Yeah...I think PTSD has a little more to it than just feeling like the POTUS doesn't respect you.

On one hand, PTSD's a bitch, and I do feel sorry for him. But my sympathy ends the moment he raises his hand.

How about we respect and honour people who don't get drunk and beat the shit out of their partners?

So you make up out of thin air the most depressing story of what this guy's life might eventually turn out to be, use words of divisiveness (look! he's scrounging off the taxpayer everyone!) and use that to justify pre-emptively killing mentally ill people who fit the definition of "dangerous" by your Dickensian outlook.

You want to talk about people scrounging off the taxpayer then let's talk about corporate welfare and dodgy tax havens, about how starbucks, google and amazon get away with paying no tax when we are taxed on our earnings. You call this ill man a scrounger, when george osbourne's family no less has a dodgy 6 million offshore tax deal to name but one of a million examples.

Or let's talk about this guy's parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters who paid into the social system, earning potentially millions for this country. In return they only ask that their son is cared for with respect and dignity in spite of the nature of his illness, and the social system would still have made a net surplus off their family.

How about we talk about the recovery he made as a counsellor for PTSD sufferers or other mentally ill people? Or how in ten years time he ends up as a lollipop man helping kids cross the street to school. What about all the tax he eventually paid on his subsequent and previous earnings, does that matter?

Your dim, dark prediction and understanding of mental illness AND socialism is fucking archaic. Were you frozen in Victorian Britain and thawed out last week or something? Go back to watching the idiot box, i'm sure the latest episode of benefits street will keep you distracted while cameron and his cronies swindle this country. I don't mean to make this overly political but this is EXACTLY what the politics of divide and rule is all about. The TV programs, the newspapers - with shows and stories about benefits and migrants - they all conspire to convince person A that they should blame person B, meanwhile person Z is laughing their way to the bank. And you lap it up and take it to the extreme of putting PEOPLE to sleep!?

In this country, we all contribute to the social system so that everyone can be looked after. It drives me potty hearing someone complain about taxpayer's money going to ill and unfortunate people when all it would take is one single bad day for that same person to suddenly need all that help and more.

2012 was trash, not because of the disaster it portrayed but because of how the characters were scripted to act.

I hate disaster movies where everyone stands around smiling about a bright new future after witnessing the death of billions of people. It would invoke PTSD on an epic scale.

Is there like a BDSM club for people experiencing extreme forms of PTSD and Stockholm syndrome to get tazed and beaten by off duty police officers? Nothing sexual, just good old street level police brutality. Maybe even accidentally shoot me.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised. From what I can see, law enforcement wants to transform all humans into supplicating and subservient profit cattle.

There are plenty of people who believe all cops act this way. Read online comments and you will find them quite easily. And your statement that responsible people find ways of dealing with stress w/o losing it on occasion is simply naive. I'll bet you're the first to agree that PTSD is a real syndrome with soldiers. it's the same for cops. A lot of people deal with assholes you said. Well, cops deal with them, get puked on by them, see their blood and the chaos they create, slip in their piss and get their spit on their uniforms.

Newtboy posts all these videos but he'll tell you that he doesn't believe all cops act this way. He is rather like Mr. DeBlasio, who wants to say one thing out of one side of his mouth, then say something quite different out of the other side. He is no fan or admirer of the police, he creates this scenario that all cops are power hungry racists and you end up with dead cops because people with mental problems see this picture and extrapolate it to include all cops everywhere.

Nothing new.

And the soldiers of the Confederacy weren't necessarily the bad guys. They were people loyal to their states. Robert E. Lee sided with the Confederacy because of his loyalty to his state. Loyalty is inspiring.

Losers of wars are underdogs. We root for the underdog. Usually. It's a unique position to observe the human spirit.

They are like Ronin, emotionally fraught PTSD survivors living a waking nightmare, with no satisfying role in society left to fill. What can they do?

They will fight.

Eh... ptsd on the part of the cameraman? I thought it was odd the 'imposter' had a detailed and seemingly legitimate answer to everything the guy asked him. Couldn't tell if his silent exit was a shameful retreat or a polite dismissal, either way I know nothing of the military which would shed light on the legitimacy of this.

Adrenaline has a very strong impact on memory storage. If you have it surging through your veins during memory creation, those memories become extremely easy to access, and far clearer than otherwise mundane events in your life. This is part of the reason that war vets have such a hard time with PTSD and flashbacks.

I dont doubt this guys words...he would have had to have gone over this story a hundred times to his superiors and with the grand jury case, of course it is rehearsed...what do you want? To hear him speaking to someone directly after the incident?

MUSKEGON COUNTY, Mich. — A Norton Shores man was arrested Sunday after leading police on a chase on his moped.

Norton Shores Police were dispatched to a home on Reneer Avenue west of Leon Street after Richard Shear, 28, allegedly threatened his mother and girlfriend with a sledgehammer and a knife and tried to set the house on fire.

Sources tell FOX 17 that the suspect’s mother called police after he threatened her with the weapons.

He`s accused of threatening his girlfriend too, but she told FOX 17 that never happened.

Sources also tell FOX 17 Shears attempted to light the house on fire by pouring gasoline on his landscaping then throwing a candle.

They say he also slashed an SUV’s tire before hopping on the moped and fleeing.

As FOX 17 took a closer look at the incident, we learned Shear has a history of drunk driving arrests, but we’re told he is also seeking help for mental health issues.

We’re told Shear, just like many other servicemen and women, suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a result of his time spent serving overseas in Iraq during his eight years in the Marines.

Those close to him tell us he has been struggling with PTSD, abusing alcohol to prevent dealing with the deep seeded issues and hitting rock bottom on Sunday.

Police say the chase ended back at Shear’s home when he tried running back inside but was arrested by police.

His bond has been set at $100,000.

http://fox17online.com/2014/10/27/man-on-moped-leads-muskegon-co-law-enforcement-on-low-speed-chase/

My money is on that this is an episode of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Usually by soldiers formally on the front lines.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Lol, that's a pretty flaccid attempt at selective quotation...

"I had a good laugh at the "50% of the kids have PTSD. Oh the poor dears, perhaps their government shouldn't have zoned their houses in a fucking warzone. At least they have bomb shelters, a warning system, Iron Dome ffs..."

Whereas Palestinian kids have... Oh right, a mortar shell knock minutes before the explosive payload arrives.

I feel pity for innocents on both sides of the line, but I feel more pity for the hundreds of targets of high precision directed artillery/guided missiles and bombs as opposed to the handful of victims of random chance dumbfire rockets...

This is the first I've heard of theirs post-John Arch.

The Apparition blew my dick off the first time I heard it. Had to have it surgically reconstucted, months of rehabilitation, PTSD...worth it.