Question of the Day: Are Veterans Dangerous?

veterans

As regular readers know I’ve been hanging out with TTAG writer, combat medic and Bronze Star recipient Jonathan Taylor. (Taylor has just accepted a position creating, establishing and enforcing hiring protocols for veterans seeking gainful employment inside Texas government.) Jon and I have been talking about all sorts of military-related issues, from his service in Afghanistan to the challenges facing returning vets . . .

One regular discussion: non-veterans’ opinions of returning soldiers, sailors and airmen. Jon reckons the general pubic views vets as a danger – in light of their experience with and access to firearms and the recent coverage of the man who murder sniper Chris Kyle. True? I mean, is that how most people see vets and are they more of a danger to society than any other group?

comments

  1. avatar Pwrserge says:

    Given that mass murderers have a far higher chance of being liberal psychos than being veterans… I’d be far more hesitant of dealing with an Obamapush Democrat than I would when dealing with a vet. Especially a combat arms vet.

  2. avatar Scrubula says:

    Maybe *slightly* more of a danger but in general vets are great people. Chris Kyle’s killer was supposedly drunk and high so I really doubt PTSD had anything to do with him killing two people.

  3. avatar Grindstone says:

    Never heard it once personally. Though I do live in a deeply red state and work on base. Hard to find much anti-military sentiment here when the base is one of the biggest employers in the city.

    Even online I have found little in the way of serious talk in that vein. The only ones I’ve seen display that sentiment have typically fallen into the “nuts” category pertaining to other issues.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I doubt the “biggest employer” facet is as important as the personal contact, everybody knows some military people, some vets. If you have never met one, you might believe some of the BS dreamed up by the media, or the Dems. Remember, some democrats have already suggested depriving returning vets of their freedoms because they “might be” dangerous.

  4. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

    Not any more dangerous than any body else. Everybody is dangerous.

    1. avatar Wes says:

      My thoughts exactly, also freedom is dangerous…. To tyrants and would be oppressors that is.

  5. avatar Anthony says:

    These are very old data, but they may be suggestive of trends, FWTW

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

  6. avatar TheBear says:

    I’ve had this conversation with people before. I think your average veteran is theoretically much more dangerous than your average civilian, as in if they wanted to cause harm, they could cause a lot of it.

    What is interesting is that when veterans go off the deep end or have emotional/mental problems, they tend to hurt themselves more than others. How many homeless people are vets? A lot of them. How often do vets go on senseless rampages? Almost never.

    Dorner is a notable exception, but he was a Navy reservist officer. Not exactly a Ranger.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      A lot of homeless people claim to be vets. Doesn’t mean they’re all telling the truth.

      I know a bunch of vets, both relatives and friends. Aside from the obligatory crazy uncle, they’re all law-abiding relatively-well-adjusted people going through a lot of the same stuff other people their age are going through- hating their job, dealing with small-child sleep-dep, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement, etc.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        I don’t base what I say off of signs.

        I based what I said off of census and VA data. There are a shit ton of homeless vets.

        1. avatar davidx says:

          The VA outpatient clinic I go to weekly up here has at least one therapist/counselor/social worker assigned exclusively to homeless vets in this area; she was my previous one-on-one; my current one-one-one did that gig before, and they have their hands full dealing with it.

          Our Desert One vet in the group has had 15 jobs since he got back to The World from the Sandbox and the Suck, and was homeless for part of that time; he’s now moving out of subsidized housing to a Habitats for Humanity house he helped build, with his wife and three sons. He’s come a long way since early days.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Maybe it’s changed, but 10-15 years back VA did no checking to find out whether a patient was a vet or not, the claim was proof enough. That was because the VA was funded on the question of how many vets were served, they would take in anybody. See the book “Stolen Valor” for several examples, including one where two guys drawing all manner of govt freebies including inpatient care from the VA for their war damaged psyches, each supporting the other’s stories of heroism and danger, somebody investigated and proved that NEITHER of them had ever been in a war zone, one had never been in the military. But they had disability payments, actual awards and decorations, all manner of goodies. What the VA says about homeless vets is absolutely meaningless.

          As mentioned above, a lot of homeless guys claim to be vets, does not mean that they are. Also true after Vietnam, most of the deadbeats on the streets claiming to be vets were just bums and dopers, never left the CONUS.

      2. avatar TmDaddy says:

        Can you throw a link to the studies showing a lot of homeless vets? I don’t doubt that there are studies showing it, but I personally don’t believe there is an epidemic of homeless vets. I served 24 years, and my personal opinion is that there is something in the psyche of honorably discharged service people that keeps most of us responsible for ourselves. I try to speak to every “homeless vet” I come across and get their story. I have yet to meet a single one that can talk the talk of a true soldier, or someone that wasn’t discharged for other issues not related to military service. But even my wife of 26 years buys into the “homeless vet” story, even with the amount of frauds I’ve pointed out to her.

    2. avatar Joel says:

      I would say vets are more capable of causing harm, and less likely to do so.

      That’s just my two cents. It’s worth what you paid for it…

      1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

        So True! We are far better trained than the average person, yet we value life. We were, and are, the defenders of freedom.

        As to Larry’s comment, the VA is my primary medical provider—you do not just walk in and say that you are a veteran; you must fill out an application and provide your DD214 or you don’t get care there. You have to have proof of service.

        I served from 1972-1979, US Army, SSG, Combat Engineer Explosives Specialist

  7. avatar Newshawk says:

    Once again, than you Hollywood for tainting the image of veterans…

  8. avatar davidx says:

    More of a danger to ourselves than anyone else, as I’ve observed from firsthand experience over nearly half a century and noting the current trend/rate of twenty suicides a DAY. Plus the ongoing struggles with PTSD for the duration of one’s life. At least three combat vets in my little VA “combat group” are admittedly still suicidal forty-five or twenty years after their wars.

    On the other hand, we don’t take much chit from anyone, either, and may have a marked tendency to react violently to threats on our selves, loved ones or property.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      +1

  9. avatar Howard says:

    perhaps it is because I am still wet behind the ears (I am not yet 60), and although I was in the reserves in the mid-late 70’s, I never heard of (until I read this posting), or thought of vets being a dangerous group of people.

    1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

      Except on paydays……………

  10. avatar Isaac says:

    Afghanistan vet here. I went to college after I got back and it’s been my experience that vets know more about the value, sanctity, and overall goodness of human life than your average college student.

    1. avatar 357M28 says:

      Vets know more about the value, sanctity, and overall goodness of human life than your average US citizen. FIFY. AND Thank You, for your service.

  11. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    The most dangerous man on Earth right now is Obama, followed closely by Bloomberg and his anti-gun cronies. So veterans are at the lowest possible danger to our way of life.

    I believe we would all be better off if prior service of 181 days and an honorable discharge should be the criteria for voting!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Crank up the amendment process, I am on board for contributions and volunteer time.

  12. avatar Lt Dave says:

    Yes – to the current administration which has an agenda that is in direct conflict with the Constitution, which Veterans have sworn to protect and defend.

  13. avatar Shwiggie says:

    I’d say that combat veterans are gloriously dangerous, and the fact that they’re veterans and not statistics means they were at least more dangerous than those they went up against. But should they be “feared” because of this? While they were trained in the art of killing this is mitigated by the fact that they were also trained with discipline and a love for their country and its people. So, no, not “feared”, but “respected” hits a lot closer to the mark.

    1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

      Don’t you find it curious that we veterans are feared for our training yet we police officers are revered for it? A bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

    2. avatar TmDaddy says:

      I like what you’re saying, but I just have to say that we aren’t trained in the art of killing. I’d liken it more to the art of self defense (offensively as needed). Raids and ambushes use violence of action to prevent an enemy from killing us, but if we encounter unarmed people we won’t kill them. It may not sound like a big difference, but we think of ourselves more as protectors and defenders than as killers.

  14. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    As the dad of 3 Marines, they are just like everybody else in most respects. But they have something extra in their heart and soul.
    God bless our service men and women.

  15. avatar Bob108 says:

    Yes, we are a danger to tyrants and their minions. BTW, I believe that is a good way to tell the difference between a tyrant’s minion and those who value freedom. Unlike most non-military government employees, we swore allegiance to the true meaning of the constitution, to protect those ideas from enemies foreign and domestic, and that scares the hell out of the Progressives. We recognize that there is such thing as an unlawful order, and we were held accountable for following such orders, rules, or regulations. Unlike many parts of the government, military personnel cannot get away with saying that we were just following orders. So yes, Progressives do fear us, both current and retired, and I think that is wonderful.

  16. avatar John L. says:

    Dangerous? Certainly. (1)

    Frightening? No. (2)

    Worthy of respect? Without question.

    (1) weapons and combat training, however minimal, will be more than the typical non-vet.
    (2) I suspect this is similar to the difference between how the average reader here, and the average grabber, see guns, for that matter.

    1. avatar DownrangeFuture says:

      Exactly. Not all veterans are combat veterans. I’ve never stood anything more than a guard watch. And I manned a M240B while the ship was underway for one of my deployments, but we only ever fired warning shots once. Not anything like what the guys with boots on ground did.

      We did have tactics training in responding to threats to repel boarders, more so than most would go through at least. But even the guys that went boots on ground and truly have PTSD are no danger to anyone that doesn’t threaten them first.

      Tactics and firearms training doesn’t mean that you have to use them.

  17. avatar MrVigs says:

    I think our Vets are the most dangerous in the eyes of our govt. If you think about it and there were an uprising and a demand for our elected officials heads for tyranny – its going to be lead by a well organized militia made up of (mostly) Veterans. They’d have the tools and they’d have the talent. Us keyboard commando’s – not so much.

    I like to think our betters would have night terrors a la John Rambo – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38-0WVqP1Yc

    If the situation ever presented itself that is.

  18. avatar New Chris says:

    I think the question is attempting to find a definitive answer to a subtle question. Fighting in a war and killing other human beings is innately psychologically damaging.

    The degree and expression of this damage will vary greatly among individuals based on their character and the severity of their exposure to combat.

    So the answer is there is no easy answer.

    We can say that everyone who has experienced combat is damaged to some degree.

  19. avatar Ahil925 says:

    Having grown up near an army base i have to say that I am more afraid of active duty privates and NCOs having a night on the town than I am of any vet.

    Honestly though considering the uptick of assaults and drunk driving when air defense moved away and armor moved in I am completely puzzled how 19 year old fools turn into awesome guys most vets are.

    1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

      They grow up, just like their civilian counterparts. Usually faster and into better citizens.

    2. avatar TmDaddy says:

      Ha, I can’t dispute what you’re saying. We do get older, married and settle down. The only difference between me and a college student was I had a paycheck to blow on mischief every two weeks. Military 19 year olds sound worse because we are treated as adults and can actually get in trouble for our behavior. I venture that there is more trouble on a college campus but it is either not noticed or is covered up by the school and intimidated victims. College students are viewed as kids at 19, vets are viewed as adults.

    3. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      Air defenders just get into trouble for nerd stuff. Ever seen a kid get UCMJ for stealing RAM from his buddies computer? Only in Air defense.

  20. avatar JohnT says:

    I work for an aerospace company where the business is roughly 55 – 45% split between commercial and US/foreign military sales. Not surprisingly, we employ a significant number of vets (full disclosure – I am not a vet). In the 36 years I’ve been there I’ve worked with vets from Vietnam era through Afghanistan. I’ve never felt any of those I’ve known to be any more or less of a threat than anyone else.

  21. avatar Steve says:

    As a military retiree, I have heard this argument several times, even from members of my own family. I have tried to point out the reality to them, but it’s just like anything else these days, belief trumps evidence. I have to admit though, that every time some ignorant ass shoots up a school, I pray he wasn’t a vet.

  22. avatar Gunr says:

    Break into my house at 3 AM and you will see how dangerous a vet can be!

  23. avatar SteveX says:

    Are American Veterans dangerous? Exceptionally! Not to me. Not to my family or friends and not to our society. They are however, sworn enemies of all who would destroy our country and strip away the hard won freedoms that we, our families, friends and forefathers fought and often died for. Dangerous? Only to the right people…

  24. avatar Wes says:

    Before the flaming starts, I’m an OIF veteran.
    That said, I have concerns about our police ranks being filled with ex-infantryman. Consciously or not, some of the TTP from their prior lives may be leaking into the job. Certainly not all, but certainly some may have this issue. We are simultaneously seeing police militarization. This should surprise no one as the police ranks are filled with over 10 years of combat veterans. Give an ex-infantryman some gear and he’ll find a reason to use it. I personally don’t think police should have access to anything that non-LEO are prohibited from having.
    MRAP anyone?

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    The same leftist mindset that led people to spit on Vietnam veterans when they returned from war affects the people who hate and fear America’s Iraq and Afghanistan fighters when they return. And it starts right at the top — in the White House.

    1. avatar Andy says:

      That spitting-on-the-vets thing is a myth. Here’s a brief post by a fellow who wrote a book about it:
      http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=350

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Bullsh1t. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So was I. Anyone says it was a myth is a straight-up liar. I hope you didn’t pay for that book.

      2. avatar DownrangeFuture says:

        BS. I doubt there are many real vets on that page. I’m sure some vets are against the actions taken over there. Surprisingly, (not) the armed forces cover the entire range of people and their beliefs in the country.

        But don’t tell me I wasn’t spit on in New York during fleet week just because I was in my dress whites. Most people loved us, I didn’t pay for a single beer or meal the whole time I was there. But someone on every street corner shoved an anti-war pamphlet in my hand I had to throw away, and while while looking at the ruins of the world trade center I was spat on, right on the back of my head, and called several names.

        Of course, several people shooed the guy away, one guy pulled out some tissues to wipe my head (over my protests even), and one gentleman even gave me some cash to buy my lunch in apology for the insult.

        Yes, it’s not most people, but to say some people aren’t so crazed in their anti-war slant to take matters in their own hands shows how naive you truly are.

        1. avatar davidx says:

          Probably a good thing I wasn’t there, ’cause whoever spat on you would have ended up part of those ruins. And you would have had a full dinner at the restaurant of your choice and open bar.

          I didn’t get spat on when I got back from each of my two tours in SEA, but if looks could kill, sometimes. And I personally know vets who did get spat on. The libturd revisionists like to keep repeating that this is sort of an urban legend-type myth, of course, the same mindset that harps on a host of other issues, especially firearms, about which they know jack.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        From what I read long ago (I was not there), there was a great deal of animosity towards vets.

        http://www.pri.org/sites/default/files/migration/PriMigrationsDamanticWordpressAttachmentsImagesMigration/www.theworld.org/wp-content/uploads/GI-Joe-Cartoon.jpg

        While I have always been against sending troops to Vietnam I don’t think it was right spitting and protesting at (DRAFTED) soldiers who had to choose between prison or a tour in Vietnam. They should have aimed their spit at politicians at the time.

        I have family from Vietnam (wife’s side) and have been to the Vietnam war museum where I got to look at all the agent orange babies. Seeing the destruction of the entire nation (north and south) was quite educational and getting to hear both sides (US story vs Vietnam story) was as well. My father-in-law who was a teenager at the time of the war (from the North) was very much affected. He lost his father and grew up in great poverty. I was told the story where he once swam out into the ocean to take the shoes off of a dead woman floating out there. When he returned to the shore, he put those shoes on his feet.

        It was a war terrible for both sides.

      4. avatar Bud says:

        I am a Vietnam veteran and I really disagree with what you wrote. I experienced it first hand when i came home. I was denied membership by the American Legion in 1968 and that was a nation-wide policy by both the Legion and the VFW. Having received the Purple Heart, i was denied membership with the Loyal Order of the Purple heart because “the Purple Heart awarded to Vietnam veterans was being evaluated by the National organization as to whether or not it was equal to that awarded to WW2 and KW vets”.

        Vietnam vets were very badly treated by everyone including the veteran service organizations.

        After retiring as a cop in 1987, I went back on active duty with the Army. There really wasn’t much respect paid to vets then but there was a huge change after DS/DS in 1991. After being medically retired from the Army in 1999, I became the very first Military Documents Specialist in the nation for the US Department of Veteran Affairs and I was frequently used by the VA’s Office of the Inspector General to research the validity of individuals receiving benefits from the VA. That was and still is a huge problem that the VA refuses to correct and their is rampant fraud in both medical care and monetary benefits awarded to “veterans”. The homeless vet myth is so widely accepted that the VA just uses it now to generate more money and programs.

        Sorry for the length of the reply

        1. avatar davidx says:

          Hey Bud, welcome home, bro. I know how it sucked back then firsthand. And many thanks to you for the work you did and are doing.

          I was a short-timer, with two SEA tours, and I also later became a police officer for a few years, until I got fed up, among other things.

          But I can’t say enough about the VA here in Vermont; they’ve always treated me like a prince and also the other vets I know here; could be the prevailing culture, but some of the staff have indicated that things began to change fast after that mess in Phoenix and the one down at Walter Reed. They also said that over $2 billion is about to roll in and to be honest, they jump through hoops here to take care of us and make things right.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          The Legion is now paying the price for their “Fuddism”. The WWII vets are dead and the Korean vets are dying. In general, the Vets of 60/70s will never for give and join. And the Legion largely has been unsuccessful at attracting younger members. A damn shame as a great and worthy organization for Vets and the Constitution (and local communities).

    2. avatar JWM says:

      Exactly. Leftist. statist. We represent a force of millions that cannot be called to heel by the current occupent of the white house. Force multipliers amongst our communities.

      They hate the thought of us walking loose and unrestrained and the thought of us still having arms makes the yellow fluid run down their legs.

      Why else, even on TTAG, do we get such hate filled diatribes against us? Those making the comments are the leftist statist among us.

    3. avatar Blain Cooper says:

      Vietnam draftees didn’t deserve it. Today’s volunteer murderers deserve to be spit on and worse.

      1. avatar Gs650g says:

        Say that to someone’s face big boy.

        1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Picking a fight with a dumb animal who knows nothing but violence is not really a good idea. They don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand the criminality of their actions 🙂

        2. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          Which just goes to show you know nothing about the demographic you’re stereotyping. far from knowing nothing but violence, the current emphasis on counterterrorism means that troops are encouraged to find ways to win the trust of a local populace, unfortunately, knowing nothing but violence doesn’t cut it anymore. As for being dumb brutes, having a minimum of a high school diploma is a prerequisite for enlisting now for the majority of cases , with a big chunk of enlisted personnel having some level of college education. Not only that, but once you are in there’s a huge emphasis from leadership to take school via corrospondence or by CLEPs.

        3. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          It’s great when militarist cultists despise the public school system, except when they use it to try to prove that the idiots who enlist are slightly more intelligent than gorillas.

          “troops are encouraged to find ways to win the trust of a local populace”

          Worked out really well in Iraq and Afghanistan. 😉

          The US military created more terrorists than they’ve ever dreamed of killing. In the Vietnam tradition, they simply twist the term “legal combatant” until everyone they kill is a “terrorist”. Brilliant!

        4. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          COIN is a dicy proposition at best, you can get short term results like we got in Iraq with the beginning of the surge, and other cases where it doesn’t take,for a variety of reasons. my point was that there is more to the job then kicking in doors and shooting people in the face. Case in point, my last deployment was to a little patch in Africa where we had an extremely positive relationship with the locals,to the point where when a group of wahabi Muslims tried to stir. Up the local Islamic community, they actually turned them in because they wanted no part in what they were selling.

          As for education, let me put it this way. Yes, you’ll find idiots, you’ll also find folks who earned their masters only to join up in order to pay for their debts. I’ve had flight chiefs with multiple degrees that they earned IN service in their free time while working 12 hour shifts. If you were to actually interact with those “gorillas ” you so casually dismissed and you’ll find folks from all walks of life and a level of diversity in race and convictions that stateist mouth breathers can only dream about

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Don’t talk to Blain, he is a moron.

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          Don’t talk to Blain, he is a moron.

          Blain has opinions – I wouldn’t say he is a moron. We all have opinions.

      2. avatar Kendahl says:

        Try that in front of me, Blain, and this 70-year-old civilian (not a vet) will leave you on the ground, moaning in pain, clutching your balls and spitting out blood and broken teeth.

        1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Yet again, more proof that both vets and militarists are violent animals. Thanks. 🙂

        2. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          So just to recap, it’s not even necessary to have been in the military to prove your stereotype about us? Take a hike bigot

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          BC, you are a moron.

        4. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Only dumb violent animals volunteer to murder for the Washington DC cabal. That is plain fact. No need to become a murderer to figure that out.

        5. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          Yeah, you remember that diversity I was talking about? The vast majority of service members don’t even see combat, they provide support of some sort, medical, maintenance, administration, etc. Of those who train for actual combat, they represent a host of views, many of them highly critical of the past few administrations, including more than a few conspiracy theorists.
          Once again I repeat myself. Get out of your cave and actually interact with these “terrorists ” you show contempt for and you’ll find the situation is a lot more complicated than your bigotry. In the meantime, I’ll take a gorilla over a troll any day

        6. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          They’re accessories to murder, bro. If the vets are so critical of the political cabal, as you say, why do they keep working for said cabal?

          As for the “terrorists”, the US military managed to turn half of Iraq from one of the most secular nations in the region into ISIS-land. I can feel those winds of democracy blowing. 😉

        7. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          If you really want to get technical, electing said cabal to office makes the American people accessories, so does the tax dollars you sign away every year. To bad it doesn’t actually meet the legal requirement for murder.

          As for why dissenting forces keep doing their job, it happens for a variety of reasons. in some cases families need supporting ,in other cases they stand by their comrades, in some it’s just plain work ethic. It can be hard to peg down a veteran’s motivation, you can’t just write it off as cowardice like you do with Internet trolls bro.

        8. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          I fail to see how being forced to choose between two malignant narcissists with no choice to opt out entirely is the same as signing a contract to commit murder for whichever narcissist won a meaningless two-horse race.

          The former is manufactured consent, the latter is deliberated conscious consent.

        9. avatar defensor fortismo says:

          Except no one is making you vote in the first place. So yeah, by participating in the Democratic process, you’re also accepting the consequences thereof.

          Setting aside questions of culpability for a minute to return to the original question. How exactly is a clerk shuffling records a mindless thug? How about the wrench turner who barely ever sets foot outside of a hangar? A lab tech who is unlikely to ever deploy? By your logic, because they all took the same oath, they all fall under the category of dumb and violent. which brings me back to my original point, take your bigotry elsewhere

        10. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          It doesn’t matter if I vote or not. The “Democratic process” presumes consent to the system as a whole, which is ludicrous. Your argument is for collective guilt for the crimes of the psychopathic ruling class, even when large segments of the population refused to give their approval.

          On the other hand, anyone who joins the military is fully aware of the military’s role as the murdering arm of the government. Ergo it is not collective guilt, becaus

        11. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Yay. Double post. 🙂

          It doesn’t matter if I vote or not. The “Democratic process” presumes consent to the system as a whole, which is ludicrous. Your argument is for collective guilt for the crimes of the psychopathic ruling class, even when large segments of the population refused to give their approval.

          On the other hand, anyone who joins the military is fully aware of the military’s role as the murdering arm of the government. They are individually guilty (as opposed to collective guilt), because they gave their conscious, deliberate consent.

          Which leads to dumb and violent. Anyone who volunteers to be part of a murderous criminal organization must be so. It is self-evident.

      3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        I don’t know if you are just trolling or being a sarcastic dumbass, but either way I doubt you would have the “guts” to do that yourself. This coming from a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

        1. avatar Herman Johnson says:

          I can’t believe you said that. What made you come to that conclusion? Are you Islamic?

  26. avatar Other Chris says:

    As a vet myself. I’m very dangerous. I can shoot alright and I understand squard level tactics to a lethal degree. But I am a stable productive member of society. So I’m not a threat or liability to other people. Just those who would do harm to other Americans.

  27. avatar Jim R says:

    They’re like any other large group of people. Some of them are fine. Some of them are less than fine. Some of them are F.I.N.E.

  28. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I don’t see veterans who returned from Iraq/Afghanistan as being any more dangerous than anyone else. I am not sure what the general public thinks.

  29. avatar H says:

    Very few Americans actually no someone in or who has been in the services. Back when there was a draft, yes. This means their awareness and sensitivity and freedom from misconceptions can be quite lacking.

    You think service should be a priority before you hold political office? How about actually knowing a member of a group before you have an opinion or vote for what’s “right” for them?

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    Veteran here (Brothers in Arms and Call of duty – PC versions). Nothing to fear here. I’m a productive member of society. Light case of PTSD due to stress during my tour (on the PC). But otherwise – OK and good to go.

    Also- I stayed at a holiday inn express. That is where I attained the rank of lieutenant.

    1. avatar TmDaddy says:

      Brian Williams, everyone knows its you, you can drop the Anonymous title!

  31. avatar BoogieWoogieMan says:

    Maybe we should instead be discussing less the broken people, and more what broke them and perhaps being less intent on going to war…horse bolted anyone. If you don’t think that the WMD fabricated war in Iraq and invasion of Afghanistan to go after one cave dweller has not led to the current Syria, Libya, ISIS situation then you are as much to blame for the damage these young men and women endure as the administrations that used them. The dominoes in the mid east are falling, and the USA encouraged it. The last one to come down will be on Israel, which may have been the intent.

    A standing army is like social security. Social Security is meant to be there for one reason, necessary or not, yet the account is raided for every other thing. The standing army is meant for one thing, but is always used for something else.

  32. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’m not a vet but I have a son who is one. I’ve also known quite a few. Nope I don’t think they are more dangerous than normal. +1 Ralph…and Andy you are full of s##t. I was around in the 60’s and early 70’s and saw vets treated shamefully-helped along by scum like John “Lurch” Kerry.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      FWW, I think it’s amazing that people can rewrite history and then tell us that we didn’t see what we saw because the truth makes them uncomfortable.

    2. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

      I thought Kerry is a combat vet too, no? You could debate details of his combat, but he was there in combat, so just as deserving of any other combat vet of our thanks, while many in the privileged class at the time were given “rich daddy” passes on combat, so hard to fault his opinions, even if you did not agree. I believe he was questioning the same politicians/programs we (rightfully) view with such suspicion today….and, sadly, he turned out to be correct on ‘Nam.

      1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        Lurch called his fellow military baby killers and monsters…a lot of a##holes joined in Vietnam to avoid getting drafted. Don’t make Lurch out to be a hero.

        1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

          He served. In combat. when many many did not, and signed up for support roles to avoid combat, so he is no more or less a hero than others who saw combat, and thus deserving of our nations appreciation. So the guy was against the war after seeing injustice his country was committing, and using his own reasoning does not make him bad, sorry. I did not call him a “hero”.

      2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        He may have served in Vietnam in combat, but also earned the title of Blue Falcon by comparing his fellow soldiers to the likes of Genghis Khan’s hordes in front of Congress.

  33. avatar Gs650g says:

    They support our troops right up until they don’t. The motion tat servicemembers are anything but dangerous does not compute for the left.
    To answer the original question they are no more dangerous than anyone else as long as no one tries to hurt them.

  34. avatar 357M28 says:

    Politicians/Liberals and other oath breakers, feel they are dangerous, because “most” Veterans will always honor their oath to defend Constitution of the United States til death. I on the other hand love them.

  35. avatar Leo says:

    In Russia in late 1980’s where I was living at the time, Veterans coming back from Afghanistan, were viewed with great suspicion and had reputation for poor self control. A lot of young guys, draftees with PTSD.
    Coming back to to US. What do I think of veterans? They have my respect and thanks for protecting us. Was selling some ammo and I noticed the globe and anchor tattoo on the guy who bought it. I asked if he was a marine, He turned out to be a Vietnam vet with 3 tours. I thanked him for his service He was surprised

  36. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    More dangerous? Perhaps. But that’s the price we pay to send our young men (and women) into battle. Yet another reason that we should choose our battles carefully.

  37. avatar Publius says:

    They are absolutely a danger. Not because they’re any more likely to go on a killing spree, but because they have blind loyalty to the government and will gladly side with them when things turn ugly.

    1. avatar Kellen says:

      If by government you mean Constitution then you are correct.

      1. avatar Publius says:

        No, I mean government. Soldiers love to bullshit about “serving the country” and “upholding the Constitution”, yet they fall all over themselves pissing on the Constitution and spitting in the faces of Americans and the Founding Fathers in their rush to blindly obey whatever order politicians give them.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You cannot be that stupid. I am a 20 year vet, and if push came to shove I would be helping burn down the White house, not defending it. We served our COUNTRY, we did not sign on to forever be slaves to whatever loser was running the government at the time. That was the dumbest statement I’ve seen in a while.

      1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

        Alas, you obey orders from said losers or face the “justice” of the UCMJ.

        Keep repeating whatever lie you need to sleep at night. “I serve the country” even though the entire chain of command reports to politicians. LOL.

        1. avatar MudPuppy says:

          Doesn’t work like that, but please keep building up your army of strawmen. You may think you are really stirring things up but all you are doing is showing poor self-control and an abysmal understanding of the world around you. Go ahead and return to your safe little echo chamber on the internet and tell your little buddies how you schooled all us evil gun-loving cretins. We’ll have forgotten you before you type the first sentence.

        2. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          But that is exactly how it works, no matter what lies or delusions you’ve used to convince yourself otherwise. 🙂

          As Henry Kissinger said, military men are dumb animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.

        3. avatar Publius says:

          Blain – if soldiers admitted the truth about their actions, the public would stop funding them and they’d have to get jobs doing something productive instead of raping, murdering, and general pillaging & plundering in third world nations that pose no threat to us and have few means of defending themselves.

    3. avatar JWM says:

      Once again, Pubes, you’re showing your ignorance. How are things gonna turn ugly? You and blain(sex with a corpse boy) going to start a 2 boy revolution? You forming a militia that bans vets? Let us know how that works out for you.

  38. avatar DJ says:

    The statistics speak for themselves, Veterans tend to be law abiding and productive. It’s also helpful to remember that most veterans have never fired a shot in anger. That’s not to take away from anyone’s service, the reality is simply that there are more service and support roles than combat roles. And that’s also not to say that troops in those support MOS’ aren’t working in a dangerous environment, and don’t occasionally get shot at or have the chance to shoot back. Just pointing out that when people hear “veteran” their thoughts go to “infantry”, not “supply clerk”. I did advance work for a PSD team. When my family asks what I did over there I tell them “we ran away – a lot”. 😉

  39. avatar Paelorian says:

    I hope veterans are dangerous, to all enemies of the United States Constitution foreign and domestic. As per their oath.

  40. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

    No, they’ve been programmed to defer to “authority.”

  41. avatar Buffalo Bob says:

    My first civilian job after the military I was treated much different, the boss would verbally abuse everyone accept me! Couldnt even look me in the eyes, it Made me feel like an alien. Then some little bastard asked me if I ever killed a kid!? I looked him strait in the eyes with a strait face and casually stated that I ate baby’s! And went back to work on the machine. 2 days later I found myself being placed in a dark corner of the factory by myself with no supervisor or co-workers until I quit 2 months later! I hate being treated differently, I no longer disclose any info pertaining to my veteran status, my co-workers now haven’t had a clue about me. It makes life less stressful to not be asked idiotic questions, or to be treated different because employers in reality view combat veterans as a liability. When you sense fear without a reason from a superior, or anyone really it makes it very hard to respect that person. This is the image of veterans that the media, and Hollywood has brainwashed the masses with.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      That kind of treatment sucks. The veterans I encounter are indistinguishable from non-vets except that they are modestly proud of their service and don’t disparage other vets. Many employers are glad to hire veterans because they have proven themselves to be good employees. When national guardsmen are called up, many employers voluntarily supplement their military pay so that their net incomes remain the same.

      As far as “dangerous” is concerned, the most dangerous people in the country are gang bangers who “graduate” from high school with a criminal record instead of a diploma. They are responsible for most of the shootings and half the murders in my city.

  42. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    A couple of things come to mind here and the first is that all vets are not the same. Some are Sergeant Sad Sacks like me, and although we deployed we were in the rear with the gear. Acronyms and nicknames range from nonners to POGs and are made up of everything from technicians and office weenies that never deployed. The there are the combat support, combat vets and high speed low drag SF types. There’s a of of territory there and variance in skills, training and capability

    The second is dangerous how? As over trained psychopaths that are about ready to loosen their last screw and go on a ramboesque rampage, or do they think that we are dangerous to the government? As Kyle’s killer shows, I think a little of all of the above exists but no more than in the private sector. With that said, I don’t see any signs of people being afraid of veterans in my personal life, but I’m now an OFWG, and most of my staff has CHL’s. Maybe we aren’t typical. I do think that people on the left fear us in general terms as a threat to government authority. Maybe fear is to strong a word. Concern maybe?

  43. avatar Excedrine says:

    Only as dangerous as anybody might be. The odd man (or woman) out flipping out and causing a scene is a direct failure of the military to address their issues, and the all-too-often destruction of these guys’ and gals’ careers for even seeking treatment in the first place.

    To Blain Cooper: You elect those government animals you speak of. You finance their wars. You voted to send these Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen into places the U.S. doesn’t even belong. You’re every bit as responsible for the innocent deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine as they are. You should take a long, hard look in the mirror before pointing that finger anywhere else, Junior. You’re still wet behind the ears. Save your righteous indignation and cowardly sniveling from behind the thin veil of perceived anonymity for people who don’t already know better than you.

    1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

      Don’t blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. He didn’t vote for any of these useless wars.

      But feel free to explain your support for the insane warmongers and their useless wars because you “know better”.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        I don’t believe Ron Paul shares your contempt for service men and women.

        1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Ron Paul doesn’t worship veterans the way the Pentagon taught Americans to after Vietnam.

          He also said Chris Kyle “lived by the sword and died by the sword”. Good line. 🙂

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          @ Coop And Ron Paul backed away from that statement after he was rightfully called out on it. I might agree with some of his political views, but he has a habit of eating his own shoe.

  44. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    Anyone can take the right martial arts classes and learn the same fighting techniques taught to soldiers all around the world today. Any civilian can run, swim, and do pullups the same as any soldier, it’s all just a question of time and effort spent achieving the level of fitness required. Look at the countless “tactical” themed classes offered all over the country, some taught by veterans themselves. Shooting like your average infantryman isn’t rocket science, guys. Hell, I was surprised by the M16A2 marksmanship manual I read a while back because it was largely just a repeat of techniques I had already picked up from years of shooting. I also knew a girl in high school who was diagnosed with PTSD because of incidents she suffered through as a kid. It’s not the combat veterans-only boogeyman of a condition that Hollywood and the media paint it as. Civilians can learn to do many of the same things veterans did in the course of the training and suffer the same psychological ailments. Treating them as a somehow “more dangerous” is a pile of bollocks peddled by Feinstein and pals.

  45. avatar Gsnyder says:

    Improper and ignorant to generalize but I do see the point of paranoia. I often question the near automatic assumption a Veteran is a perfect choice for the police. In truth it is still an individual situation based on character. Civilian life is far different than military, a reality many retired Veterans have come to experience first hand. I’ve known good and bad from every walk of life. To single out a particular group and propose they are better suited than others is simply ignorant in the ways of the world.

  46. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Are Veterans dangerous? “Dangerous” as in make other people unsafe? Rather the opposite, I think.

    – Dangerous as in they might be more likely do something purposeful and violent – perhaps.

    – Dangerous as in they might do something purposeful and violent for no reason – not likely.

    – Dangerous as in you are at more risk because they are around – rather the opposite.

    You are safer with veterans around, actually because they are dangerous. Dangerous to bad guys. Dangerous to bad guys because they Veterans in general have more skills, and familiarity, and practiced judgment in dealing with immediate, risky situations.

    The rest of us are more safe *because* veterans are dangerous. If you trust their judgment, their being *more* capable is a good thing. In a world that includes some crazy people, you’re safer with Vets around.

    You are only scared of Veterans’ skills if you think they are crazy. Maybe we should talk about that.

    I don’t cringe from a veteran who has perhaps seen or experienced or done violence, on purpose. Veterans are, in my experience, more reserved in action than other people, I suppose because more aware of the consequences of violence. They are less prone to freak out when things get weird. And they have some background in acting when that’s what’s needed. Thus, I feel safer.

    Veterans as a group are certainly more dangerous, to people trying to harm other people. They are better at recognizing violence and better at acting to stop it. I feel safer around vets because I don’t hurt people for fun. I’m better off because someone trying to hurt me may get stopped even if I can’t stop them. I’m comfortable with Vet’s skills because I’m peaceful and I trust their judgment.

    So how could Vets be more capable of violence, yet one can be safer in their midst? Veterans as a group are more self-disciplined than non-vets. Vets are indoctrinated into a morality of when violence is acceptable or not than the general population. I’m safer around people with more self discipline, a particular morality about when violence is acceptable (mostly not), and yes, the skill and will to purposefully do violence to stop something worse. They tend to act up less. They tend to stop bad actors better.

    We’re really talking about doing harm here. Veterans are skilled at doing harm. (All assertions are comparative and generalizations. In general, Veterans as a group tend to be more skilled at doing harm than … Like that.) If all harm is bad and wrong, then being better at it makes things worse. If they’re crazy, that makes things worse. If sometimes harm done on purpose can reduce all the harm done, well, being better at it helps.

    That’s the crux of the anti-citizen gun ownership argument as well. Citizens be crazy, so not to be trusted with guns. Metal utensils, and bicycles too, one presumes. Besides all violence is wrong, and violence never solves anything, so even scratching the eyes of your would-be rapist doesn’t make things better, even if that gets you away. Really, like with civilian gun ownership whether veterans add to danger or safety for the rest of us comes down to “violence” to whom, and why. Without that distinction, “purposeful violence” to protect someone else is just as wrong as a crazed shooting spree or reaping sacrifices for Cthulu.

    How’s this: “It’s a shame that robber/rapist-guy got shot dead, but his would-be victim stopping her rape before it happened seems to me a good thing.” Now argue the opposite – who would dare to? I think the attempted rape counts as violence, even if he didn’t use a gun. I think the potential victim being backed into a situation where she has to shoot or submit is more than enough violence done to her. If I get to choose, I’d rather it never came to that. But if it does, I’d rather she shoots the guy than has to submit and hope he doesn’t kill her in the end.

    As for Vets, they are the same, yet more capable and discerning. Thus: “It’s a shame that the three home-invading robber/rapist-guys got their parts scattered when single-mom target-woman’s veteran dad happened to be visiting when they ‘stopped by.'” I’m OK with that too. The possibility makes me feel safer. The reality that Vets exist makes me safer.

    Also, thank you.

    1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

      The vets *are* the bad guys, brah. They are government murderers or accessories thereof. 🙂

  47. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Well, most vets I know were in the military before the advent of the high speed low drag operator. Most were just normal guys and some of the heroes were not known unless they leaked it to their kids. My Father In Law was wounded and never really reported it, so he never got a Purple Heart. I sort of think Grandfather was instrumental in stopping a German attack in WWI and he never got a medal. I think his commanding officer knew that he may have really helped stop the German attack. I know a former tank destroyer commander who saved most of his platoon in the Ardennes and he only reluctantly told his kids about it.
    We trust these guys to save and serve this country with some rather formidable weapons systems ( A-26 Invader) and then say that they cannot be trusted in society with a shotgun.

  48. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

    Never really have heard of this theory being put forward before…but I am assuming the question posed is referring to combat vets among us (as opposed to those the majority among us who served w/o seeing combat)? No, combat vets are not “more dangerous” than any other classification, but surely there are many dangerous men and women out there. I think able bodied citizens of working age who do not seek employment are more dangerous, in many ways.

  49. avatar Herman Johnson says:

    I believe that Vets are the best type of Citizens that we could have. They have already served their time defending this Country. Most will do it again if necessary. Let ISIS try to roll through this Country like they are doing in the middle east and you will be happy we still have civilian gun ownership and veterans that know how to use them. Plus all the hunters that have never been in the military, but know how to shoot. I even believe that every citizen should have to join the National Guard, both male and female. The one’s that can’t physically do active duty, should have to do community service for so many years.

    1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

      Feel free to explain how any war the US military fought in the last 50 years defending this country in any way whatsoever.

  50. avatar Salty Bear says:

    The very idea of an armed veteran is threatening to progressive ideology. There is a whole class of people out there who have truly sacrificed for their nation (not voting other people’s money away), who love the idea of America (which leftists are hard at work destroying), who are responsible for themselves, and who have the means and training to take America back by force (not that they ever would).

    The armed veteran is the perfect anti-leftist, and s/he is very dangerous.

    1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

      LOL. The veteran is an indentured servant who belonged to the government, and the very person used by progressives to do their bidding. After all, progressive ideology depends on violence dispensed by government thugs.

  51. avatar David Stadler says:

    I believe we need to properly care for our veterans who demonstrate the symptoms of PTSD and violence. Taking a veteran who demonstrates these symptoms, and who we consider “nuts”, to a live fire range is NOT PROPER THERAPY!

  52. avatar ed says:

    Anytime I have heard of anyone talking about vet’s being dangerous, I tell them I’m a vet. Usially, a coulple others in the group also chime in, and the misinformed person really has a confused look on there face. Most of the public don’t realize how many vet’s are out there, and that they deal with in there daily lives.

  53. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    “Are Veterans Dangerous?”

    Yes, but only for/to liberal tyrants who chose to violate the constitution…

  54. avatar CMM says:

    According the Department of Motherland Security they are indeed dangerous. http://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
    Food for thought: the nanny state wants to start wars wherever and whenever it wants, but doesn’t want its citizens to know about guns before or after they are sent off to war. Also, the nanny state doesn’t want its citizens to know or act with violence before or after they are sent off to war. I feel like that is sending mixed messages.

  55. avatar neiowa says:

    Oath of Commissioned Officers

    I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

    Note that there is no mention of the Office of the President or any individual. OR expiration date.

    Are Veterans Dangerous? Depends who is causing what problem.

    1. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Nailed it. Took that oath 46 years ago, and it has no expiration date. Doesn’t matter when I left the Army, the oath still means to me what it says. I imagine there are all sorts of leftists who find that fact to be dangerous to their plans.

  56. avatar cg123 says:

    I think the real issue here is that most americans believe all veterans are combat killers…

    the overwhelming majority of service members have never fired a shot in anger, and never saw the outside of a major FOB (Just like Kyle’s killer). Of the small percentage that engaged in direct combat, you will find a very very tiny number of guys who are actually dangerous because of their experiences. They do exist, but they aren’t widespread.

    The fact is, veterans are more of a danger to themselves than they are to anyone else. 22 veterans kill themselves every day. Lets worry about that before we worry about anything else

  57. avatar kiluma says:

    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    Army Oath Of Enlistment
    To answer the question: you had better believe we are.

  58. avatar davidx says:

    Sad as it may be for me to relate, but in this day and age we have little choice but to examine certain words and phrases in that oath of enlistment and how they might be applied, or not.

    “support and defend,” but to what extent and under what circumstances?

    “Constitution,” but what is it now? Is it anything more than birdcage liner to our rulers and the courts? Wasn’t it birdcage liner, stillborn, at the secret proceedings of that famous Convention in Philadelphia in 1787?

    “enemies,” who are they? My paternal grandfather fought the Germans in the Great War; my dad and maternal grandfather fought them again in the Good War. Now they, and the Japanese, are our good buddies, and our former allies, the Russians, perennial enemies, sort of like Oceania and Europa in George Orwell’s “1984.” Let’s all have a “one minute hate” now on the Russians, shall we? Or is it the Ukrainian rebels, I forget. My uncle and I fought the communists in the Cold War and the First and Second Indochina Wars; they’re also now our good buddies and tourists visit there all the time now and extoll its beauties and attractions while also cheering the NVA and VC victories, so-called. Our corporations are building their markets there so we can buy more junk online and at Wall-Mutt.

    “true faith and allegiance,” what is that, exactly? Does anyone know anymore? This is a country where a soldier can walk off his post in enemy territory during a war and hang out with them until he comes back here under murky circumstances and he and his mom and dad are invited to the White House to schmooze with the Prez.

    Speaking of whom…we’re sworn to obey orders from this guy? A known hadji-symp and Bolshevik tyrant? Count me out.

    And the orders of the officers? Sure, to a point, but even DOD recognizes they are sometimes unlawful; we have Nuremberg to thank for that.

    There are veterans to fear, for one reason or another, to be sure, and not least those veterans who’ve been in the chit and also learned since to think for themselves. But again I maintain we are most often more dangerous to ourselves these days, at the rate of 20 suicdes a DAY. What does the Oath say about that?

  59. avatar RaulYbarra says:

    There’s a difference to “are dangerous” and “are a danger.”

    To the first, are veterans dangerous? I sure hope so. We are paying them and training them to be dangerous. Very dangerous. I’m an OFWG (of Hispanic descent), and even I’m dangerous. As Gandalf said to Gimly, “You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Glóin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.”

    To the second, are veterans a danger? Only to those who would undermine or try to destroy out country. At least, again, I sure hope so.

    If you consider veterans a threat, you need to do a bit of introspection. The problem is within you.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email