriatric experts say another thorny, family question must be asked of some elderly folks.
Is it time to give up your gun?
In a recently published paper, the two physicians offer a five-point checklist meant to help caregivers assess whether firearms remain safe in the hands and homes of older Americans, particularly if the gun owners are exhibiting unclear thinking or depression.
“Just like with some (older) people, it’s not if you should stop driving, but when,” said Dr. Ellen M. Pinholt, a co-author and former chief of geriatric medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. “If we find some dementia present in a patient, it can be about when to lock up the weapon or whether we have the family take it away.
“The ‘5 ‘L’s’ suggest that senior citizens must automatically be considered safety risks if they are firearms owners –- a notion we find rather insulting if not preposterous,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Washington.
About three hours north of New York City, former paramedic and gun owner Warren Johnson, 65, said he would become instantly leery should any medical professional delve into a line of questioning regarding firearms.
“If I go to a doctor’s office and the first thing out of his mouth is: ‘So, do you own a gun?’ the first thing that goes through my mind is: He is being coerced (to ask that) by a government agency, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid,” Johnson said. “It's none of his business.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/his-cold-dead-hands-when-should-grandpa-give-his-guns-n145501
When they can't work the TV remote it's getting real close.
Seriously, that was said with someone in my family with dementia. "Hon, you can't change the channel with the wireless phone."
IMHO the family need to make this tough decision with no clear cut rules. It has the potential for a lot of abuse by the government, doctors and insurance companies. Not an easy answer.
If any of you have a family member that is in this situation I hope for the best for everyone. Sometimes life decisions just suck no matter what.
Spot on, sir.
The answer to this and so many questions comes from how involved we are with those we care about, and we really need to be *involved*. We are our brothers keepers. There is no cookie-cutter answer re: firearms possession or driving a car. Freedom is a risky business (thank you very much). It really requires the involvement of those who care and are part of that persons life. If you see the signs then you have to act, but IMHO it's sure not the job of the Government to decide, and its none of my doctors business, either, unless he changes my diaper and tucks me in at night.
ddoering
07-06-2014, 07:06
At what point should they not be allowed to vote?
At what point should they not be allowed to vote?
When they register as Democrat.
IMHO the family need to make this tough decision with no clear cut rules.
The trouble is that many families aren't capable of making those decisions (driving/having guns). Either they don't recognize the symptoms or they are in denial, and many refuse to make the tough decision, because they don't want to be the bad guy who makes mom or dad mad, by taking away their car or gun.
The trouble is that many families aren't capable of making those decisions (driving/having guns). Either they don't recognize the symptoms or they are in denial, and many refuse to make the tough decision, because they don't want to be the bad guy who makes mom or dad mad, by taking away their car or gun.
That has to be one of the most arrogant statements I have heard in awhile. So, who is the anointed person capable of making that decision? That is the root argument for more government. "They" aren't capable of making that decision, so "we'll" do it for them because "we're" smarter than the rest.
That has to be one of the most arrogant statements I have heard in awhile. So, who is the anointed person capable of making that decision? That is the root argument for more government. "They" aren't capable of making that decision, so "we'll" do it for them because "we're" smarter than the rest.
Arrogant!!! I doubt that you have ever had to deal with a family member with dementia, or seen someone who's family ignores the problem.
The trouble is that many families aren't capable of making those decisions (driving/having guns). Either they don't recognize the symptoms or they are in denial, and many refuse to make the tough decision, because they don't want to be the bad guy who makes mom or dad mad, by taking away their car or gun.
Emphasis added. I agree. It's not just guns/cars, it's sometimes/often ladders, stairs, stoves, medications, etc. Not every senior has friends/family, let alone responsible friends/family to watch their back.
sinjefe, back at ya - So, who is the anointed person capable of making that decision?
My answer is a responsible friend/family. In its absence, then society needs to step in.
WCH made a simple statement and yours was a simple question. No need to read into them.
That has to be one of the most arrogant statements I have heard in awhile. ......
Agree with WCH. Having a close family member that gets dementia is the pits.
It's a slow process of stuff like power of attorney, check book, etc, etc.
I think we're just a few months from in home care.
After that it's a one way trip to the rest home.
At least we'll try and see the workers don't vote absentee ballot - straight Democrat - for her.
Emphasis added. I agree. It's not just guns/cars, it's sometimes/often ladders, stairs, stoves, medications, etc. Not every senior has friends/family, let alone responsible friends/family to watch their back.
sinjefe, back at ya - So, who is the anointed person capable of making that decision?
My answer is a responsible friend/family. In its absence, then society needs to step in.
WCH made a simple statement and yours was a simple question. No need to read into them.
MR2,
The article certainly infers government intrusion into the process. I agree it is the responsibility of family members. But only family members, not government. Once you decide it is okay that government make decisions on things where their involvement you support, there is no reason for them not to be involved in ones you don't.
WCH,
Your statement "many families aren't capable of making that decision" infers that someone other than family can or should. Who, if not Government, are you referring to? I stand by my comment..
Old Dog New Trick
07-06-2014, 11:40
I'll just watch Grand Torino a few times..."Get off my lawn!"
Actually, it's a very important question and one that should be left to the individual or his immediate family. Absent that anyone that is medically committed to a late life care facility should establish those rules.
I would think that removing the bang stick (firing pin) from the action would be a first step in letting Grandpa keep his guns without him being a danger to others.
Simple story: years ago I had an Uncle (grandmother's brother) that had died at around 85-90 of old age. My father's brothers (Uncles of about 40 y/o) both went to clear his house, found a .410 shotgun and promptly stuck the barrel against the floor, cocked it and pulled the trigger - BOOM! The moral being that maybe the hazard was not with the old man, but the young and clueless.
I'll never give up my guns, but my son is welcome to make the right decision when the time is right for him to become the owner of them.
WCH,
Your statement "many families aren't capable of making that decision" infers that someone other than family can or should. Who, if not Government, are you referring to? I stand by my comment..
Have you dealt with a close family member with dementia?
A close family that lives nearby still struggles with the decisions of when "rights" are curtailed. My MIL was diagnosed somewhat early and my wife has been involved since the beginning. My wife can sit down and talk with her and explain why something is going to be done.
The car? I'll tell you if a person with dementia causes an accident it's going to be an interesting conversation with the first LEO that shows up. Then their license will be taken.
But now days people don't want to be troubled - or hurt Grannie's feelings - or be inconvenienced if they do take the license, then they'd have to drive them everywhere.
If there is no close family that cares somebody is going to have to make the call.
NurseTim
07-06-2014, 12:10
This is my wheel house. The remote idea is pithy but I know some 50 y/o's that can't operate a remote or cell phone, yet are perfectly capable to make cogent, informed decisions.
WCH, is correct, I've seen it many times in my practice. Driving mostly, but guns in some cases. We've had hospice Pt.s with dementia, DRIVE, they couldn't find their way out of the complex, but they got in their cars a drove. This scares me more that those with guns. The switched on providers send letters to DMV at the first sign of potential problems. As for guns, and this is going to sting, the red flag flies when we have former military as hospice Pt.s. They have the weapons, usually, and the ability to use them, usually on themselves.
Sinjefe, I never want the government to get involved if at all possible. Family, SHOULD make the call, but for reasons already stated, they are sometimes incapable of making that call for fear of alienating their loved one and being cut off from their loved one at the end of their loved one's life. Older folks can be both very venictive and stubborn.
To my way of thinking, if they have a solid diagnosis of mental impairment, they are no longer capable of making a shoot/don't shoot decision. Arthritis, get a trigger job, weakness, get a lighter weapon. But cognition impairment, trigger locks. Are families the solution, sadly, no. I have too many Pt.s that have no family for one reason or another. So sometimes, a government solution, and this makes me sick, is the only solution. If y'all have a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Maybe a "jury" of older NRA, or similar organization, peers could review the cases. But what is to stop an anti from joining whatever organization to get on such a "Jury" to muddy up the waters?
Golf1echo
07-06-2014, 12:20
It is Grandpa's choice until they take it away...
This is why you have to have a plan in place! Family or friends, someone has to be there to advocate for you...scary stuff, and it can happen rapidly.
Probably not surprising to folks here that people will go along way in fighting for their independence. They will push people away, tell stories, and believe what they will in order to do so. There have been a good number of threads on elderly citizens that have done very well with firearms and function at high levels.
But
Grandma fell again, Insurance dependent Hospital's social workers attempted to send her to a long term lock down facilityw/ advocate she went to cutting edge rehab facility...These are where the Neuro Psychological examinations occur, ie Dementia As Pete says etc..,etc..,etc... Then Guardian, Conservator, Courts, 24-7 Care givers, Attorneys, etc...Not to mention concentric circles of people who were...well, waiting to prey. ( I had no idea the scope of industry revolving around redistribution of elderly peoples money and property.)
All this can go much smoother and less expensively with a plan in place, any weapons are secure, and the elder person involved is in a safe situation. Tough and enlightening stuff...
NurseTim
07-06-2014, 13:23
While I don't agree with suicide, I understand the reason you described. I think the scope of this discussion is the safety of others when grandpa/grandma poses a threat to others with their handling of firearms. Should Euthanasia be tabled for another thread?
Surf n Turf
07-06-2014, 20:45
While I don't agree with suicide, I understand the reason you described. I think the scope of this discussion is the safety of others when grandpa/grandma poses a threat to others with their handling of firearms. Should Euthanasia be tabled for another thread?
I would like to discuss the pro-active steps that "grandpa" can take, prior to being placed in a position where he would lose his guns.
Driving skills, and other interactions that might be dangerous to the public, are a general concerns, where restrictions on those activities might be in the "public interest". They are not bedrock constitutional issues like firearms possession and the 2nd Amendment protections afforded to our citizens (need I say, regardless of age).
We cannot let the government into this equation, even if the occasional Senior plans his own way to exit this world. I am not blind to the fact that some Seniors are alone, without a family or friends to care about them. Such is the world in which we live. But invoking a government solution is not the way to go.
SnT
NurseTim
07-06-2014, 21:19
I absolutely agree that the individuals right AND dignity should be preserved as a priority, but not before public safety. My philosophy is, "one man's right to swing ends where another man's nose begins." So if the they still know where they are, what is going on around them, and a sense of time, it may not be time to lock up the guns. When those questions can't be answered by the owner, then it's time.
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but maybe tweak it a bit. My wife is a MAJOR sleep walker. Her ability to move and communicate while dreaming is awesome, funny, and scary. A few years ago my son and I were able to keep her engaged in conversation about her dream for over 20 minutes.
Now, she is a coach and RSO for her women only shooting club and is very proficient with her revolvers and my HK. I've always been a bit concerned about her somnambulism paired with sleeping with a weapon on her night stand.
Unlike progressive dementia, this is a rare, yet randomly recurring problem.
Pat
No one can give you an answer. You need to sit down and have a frank, tough conversation with her. It may or may not be an issue.
We have. It wasn't a question. I was putting forth another, less obvious, scenario that is similar but, perhaps, more difficult to deal with given the lack of obvious mental incapacitation.
These, and more, are all hard questions to be dealt with.
Pat
caretaker
07-07-2014, 03:01
My point was the person needs to have a say as much as possible in their own future and the family and or friends need to be involved and the next say, not the MD unless there are no other options. Keeping someone breathing is not the same as keeping them alive as you know. The family and medical staff need to respect the wishes of the person involved. The government needs to be involved as a last resort. There are no clear cut lines or answers like many would like.
If you decide to engage you need to be clear about your motives. In an emotional situation most aren't. Its about their life.
Scimitar
07-07-2014, 04:27
When they can't work the TV remote it's getting real close.
Seriously, that was said with someone in my family with dementia. "Hon, you can't change the channel with the wireless phone."
Shit, that's me and I'm only 36
S
Red Flag 1
07-07-2014, 09:38
When my father in-law was seeing Bears outside the house, and armed peolpe in the trees; we took away the firearms. There was no discussion with him other that to point out that he was the only person seeing these things, and that his firerms were now gone. We had to disable his vehicle, as for a time he could hot- wire his car. We did this after he backed out of the garage with the garage door closed. There was no discussion with him over this. He blamed his action on the man in his car pointing a gun at his head. The car event was pretty funny, if you could overlook the cost of a new door and frame.
My point was the person needs to have a say as much as possible in their own future and the family and or friends need to be involved and the next say, not the MD unless there are no other options. Keeping someone breathing is not the same as keeping them alive as you know. The family and medical staff need to respect the wishes of the person involved. The government needs to be involved as a last resort. There are no clear cut lines or answers like many would like.
Euthanasia should be shelved for a different thread. It was not my intent to go that direction.
In order to fully protect a person and his property who has dementia, the government (the courts) should not be a "last resort". The sage advice I was given by the Alzheimer's Association was to "run not walk to an attorney's office and petition the courts for a competency hearing. Without legal guardianship(s) - person & property the person can be a sitting duck for vultures.
How does one become a conservator of another person without being appointed by the courts, and "turn over" a conservatorship to the county without the courts approval?
In Colorado, all you have to do is refuse to decorate a gay wedding cake...
DIYPatriot
07-07-2014, 13:22
When my grandmother was diagnosed with dementia (April 2013), she was only mildly forgetful and didn't exhibit any major signs of memory loss, lack of understanding, etc. That would change at an aggressive pace towards the end of 2013. Thankfully, she had enough experience witnessing friends of hers live through this sort of hell and she saw the writing on the wall. Granny met with our family attorney, then she met with my mom and my aunts. Our family attorney is a genuine person and serves her clients' interests well. She's not the typical attorney that most people loathe. This part is key. There are good attorneys out there. There are bad ones, too. Isn't that true with most people?
After a few consultations, it was decided that my mother would become conservator and that, as certain milestones (for lack of a better term) were surpassed, then things such as driving, operating a sewing machine, possessing firearms, etc would be forfeited. In short, Granny had the foresight to realize these decisions would be difficult for her children and knew that this disease didn't only affect the mind, but it broke the hearts of those who loved her.
Having that contract/memorandum of understanding in hand made it easier for her children to adhere to her wishes even when she had forgotten signing them. That was the reason why Granny did this. She didn't want them to feel that they were robbing her so much as they were protecting her from herself while she was protecting their hearts from the eventual pain that was sure to follow making such decisions.
Granny passed away the day after Valentines this year. I'm thankful that she didn't have to fight it long and I'm thankful that she was a wise ol owl that loved her family enough to do what she did.
My heart literally goes out to any of you having to experience this. Hang in there.
You completely missed the point I was making ie talking sometimes resolves issues without having to go into court battles.
Every state is different sooo check where you are.
In California you can sign a document giving power of attorney to someone to speak in your behalf and make decisions for you. Once you have been deemed unable to make decision for yourself etc and put under consivertership either voluntary or not who ever is your conserviter can sign over their responsibility to someone else with the right paperwork. It is a simple filing of paperwork NOT requiring a lawyer and court battles. It is a simple process and yes you file with the courts.
Now if you sit down with gramps and he knows he is losing it and he agrees that you should take his guns why in the hell would you put him through the indignity of taking him to court when he is losing his health, his mind and a lot of pride?
If he fights it sure there may come a time but if it can be resolved without the legal bullshit why would you do that to them? It sounds more like trying to cover your ass than his/her best interest when you do that.
I believe there's a big difference between Power Attorney and Conservatorship/Guardianship.
You keep using the term court battles. I petitioned the court to have my father declared incompetent, and have my sister appointed his guardian (of his person. There was a hearing before a court master, and then later a court proceeding where the judge signed off on it. Nothing even remotely resembling a "court battle" or was he treated in undignified manor.
Having him declared incompetent was the only way to legally protect him from from vultures looking to fleece him of his assets.
SnT thanks for posting this topic for discussion.
Thank you all who took the time to share your comments.
This specific topic and the subtopics are very difficult "facts" and "circumstances" dependent matters - that many are facing and will face in the near future.
Golf1echo
07-07-2014, 16:45
I believe there's a big difference between Power Attorney and Conservatorship/Guardianship.
You keep using the term court battles. I petitioned the court to have my father declared incompetent, and have my sister appointed his guardian (of his person. There was a hearing before a court master, and then later a court proceeding where the judge signed off on it. Nothing even remotely resembling a "court battle" or was he treated in undignified manor.
Having him declared incompetent was the only way to legally protect him from from vultures looking to fleece him of his assets.
I understand each state may be different but yes you are correct Power of Attorney can be given by someone who has not been deemed incompetent, forms can be picked up in most print shops, they can be specific or broader in scope...
Here in Colorado a Guardian is responsible for the person, Conservator is responsible for the assets both are appointed by the County Courts after petitioning the courts and hearings with regards to a now protected person. In the process a witness for the courts is sent to interview the protected person...when that interview goes South the courts now appoint a Guardian ad Lit um ( another lawyer ). Several plans, fund restrictions, disclosures, and hearings are required for the courts to insure the fiduciary responsibilities of the Guardians and Conservator are being met. There is a fair share of back and fourth between the attorneys, the courts and how they both interpreter the process...it all costs more assets.
Power of Attorney, Living Will, Solid Legal Wills, and or Trusts should be in place before any diagnosis of cognitive disorder IMO
What might have been lost in my earlier rant is that at some point in a declining elderly persons situation there will be a lot of people involved, in and out of the home, unknown people will have access...good people maybe not so good, all valuables are an issue at that point.
Pete. What you mentioned about the voting ( absentee ballots ) has been on my mind too, I asked around today and each care giver said the same thing..."they had seen it done". That component is probably huge...