Veterans, mental health and guns

I took a lot of time reading over this thread. Even idiots say something important on occasion, and they don't even know it. Did all these military that served in a combat roll returned with some mental issues? I'm not talking about a different outlook on life. I have a number of friends that served in Vietnam. Knowing them before and after that experience they clearly reflected a change in values and usually a better understanding of their rights. They would admit that it took a couple of years to not react to those sounds that occur in normal everyday life of which those same sounds caused alarm in combat.

My question is this, what percentage of combat vets have true mental issues? And what caused the problem; IED or change in attitude?

I am sure color of law, starting off your post with an opening commentary using the term ‘ idiots’ is conducive to being taken seriously but the benefit of doubt is extended to respond to your invaluable query:

The problem with a response is you need to understand this is not a new phenomenon manifesting for those who serve in battle. Examination of medical records from those served in the civil war through our current modern conflicts shows it has existed possibly hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, it is a complex situation since each individual serving is a unique entity, each coming from a different background, e.g., rural, urban, poverty, prosperity, hunter, non-hunter, ad nausm

As such, a generalization towards ‘what percentage’ is an incorrect methodology as there are some individuals who bear the burden w/o any outward manifestation of the horrors the individual endured in their dealing with the trauma of combat, and loss of comrades/friends, or even the ‘OMG what have I done to the enemy’ of ‘shell shock,’ or as the term is called today ‘PTSD”. Go ask a WWII/Korea conflict survivor about their experience(s) and you will soon discern they do not wish to articulate their experiences as they have come to terms with their own mental anguish.

There are others who manifest their mental discomfort from being exposed to the trauma of conflict immediately ~ these are the folk we hear about on the news.

Why the differences? Mental health professionals have no idea.

Now, my perception of the crux of your query:
1) Remember, there is no base line of the individual’s psyche prior to being sent into a conflict situation; consequently if a person believes their mental capacity is altered from being in a conflict, then it has been and therefore requires assistance. Mental health professionals have no way to ascertain if the individual mentally stable before going let alone how to put humpty back together again.

2) There is no specific trigger identified which causes any specific individual to become mentally unstable and suffer PTSD after a specific conflict related incident. Some, as mentioned, walk around after doing their ‘own’ mental adjusting’ while others require extensive assistance using psychotherapy, psychometric medicines, and so forth.

Finally, the stigma keeps a lot from seeking assistance as well as the side effects of the psychometric med.

the science of neuroscience is one of the greatest boons in assisting in research of mental disorders as well as identification of viable psychometric treatment to assist those who are suffering from the trauma of conflicts.

ipse

Solus, since you have only been a participant on OCDO for just under a year versus my almost seven years of participation I will discount your criticism of my general statement about idiots knowing you lack a clear history of my contributions on this forum; good, bad or indifferent.

Your answer is an answer that most already knows, we are all nuts in some way, shape or form. All you did was describe a Bell Curve. Some of us are more crazy than others. Most, or the majority, of us deal with our own demons without any intervention.

With that said, my percentage question still stands. An infinitesimal percentage of people should not have access to sharp objects, let alone guns. Those are not in question. What is in question are those zealots who hold themselves out as Frasier Crane in attempting to screw with someones life by alleging that just being a Vet qualifies you as someone who should not be allowed to have guns. That is the percentage I'm looking for.

So again, what percentage of combat vets have true mental issues? And what caused the problem; IED or change in attitude?

The truth to be told, we may not have any clue as to the percentage.

color of law said:

....

So again, what percentage of combat vets have true mental issues? And what caused the problem; IED or change in attitude?

The truth to be told, we may not have any clue as to the percentage.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you are aware of the multitude of questions you have raised with one little interrogation mark.

Trying to remember stats off the top of my head, something like 15%-25% of folks coming into military service have diagnosible mental iollnesses (as defined by DSM IV). Somewhere between 25%-50% of those entering a defined combat zone (where you get more money each month for the possibility of being shot at/IED'd) have diagnosible anxiety, and somewhere arounf 10%-20% carry those anxieties over (for at least 6 months) on return from sai combat zones. PTSD depends on who is doing the diagnosing and why the diagnosis is being sought. It is a problem that has a range of manifestations ranging from almost complete debilitation and homicidal/suicidal ideation and action to a generalized restiveness that does not actually interfere with carrying out even the most precise sorts of work - mechanical, analytical, or artistic.

Ten we have the whole complex of changes in attitude - especially among those who were "mildly" oppositional-defiant when they went into military service. A good number of them, as an artifact of their military expereience, come out with anything from a mild to a raging dislike/unwillingness to deal with the general dumbass stupidity the vast majority of the world exhibits because they are so unaware that they do not know they have their heads up their backsides. (Want to guess where I fit on that continuum?)

But let's get back to the way things are supposed to work out, shall we? As noted, it is possible for someone who scores rather high on the positive side of the contimuum for any of the conditions noted (as well as many others) and not be a danger to self or others, or be substantially unable to care for themself. It is also possible for someone scoring rather low on the continuum to legitimately be described as a danger to themself, or substantially unable to care for themself. That, among many other reasons, is why Mental Health Medicine is an art and not a science.

My plumber practiced his trade until he was able to get it right 97% of the time (union's Master Plumber rating). Doctors (medical and psychiatric) and psychologists and other lesser folks in the Mental Health field brag about practicing their craft - apparently being totally unaware that they will not get to Carneige Hall until they stop practicing and start getting it right.

stay safe.

color of law said:

Solus, since you have only been a participant on OCDO for just under a year versus my almost seven years of participation I will discount your criticism of my general statement about idiots knowing you lack a clear history of my contributions on this forum; good, bad or indifferent.

Your answer is an answer that most already knows, we are all nuts in some way, shape or form. All you did was describe a Bell Curve. Some of us are more crazy than others. Most, or the majority, of us deal with our own demons without any intervention.

With that said, my percentage question still stands. An infinitesimal percentage of people should not have access to sharp objects, let alone guns. Those are not in question. What is in question are those zealots who hold themselves out as Frasier Crane in attempting to screw with someones life by alleging that just being a Vet qualifies you as someone who should not be allowed to have guns. That is the percentage I'm looking for.

So again, what percentage of combat vets have true mental issues? And what caused the problem; IED or change in attitude?

The truth to be told, we may not have any clue as to the percentage.

Click to expand...

color of law, that you have survived seven years with such a condescending mentality and contemptuous attitude towards other members is proof the members of this forum are quite benevolent to tolerate such behaviour.

and apparently, my response to your query was exemplary and quite adequate as you seem to understand my response by your last sentence in your last post.

ipse

Shrinks are being given credibility they do not deserve. There is a vet in Virginia that likely could attest to this fact. This discussion only elevates shrinks to a position they do not deserve. Shrinks practice a "black art."

A national scandal emerged in Missouri, after their MIAC Fusion Center issued an eight page document which made many false claims. The documents attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The 'Missouri Documents', as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.


Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey Novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/missouri-miac-4829.html

https://miacx.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Click to expand...

Being a loon is not unlawful. The unlawful acts of a loon are unlawful.

The way ya'll talk it seems OK to lock a law abiding loon up...just in case.

solus said:

color of law, that you have survived seven years with such a condescending mentality and contemptuous attitude towards other members is proof the members of this forum are quite benevolent to tolerate such behaviour.

and apparently, my response to your query was exemplary and quite adequate as you seem to understand my response by your last sentence in your last post.

ipse

Click to expand...

I truly think some on this form would take issue with you accusing them as being benevolent.

As to my request for a percentage of vets seemed to spur a cogent response from skidmark. The only thing I could add to skidmark's response is that our military only represents .6% of our population.

color of law said:

I truly think some on this form would take issue with you accusing them as being benevolent.

As to my request for a percentage of vets seemed to spur a cogent response from skidmark. The only thing I could add to skidmark's response is that our military only represents .6% of our population.

Click to expand...

I thought it was an interesting question and was looking forward to finding out some new info.

sudden valley gunner said:

I thought it was an interesting question and was looking forward to finding out some new info.

Click to expand...

I had high hopes for this thread, but I forgot that this is OCDO and a few people and their egos (and in one case, alter-egos) will surely do their best to get this thread locked and ruin all hopes of any form of constructive dialog.

This thread will probably end in a train wreck like most threads of any substance on this forum. To some, any question that they see as pertaining to them in a way they love to portray others as being (usually negative) is a paranoia inducing life changing event.

wimwag said:

Since we have our very own headcase here at OCDO and we all have to deal with his sock puppets and bipolar behavior, I feel the need to ask a question. Do veterans need a better inpatient mental health system? It would seem to me that some are very far gone from reality and their childish outbursts and obsessive harassment indicate a self destructive pattern that will likely end up in their eventual death. Cyber stalking often turns I to real stalking and in a state (take Wisconsin for example) 1/3 of adults are armed or gun owners. I would hate to see any mentally ill man locked up and thus deprived of his rights based on a possible premature assumption that they are a danger to themselves, so at what point do you guys think forced intervention should be taken?

Click to expand...

Holy cow and mackerel you seem to be quite obsessed with this person. Here in Wisconsin a good investigative tool is the utilization of the WCCA website. I have seen cases on the site where people have been ordered by a judge to undergo psychological assesments, anger management, etc. Maybe the person you label headcase has a history on the WCCA:question:

Franky said:

Holy cow and mackerel you seem to be quite obsessed with this person. Here in Wisconsin a good investigative tool is the utilization of the WCCA website. I have seen cases on the site where people have been ordered by a judge to undergo psychological assesments, anger management, etc. Maybe the person you label headcase has a history on the WCCA:question:

Click to expand...

Nothing spells out obsession like making multiple accounts and responding with each one while holding side conversations with one's self...but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

wimwag said:

Nothing spells out obsession like making multiple accounts and responding with each one while holding side conversations with one's self...but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Click to expand...

A precise and pithy nay.

MSG Laigaie said:

First....I am not fond of being called a "headcase" by anyone, but sticks and stones.

I see a VA MH provider due to a TBI gifted to me during my Military service. One of the mandatory questions at each session is "have you considered suicide since our last meeting?" I always answer "no", and continue with, "Why do you think I would tell you anyway?" She knows that I am always armed (except while I am in the VA) and consistently verifies my sanity. A doctor with fewer ethics would have the ability to take my weapons from me with just a sentence. Too, too much power in one persons hands.

Click to expand...

This sounds so much like my life. I'm a a Medically Retired SGT of the Army for having minor/severe PTSD. I have been getting help(therapy) ever since i was diagnosed. My biggest fear was that they were gonna take all my guns away and i would never be able to hunt or teach my kids to hunt. Like MSG Laigaie said they always ask if you have thoughts of harming yourself and if you have had thoughts of hurting others. Have i thought about harming myself, yes...but i know that comitting the act is as pathetic as blaming guns for killing people. Have i thought about harming others, yes...but so has 3/4 americans everyday. See my mind and most other Vets but dont take my word on there behalf, are constently in a state of mind of security. We scan everything around us and highlight possible threats, not to just us but to everyone around us. I myself do not want to harm anyone unless my fellow americans are in danger of losing there life or limb. I may not be in the service anymore but i still feel the need and duty as an american to protect this country and everyone in it. I deeply apologize for affending anyone or making anyone feel uncomfortable towards me and any other Vet with the same issue.