Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they are determined to be a threat to themselves or others, then yes, they should have access to a firearm revoked just like any other non-veteran would in that case.
I have lost a boyfriend to suicide five years ago. Ever since the tragedy, I have been studying mental illnesses and suicide. Many experts suggest that if one is displaying suicidal tendency, the first thing should be removed from their surroundings is their firearms. I totally agree.
I can understand that if PTSD suffers are unstable, having suicidal tendency, then their firearms should be taken away.
But according the articles that I have provided, it seems to me that as soon as somebody admit they have PTSD, government is going to take away their firearms. I wonder if this is necessary or fair.
Where exactly do you draw the line? Not all PTSD suffers are violent.
If they are determined to be a threat to themselves or others, then yes, they should have access to a firearm just like any other non-veteran would in that case.
I do agree with you.
PTSD suffers are not all the same. Many of them are non-violent. Many of them are non-suicidal.
I agree that Veterans should not receive any "special" treatment. If they are suicidal or homicidal, give up the firearms. But taking away their 2rd amendment simply because they suffer from PTSD is just not fair at all.
PTSD suffers are not all the same. Many of them are non-violent. Many of them are non-suicidal.
I agree that Veterans should not receive any "special" treatment. If they are suicidal or homicidal, give up the firearms. But taking away their 2rd amendment simply because they suffer from PTSD is just not fair at all.
I had a typo there, but I think you got my point: threat to others = no gun rights.
Common sense plays a role too. Should we give people guns as a way of coping with PTSD? Of course not, and I don't know why Chris Kyle would think that was a good idea. At the same time, the fear of losing the right to own a gun should not dissuade someone from seeking treatment for themselves or somebody they know. Talk about priorities.
Military veterans, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, victims of child abuse, victims of sexual or physical or psychological abuse, cancer survivors, survivors of natural disasters (all groups that have higher incidence of PTSD). Those who have visited a psychiatrist, experience depression or anxiety, take anti depressants or anti anxiety meds. Those labelled Special Ed students, those with learning disabilities, those with ADD or HAAD, the list can go on. Shrinks not only allowed to, but encouraged to (and eventually required to) dime patients out to the feds. The list could go on (and on).
Disarm citizens who have done NOTHING wrong. Downsize the military and upsize the armed component of increasing numbers of alaphabet federal departments.
Put the pieces together people. It's not rocket science.
Last edited by juneaubound; 04-23-2014 at 10:24 PM..
3 elements to a bomb fuse detonator and explosive without all 3 you are safe
If u r an unstable vet you already got 2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
