How many here should carry?
 

There is another thread about how many people in TV carry guns.

I thought a more interesting (to me) subject, since we are mostly all seniors, would be how many should carry.

This can be generalized to ask, should "rights" of seniors diminish as their abilities diminish?

A little background:

After the crash of 2008 being 58 and out of work suddenly from a downsizing I became homeless for a while and then got a job driving a cash register at a local convince store for a couple years. During that time I witnessed many seniors coming in for gas. Without any exaggeration, some of those seniors would take 15 minutes to get out of their car and struggle to get to the pump. They were often shaking so badly from tremors that they would need help to get the pump nozzle into the fill pipe on their car. Some were regulars and they would stay in their cars and blow their horn, and we would go out and pump their gas for them.

After seeing this repeated over and over, I began to wonder if everyone should have the right to drive. Slowed reactions, declining hearing, declining sight, tremors - and a 4 thousand pound car going 45 MPH past a shopping center seems to be a disaster waiting to happen. (Soon autopilot cars will help solve this problem) Loss of mobility (not being able to drive) is certainly a scary possibility for many seniors. But, when do people's right to walk down a sidewalk safely outweigh a seniors right/need to drive?

The same question can be applied to seniors and guns. (This should light a fire in the conversation!)

Take two 91 year old TV residents.

One is able to play below their age on the golf course, and has excellent mental facilities, hearing, sight and coordination. (Sometimes referred to as "super agers" by researchers in geriatrics.)

A second 91 year old is mostly confined to a motorized cart in grocery stores, has severe tremors, never had their cataracts removed and so has limited visual acuity and field of view, poor hearing and can't afford hearing aides, and is into the first symptoms of dementia.

Most would agree the first should be able to carry if they want, but how about the second? Should a person be allowed to carry if they can not hold a pattern at 20 feet of less than 10 feet diameter?

My personal feeling is that at some point a persons right to carry is outweighed by my right to be safe in public places.

I have NO problem with people that are mentally and physically able to safely carry and use weapons to be carrying, but at what point does a person become a hazard, and should we (the people) have the right to deny that person the right to carry?

Assuming most agree there are some people that should not be able to carry, where do we draw the line? What is the criteria? Is saying a mentally ill person can't carry an acceptable form of gun control? Is not allowing a person with Parkinson's that literally can't hint a barn from 10 feet acceptable gun control?

(Any predictions on how many posts before this thread gets locked - I hope it can remain civil, I think this is a real life issue that people need to think about and discuss.)

The same goes for driving

Absolutely! And with the car it can be even more dramatic for a senior to have their license revoked, since they then have limited ability to get out and shop, go to the doctor etc. So, it is understandable that they would resist that.

With a gun, it may help them feel safer, but if they could no longer carry it would not (probably?) significantly impact their quality of life.

I agree with both posts and was actually going to post same for driving. As sad as it is, we have to admit as we age we are just not the same. My family had that discussion about my dad who died at 94. Until about 93, he was very active and alert he drove, shopped, cooked and took care of my mom who had a stroke. Within the year we noticed some changes in his memory and just overall actions. We didn’t have to make that terrible decision of telling him he couldn’t drive anymore and taking his keys away. He died within that year and we found out he had stage 4 bladder cancer. It’s a very hard and sad decision but for their safety and the safety of others, hard decisions have to be made. I feel it’s the same for guns, cars and golf carts. I always felt that at a certain age licenses shouldn’t just be renewed automatically a test should be given again.

I agree with all people who are impaired not having access to guns, or cars. Or high end booze and pot and pills. I don't want those who have anger issues behind the wheel or with a gun either. I think kids under thirty should be carefully checked because many of them are dumb as rocks and have poor judgment.

Also women who have PMS and men taking testosterone supplements, it causes sudden onslaught of anger at times.

And I don't have a gun nor do I want one. I have crummy eye hand coordination but I can draw and my grandkids like me.

I also think that people have the right to legally carry firearms. I dislike age bias particularly from those just approaching sixty.

I will be eighty this fall. I have no idea how that happened. I am not driving. I swim though.

And like renewing a drivers licence as long as they can pass the eye test and write a check they pass.....which is hardly adequate for determining whether one should drive or not.

Same with getting permitted and renewing concealed weapons permits.

Most responsible people will do the right thing as they age and their ability change.

I do not think whether to or not should be a specific age because there are so many differing abilities within any age group. There just needs to be a more reliable method for renewal that helps determine ability regardless the age.

In this age of computer games, what would be so difficult to have a driving and or gun control simulator--insert your license and take a 15 minute computer cruise, if you fail , time for a real road test--same goes for a person with a CCW

Or something like that.
Good suggestion.
However there would be an unfair charge from some one or group crying foul or discrimination with the end result being no change hence no improvement.

The very reason why so many problems of the day are unable to be adequately addressed.

Legally blind people want the screen to have Braile instructions

Haven't had a gun since I got out of service. Always said if I need a gun to protect myself, I am living in the wrong place.

I agree with you completely. That is why I mentioned the two examples of a 91 year old. It is NOT the age of a person that is the problem, it is their physical and mental ability to safely use the item.

However I do think that at some age testing should be increased in frequency. Just like we picked a random age for drinking and smoking - you can go kill or die for your country, but you can't drink. Laws don't always make sense. But, we "need" some randomly pick age for things to start happening.

You never know where lightning will strike, again, we're surrounded by have nots--pulling into a gas station, super mkt, doesn't mean you're living in the wrong place--Sharon Tate was living in Beverly Hills--not the wrong place--but the wrong time

Amen! Your last sentence should be the final thought.