PTSD and other mental health issues.

[rwg3]

I was reading another thread about a shooting allegedly attributed to a person suffering from PTSD, and rather than disrupt the thread which honors the victims I decided to start what will hopefully be a reasonable discussion about the current mental topics.

Without calling anyone out I have have noticed questions about "what is the world coming to" and "why didn't we hear about PTSD after WWII", as well as concerns about a diagnosis affecting ex-service members. I don't claim to have any answers but I do have some thoughts to share. First lets start with the frequency with which we are confronted with these incidents. I have to wonder if we are truly experiencing a greater frequency of crimes, population adjusted, or are we being hit by the omnivorous media frenzy to capture any and all events for ratings?

My belief is that we are not worse than previous times but rather the change and development in psychiatric medicine now more accurately identifies different conditions. Unfortunately there is no objectively measurable scale for identifying the degree of involvement of psychiatric maladies nor the follow on propensity for violence. This is where the rub comes in identifying those persons who should not be allowed unrestricted access to firearms. I am not sure where to now draw the line, as we as a society have already drawn lines around the 2nd amendment right. In this case I am thinking of those convicted of a felony. I am not suggesting that those with mental illness are in any way criminals but rather pointing out that the ability to draw boundaries has been achieved. I suspect that there are some who have been convicted of crimes that reach felony status who may be potentially less harmful to the general public than some with mental illness. How we tell which is which is where this battle must be fought.

I hope that as the mental health field grows and the body of science in it increases we can get to the point where we can assess an individual's ability to own a firearm without endangering the public. Until then all we can do is use broad strokes and hope that we find a reasonable balance point between the rights of individuals and the public.

*edited to add quotation marks.

[JP171]

I was reading another thread about a shooting allegedly attributed to a person suffering from PTSD, and rather than disrupt the thread which honors the victims I decided to start what will hopefully be a reasonable discussion about the current mental topics.

Without calling anyone out I have have noticed questions about "what is the world coming to" and why didn't we hear about PTSD after WWII, as well as concerns about a diagnosis affecting ex-service members. I don't claim to have any answers but I do have some thoughts to share. First lets start with the frequency with which we are confronted with these incidents. I have to wonder if we are truly experiencing a greater frequency of crimes, population adjusted, or are we being hit by the omnivorous media frenzy to capture any and all events for ratings?

My belief is that we are not worse than previous times but rather the change and development in psychiatric medicine now more accurately identifies different conditions. Unfortunately there is no objectively measurable scale for identifying the degree of involvement of psychiatric maladies nor the follow on propensity for violence. This is where the rub comes in identifying those persons who should not be allowed unrestricted access to firearms. I am not sure where to now draw the line, as we as a society have already drawn lines around the 2nd amendment right. In this case I am thinking of those convicted of a felony. I am not suggesting that those with mental illness are in any way criminals but rather pointing out that the ability to draw boundaries has been achieved. I suspect that there are some who have been convicted of crimes that reach felony status who may be potentially less harmful to the general public than some with mental illness. How we tell which is which is where this battle must be fought.

I hope that as the mental health field grows and the body of science in it increases we can get to the point where we can assess an individual's ability to own a firearm without endangering the public. Until then all we can do is use broad strokes and hope that we find a reasonable balance point between the rights of individuals and the public.

First we did hear about PTSD after WWII it was commonly called shell shock in WWI and WWII in korea and vietnam it was called combat stress, Combat fatigue and several other things all of them just something someone called it. PTSD became a proper term for Stress disorders shortly after the first gulf war in 1990/1991, shrinks began to discover that it applied to more than just soldiers, the symptoms were found in Police, Firefighters and EMT's they began to figure out why the suicide rates among those public service people was 2 to 3 times higher than the average norm for the population at large. the reason it is so hard to assess people is that everyone is an individual and grows up under different circumstances and therefore able to handle different ammounts of stress and seeing things that no one should ever have to see or experience. some of us have different reactions to the same stimulus and it can be different for each time. the human condition is the most difficult to map because humans do not act on instinct alone. so really there is no easy answer to the questions you have. nor are there any easy solutions. as far as assessing an individual as to the ability to own carry or use a firearm the on;y reliable way is to program everyone the same way and keep them seperated from society untill a late age when the reactions to stressors becomes uniform and controllable. can we think the movie Soldier with Kurt Russel

[hillfighter]

If someone is not mentally competent to possess firearms, then at least 9 times out of 10 they are also not mentally competent to possess a chainsaw, drive an automobile, vote, or have unsupervised internet access.

[DEB]

If someone is not mentally competent to possess firearms, then at least 9 times out of 10 they are also not mentally competent to possess a chainsaw, drive an automobile, vote, or have unsupervised internet access.

This, and how many crimes, with firearms mind you, have been committed by those experiencing PTSD? I know that most are Suicidal Ideations, but committing Murders, especially mass killings? Not that it doesn't occur, especially one on one, but it could be anything; with PTSD being brought up as a possible defense, by someone that is just a criminal, who also happens to be a Vet.

[The Annoyed Man]

My dad suffered from some PTSD from WW2. It didn't disable him, but I remember him even in his late 40s/early 50s talk about a habit he had of constantly scanning for cover, just as a matter of course. He carried some survivor guilt, being one of 7 survivors out of his rifle company. But there are a couple of things we have to remember about PTSD. The first is that not all combat vets will experience it. In fact, the majority won't. Some people are exposed to combat, do their duty, and they move on with life. The memories may not be pleasant, but neither are they tortured by them. The other thing to remember is that most who are affected by it are still, like my father was, rational and lucid human beings who are in control of their faculties, and are functional and productive members of society—and the fact that they are around guns (or not) is not going to make them "suddenly snap" and start killing people. THAT vision of PTSD is largely a mythical product of Hollywood and leftist pop psychology. My dad went on to get two Ph.D.s and had a career as a professor at Caltech for nearly 40 years before he died. I spoke with one of the other 7 marines who survived with my dad, and he had a full life and a career as a successful California attorney, retiring to Hawaii in his old age. Both men were wounded severely. My dad had been shot in the chest, and the other guy had part of his jaw shot away, taken machine gun rounds in both arms and a leg, and had a grenade detonate between his ankles, breaking them both. You would think that such horror would be so lasting that they would be damaged for life, and yet, PTSD or not, they were both successful in life.

The people who suffer from it are NOT murderous monsters. They may indeed be in much emotional anguish and pain, but they are also people who were noble and decent enough to serve the country they were called, and they have taken on a burden that we have no business disrespecting them for. Michael Yon had an interesting post on his website a few days ago: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/sergea ... -nazar.htm. In a nutshell, he says that while there are certainly legitimate cases of PTSD, there is also a cottage industry of "working the system" by people who claim PTSD in stolen valor, or who use fake PTSD to excuse bad behavior, and worst of all, game the system to obtain a PTSD diagnosis so that they can obtain disability. It is not only evil, but it casts a bad light on those of our heros who really DO suffer from it.

I have a friend who has combat related PTSD which is nearly disabling, acquired from two deployments to Iraq. We have gone shooting together, and I trust him implicitly around firearms. He's a great dad and a loving husband. He has the pain and depression from his PTSD, but he also is a functioning, rational, and truly gentle man. As a nation, we have to find that balance where we are neither obsessing about PTSD on one hand, finding it under every rock, nor ignoring it as if it didn't exist on the other hand. The problem is that it makes "good press." They guy who shot Chris Kyle allegedly suffered from PTSD, but we don't know if that fact had anything to do with why he killed Kyle and the other victim, Chad Littlefield. What we do know is that he shot them both at close range, from behind. This was NOT a confrontation. Could it be PTSD? Maybe. But backshooting to people, it might just as easily been a robbery. We don't know. So I find that it is useless to speculate on the PTSD aspect of this particular murder until we actually know the facts. Of course, if I'm his attorney, I'm going to beat that PTSD big bass drum long and loud until I've got an insanity defense assured.....because the shooter has been booked on two capital murder charges. That's a potential death penalty. PTSD, real or not, may save this guy's life.

[Target1911]

TAM

That is very eye opening and a deep explanation. I thank you for that.

[The Annoyed Man]

Added because of my previous post (above).....

The part about Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield being shot from behind is hearsay. When my son called me yesterday evening to tell me Kyle had been shot, I immediately phoned a friend of mine who knew Chris Kyle, thinking he would want to know. My friend knew him in college at Tarleton State, and they did some rodeoing together. My friend had just gotten off the phone with someone else when I called. That call was from another person who was a mutual friend of my friend's and Chris Kyle's. He's the one who told my friend that it looked like Kyle and Littlefield had been shot from behind; but I don't know how or where he got that information from. It could have been legit info from talking to a local LEO, or it could have been pure speculation. I don't really know for sure, and in my post above, I was repeating what I was told.....but it is strictly hearsay until and if it turns out to be confirmed.

[n5wd]

If someone is not mentally competent to possess firearms, then at least 9 times out of 10 they are also not mentally competent to possess a chainsaw, drive an automobile, vote, or have unsupervised internet access.

If someone has an arm blown off, it's visible. If someone has a virus, there are diagnostics for it. If someone has Alzheimers, symptoms have usually been observed for a long time before a diagnosis is made.

For PTSD, there are often no physical symptoms, no diagnotics that are readily available by someone who has never been trained to use them, and certainly sometimes, the symptoms are so severe that there isn't enough time to observe a subject so that a subjective opinion can be made.

So - who's going to make that diagnosis, and who's going to take them out of society, which is what you're suggesting. And, should an airman that has mild PTSD symptoms which are being treated on an out-patient basis suffer the same restrictions as an Army rifleman with severe PTSD tha t requires in-patient treatment?

Your're right that people that have severe mentally debilitating problems shouldn't have access to a firearm, but the locating, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD and other traumatic-related mental conditions is a problem that this nation hasn't even begun to wind it's way through. If we had, there wouldn't be so many service-connected suicides.

[v-rog]

I was reading another thread about a shooting allegedly attributed to a person suffering from PTSD, and rather than disrupt the thread which honors the victims I decided to start what will hopefully be a reasonable discussion about the current mental topics.

Without calling anyone out I have have noticed questions about "what is the world coming to" and "why didn't we hear about PTSD after WWII", as well as concerns about a diagnosis affecting ex-service members. I don't claim to have any answers but I do have some thoughts to share. First lets start with the frequency with which we are confronted with these incidents. I have to wonder if we are truly experiencing a greater frequency of crimes, population adjusted, or are we being hit by the omnivorous media frenzy to capture any and all events for ratings?

My belief is that we are not worse than previous times but rather the change and development in psychiatric medicine now more accurately identifies different conditions[/b]. Unfortunately there is no objectively measurable scale for identifying the degree of involvement of psychiatric maladies nor the follow on propensity for violence. This is where the rub comes in identifying those persons who should not be allowed unrestricted access to firearms. [b]I am not sure where to now draw the line, as we as a society have already drawn lines around the 2nd amendment right. In this case I am thinking of those convicted of a felony. I am not suggesting that those with mental illness are in any way criminals but rather pointing out that the ability to draw boundaries has been achieved. I suspect that there are some who have been convicted of crimes that reach felony status who may be potentially less harmful to the general public than some with mental illness. How we tell which is which is where this battle must be fought.

I hope that as the mental health field grows and the body of science in it increases we can get to the point where we can assess an individual's ability to own a firearm without endangering the public. Until then all we can do is use broad strokes and hope that we find a reasonable balance point between the rights of individuals and the public.

*edited to add quotation marks.

1. there is also over-diagnosis
2. An important note- being diagnosed with accute or chronic PTSD does not inhibit or negate one's ability to make legal, ethical, and moral choices (right and wrong).
3. there is always an inference anytime someone places a "but" in a sentence. A Felon is a felon; in most cases, the person has made a series of immoral, unethical, and illegal choices to carry out a set of actions.
4. It is important to note that PTSD is currently categorized as an anxiety disorder. There are a variety of treatment plans to help people cope with PTSD.
5. I don't think you had ill-intent when you talked about PTSD, mental illness, and felons. I do ask that you read-up on anxiety disorders and be more respectful to those with PTSD. Mental illness does not equate to PTSD.
6. With the extremely high operational tempo of our military, fire, rescue, law enforcement, there are going to be more diagnosed with PTSD (And don't forget those who have been through life changning traumatic events). The Psychiatic and Psychological community is ill-equipped to deal with the amount of people that exhibit symptoms of PTSD.

[The Annoyed Man]

More thoughts from Michael Yon: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/chris- ... oughts.htm

The money quote from his article:

Just as PTSD is not a cause of mass murder, it is not an excuse for criminality.

[rwg3]

1. there is also over-diagnosis
2. An important note- being diagnosed with accute or chronic PTSD does not inhibit or negate one's ability to make legal, ethical, and moral choices (right and wrong).
3. there is always an inference anytime someone places a "but" in a sentence. A Felon is a felon; in most cases, the person has made a series of immoral, unethical, and illegal choices to carry out a set of actions.
4. It is important to note that PTSD is currently categorized as an anxiety disorder. There are a variety of treatment plans to help people cope with PTSD.
5. I don't think you had ill-intent when you talked about PTSD, mental illness, and felons. I do ask that you read-up on anxiety disorders and be more respectful to those with PTSD. Mental illness does not equate to PTSD.
6. With the extremely high operational tempo of our military, fire, rescue, law enforcement, there are going to be more diagnosed with PTSD (And don't forget those who have been through life changning traumatic events). The Psychiatic and Psychological community is ill-equipped to deal with the amount of people that exhibit symptoms of PTSD.[/quote]

Thanks for the reasoned response. While I MIGHT (emphasis only) disagree with you on effects of PTSD, I probably wouldn't in context of this discussion. I do agree that your point number six is all too true and the same can be said of most if not all of mental health issues, even those resulting from chemical imbalances treatable by medication.
JMO but the state of mental health treatment is still very much ruled by educated guesswork as compared to physical medicine. Now to the crux of thoughts, which my not have been as clear as I hoped they would be, in today's climate of fear based regulation attempts, any arguments which take place in the realm impacted by any relationship to "mental health" have become flash points. I started with PTSD due to the currency of it in the media and as offshoot of another post. In today's environment it may become if it hasn't already, the tipping point for individuals to become immersed in the quagmire of limits on the right of gun ownership.
We who value the ownership of guns are doing a better job in general of presenting facts that rebut the anti's claims, I think that the area we most at a disadvantage is in the area of mental health/weapons access . I do hope that we can develop some of the same skills in this area of the debate that we are using in the other areas of the discussion so we do not leave a back door open that allows regulatory exploitation.

[Redneck_Buddha]

The American Psychiatric Association has gotten a host of new "afflictions" added to their DSM-V.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-fra ... 27626.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...1) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM-5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder -- a puzzling decision based on the work of only one research group. We have no idea how this untested new diagnosis will play out in real life practice settings, but my fear is that it will exacerbate, not relieve, the already excessive and inappropriate use of medication in young children. During the past two decades, child psychiatry has already provoked three fads -- a tripling of Attention Deficit Disorder, a more than 20-times increase in Autistic Disorder, and a 40-times increase in childhood Bipolar Disorder. The field should have felt chastened by this sorry track record and should engage itself now in the crucial task of educating practitioners and the public about the difficulty of accurately diagnosing children and the risks of over-medicating them. DSM-5 should not be adding a new disorder likely to result in a new fad and even more inappropriate medication use in vulnerable children.

2) Normal grief will become Major Depressive Disorder, thus medicalizing and trivializing our expectable and necessary emotional reactions to the loss of a loved one and substituting pills and superficial medical rituals for the deep consolations of family, friends, religion, and the resiliency that comes with time and the acceptance of the limitations of life.

3) The everyday forgetting characteristic of old age will now be misdiagnosed as Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, creating a huge false positive population of people who are not at special risk for dementia. Since there is no effective treatment for this 'condition' (or for dementia), the label provides absolutely no benefit (while creating great anxiety) even for those at true risk for later developing dementia. It is a dead loss for the many who will be mislabeled.

4) DSM-5 will likely trigger a fad of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder leading to widespread misuse of stimulant drugs for performance enhancement and recreation and contributing to the already large illegal secondary market in diverted prescription drugs.

5) Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food. DSM-5 has instead turned it into a psychiatric illness called Binge Eating Disorder.

6) The changes in the DSM-5 definition of autism will result in lowered rates -- 10 percent according to estimates by the DSM-5 work group, perhaps 50 percent according to outside research groups. This reduction can be seen as beneficial in the sense that the diagnosis of autism will be more accurate and specific -- but advocates understandably fear a disruption in needed school services. Here the DSM-5 problem is not so much a bad decision, but the misleading promises that it will have no impact on rates of disorder or of service delivery. School services should be tied more to educational need, less to a controversial psychiatric diagnosis created for clinical (not educational) purposes and whose rate is so sensitive to small changes in definition and assessment.

7) First time substance abusers will be lumped in definitionally in with hard-core addicts despite their very different treatment needs and prognosis and the stigma this will cause.

8) DSM-5 has created a slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions that eventually can spread to make a mental disorder of everything we like to do a lot. Watch out for careless overdiagnosis of Internet and sex addiction and the development of lucrative treatment programs to exploit these new markets.

9) DSM-5 obscures the already fuzzy boundary been Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the worries of everyday life. Small changes in definition can create millions of anxious new 'patients' and expand the already widespread practice of inappropriately prescribing addicting anti-anxiety medications.

10) DSM-5 has opened the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings....

Danger Will Robinson, danger...

[Redneck_Buddha]

...and did I mention that by pointing out the deficiencies in DSM-V, I could probably be considered mentally ill?

[anygunanywhere]

There are many marks of today's society.

One is that for the most part people try to find something to blame or excuse their behavior.

Another is that the medical (psychiatric/psychological) community is rampant with trying to label every behavior as some disorder/syndrome so that they can treat it.

Another is that big pharm tries to build drugs to treat all of the stuff the medical community declares as a disorder.

Now that big government is in the health care bidness they will use and twist everything they can to declare those who are being noisy or beligerrant as disordered and get as many as they can including children under the spell of some drug so big gov can better control the masses.

If I was in elementary school right now they would be trying to feed me pills. I was a beligerant, rowdy. antsy individual who required near constant discipline and guidance.

I turned out fairly straight. I put a few grey hairs on Mrs. Anygunanywhere but it looks good on her if I do say so.

I can still be extremely annoying if I decide to though.

Anygunanywhere

[The Annoyed Man]

According to Yon's article this morning, the single biggest cause of PTSD in our population is motor vehicle accidents. And when somebody does a murder suicide or something equally vile, we don't ask if he or she had a car accident in 1988. PTSD is a problem, and a terrible thing for those who suffer with it. It needs to be dealt with for those who suffer it and they require our understanding. But that does not mean that its sufferers are not able to make reasoned moral decisions. As Yon says:

Even if someone with severe PTSD kills intentionally, it does not automatically follow that PTSD was the culprit or even partly to blame. Could be anything. Lovers' spat. Revenge. Alcohol. Meth. Prescription drugs. Clash of cultures. Craziness of some sort. Anything. It could be a mixture of many things.