New York Times: PTSD leads to gun ownership

[ArfinGreebly]

Seen in PowerLineBlog:

In a not terribly subtle swipe at the Second Amendment and gun ownership, the New York Times, in its story, "Across America, Deadly Echos of Foreign Battles," makes the comment:

Decades of studies on the problems of Vietnam veterans have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse — and criminality. On a less scientific level, such links have long been known.

Or, more succinctly, ". . . studies . . . have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of . . . gun ownership . . ."

So, PTSD being a mental health issue, and one that leads to gun ownership, it is at once (subtly) evident that "gun ownership" is a consequence of mental illness.

I would suggest that this becomes the target of a "fire mission" calling them on their not-terribly-subtle effort to demonize the exercise of a civil right.

Floor is open for suggestions for approaches to this.

 

[wideym]

Coming home after a year in Iraq and almost immediatly turning in your weapon leaves you feeling like your missing your right hand. You carry your rifle everywhere you go, night and day, and will even get your ass chewed out if it's not with you.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I think veterans tend to keep guns in their home because they have seen just how terrible the world can be if it wants to be, and don't simply bury their heads in the sand and pretend they live in candyland. PTSD might be related; I have a neighbor who has PTSD (vietnam Vet) and he keeps a shotgun in the home, but he will tell you right away that it has been no joy to take the life of another human. Still, he doesn't want to be totally defenseless.

 

[geekWithA.45]

One of many possible definitions of veteran:

"Someone who has learned the value of a gun."

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Think of it this way: What is PTSD?

It's pretty much the result of stress when you learn that your fellow human being is very ready and willing to kill you, and in the case of combat, many of them are ready and willing to kill you, or at least keep trying.

Combat is a wake-up call for people. It's really an unnatural thing to kill another, or at least it should be. When you spend an extended period of time killing others for no other reason than so they don't kill you, it gives you a whole new perspective on how utterly screwed up planet Earth is.

So my theory is this, once you've learned that Muhammad from Iraq(or Charlie from Vietnam, or Jerry from Germany) is willing to kill you to take what's yours, what's to say Tyrone from California(or Giovanni from New York, or Pablo from Texas) ISN'T?

PTSD=gun ownership because PTSD=the loss of innocence and an unfortunate view of reality

What is reality? That there ARE people out there who are pleased to kill you.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Masterofmalice has it right. People who have or who have had PTSD have figured out that the world can be really, really nasty sometimes. That's all.

 

[FieroCDSP]

The Anti's will say and do anything to villify guns to a listening (or viewing) audiance. It's simple but effective brainwashing. If you hear something enough times, and from enough sources, you stand a good chance of starting to believe it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

"Someone who has learned the value of [strike]a gun [/strike]the Constitution and the freedoms it reinforces."

Maybe another version

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I read the article yesterday. The DSM is now being updated. I guess we'll see how that works out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

It's the new-old tactic as far as I can see; increase the belief that certain catagories of people need to be disarmed owing to mental illness. Left unchecked, the only people able to own arms lawfully will be the 'sane' ones who have no interest in exercising the right to do so.

With Heller coming up, and a new federal list to add to in new and creative ways, look out. Here in IL, a law was quietly passed allowing mental health professionals to submit the names of outpatients who 'might pose a risk' to the ISP for addition to the new database.

More and more, we need bona-fide mental health practitioners who will stand up for patient rights.

 

[12Bravo20]

This is what I posted on another forum about this story and the "Veterans Disarmament Act"

"Well look where the article came from. The military isn't any different than any other segment of society, you are going to have bad apples. This is liberal media at it's best, err worse. Like I has said in other posts, the VA has been turning over names of veterans with PTSD to NICS/FBI/ATF for a few years now without the new law. This is just my opinion but it seems the gun grabbers want to make sure that veterans are disarmed because they are more likely to stand up against a repressive government compared to the rest of society. And no I am not saying that an armed rebellion is coming or that it needs to happen."

 

[scout26]

Or, more succinctly, ". . . studies . . . have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of . . . gun ownership . . ."

Or could it be that most veterans were already gunowners, hunters and outdoorsmen prior to joining. I know most of my soliders had been raised in families where hunting, fishing, and camping were part of growing up. At least, when I was on active duty from '87-'91. Most came from rural areas where hunting is a part of life.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The New-York Times might be onto something important.

If Post Traumatic Stress Disorder manifests itself in so many problems including gun ownership, the obvious solution is for this country to disband its military immediately. With no military there can't be any veterans who suffer PTSD from combat, and those problem are solved.

There are two side benefits from disbanding the military.

First, of course, is the savings to taxpayers. It's costly to defend this country. The tax money saved on national defense could be put to better use in entitlement programs and pork barrel legislation.

The second benefit is perhaps less obvious but may be more significant. When enemies less caring about its people than we are recognize that we have no military defense, they are likely to attack us. That's good. As they blow up our buildings and kill our people those murderers will begin to suffer PTSD. Then PTSD becomes their problem, not ours. Pretty clever, I think.

In fact I like the New-York Times thinking so much that it's worth extending it to every similar situation. Here at last is the one solution to the personnel problems of front line law enforcement agencies. Disband them now. When there are no LEOs there will be no officers who suffer escalated divorce rates, alcohol and substance abuse, and other signs of PTSD. The benefits of this approach are further reduction in taxes and, of course, the inevitable PTSD among criminals.

It's another winner from the New-York Times. I understand that Barack Obama has similar ideas and that Hillary Clinton is not much different in her approaches. A defenseless country is a healthy, happy, prosperous country.

 

[WildeKurt]

The real problem with the article is it's inclusion of gun ownership in a list of social malady's: Homelessness, child abuse, domestic violence and criminality. Keep saying it enough and people will believe that gun ownership is a social malady. Many already do believe it after all. This is what should be pointed out to the New York Times and it's readership.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

PTSD and guns

This one hits home way too strongly for me. I have lived with PTSD since at least 1970. The VA people tell me I grew up in a PTSD environment due to my Dad's service in WWII, and my family circumstances, all of my formative years. It has only been the last couple of years I was willing to face it. I lived in the shadows and fringes, never being homeless but never truly being part of the mainstream either. The constant bombardment by the media of the hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq make my days very hard.

When I joined this forum one of the first questions I asked was about NICS and PTSD since I was recently re-rated with a PTSD determination as a component of my diability rating. Has the VA turned my case in to the NICS system? Don't know. I will find out this week since I am buying my first firearm in 4 years.

Are they trying to establish that vets with PTSD are more likely to own firearms? Why not? They haven't stopped at claiming any thing else. I would imagine that if they did a study of military service and owning firearms they would establish the same causal connection. Veterans in general are more likely to be the ones who recognize the need to have fireams in their home, in my opinion.

In my case, I did not feel the need until they set out with the Brady Bill to tell me I could not. At that point I woke up and went, Huh? I don't know about you folks but the quickest way to have me set out to do something is to tell me I can't.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I don't know about you folks but the quickest way to have me set out to do something is to tell me I can't.

I wouldn't walk into a busy highway just because the traffic light turned red against me. I also wouldn't rob a bank, steal mails, write bad checks, kill someone, rob, rape, loot, plunder, or set fire to a cat just because there are laws prohibiting such things. You must have a more exciting life than I do.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Interesting twist there Robert. I was referring to the reality that until someone said I had to have government permission to own a gun, I never really paid much attention to what was going on. Like a lot of others, I believed our inherent rights were inviolable. Why worry about a non-existant problem? Not like I didn't have enough other stuff to occupy my time at that part of my life.

I am one of those people who just wants to be left alone. Don't bother me and I won't bother you. I stay out of the light of scrutiny and don't pay a lot of attention to what others are doing. I am also one of those people who don't like being pushed around by anyone.

I posted what I did to make a point about vets with PTSD. We are pretty much like any other vet. We do what we have to, to survive in today's world. If that means we need guns to feel secure we will have guns. If we can avoid having to take a life we will. If we have to fight, we'll fight. But people need to understand that it won't be like any other fight they have ever been in.

Do the anti's have the right to single us out. Hell no. But the reality is they will. They will do anything possible to villify any sector of the populace they can. Their tactic is not to rule by law, but rather, to sway public opinion, and rule by fear.

The last thing we need as a community is to allow them to drive a wedge between you and I. We own firearms because it is our right. Let's just agree on that and not get into some low brow, picayune ego match on this forum.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The last thing we need as a community is to allow them to drive a wedge between you and I. We own firearms because it is our right. Let's just agree on that and not get into some low brow, picayune ego match on this forum.

I agree. So let's make a deal. If you won't make ridiculous statements that reflect poorly on us all (such as "I don't know about you folks but the quickest way to have me set out to do something is to tell me I can't"), I won't ridicule them by showing where they lead.

 

[Gewehr98]

Curious to see where this is going, myself.

Part of my VA disability rating is due to a PTSD, with subsequent treatment and rehab. I haven't purchased any new firearms lately, since my gun safes are already quite full.

I think Robert was being tongue-in-cheek with the PTSD/no military thing.

I myself don't joke about it, even though I've been told I have a wonderful sense of humor. Nor will I be laughing were an upcoming NICS check to decline a firearms purchase.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I think Robert was being tongue-in-cheek with the PTSD/no military thing.

I myself don't joke about it, even though I've been told I have a wonderful sense of humor. Nor will I be laughing were an upcoming NICS check to decline a firearms purchase.

Did my proposal even seem plausible? The New-York Times article was laughable, at least in the connections I saw.

I'm not much for wringing my hands about the possibility of spooks leaping out at me from the dark, which makes me no fun at all at games of "Ain't it awful?" I don't see the point and I have no imagination where such things are concerned. Other people seem to enjoy playing it though, because they do it so often that they must delight in being scared and miserable. I'm never miserable and I'm just not bright enough to be scared. "What if the roof falls in?" and "What if I get hit by a car?" and "What if a UFO appears and its occupants decide that I am so handsome that they want to abduct me to start a new race on their planet?" are the kinds of questions that never occur to me.

You might find comfort in reading Alan Korwin's recent article "'NICS Improvement Act' Improved." Korwin's analysis is reasonable. It's summarized in the subtitles: "NRA Re-Writes HR 2640, Bush Signs It Into Law. Bill isn't perfect, but it's a good first step. Anti-rights crowd not happy."

Many gun owners here won't like Korwin's article or agree with it because it's sane and rational. Korwin doesn't think that the act is "The Veterans Disarmament Act" or that the NRA is involved in an evil plot with the alien brain eaters. What Korwin does think is what any reasonable person probably would conclude: the act benefits veterans (including people like you), can help solve some problems that concern responsible people, and shouldn't harm anyone.

Those who won't like or agree with what Korwin said are people who live to play "Ain't it awful?" I don't. I won't let anyone rob me of the enjoyment I take in the only life I'll ever lead. Put that your wonderful sense of humor to good use.

 

[kb2iaw]

I love the N.Y. times....It`s great for wrapping garbage ........