Don’t Stigmatize Those Who Are Coping With Post Traumatic Stress

Man Fustrated

In the wake of the shooting last night where all of the mainstream media outlets are assuming the attacker suffered from PTSD I want to make something very clear. Coping with post traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, etc., doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a danger to yourself or others. That’s a common misconception that, in many cases, prevents those who are suffering from getting help.

All of these conditions exist on a spectrum of severity and even if severe, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a danger. Each person, each past trauma is unique and incredibly multifaceted.

Why does this matter? Because stigma goes largely unseen, but is devastating in hidden ways.

Such as?

The stigma of PTSD and mental illness prevents people in need from seeking help and getting the treatment they need. It discourages people from being honest about where their head is at and how in need of assistance they may be.

If you or someone you know is suffering, don’t keep it bottled up. Reach out. The resources are out there and don’t worry about the un-educated folks who foolishly look down upon modern therapy, psychology, and psychiatry. Coping with post traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression is a battle that should never be fought alone.

Be very careful about this kind of stigmatization. In my opinion it’s one of the least-discussed most dangerously impactful forces in our society today.

 

Piper Smith is the founder & executive director of Armed Equality.

Armed Equality National Discussion Group
Armed Equality SoCal Training Group

comments

  1. avatar Elaine D. says:

    As a PTSD therapist, thank you for writing this. There is indeed help and good help at the right time can not only stop the slide into the trauma vortex, it can turn things around so that a person has the life they were meant to have. I see it every day.

  2. avatar MarkPA says:

    Thank you for this post. Yes, it’s really easy to look at someone who perpetrated a shooting and say that he: drank water; ate food; breathed air; had a particular skin color. Therefore, all people who share that characteristic are suspect. It took a couple of hundred years for us to realize that skin color is not a valid discriminator. Likewise, mental illness, conviction of a felony or conviction of a 2-year misdemeanor, conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor are not reliable discriminators. Nor, for that matter, is being an alien, illegal-alien, or expatriate reliable discriminators.

    At the same time, net-worth, size of one’s contribution to the Democratic party, are not reliable discriminators.

    Only when we take responsibility for evaluating evidence in light of the Constitutional constraints will we understand what is needed to respond to violence by state or private actors.

    1. avatar Richard Kling says:

      Whoa, Troll level 9000. Perhaps not appropriate for an article like this. But still, hilarious. [thumbs up]

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Kernel of truth. Mountain of PC claptrap. Turns out virtue signaling is a human thing, not just an anti-gunner thing.

    3. avatar arc says:

      Ehh actually skin color, country of origin, ideological, religious, and political beliefs are all valid… Its called profiling and it works.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        ” Its called profiling and it works.”

        Agreed. But personally, I prefer calling it ‘statistical analysis’. Profiling sounds intentionally vague. Analysis is what a life insurance company does.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        At the group level it works. At the individual level, not so much (see the ecological fallacy).

        If group profiling really worked at the individual level, the mass murderer in California would have been an Arabic jihadi, not a Caucasian military veteran. I remember when every expert on TV was telling us that the DC sniper attacks back in 2002(ish) just had to be an alienated white male between the ages of 19 and 37, because statistics say that’s who does these things…two black Muslims from California, who would’ve thought.

        If you apply group statistics to every individual you see, you’re going to be very wrong about a LOT of individuals.

        Progressives are using this same faulty logic to go after *everyone* who owns guns. After all, there has never been a mass shooting by someone who didn’t own a gun…

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Ecological Fallacy? Who the hell is teaching that as an actual logical fallacy, Brown? Seen as a joke by most scholars, someone trying to make a name for himself in the ’50s coined this nonsense. It’s simply the failure to accurately differentiate correlation and causality, then trying to make up a new word for said failure.

          As to the media speculation about the DC sniper, they shared your apparent inaccuracies. Bottom line, 50% of all murders are committed by the 8% of the population that is black and male, not to mention serial killers/mass murderers, also disproportionately black – but those white guys you mention do get most of the press.

          Posted a day ago-ish, look at the study.

  3. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    This shooting was a tragedy on many levels. Obviously for those killed and injured, and their families, a horrible tragedy. Also for the shooter, because he was most likely failed by the military, the VA, and the mental health system of California. The state of California failed all of them because after the many incidents in California, and obviously the gay bar shootings in Florida, the bouncers, security guards, and bartenders should all have been armed, not restricted by “will never issue” policies. The Democratic party of course is failing everyone, with its varied but consistent nonsense about magazine capacity and “the gun came in from out of state.” California’s gun and mental health laws failed everyone, and all the proggies will do is double down on more of the same.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      This is why I like to drink in the bar at my sportsman’s club. Yeah, it’s smoky, most of the patrons are middle aged, rarely are there any hot looking women present, and probably half the patrons are concealed carrying. But everyone behaves and there’s no violence.

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Paranoid schizophrenia is a more likely cause than PTSD, there many possible things that could have led to this. Including a brain tumor which was blamed by some for what Charles Whitman did in the Texas Tower shootings.

  5. avatar SurfGW says:

    PTSD is real and people do not have to be in combat to suffer. Any highly stressful event can trigger it, especially if the individual is young or not very resilient.
    That said, the military has gotten much better at catching the symptoms and sending anyone suspected of PTSD to evaluations. Almost all cases are caught within 1 year of the occurrence.
    Unfortunately, many unscrupulous people have begun to use PTSD as a “get out of jail free card” and take advantage of the public sympathy.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      BS flag. How in the world would you know that almost all instances are caught within a year? Did you mean “that are ever caught”? Because I have doubts that “almost all cases” are caught *at all*, never mind within a year.

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

    What a sticky web the ‘Progressives’ have spun for us.

    Instrumental in dismantling the ‘old’ mental health system where people who were of questionable mental health were released from forced confinement into the community.

    So, what’s it gonna be, then? Where is the line drawn between the rights of the mentally ill and a community that may need them confined for the danger they may pose to the community?

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There were supposed to be community resources to assist the mentally ill but no-one wanted to be responsible for the financial cost or for the actions of the former inmates when something happened.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      I think the question is: How do we rationalize our society’s decisions?

      There is a near consensus that values liberty. We must not be seduced by the temptation to lock someone up because his eccentric behavior makes us fearful of him. So, by taking care in this matter, we allow enormous numbers of individuals at their liberty notwithstanding that we recognize many of them will eventually prove to be a danger to others (to say nothing of being a danger to themselves).

      It is a good thing to value liberty so highly that we are willing to ‘let ten crazy men go free rather than incarcerate one sane man in error’.

      And there is also a near consensus that values life and the right of the individual to defend his own life. Most states’ laws extend considerable liberty for the means to carry a gun outside the home. Vermont allows children of all ages to carry long guns; and, 16+ year olds to carry handguns. A dozen other states are permitless-carry, or very nearly so.

      So, why is this right – to carry the means to an effective self-defense – so circumscribed in 10 states?

      The Peoples of these 10 states – by acts of their legislatures – deprive citizens of the liberty to carry, making them vulnerable to the violence of the insane granted liberty to prey upon us.

      Prescinding from the Constitution – which already decided the matter of liberty to bear arms – how are these 10 states behaving rationally? Arguably, if these governments were effective in incarcerating very nearly all criminals, crazies, terrorists and the careless, violence against others would be minimal. Citizens wouldn’t bother to carry. Or, laws narrowly constraining carry (e.g., to the armed guards of billionaires and celebrities) might be construed as rational. Yet, clearly such is NOT the case. These governments FAIL to incarcerate those who are clearly a danger to others.

      Because governments can NEVER be effective in incarcerating dangerous people, the only effective defense is self-defense by means best suited to the task. It is doubtlessly this reasoning that led the Founders to secure the right to arms as one of the checks and balances. Government couldn’t be envisioned to protect citizens from hostile natives, pirates, criminals, fauna or tyrannous governors.

      1. avatar RA-15 says:

        Well said MARKPA !!

        1. avatar Bookoodinkydow says:

          DITTO !

  7. avatar Sian says:

    When it comes to people with mental problems, the kneejerk reaction is “We can do more.” but when people say “we” they generally mean “Someone else”.

    As a result, nothing gets done.

    Try “I can do more.”

    What can I do to reduce the stigma of mental health treatment, and to do something for around me who need help?

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Stigmatization of the mentally ill is similar to stigmatization on the basis of race, national origin, religion, etc. And, its similar to stigmatization of gun owners. It resides in the hearts of individuals such as you or I, and our aquaintences. And, that is where it must be addressed.

      It has taken a couple of centuries, but we have accomplished a great deal to reduce stigmatization on basis of race, national origin and religion. Only a small minority carry on with such stigmatizing behaviors. The majority votes for legislators who craft and adopt laws to minimize such stigmatizing behaviors. The task will never be completed; yet progress should continue.

      In the present discussion I think our task is clear. We must urge our fellow-men to avoid stigmatizing the mentally-ill because it is counter-productive (to say nothing of its immorality). Anyone who suffers from mental illness deserves the opportunity to seek help. By stigmatizing mental illness we stigmatize the constructive behavior of seeking help and pursuing a course of treatment. THAT is certain to prove COUNTER-productive.

      It is likewise counter-productive to stigmatize gun-owners and carriers. We Americans do NOT stigmatize police or soldiers for bearing arms in pursuit of our safety. British subjects do stigmatize police-carry. One of these two attitudes is irrational; which one?

      Why do we Americans accept that men in blue uniforms do-and-SHOULD carry guns? (Why do the British think the opposite?) If we accept that these guns in the hands of presumptively honorable men serve our goal of safety then wouldn’t more guns in the hands of more presumptively honorable men advance that goal further?

      It’s very curious that there were six off-duty cops in that California bar – all UN-armed. Why? Because our society stigmatizes carrying-while-drinking. If-and-to-the-extent that we choose to stigmatize carrying-while-drinking, then shouldn’t we STOP stigmatizing carry-while-sober? Many patrons in that bar were there for the dancing and companionship but were NOT drinking. Some were 18 – 20 years old. Others were elderly and some of them may not have imbibed. It was COUNTER-productive that NO-ONE in that bar was carrying! Not even the six cops!

      It took 200+ years to de-stigmatize race. Stigmatizing gun-carry took 100+ years. De-stigmatizing mental-illness or gun-carry won’t occur swiftly. It won’t begin at all if we – as individuals – don’t pick-up-the-ball and carry it toward the goal line. The process must begin with “me” in conversations with other men of good will.

  8. avatar Skip Case says:

    Well said, Piper Smith!! We have, as yet, NO idea what this guy’s service record is and how much/many video games he has been digesting recently. Please tell me why shooters like this guy end up shooting themselves after killing? Because the reality is WAY WORSE than what can ever be portrayed on video games? AND, it is reported that there were many/several at least LEOs in the room. Nobody with a TQ to help the fallen?
    YIKES! Much to learn from the facts IF they are ever revealed… May the good Lord help us in this time of distress…

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Suicide is often their goal because they are in pain but they want people to die to make the world feel their pain.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      WTF? A TQ? Why didn’t a few of the LE have a damn GUN???

      1. avatar Skip Case says:

        Amen to that! And, I’m guessing the FBI agent doing a back flip in a bar a couple of months ago has slowed down many would-be carrying line dancers.

  9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I don’t blame Former gov Brown, the father, who did release the mentally ill, I don’t blame former gov Ronald Reagan. I do blame the ACLU and the three L’s. Libertarians liberals and the Left. It was these groups who were against the city of New York from forcing a homeless black woman into mental heath treatment. This woman was defecating and urinating on herself and in the street. She was also eating her own feces. They won the law suit. It cost the city millions. And now no city or state wants to put these very sick people into a mental health treatment unit. They are afraid of the ACLU lawyers.

    I know many people are concerned about a USSR style of mental health treatment in this country. But that fear was used to dismantle the entire public mental health system in the 1970s and 1980s.

    There will be repeated attacks by these sick people because we as a society have chosen to not treat them by force if necessary.

    So very sick mentally ill people can “choose” to not get treatment. I blame the ACLU, Libertarians Liberal and the Left for allowing very dangerous mentally people, to avoid treatment.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Chris…. I remember when they shut down mental institutions like you say. They showed one or two ( I do not remember the number ) that were really backward in their operations and helped to feed the contrived frenzy. We have had some nursing homes that were run horribly but we didn’t shut them all down. Seems like back when they were in the process of attempting to shut down these institutions that the real agenda was that state money was being used to treat some of these patients and they were just trying to get out of paying for this. Naturally they used other reasons in their campaigns to shutter these institutions.

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        At the state level, yes this was one factor. Another, at the national level, came from the ignorance, or inability to see obvious consequences, of many in the fields of social sciences. Essentially, many actually believe(d) that mental illness is no more of a biological indicator of potential problems than skin color is. But the skin color fight had been won. So, what would the next cause be? Then, throw into the mix the fact that we didn’t (and don’t) have much of a clue how to treat mental illness, and the fact of the state of institutions you mention, and it is easier to do nothing and cloak the inaction in the rhetoric of choice, dignity, and respect. Essentially, redefining, or warping, the concepts of choice, dignity, and respect.

        It did in fact alleviate many of the atrocities of institutionalization, and works quite well for some people. But it brought new atrocities for others. One size can’t fit all.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Privatize the profits.

        Socialize the losses.

      3. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Ed

        Yep. In an individualist, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps culture like ours, there is generally always a push to not spend money on the chronically mentally ill. Why? Because they aren’t “productive” ie going to make money. Because they might not get better, or much better. Because people find them frightening and alienating. There is always a push to not spend money on people who “can’t contribute to society.” Our society likes the story of the underdog who overcomes and becomes a hero. Those who cannot, we don’t want to spend a dime on; we’d rather blame them for being sick.

    2. avatar 22winmag says:

      The ACLU does what it’s deep-pocketed, leftist, institutional donors want… or else there wouldn’t be any donors or any ACLU.

      1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

        Sorry, but facts are that ACLU has come out on side of many “conservative” or “right wing” cases in the past, including free speech, and other issues. Do your research.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          “Many”? No. “Some” Is far more accurate. The ACLU likes to pretend the 2A doesn’t exist.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And I pretend the ACLU doesn’t exist.

  10. avatar BLAMMO says:

    In a nutshell,

    “We have to find and identify all the mentally ill who might own guns so that we can take their guns away.”

    Yeah, that works. That will really encourage gun owners who legitimately need even the most minor psychiatric treatment to seek it.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      blammo….They figure that all who own firearms are mentally ill unless they are the ones that go around with the pink hats, antifa signs, blm, black panthers, all these are rational and loving, calm good citizens.

  11. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    PTSD is an “affective disorder” and, as such, can be effectively treated. The problem is convincing people suffering from the disorder that they can be helped by seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist. Many people, men mostly, think going to see a shrink is an admission that they’re to weak to handle things on their own. in many cases a downward spiral of lost relationships, lost marriages, jobs, friends, begins. With medical intervention PTSD, like most affective disorders, can be effectively managed. You may not be able to completely rid yourself of the grief, but you don’t have to let PTSD control you. Even with PTSD, you can be a good person and lead a normal life.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Garrison Hall

      Yep.

      I’ll add that a lot of people who have PTSD don’t actually know they have it. What they do know is that they have fight/flight/freeze responses in situations that are not actually threatening. They do know that they have trouble in relationships. They do know that they struggle with substances. They do know that there are things, people, and situations that they avoid and they don’t know why. Untreated PTSD sufferers tend to socially isolate because of shame about their symptoms, which is why a lot of them don’t come in for help.

      You can’t help what’s wrong if you don’t know what’s wrong in the first place.

      I just had a friend get diagnosed with PTSD who has been on four combat tours. I was the one who pressed him to get real help. He didn’t even know he had it, but he lost a good job because of an angry explosion at a supervisor. Now he’s in treatment and doing well. Happens all the time.

  12. “Red Flag/STOP/ERPO Laws” are going to be Big Business for the Medical Community…In a very negative manner for [email protected] supporters, NRA , GOA, conservative types…Just like Nazi Germany that used it’s Medical Establishment to good effect to route out politcial opposition, taking away liberties, helping sentence patients to concentration camps for help with medical experimentation….What do you think Big Hospitals will do for the DemoCommies?

  13. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Yes and No.
    Uncles and Dad had PTSD before it was PTSD ranging from mild to wild.
    One Uncle who flew P40s in the MTO was really bad.
    Uncle who flew B-26s in the ETO kept it under wraps. Mostly.
    Dad who was in combat infantry in the PTO did okay, but once in a great while he could really go off the deep end.
    One thing about a lot of WWII vets is that they were not PC and really hated their enemies even decades after the war was over. When I say hate, I mean HATE.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      This just made me think… What if the difference between then and now in regards to people suffering from PTSD is that hate actually helps you cope?

      Everyone who is under 60 has been raised in a society where we’re all supposed to believe that hate — no matter who it’s directed against — is Bad and Wrong. But it’s a natural human emotion, and all emotions exist for good reason. Hate is actually a protective thing when it’s working properly; it helps you keep enemies at a distance and motivates you to protect loved ones from danger.

      If you’re not allowed to hate the people who (arguably) are responsible for the traumatic experience, and the traumatic stress won’t dissipate by other means, what happens to your emotional health?

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Ing

        This is a really good point. I do think that people not only feel they are not allowed to hate, they also feel that they are supposed to “Forgive.” But I think people can find healing and forward movement without necessarily needing to turn into peaceful little jellyfish about things that really messed up their lives. If they want to let go of hate and forgive that is good, but it’s not completely essential either.

        I would say that hate is an emotional and cognitive state. PTSD, depending on the severity, number of traumas, age of onset, and duration before treatment, actually changes the structure of your brain. This is why it’s so important to get to people who have been traumatized sooner rather than later. Many people who develop PTSD as adults have had previous childhood experiences that were not treated. Traumatic stress is like a baklava; each layer builds up and builds on the previous ones, and if enough layers build up, a breaking point can come.

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “…Everyone who is under 60 has been raised in a society where we’re all supposed to believe that hate — no matter who it’s directed against — is Bad and Wrong.”

        Eh, not quite.

        Many Progressives hate us, and all we stand for, because of who we vote for. And they are *proud* of that hatred…

  14. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    It is now coming out the guys exhibited severe anger issues before even joining the Marines, but either way, having PTSD, either from military services, or, as in the vast majority of cases, from a violent event in life, can not be a pass for being allowed to keep ones guns if other violent or anger issues are observed, sorry. Every one of these mass shooter, which are getting more frequent and higher body counts it seems, exhibited anger on social media and as observed by those close to them. If we do not compromise soon, as in allow for Red Flag/Stop, etc laws, something like 4 month hold on guns when certain behaviors are observed for example, and a reasonable waiting purchase of a 3-7 days for purchase, a UK-style system will result. Yes, no laws are perfect, and the legal system will refine over time, but More mass shooting are coming, and a breaking point will occur -that is a fact, so like any good deal maker, we need to compromise.

    1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      We already compromised. THEY need to compromise.
      What do we get in this compromise? I didn’t see you mention national reciprocity or deregulated suppressors.

      Oh, the word you were looking for was capitulate. I know, easy to mix up with all the Cs and Ps.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Oh what a crock of shit. When “certain behaviors are observed.” Really? What behavior? Who’s observing the behavior? Have someone in your circle that doesn’t like your politics? A family member or co worker that has a grudge against you? Have a bad day at work and flip someone off or yell at someone later? Fly a confederate flag? A Gadsden flag? A Betsy Ross flag? Bam your gun rights are gone. And you won’t be getting them back. We’ve actually been winning the gun rights battle for the most part. Instituting a draconian system where saying the wrong thing to the wrong person and subsequently being stripped of your rights is not the way to go.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      There are some practical problems here that are difficult to reconcile. Let’s SUPPOSE that we PotG would agree that there are plenty of people who must be treated and until that treatment is deemed successful, they can’t be trusted with guns. (Again, this is a SUPPOSITION very likely to be impossible to achieve.)

      OK, then, once someone is deemed to really need to be treated, where does he go? Professionals who treat the mentally-ill have their dance-cards pretty well filled. If the individual doesn’t WANT to be treated then the professionals would need to incarcerate him somewhere. Where? There are no open beds in psych hospitals; so, we send them to county jails. There are no available psych resources in county jails.

      That being the case, the mentally-ill guy is left with his liberty and a referral to see a psych professional in an out-patient context. He usually doesn’t want to go; he has little effective coercion to go; he has few resources he wants to divert to this treatment; and, the free resources are very limited and often inconvenient. So, he is left alone to pursue his life with mental illness at his pleasure.

      The “Red-flag” laws presume that we can simply “take his guns away”. Ignored are the facts that he is presumed to be mentally ill – and that there is a thriving black-market in guns in America. Taking his guns away imposes only a temporary barrier. If he was a gun-owner he will – with a high probability – become a gun owner again within the relevant future. Perhaps not hours or days; but within weeks or months, long before his mental illness dissipates (with or without treatment).

      It will take decades to build the institutional and professional capacity to treat the mentally ill – and that will necessarily be long AFTER we the People adopt the national will to pursue and invest in that course of action. We have not budged an inch in the face of the needs conspicuously and continually in evidence by homelessness. There is no reason to imagine we will be moved by a mass shooting every few months.

      Returning to the supposition above, we PotG are getting fed-up with being stigmatized as “crazy immoral gun owners”. There is no mood to compromise. We – very reasonably – EXPECT Red-flag laws to deprive us of our 2A rights while not getting anyone into treatment nor preventing their access to the black-market.

      The shortest and surest path to dealing with mass shootings is to promote right-to-carry laws (at least Shall-Issue) and to minimize gun-“free”-zones.

      Bear in mind that crazy shooters are not the only problem of violence. Moreover, they are probably a very small fraction of the problem. Most criminal violence perpetrators are not mentally-ill to the point that they could be forced into treatment. These doubtlessly commit most of the actual violence. Terrorists commit a minority of violence in the US, but a great deal of the violence in some other countries. While our politicians are maintaining a relatively-open-boarders policy, we need to ANTICIPATE the threat of huge, unpredictable, sudden surges in terrorist violence.

      The impossible-to-implement mental-health measures we pray might help can do nothing to address the far greater threats – actual and predictable – from criminals and terrorists, respectively.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Every solution except one requires a long period of time, with a great expenditure of resources, before any hope of the slightest relief will occur. The one exception is to repeal all gun control and tell people they need to take care of themselves. If you are really desperate to not allow a certain person arms, that person should be in jail, or just follow him til he fucks up and shoot him..

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Jimmyjonga, sorry my ass. Read the Constitution and get back to me. Learn to spell “due process” while you’re there. Whether you like it or not, you cannot personally just make up rules for others to live by. Just as in the case of confining mental patients who weren’t harming anyone, because they *might* ____ , you also cannot confiscate people’s guns, cars, homes, or bank accounts because they *might* _____ .

  15. avatar Jacob says:

    As a Soldier who has PTSD, I can say that the stigma is real, and its not just stigma about seeking treatment, but also for not seeking treatment. Unfortunately, people seem to think that reluctance to seek treatment results from some form of machismo, instead of looking at all the factors. For a long while, seeking treatment for PTSD was a quick way to getting your career derailed, and hinder your ability to provide for your family. Not overtly, of course, but when you aren’t allowed on the range to quall, people talk, assumptions are formed, and promotion potential is a subjective thing. Additionally, the VA has made getting effective treatment difficult. PTSD comes with a disability rating, and there were some less than scrupulous VA doctors who would change a PTSD diagnosis from an military psychiatrist to “atypical depression” to save the VA some money. Its a loose/loose situation sometimes.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Jacob

      Yep. As someone who’s worked with- and is good friends with – vets who had to seek help outside the system, because the VA was simply not providing them the kind of care they needed, you hit the nail on the head.

      There are much more effective treatments for PTSD now than there were 20 years ago, but since they are still considered “newer,” they generally aren’t on the roster of what the VA offers vets. The wheels of progress and change grind slowly. In some areas the VA is still offering outdated treatment that has been proven to be ineffective for PTSD for the past 10 years, but it’s all they’ve got on tap so it’s all they offer, and they don’t tell the vets, “hey, there are these newer options that could work for you even though we don’t offer them here,” which they should do. If they can’t offer the treatments fine, but they should at least let vets know that there’s other stuff out there for them to go look at and try.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “For a long while, seeking treatment for PTSD was a quick way to getting your career derailed, and hinder your ability to provide for your family.”

      This is where federal law comes in. First a caveat: If you can afford it, it’s always best to seek help for affective disorders (depression, anxiety, anger management, PDST, etc.) from a private practitioner that you pay for yourself. Just sayin’. People experiencing PTSD are protected by the American With Disabilities Act.
      This law is often derided by many people, but if you have a disability and encounter a workplace problem, it can save your career and, quite possibly, you’re life.

      1. avatar Jacob says:

        Unfortunately, the law does not protect you from subjective judgments on promotion potential. If it were outright discrimination that would be one thing, but a superior’s perception of a Soldier’s capabilities being altered is significantly harder to prove. As to the suggestion of going to a private practice, if a Soldier were to do that and be placed on medication, the Soldier is obligated to inform his command, thereby mitigating the advantage of going private.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          You’re right that stigma can be a career killer. This is especially true in the military which should probably be considered to be a special case. 504/ADA law is not a magic charm but it can enormously useful, even restorative in offsetting discrimination in many other work situations.

          I’ve been on both sides of 504/ADA issues and strongly feel that the strength of these laws work best when **you** understanding what’s legal and what’s not legal. A good friend, a very accomplished employment attorney, once told me that the one thing you shouldn’t want is to actually file a formal complaint with an aim toward going to court. It took me awhile to figure this out but experience showed that she was absolutely right. The best way to use the law is to use it yourself. While this probably won’t work in a military bureaucracy, sitting down behind a closed door with a troublesome supervisor or with an HR rep. and carefully and cogently explaining just how you are protected by federal law can “fade the heat” better than any lawyer’s letter. I’ve seen people in very toxic, threatening work situations make themselves virtually bulletproof simply because they knew exactly how the law applied to themselves.

  16. avatar W says:

    There is a lot to this case. Unfortunately, it will take an unbearable amount of time for the facts to arise. During this time, 2A will take a lot of flak.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6370709/Chilling-final-Facebook-post-ex-Marine-PTSD-shot-California-bar.html

    A law enforcement source who has been briefed on the investigation says that investigators believe they have identified a Facebook post that Long wrote moments before the shooting, according to CNN.

    The post, which has since been deleted, read: ‘I hope people call me insane… (laughing emojis).. wouldn’t that just be a big ball of irony?

    ‘Yeah.. I’m insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is ‘hopes and prayers’.. or ‘keep you in my thoughts’… every time… and wonder why these keep happening…’

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      So it’s actually looking like he did this in the name of gun control then.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “So it’s actually looking like he did this in the name of gun control then.”

        I have predicted this. A suicidal Progressive gets two for the price of one with that. Suicide for themselves, and another atrocity our enemies can use against us…

  17. avatar neiowa says:

    I”ll assert the entire pshrink “industry” is just a scam by those that prefer to suck off the gov;t teat rather than getting a real productive job. These bozos regularly come up with new brain issues they can “treat”/ milk. Most are progs and this has the benefit of seeding a very high income bunch of “Dr” as reliable voters/funders for the dems. Most Ameicans can be counted on to give a blank check to “fix” the vets. That the pshrinks can’t “fox” diddly squat it’s a golden scam that just keeps on giving.

    Ponder 100yrs ago when MILLIONS of vets were leaving the trenches of France. Or the Civil War, or ______ war. All were far more brutal than the current unpleasantness. Did they guys have PTSD? Perhaps but then didn’t have a progtards and pshrinks out to milk their issues and gov;t

    And yes, I spent 1/2 of my adult life as a grunt.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Biggest difference I see between current and previous wars has been the current situation of sending someone to war for a year or so, then bringing him home for a few months, then back to the war. That roller coaster does not sound healthy to me, my first war was Vietnam, and the concept while I was winding that down was that everybody goes once before anybody is required to go a second time. Thus we had a bunch of field grade officers along with us 2/lts fighting the war, but nobody in the AF was going over and over, though I knew some Army types who were. My parents’ war was WWII, where you went over, then came back when it was finished. I still think that’s the way to go.

  18. avatar Parnell says:

    The one thing I wonder after reading all the amateur Psychiatrists both in the MSM and here is, what if he was just an evil SOB?

    1. avatar W says:

      The Las Vegas massacre and this one are beginning to look to have a few things in common. Some of the same people were at each. They both had country music. And, now it may be that they both had haters who wanted to check out and died by their own hands.

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