Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A marksman in Iraq; No gun permit in Omaha

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:12 AM
Original message
A marksman in Iraq; No gun permit in Omaha

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10578732

Published Thursday March 5, 2009
A marksman in Iraq; No gun permit in Omaha
BY KEVIN COLE
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER



Sgt. Tim Mechaley trained fellow Marines to fire .50-caliber machine guns. He qualified as a marksman. He fought in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, and received a combat medal with a "V" for valor.

Back home, he uses a rifle for target shooting.

Yet, when Mechaley sought to buy a 9-mm Ruger pistol for protection at his midtown apartment, the Omaha Police Department rejected his application for a gun permit.


Sgt. Tim Mechaley


"I was trusted by the government to carry a loaded weapon, but now I am not allowed to purchase one by my local government," he said.

Mechaley, 32, has received counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder related to his service in Iraq. While completing an application for a gun permit, he responded "yes" to a question that asked whether he was being treated for a mental disorder.

"I circled yes because I wanted to be completely honest," he said.

FULL story at link.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

• 23 percent of veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and were treated by Veterans Affairs were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

• 21 percent of Nebraska veterans of those wars and who received VA treatment were diagnosed with PTSD.

Source: Dr. Ahsan Naseem, Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Uh, I wouldn't want to live next to somebody with PTSD and a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. EVERY servicemember returning from OIF/OEF receives counseling on PTSD
It's part of the redeployment process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. Ok. Point being?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Just because one receives PTSD counseling does not mean one has PTSD
From the article:

"he responded "yes" to a question that asked whether he was being treated for a mental disorder"

Seeing as how ALL returning vets are being treated (ie given counseling) for a mental disorder, answering this question in the negative would make them all liars (therefore subject to UCMJ action by their command).

It's a dumb question and does not address those that actually have diagnosed mental conditions that would make firearm ownership worrisome. The ATF question is much better: (once again, from the article) "What the permit form should ask, he said, is whether the applicant has ever been pronounced mentally impaired or has been committed to a mental institution."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
111. Your post doesn't make sense.
I don't know why you are trying to portray this as routine counseling given to all Iraq vets. From the article:

"When he returned home, he began to suffer from flashbacks and had trouble sleeping. He was diagnosed with PTSD and started going to counseling."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. It's clear you have absolutely no clue about PTSD
Knowledge is good. Get some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
73. No, I unfortunately do.
One of my best friends father has it as a result of his experiences in a prior war. His wife started sleeping in another room because he'd have nightmares and wake up in full fight or flight response, and he'd hurt her rather badly before he realized where he was. If he'd had a gun, that lady might be dead now.

There were three or four families going through shit like that just on my block growing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. I've known several people with PTSD that were never in the military.
So what's the rationale for prohibiting them from owning firearms?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. kinda makes sense, i think, if he stated he had mental issues, i think
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. What's his recovery status now?
If he has had treatment and is deemed fit again, that's one thing. If he is still suffering, that's quite another. I'm a gun owner myself, but I feel it's a responsibility not undertaken lightly.

The OP poses a very thorny question. I believe that with time, effort, and quality counseling, psychological problems can sometimes be overcome. I am not a psychological professional by any stretch; but sometimes "No" means "No" for a good, sound reason. Again, I am a gun owner, but I believe that right is tempered with responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Not unlike Clinical Depression, you are never fully cured of PTSD.
It's something that you COPE with though out the remaining years of your life. Sometimes you feel totally normal and other days, you're down on your knees battling deep despair. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. There ya go, then
It becomes a matter of how well one copes, I expect. Some folks are blessed with better support or better mechanisms than others. I know something about depression having battled it off an on all my life; PTSD is something I really don't know the in's and out's of. I don't know the young man's case in the OP and I'm hesitant to say a firm "yes" or "no" -- it's not fair me to opine knowing nothing of his circumstances. I'm not sure what the OP is going for in discussion. I'm not ready to castigate law enforcement for denying him a pistol permit out-of-hand, but then again I'm not willing to go to the wall for them either if he's competent enough to own and carry.

There just isn't enough information in the OP and I'm no psychologist. But I do want to be fair; I was raised to be fair.

BTW, I've caught your pic on another thread. From one old vet to another vet, thanks for your service. Our younguns coming home need us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
96. I know a couple of firefighters who recovered from PTSD quite well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Although I understand why, I disagree
He trained others how to safely use one of the largest and most difficult guns to use and cannot buy a pistol. He also, already owns a rifle. Should they take away his rifle? This is a case where I think the application process for gun ownership has failed in the wrong direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Nonsense
If he is currently being treated for PTSD, then that qualifies as a mental condition, and one that should disqualify him at the time. If he has dealt with the PTSD to the satisfaction of the authorities and his healthcare workers, fine. But if he hasn't, that's the reason for having the question in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. Over 60%
of our military service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan received mental health services. 60% of the men and women who served our country and fought alongside eachother with full confidence in the others abilities cannot own a gun when they return home. You try that with a WWII vet and see how fast he pops you in the mouth for being a smug little bastard trying to tell him what he can and can't do. Sure there are some who probably shouldn't have one but it's much fewer than 60% and probably more like 1%. Some cases need more thorough examination which is why I support increasing the depth of the approval process for owning guns. Right now, some guy could escape from a mental hospital, fill out the form and say no to the mental health question and get a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. There is a difference between receiving mental health services and being treated for PTSD
Facts are facts. He marked the question stating that he was undergoing treatment for a mental health disorder. PTSD can cause psychological issues that impact safe gun ownership. I'm not arguing against a WWII vet, so why are you even bringing this up, other than to try and call me names? And as far as whether an inmate could escape from a mental hospital and buy a gun because he checked no on the form, a proper background check is supposed to take care of that. Whether or not it does has absolutely no bearing on this issue.

YOU DON'T KNOW that the vet in question isn't a danger to anyone else.

YOU DON'T KNOW that he isn't going to have a schizophrenic episode.

YOU DON'T KNOW that it's probably more like 1% of the people diagnosed should really be considered a risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #64
75. I thought the thread was about a veteran
and WWII vets are veterans aren't they?

Proper background check? :rofl:
You and I both know that a majority of gun background checks are useless and inadequate. I'm for revision of that which most likely would have shown that the guy in question is capable of owning a gun even while receiving PTSD counseling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #75
83. If you want to revise background checks, fine
We can talk about that. However, why you are bringing in WWII vets who weren't diagnosed with PTSD to talk about why someone who is diagnosed with PTSD shouldn't be restricted is what has nothing to do with the argument. Except of course that you needed to call me a name and then claim that you aren't doing it.

So, if we need to revise background checks, OK. As it stands now though, you still do not know that this guy is mentally fit. I don't either. However, I'm not the one trying to argue he is. You have no basis to claim that he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #83
94. no
I didn't call you a name. The way I used the description was in no way intended to call you a smug little bastard. It was an example that I thought would provide a bit of humor in a serious topic but apparently you have no sense of humor.

Guy is mentally fit enough to be honest on his application, live and work without assistance and receive a medal of valor for his service but not to buy a gun. I think it's a load of bull. Just my opinion though which is pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #51
69. Nice one, peanut.
"You try that with a WWII vet and see how fast he pops you in the mouth..."

After all, there's no need to have a dialogue about a veteran's mental health when it's easier to punch the inquisitor in the face.


:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. Guess you've never met a WWII vet
You try to tell one that he isn't entitled to the rights he fought for and watched his friends die for because he fought and saw his friends die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. You know what they say about assumptions.
And, guess again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. Oh, so you have
tried to tell a WWII vet that he isn't entitled to the rights he fought for and watched his friends die for because he fought and saw his friends die? How'd that go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. No, wait, let me guess: you think people should be allowed to drive drunk too. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Not sure
what drinking and driving has to do with my comment or how it relates to owning a gun but no I don't think it should be allowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. Altered mind + dangerous equipment.
Capisce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. capiche
drunk with gun I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitarislife Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
99. no he doesn't
Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 08:36 PM by guitarislife
He does not "already own a rifle". when your in the military it's not like you take your weapon home with you every night, and it certainly is not your's. It is the property of the US Army and unless your on the battlefield, it stays in the armory.Read up on your facts before you try to make an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #99
103. He DOES already own a rifle. A civilian rifle.
He was denied when he attempted to purchase a pistol, but he already owns guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thor_MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. There is a time sequence here
He was trusted to carry a weapon, he trained other in use, he developed PTSD, (and was treated) and now is not trusted. This isn't that much different from a driving instructor losing a license after, say, going blind.

I own a shotgun and a handgun, have had them for going on 30 years. I would hope that my family would take them away (had them so long they were not required to be registered) in the case of my disability.

On the other hand, I think there ae extenuating circumstances here that should require a more careful consideration than a blanket no due to checking a box on a form. If he has dealt with the demons handed to him by his service, or their affect on him does not put him or others at risk, he should get the permit. Determining that requires more than a low level paper pusher rejecting the application due to a checked box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. If he has dealt with them though, he shouldn't be checking "yes"
The question isn't "Have you ever at all had any kind of mental issue, even unimportant ones?" If he's dealt with his issues, then the answer is "no" and there's no problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. PTSD and a gun?
No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. PTSD does not turn magically you into a monster; there are degrees of stress trauma.
Difficulty sleeping, nightmares, etc. do not turn a responsible person into a homicidal maniac, media stereotypes to the contrary. There are degrees, from mild to severe, but the media throws the term around as if all cases are extreme psychoses.

My wife has dealt with PTSD stemming from one of our son's extended hospitalizations, but was a danger to no one (including herself), and taking away her guns would have been unnecessary and counterproductive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
71. Couldn't disagree more strongly
And I will just leave it at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last Stand Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
84. Consider the context of the "Fight Response"
If you are in a war zone, it would be functional and reasonable.

If you are at home with your wife or mother, it could be lethal and criminal. PTSD does not translate well to the home.


I have TREMENDOUS sympathy for those struggling with this disorder, but until it is addressed successfully, it's best to err on the safe side. Unfortunately, studies on the brain show that physical changes occur to brains of people exposed to high stimulation trauma and they don't change back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #84
98. And again, there are degrees.
Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 07:52 PM by benEzra
Blanket prohibition for anyone who seeks counseling for PTSD, no matter how otherwise well-adjusted they are, how successful the counseling is, or how nonviolent they are, is only going to further stigmatize PTSD and cause anyone who cares about their civil rights to avoid counseling.

Uncomplicated PTSD does not make someone a danger to others, and given that as many as 1 in 4 returning Iraq vets may need treatment for it, harassing and stigmatizing them for life for seeking counseling is wrongheaded and counterproductive, particularly when they subjected themselves to the trauma out of service to their country. And there are many conditions that can disqualify you from owning a firearm, but uncomplicated PTSD is not one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder

BTW, do you think police officers who develop PTSD after seeing a fellow officer killed should be terminated barred for life from ever touching a gun again? If not, why would a non-LEO be so barred?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ogneopasno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. This is BS and will continue the stigma attached to PTSD. If you're punished for declaring you have
it, how many vets do you suppose will admit they have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. That's right. Vets will realize that circling "Yes" will mean no guns for them
And as a result, the truly disturbed ones that REALLY shouldn't have guns in civilian life will get them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. You're NOT being punished.
Let me ask you? If you suffered from PTSD and thus, highly prone to clinical depression and self-medication through alcohol or other conscious altering substances, WOULD YOU like to have "easy access" to a loaded gun?

Even THE MOST NORMAL and BALANCED people we know, Police Officers, are disproportionally represented with higher suicide rates. Guess which METHOD is the #1 choice for Police and other Law Enforcement Officers? Yes, handguns. :(

Beyond all else, not allowing people who are prone to depression or substance abuse access to a loaded handgun is DEFINITELY in "the public's interest and welfare." = protecting the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. We don't know if he really had PTSD
All troops get PTSD counseling when they get back from Iraq. Are you saying none of them should own guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. The refusal wasn't made under federal law. It was a city form.
I posted about it some more below, but the refusal was based on city of Omaha's form. Not the federal form, which would not prohibit the purchase because he hasn't been 'adjudicated as mentally defective.' He should just go outside the city limits and buy his gun ANYWHERE but within the city limits of Omaha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. I can't believe the City of Omaha requires gun permits. In NEBRASKA??
Something's wrong with this story...was he applying for some kind of permit to carry a sidearm openly?
Also he's still in the USMC Reserve, apparently they don't think he's a risk.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. OMAHA is "the biggest city" in Nebraska.
Good for them! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. They are fucking insane.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
60. In your opinion. Believe it or not, "city life" may require different laws than "the country"
Having lived in towns as small as 103 (as a child and teen) and now living in the big bad region near "the belly of the beast" (D.C.), I can say with confidence, The lifestyles and management concerns of URBAN vs. RURAL are as disparate as Night and Day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. I thought you said you lived in NJ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #60
76. You are correct, which is one reason I never enter the city without a gun.
I have a license to carry a firearm anywhre in Pennsylvania, which has reciprocity with many other states - not sure about Nebraska. Some cities have different laws than those of their states, and many of these cities - like Philadelphia are being sued for it, which they should be.


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
48. Nebraska's Concealed Carry Law is only a year old
Suprising but many red and purple states have been later to the party on concealed carry than some blue states. And I understand Omaha had more restrictive laws on buying handguns than the rest of Nebraska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
112. Why don't you think Omaha should be allowed to require gun permits?
Have you EVER been there? If not, I think you can probably shut the fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuckessee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
19. Good idea.
He's already demonstrated irresponsible use of firearms by voluntarily using them in violation of interrnational law during the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq.

The last we need is people with severe mental disorders packing heat in the States.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I hope you think you are joking.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. I didn't find anything humorous about the post
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. UN can go chew on yak turds
doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum, any American citizen should know by now the UN has become an organization that is only out to suck our blood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. The USA has been a member of the United Nations since its inception in 1945
Are you saying the USA can go chew on yak turds?

Why do you hate America?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Your implication was the UN's authority is above, and controlling
over the sovereignty of the USA. I reject that. And I reject any attempt or support for the UN to become a world governing body. I don't care if Kofi Annan's opinion is that the Iraq was is 'illegal' ... last I checked, I never voted for him. I do not think we should have invaded Iraq, but that is a disagreement I have with Bush and the Congress that voted for it. It's none of the UN's business, especially since it cannot be relied upon to enforce its own orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
50. I didn't find it humorous either, just idiotic. Whatever the government did
(a la illegal invasion) has no fucking thing to do with an individual Marine. Unless you believe any military person who served in Iraq deserves censure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
36. Um...I think you forgot the sarcasm tag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
59. Too clever by 1/2. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
81. shh!
Good liberals are supposed to be over that by now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
100. What a ass
Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 08:47 PM by Retired AF Dem
I will say it again, what a ass. He did not voluntarily go to Iraq, he was ordered to go there. What a ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
24. Something is not right with this story
18 U.S.C. § 922 and BATFE Form 4473 do not prohibit the transfer of a firearm to a person who is 'being treated for a mental disorder', and certainly not to a person who is receiving compulsory counseling upon their redeployment from combat duty.

The actual question on Form 4473 is ...

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

There is nothing in federal law that prohibits the purchase of a legal firearm to a person who is in counseling, but not actually adjudicated as 'mentally defective.' The purpose of the prohibition has been perverted here.

Apparently the refusal to transfer (sell) him the pistol was based on a city of Omaha form, not a federal form. If that's the case, he should just shuffle over to Lincoln and buy his pistol (i.e. somewhere outside the city limits of Omaha).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. The States have the power to regulate their militias ....
The States have the power to regulate firearm sales and ownership - it is NOT solely a Federal issue so the City of Omaha (which is a branch of the state of Nebraska) can pass whatever ordinance it likes governing the sale and ownership and operation of guns within its jurisdiction.

Most cities say you can not discharge a firearm in the city limits.

Most have regulations about carrying a firearm in public.

This isn't the wild wild west and thank God Omaha has some common sense.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. I agree to a point, but DC v. Heller
I never said Omaha couldn't pass a more restrictive law governing transfers, but the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. Applying DC v Heller, and the BATFE regulations that apply, I think this kid could get the City's independent standards (which are not in line with the federal standard) shot down. But it'll cost a lot more than simply driving to the next town and buying the pistol there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
25. Seems Perfectly Normal to Me - Its the Law
This is exactly that gun control should be doing...keeping guns out of the hands of citizens who may be dangerous with them.

This is how gun control SHOULD work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
114. No, it's not the law.
Seeking counseling for an anxiety disorder after experiencing trauma is NOT a disqualifying condition for owning a firearm, under either Nebraska law or Federal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
26. This kind of bullshit discourages people from seeking treatment
Men in particular tend to be reluctant to go for help for mental health issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
33. NO GUN NO WAY! People with PTSD hallucinate and have dissociative behavior!
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 11:20 AM by ddeclue
The entire premise of the OP is a deceptive attempt to reframe the argument away from the basic reason that this man should NOT be in possession of a firearm.

It is NOT that he is not skilled in the operation of firearms. Indeed his high degree of SKILL that only makes him MORE of a threat to the general public than an average person with a firearm.

He probably should NOT operate a car or heavy machinery for that matter either. FYI: The FAA will NOT let you have a pilot's license if you suffer from a mental problem.

The PROBLEM is that his JUDGEMENT is impaired by his PTSD and he is likely to do himself or another person or persons harm with that firearm. Given his high degree of training he is in fact better able to do damage to others using that skill.

Whether IN the USMC or AS a CIVILIAN, this man no longer belongs anywhere NEAR a gun. If he were a cop who had been involved in a shooting and suffered from PTSD, I'd feel the same way.

These people with PTSD hallucinate the experience which induced the PTSD in the first place, experience dissociative episodes that they don't even remember (and thus couldn't be held liable for if they killed someone).

Even the very act of handling or firing a gun could well induce another PTSD episode. They have enhanced startle reactions to things like loud noises and can experience outbursts of uncontrollable anger - clearly NOT compatible with owning a gun.

They are hyper vigilant which may make them prone to over-reacting to something that is not a real threat. They can also experience a sense of not having a future which may make them suicidal - ALSO not compatible with gun ownership.

Indeed his belief that he "needs" a gun for self-defense is probably in and of itself a symptom of his PTSD.

If some licensed psychiatrists can swear under oath that this guy is over his PTSD and safe to carry a firearm then it's OK. Until then his right to "bear arms" doesn't go as far as my basic right to stay alive.

Doug D.

DSM-IV on PTSD follows... read it carefully and tell me if you'd trust your own brother with a gun if he suffered from these symptoms and behaved in this manner... I sure as hell would NOT.


Diagnostic Features

The essential feature of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close associate (Criterion A1). The person's response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror (or in children, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior) (Criterion A2). The characteristic symptoms resulting from the exposure to the extreme trauma include persistent reexperiencing of the traumatic event (Criterion B), persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (Criterion C), and persistent symptoms of increased arousal (Criterion D). The full symptom picture must be present for more than 1 month (Criterion E), and the disturbance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion F).

Traumatic events that are experienced directly include, but are not limited to, military combat, violent personal assault (sexual assault, physical attack, robbery, mugging), being kidnapped, being taken hostage, terrorist attack, torture, incarceration as a prisoner of war or in a concentration camp, natural or manmade disasters, severe automobile accidents, or being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. For children, sexually traumatic events may include developmentally inappropriate sexual experiences without threatened or actual violence or injury. Witnessed events include, but are not limited to, observing the serious injury or unnatural death of another person due to violent assault, accident, war, or disaster or unexpectedly witnessing a dead body or body parts. Events experienced by others that are learned about include, but are not limited to, violent personal assault, serious accident, or serious injury experienced by a family member or a close friend; learning about the sudden, unexpected death of a family member or a close friend; or learning that one's child has a life-threatening disease. The disorder may be especially severe or long lasting when the stressor is of human design (e.g., torture, rape). The likelihood of developing this disorder may increase as the intensity of and physical proximity to the stressor increase.

The traumatic event can be reexperienced in various ways. Commonly the person has recurrent and intrusive recollections of the event (Criterion B1) or recurrent distressing dreams during which the event is replayed (Criterion B2). In rare instances, the person experiences dissociative states that last from a few seconds to several hours, or even days, during which components of the event are relived and the person behaves as though experiencing the event at that moment (Criterion B3). Intense psychological distress (Criterion B4) or physiological reactivity (Criterion B5) often occurs when the person is exposed to triggering events that resemble or symbolize an aspect of the traumatic event (e.g. anniversaries of the traumatic event; cold, snowy weather or uniformed guards for survivors of death camps in cold climates; hot, humid weather for combat veterans of the South Pacific; entering any elevator for a woman who was raped in an elevator).

Stimuli associated with the trauma are persistently avoided. The person commonly makes deliberate efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations about the traumatic event (Criterion C1) and to avoid activities, situation, or people who arouse recollections of it (Criterion C2). This avoidance of reminders may include amnesia for an important aspect of the traumatic event (Criterion C3). Diminished responsiveness to the external world, referred to as "psychic numbing" or "emotional anesthesia," usually begins soon after the traumatic event. The individual may complain of having markedly diminished interest or participation in previously enjoyed activities (Criterion C4), of feeling detached or estranged from other people (Criterion C5), or of having markedly reduced ability to feel emotions (especially those associated with intimacy, tenderness, and sexuality) (Criterion C6). The individual may have a sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., not expecting to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span) (Criterion C7).

The individual has persistent symptoms of anxiety or increased arousal that were not present before the trauma. These symptoms may include difficulty falling or staying asleep that may be due to recurrent nightmares during which the traumatic event is relived (Criterion D1), hypervigilance (Criterion D4), and exaggerated startle response (Criterion D5). Some individuals report irritability or outbursts of anger (Criterion D2) or difficulty concentrating or completing tasks (Criterion D3).

Specifiers

The following specifiers may be used to specify onset and duration of the symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder:

Acute. This specifier should be used when the duration of symptoms is less than 3 months.
Chronic. This specifier should be used when the symptoms last 3 months or longer.
With Delayed Onset. This specifier indicates that at least 6 months have passed between the traumatic event and the onset of the symptoms.

Associated Features and Disorders

Associated descriptive features and mental disorders. Individuals with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder may describe painful guilt feelings about surviving when others did not survive or about the things they had to do to survive. Phobic avoidance of situations or activities that resemble or symbolize the original trauma may interfere with interpersonal relationships and lead to marital conflict, divorce, or loss of job. The following associated constellation of symptoms may occur and are more commonly seen in association with an interpersonal stressor (e.g., childhood sexual or physical abuse, domestic battering, being taken hostage, incarceration as a prisoner of war or in a concentration camp, torture): impaired complaints; feelings of ineffectiveness, shame, despair, or hopelessness; feeling permanently damaged; a loss of previously sustained beliefs, hostility; social withdrawal; feeling constantly threatened; impaired relationships with others; or a change from the individual's previous personality characteristics.

There may be increased risk of Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Social Phobia, Specific Phobia, Major Depressive Disorder, Somatization Disorder, and Substance-Related Disorders. It is not known to what extent these disorders precede or follow the onset of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Associated laboratory findings. Increased arousal may be measured through studies of autonomic functioning (e.g., heart rate, electromyography, sweat gland activity).

Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions. General medical conditions may occur as a consequence of the trauma (e.g., head injury, burns).

Specific Culture and Age Features

Individuals who have recently emigrated from areas of considerable social unrest and civil conflict may have elevated rates of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Such individuals may be especially reluctant to divulge experiences of torture and trauma due to their vulnerable political immigrant status. Specific assessments of traumatic experiences and concomitant symptoms are needed for such individuals.

In younger children, distressing dreams of the event may, within several weeks, change into generalized nightmares of monsters, of rescuing others, or of threats to self or others. Young children usually do not have the sense that they are reliving the past; rather, the reliving of the trauma may occur through repetitive play (e.g., a child who was involved in a serious automobile accident repeatedly reenacts car crashes with toy cars). Because it may be difficult for children to report diminished interest in significant activities and constriction of affect, these symptoms should be carefully evaluated with reports from parents, teachers, and other observers. In children, the sense of a foreshortened future may be evidenced by the belief that life will be too short to include becoming an adult. There may also be "omen formation" - that is, belief in an ability to foresee future untoward events. Children may also exhibit various physical symptoms such as stomachaches and headaches.

Prevalence

Community-based studies reveal a lifetime prevalence for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ranging from 1% to 14%, with the variability related to methods of ascertainment and the population sampled. Studies of at-risk individuals (e.g., combat veterans, victims of volcanic eruptions or criminal violence) have yielded prevalence rates ranging from 3% to 58%.

Course

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder can occur at any age, including childhood. Symptoms usually begin within the first 3 months after the trauma, although there may be a delay of months, or even years, before symptoms appear. Frequently, the disturbance initially meets criteria for Acute Stress Disorder (see p. 429) in the immediate aftermath of the trauma. The symptoms of the disorder and the relative predominance of reexperiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal symptoms may vary over time. Duration of the symptoms varies, with complete recovery occurring within 3 months in approximately half of cases, with many others having persisting symptoms for longer than 12 months after the trauma.

The severity, duration, and proximity of an individual's exposure to the traumatic event are the most important factors affecting the likelihood of developing this disorder. There is some evidence that social supports, family history, childhood experiences, personality variables, and preexisting mental disorders may influence the development of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. This disorder can develop in individuals without any predisposing conditions, particularly if the stressor is especially extreme.

Differential Diagnosis

In Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, the stressor must be of an extreme (i.e., life-threatening) nature. In contrast, in Adjustment Disorder, the stressor can be of any severity. The diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder is appropriate both for situations in which the response to an extreme stressor does not meet the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (or another specific mental disorder) and for situations in which the symptom pattern of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder occurs in response to a stressor that is not extreme (e.g., spouse leaving, being fired).

Not all psychopathology that occurs in individuals exposed to an extreme stressor should necessarily be attributed to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Symptoms of avoidance, numbing, and increased arousal that are present before exposure to the stressor do not meet criteria for the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and require consideration of other diagnoses (e.g., Brief Psychotic Disorder, Conversion Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder), these diagnoses should be given instead of, or in addition to, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Acute Stress Disorder is distinguished from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder because the symptom pattern in Acute Stress Disorder must occur within 4 weeks of the traumatic event and resolve within that 4-week period. If the symptoms persist for more than 1 month and meet criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, the diagnosis is changed from Acute Stress Disorder to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

In Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, there are recurrent intrusive thoughts, but these are experienced as inappropriate and are not related to an experienced traumatic event. Flashbacks in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder must be distinguished from illusions, hallucinations, and other perceptual disturbances that may occur in Schizophrenia, other Psychotic Disorders, Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, a delirium, Substance-Induced Disorders, and Psychotic Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition.

Malingering should be ruled out in those situations in which financial remuneration, benefit eligibility, and forensic determinations play a role.


309.81 DSM-IV Criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following have been present:

(1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others (2) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior.

B. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways:

(1) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitive play may occur in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.

(2) recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be frightening dreams without recognizable content.

(3) acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur upon awakening or when intoxicated). Note: In young children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur.

(4) intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.

(5) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.

C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma

(2) efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma

(3) inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma

(4) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities

(5) feeling of detachment or estrangement from others

(6) restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)

(7) sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span)

D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following:

(1) difficulty falling or staying asleep
(2) irritability or outbursts of anger
(3) difficulty concentrating
(4) hypervigilance
(5) exaggerated startle response

E. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than one month.

F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if:
Acute: if duration of symptoms is less than 3 months
Chronic: if duration of symptoms is 3 months or more

Specify if:
With Delayed Onset: if onset of symptoms is at least 6 months after the stressor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. If it can be managed and/or cured, give him the permit, already
I'm sure a CIA waterboarder would be able to get a permit with no worries unless someone hauls his ass to court. This soldier, on the other hand, was only doing what he felt was his duty. If he needs counseling, give it to him, but at least leave open the avenue for him to reclaim his full Constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. NO way in hell... for either one..
stop trying to equivocate the problem... It's not a choice between the waterboarded guy or the Marine - NEITHER should have a gun.

I am a pilot and the FAA would not let me anywhere NEAR a cockpit if I had PTSD. Suppose an airline pilot was suffering from PTSD, would you want him flying 747's out of JFK airport?

Doug D.
Orlando, FL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
61. I get the impression that just because "some of us" enjoy owning firearms ...
TOO MANY "others" believe that not being able to OWN a gun is the emotional equivalent to "forced celibacy." It's not.

Not everyone has to pack heat to feel like a real woman/man. Especially if you have emotional turmoil - with our without a clinical diagnosis, owning a lethal weapon that can "take you out" at a moment's notice MAY not be a good idea. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. That is ridiculous on the face of it. How many vets with PTSD...
have licenses, drive on a daily basis, and use their vehicles as deadly weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. NO it is NOT ridiculous...
READ THE DSM-IV description. These people hallucinate and have dissociative behavior. They can be suicidal and startle easily. They don't belong in charge of anything that might hurt themselves or others be it guns, cars, planes, what have you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Not only ridiculous, but the data doesn't support it.
What you are quoting is diagnostic information, but what you are not doing is correlating the existing amount of PTSD sufferers who own/operate automobiles and the rate that they use them as weapons rather than transport.

If you can supply that data, rather than conjecture and supposition, go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #40
97. So you want to strip people with PTSD of their drivers licenses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
109. You are misrepresenting PTSD
"These people hallucinate and have dissociative behavior."

From your own quote: "In rare instances, the person experiences dissociative states"

PTSD can manifest itself in a number of ways. You've chosen an extreme and rare way it manifests itself, and are presenting it as if it is a universal description of all PTSD sufferers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. Disagree, unless he has been 'adjudicated as mentally defective"
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 12:08 PM by FudaFuda
Federal law (18 USC 922) only prohibits the guy purchasing a firearm if he's been 'adjudicated as mentally defective." That's a piece of information that is not available from the article, so you are assuming a lot. It says he has received counseling for PTSD, but according to "Squatch" who posted above, all servicemen returning from combat duty get that counseling.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
39. "for protection"
Omaha isn't Fallujah.

There's a guy who's using a similar argument to try to carry his deringer (yep- you read that right- a derringer) to his small college in Monmouth Oregon.

Now, contrast that with Australians in the SAS (elite special forces). These guys deploy around the world in the worst places- and yet when they come home- they don't whinge about keeping guns around to protect them from- whatever.

Why?

Because they're home- and home isn't Afghanistan, Or East Timor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Nice strawman you have there. Not only does it discount the possibility...
that violent crime can and does happen in Oz, but you're comparing apples and oranges (the US and Oz are two very different countries when it comes to crime stats) and do not take into consideration where this man specifically lives in Omaha, etc....

Add to that that you seem to have special, magical knowledge of the mindset of all SAS members.

Swing, and a miss.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Not magic
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 11:58 AM by depakid
We happen to have a good friend who's a former SAS member who's now on the New South Wales Police Force.

The opinions stated are essentially his (being a yank by birth- he and I have gun discussions from time to time).

And no- Nebraska still isn't Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. More wild extrapolation, I see.
So the opinions/actions of one friend can be construed to represent the entirety of the members/former members of the Aussie SAS? Yeah. Ok.

And, no, no one is claiming that Nebraska is Iraq.

Strike two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Get a clue
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 12:37 PM by depakid
This is a simply a common attitude or "institutional culture" - a more mature one than the childish sorts of "I want" attitudes you see all too often among Americans -especially with respect to guns.

btw: here's the prima donna story from Oregon:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/39453942.html

SAS- and Aussies in general, find this kind of drama sad and pathetic.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. So, you get called on your unsupportable, illogical claims and....
you still don't have any way of actually backing up what said.

And all that equates to me needing a 'clue'.

Thanks for the laughs, I can see you're not interested in honest debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. My guess would be that you wouldn't know an honest debate
if jumped up and bit you.

If you want one- I do tend to post here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
68. Wow, it suddenly all makes sense
I've completely changed my mind on guns because of one Australian dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. What's Australia got to do with it?
We have the Constitution of the United States of America.

Australians don't.


Also, if your friend is a policeman, he still has a gun. Find some former members of the SAS that work at a convenience store and see if they would like a handgun for personal protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. Compare and contrast
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 01:27 PM by depakid
We have the Constitution of the United States of America.

Australians don't.


Yet the vast majority of Americans don't understand it. Not in spirit- nor piecemeal nor via statutory construction. The history and the philosophy behind it- how it came to be, and why other nations haven't adopted the model (Liberia and the Philippines excepted) might be something to think about.

And yes- our friend has a handgun- and it stays right where it belongs unless he's on duty.

Other friends of ours of various ages have also been in the military- and in some pretty nasty situations. Like a lot of Americans from the WWII era- they don't say much about it. And won't say- even if pressed. They just did what what needed to be done- what was asked of them- then came home, and for the most part, made sure their homes would be better places to live.

If you travel around the Australian continent- and are aware, you'll find, in almost every little town, memorials to those who didn't make it back. Often times they're carved in stone- or brass. Some are ornate; some are simple and elegant.

Sometimes if a town lost so many, it'll be big deal. Some places have lighted monuments on the highest hill.

But usually not

Do you know why that is?











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. Why Don't You Explain It To Us?
"Yet the vast majority of Americans don't understand it. Not in spirit- nor piecemeal nor via statutory construction. The history and the philosophy behind it- how it came to be, and why other nations haven't adopted the model (Liberia and the Philippines excepted) might be something to think about."

Ignorant clods that we are. Oh, and please do continue with the liberal sprinkling of irrelevant references and comparisons to Australia. Also, explain why I should care about what your ex-SAS acquaintance thinks.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
54. Because they can't. And they accept that.
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 12:45 PM by jmg257
Glad we have it different here (well - most of us do, anyway).

And also glad so many here will accept nothing less. Freedom rocks!:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #39
66. Are You Suggesting...
These is no need for protection in the United States?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
82. Whinge? Is that a new word?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
62. Good.
Next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
70. Marksman? Keep him away from guns peroid
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
72. See what you started !!
Another flame fest !!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
77. Marksman is the bare minimum one needs to pass Basic Training
A Marksman is the poorest rating given for firearms. It goes Marksman, Sharpshooter, and Expert. No one can even pass Basic Training unless they qualify for at least Marksman, and that doesn't really mean they know much about guns, just the very basics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
110. I noticed that as well, made me chuckle.
Hell, I rated better than that, and I consider myself a rather sucky shot.

Sloppy reporting - the reporter either was impressed by it, or thought their readers would be. Regardless of that, the fact that he can aim well (or at least meet a mediocre standard of aiming) is unrelated to whether he can use a weapon responsibly under stress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
80. Sounds fine to me. Someone with PTSD that involves killing should NOT have a weapon.
Why is this even a story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
85. Sounds Reasonable.
Sounds like the gun laws were working here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. I'm with you. This is what the laws are for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. But the city reversed itself and gave him the pistol permit.
so neener-neener.

This is just a city of Omaha issue anyway. That guy could buy a pistol under federal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Sure. He's not actually being treated for a mental disorder.
Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 12:34 PM by Occam Bandage
He checked the wrong box, which is an honest and acceptable mistake, given the vague and simple wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
86. Keep weapons out of those with PTSD. The thought is just horrifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #86
106. If you've bought into the MSM stereotype of what high-functioning people with PTSD are like, yes.
Otherwise, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
88. I think it's quite reasonable to restrict persons with stress disorders from owning firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. That's fine, try and get your senator or representative to make it a law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
101. “Matthew knew he shouldn’t be taking his AK-47 to the 7-Eleven,
Detective Laura Andersen said, “but he was scared to death in that neighborhood, he was military trained and, in his mind, he needed the weapon to protect himself.”

The NYT documented 121 cases of Iraq/Afghanistan vets who have committed murders, an 89% increase in active duty murders over the six year period before these wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?_r=1&hp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #101
105. Any evidence that they were more likely to have PTSD than the non-murdering vets?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 01:08 AM by benEzra
Or could this have had anything to do with the Bush administration changing the rules to allow convicted criminals and gang members to enlist in the military?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/28/eveningnews/main3107316.shtml
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=42002
http://www.stripes.com/07/feb07/gangs/gangs1.html

Gang activity in the military is increasing, and the number of gang-related crimes involving soldiers and their families nearly tripled from fiscal 2005 to fiscal 2006, according to a pair of new reports.

Both studies note that gang members represent only a small fraction of the total force, but say that gangs have become a bigger presence — and a bigger concern — in just the last few years.

“Gang-related activity in the military is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security,” according to the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center report, released in January.


Nah, military murders couldn't be the result of Bush's decision to allow criminals and gang members in. The real threats are the sensitive good kids who watched their buddies die and had the gall to be traumatized by it. :sarcasm:

BTW, how many Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan? What percentage of that number is 121?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Awesome reporting in the Stars and Stripes piece!
Loved the gang signs in the margins.

Of course, there is this:

"There are no official statistics on gang membership in the military, but some experts have estimated that 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. military are gang members, Simon said. That compares with just 0.02 percent of the U.S. population believed to be gang members, she wrote."

Again, murders in this group increased by 89% in the six-year period compared to the six-year period immediately preceding. Has the composition of the military changed that much?

Then, there is also this:

"The US Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) has reported a modest increase in gang-related activity in the Army over the past several years. Of the 10,309 criminal incidents they investigated in 2006, for instance, only 16 were for gang-related offenses, up from four in 2003."

Do you think the CID is trying to minimize the extent of gang-related crime in the military?

Anyway, here's the link to the report that cites the CID report.

http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/ngic_gangs.pdf

Love the photos of soldiers flashing gang signs, though I'm not really sure why they put those in, unless they are being inflammatory in order to try and get more funding for anti-gang activity.

Of course, the Times reporting showed that most of the murderers in these cases had no criminal record whatsoever, so it's hard to see how loosening the restrictions there would account for the change.

The statistic you would need is not what percentage of folks who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan 121 is: you'd want to figure out the rate at which these folks commit homicide (or whatever other violent crime might be of interest) and compare it to a comparable control group of non vets. I suspect that, if you controlled for these things adequately, you'd find the rate of homicide commission would actually be lower for the active duty military group. I suspect that, despite better access to lethal techniques, military folks kill less than a similar civilian group simply because they live more regimented lives. That's what I suspect, but I don't have the data to back it up.

Of course, the Times is comparing military homicide incidents to military homicide incidents over a similar period of time. I don't specialize in social science research methodology, but I have studied it more than a little at the graduate level, and I think this approach would seem to be a good place to start.

You're right to note, though, that the key causal link here is whether any of these murders are linked to PTSD. We know that PTSD increases your risk of committing a violent act, and we know combat causes PTSD, but we don't even know if the perpetrators of these acts were actually engaged in combat, much less whether they have PTSD. So we cannot really reject the hypothesis that this increase of observed murders in this population is not the result of folks having taken part in combat, but we cannot really reject the hypothesis that in a scientific way. And, or course, lots of vets, even lots of vets with PTSD, never kill anybody, so I don't think any of this is exculpatory in any way.

BTW, sometimes the ones you have to worry about are not the folks who are traumatized by seeing killing, killing, corpses etc: it's the ones who find out that killing does not really bother them one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
102. Sorry, if you have PTSD, you might be shooting your neighbor for no reason.
Get treated and be symptom free for a while, then maybe you can have your precious weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. And once again, we have the MSM stereotype of people with PTSD
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 12:53 AM by benEzra
as unhinged Rambos or Dirty Harry types.

Diagnostic criteria for PTSD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder

The diagnostic criteria for PTSD, per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (Text Revision) (DSM-IV-TR), may be summarized as:<1>

A. Exposure to a traumatic event
B. Persistent reexperience (e.g. flashbacks, nightmares)
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear of losing control)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)
E. Duration of symptoms more than 1 month
F. Significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g. problems with work and relationships.)

Notably, criterion A (the "stressor") consists of two parts, both of which must apply for a diagnosis of PTSD. The first (A1) requires that "the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others."


So, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and trouble opening up to your spouse about it justify sending the police to take your guns? That's going to help.

Some people with PTSD have substance abuse problems; most don't. Some people with PTSD have anger issues; most don't. Stigmatizing them all with a broad brush, and revoking the civil rights of someone who is demonstrably not a danger to himself or others, is just wrong.

This issue is important to me because I have a couple of friends who were treated for PTSD after coming back from Iraq. Also, my wife met the diagnostic criteria after our son's last open-heart surgery (he was 4, we almost lost him, she was in the hospital with him 1700 miles from home for 6 1/2 weeks while intensely sleep deprived, watching him go through full-blown morphine withdrawal, too many late-night treatment-room blood draws to count, was hospitalized herself due to an infection, etc.). It's personal for me, and I deeply resent the cartoon stereotype promulgated by the MSM and by people who read the worst-case symptom list in the DSM-IV and think everyone diagnosed with PTSD has those symptoms.

PTSD is almost always a temporary condition, and almost always a nonviolent one. But if you want people to avoid counseling for it and just try to "tough it out", by all means keep promulgating the deranged-nutjob stereotypes, and keep trying to revoke civil rights for seeking counseling and being honest about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
107. People recently treated for mental disorders like severe depression & PTSD should NOT have firearms
Good decision. Being a veteran is not a reason for being excused from a sound, sensible policy meant to protect oneself and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. How about mild to moderate depression and PTSD?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 07:21 PM by benEzra
Revoking one's constitutional rights for seeking treatment for a mild anxiety disorder (not a mental illness) is a good way to ensure that people don't seek treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC