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