Veteran Suicides More Common Than Gun Violence

[Pearl]

Hard to believe, but this is what the Department of VA, Children's Defense Fund and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say:



Veteran Suicides Outpace Combat Deaths, Child Gun Deaths (INFOGRAPHIC)

I really wish there was a way I can do something. This is both tragic and appalling. Our government sent these troops to fight one war that lasted too long and another we should never have gotten into, and I feel as if it does little to help veterans' mental health. Heck, Bush should do something since he did this to them. But he's too busy painting pictures of his dog.

[the iron horse]

I agree that going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan
was not a good idea.

We are not waging a real war, like WW2, but trying to do
some kind of police / do democracy like us action.
It was doomed to fail from the start.

It's really sad that so many American soldiers have died.



Concerning gun violence: I read today that more guns are used for
suicides than murder in the U.S.

If you take away other homicides related to gangs/drug cartels, gun
violence in the U.S. is actually very low.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If you take away other homicides related to gangs/drug cartels, gun
violence in the U.S. is actually very low.

No it's not.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

No it's not.

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds - U.S. News

[deep]

gun violence and all crime is going down and has been going down for some time


but I am not sure I would say gun violence is low in America?

how does the homicide rate compare per capita? what are the murder rates per 100,000 people. and what are the gun deaths per 100,000 ?

those are the metrics.

I think Honduras has the highest homicide rate.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds - U.S. News

A decrease in gun violence does not equal a low rate of gun violence. Try again.

[deep]

There are an estimated 88.8 civilian guns per 100 people in the United States, according to the Small Arms Survey, a number unparalleled to the rest of the world. With the right to bear arms written into the Constitution of the United States and the fabric of American culture, it’s no surprise that this number is higher than it is in other G-8 countries for which there is data.

But the United States also has a much higher rate of homicides by gun — 3.2 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Homicide Statistics.

Even Italy, the G-8 member with the second highest rate of homicides by firearm, comes in far behind the United States. According to United Nations data, a person is 4.5 times more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than Italy.

In France and the United Kingdom, the homicide by firearm rate is 0.1 per 100,000 people. That’s one in a million.

US Gun Homicide Rate Higher Than Other Developed Countries - ABC News

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If you take away other homicides related to gangs/drug cartels, gun
violence in the U.S. is actually very low.

First you're wrong, but secondly why do you always try and take these numbers out?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

A decrease in gun violence does not equal a low rate of gun violence. Try again.

I don't understand why you seem so bent on ignoring facts.

Those facts were not from the NRA, but the U.S. Department
of Justice May 2013.

I'm not trying to convince you are others here again on this thread.

[BVS]

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I don't understand why you seem so bent on ignoring facts.

Those facts were not from the NRA, but the U.S. Department
of Justice May 2013.

I'm not trying to convince you are others here again on this thread.

Ignoring facts? I stated one. Respond to it.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I don't understand why you seem so bent on ignoring facts.

Those facts were not from the NRA, but the U.S. Department
of Justice May 2013.

I'm not trying to convince you are others here again on this thread.

Would you agree, relative to other western countries, the US has a gun problem? Great news it's going down, but it's still a huge issue for you guys

[jeevey]

I had friend who did a medical residency in a VA hospital, and she said working with the young vets was so hard, it was by far the worst thing in her training. She said that they are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with completely new kinds of trauma, and the medical community has basically no idea what to do with them.

One thing they are doing is defining up the requirements for combat related post traumatic stress disorder to control the numbers and make it look less bad, which also makes it harder to qualify for treatment.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by jeevey

One thing they are doing is defining up the requirements for combat related post traumatic stress disorder to control the numbers and make it look less bad, which also makes it harder to qualify for treatment.

Where did you get this information? We are by no means perfect in dealing with PTSD, but I'm not sure how you can say we're "defining up" when the military didn't even have a definition a decade ago, and treatment for PTSD was almost unheard of during the beginning of the 2000's. Now we have colonels speaking about it in commencement speeches, we are recognizing it in military dogs, and we are treating it as a real disorder and not just "toughen up soldier". We have a ways to go, but for something that is very newly acknowledged in the military, we've made huge strides in such a short time.

[jeevey]

I admit its hearsay from my friend, who delivers care. It has to do with experiencing a direct threat to one's own personal safety. So that if you witnessed an atrocity but were not yourself in physical danger, it might not count. Or if you were forced to perpetrate something on an innocent but were not actually in danger, it might not. That's pretty key for the guys who fly drones from bases.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by jeevey

That's pretty key for the guys who fly drones from bases.

I'm not sure if it's been changed yet or not, but I know there's been a push for this. You're right, these soldiers wouldn't have qualified before, but you also have to remember this is a fairly new role in the military. So the definition is actually broadening as we speak, and not the other way around. But like everything else when it comes to behavioral science I think we're careful not to broaden definitions too far or too fast. Terms like disorder or syndrome are being defined too loosely in certain areas of civilian medicine, which is allowing for a whole generation to be medicated, so I think that's why there are sometimes what seems like slow moves in these areas.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by jeevey

It has to do with experiencing a direct threat to one's own personal safety. So that if you witnessed an atrocity but were not yourself in physical danger, it might not count.

The DSM-IV criteria do not require that the person experiences a threat to self.

Originally Posted by DSM-IV-TR

1. The person has experienced, witnessed, or been confronted with an event or events that involve actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of oneself or others.

2. The person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: in children, it may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior.

I have not seen the updated DSM-5 criteria, which were published just last month.

[Jive Turkey]

I also see no difference in the trauma experienced by a drone pilot and a conventional aircraft pilot firing a laser guided maverick from 20 kms out

[Danny Boy]

Here's the wording in DSM-5:

Originally Posted by DSM-5

A. Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).
2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.
3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental.
4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the the traumatic event(s) (e.g. first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse).

Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.

Sounds like this new definition would still apply to the drone pilots as well.