Easy, gang. This is a discussion forum. And, while I urge everyone to be measured and considerate in their posts, I also think we need to be careful not to rely too heavily on the "you didn't serve, so you can't comment" argument.
It wasn't phrased very diplomatically, certainly, but holyheadjch has a right to an opinion. Just as everyone reacting to him has a right to theirs. But let's try and turn it down a notch or two and try to concentrate on the actual points being made.
Clearly, holyheadjch is not setting out to speak ill of veterans. He's (somewhat bluntly) expressing concerns that firearms and mental health issues aren't a terrific combination. I can see some truth to that myself. Certainly, particularly in the current climate, one of the first things a mental health professional would try and ascertain is whether the client had access to a firearm.
Now, soldiers are slightly different from, say, college students in that possession of a firearm is a part of their daily life. But I don't think it's completely out of left field to suggest what holyheadjch has suggested. Loud noises can trigger PTSD events, yes? And the more closely the noise approximates the original stressor, the more likely it'll be to trigger an episode, I'd presume. Gunfire, being quite precisely the original stressor, in particular.
All that said, the victim is clearly a hero. And his intentions were clearly good. So I think it would have been in better form to phrase your reservations differently. We all make mistakes. Happily, they don't generally cost us our lives. But he chose to tackle a very serious issue (one that doesn't get aptly addressed by our own government), made a mistake, and paid with his life.
I think it's possible to regret his loss, have reservations about his approach, AND respect his memory. I urge everyone to consider that.
Stuart
It wasn't phrased very diplomatically, certainly, but holyheadjch has a right to an opinion. Just as everyone reacting to him has a right to theirs. But let's try and turn it down a notch or two and try to concentrate on the actual points being made.
Clearly, holyheadjch is not setting out to speak ill of veterans. He's (somewhat bluntly) expressing concerns that firearms and mental health issues aren't a terrific combination. I can see some truth to that myself. Certainly, particularly in the current climate, one of the first things a mental health professional would try and ascertain is whether the client had access to a firearm.
Now, soldiers are slightly different from, say, college students in that possession of a firearm is a part of their daily life. But I don't think it's completely out of left field to suggest what holyheadjch has suggested. Loud noises can trigger PTSD events, yes? And the more closely the noise approximates the original stressor, the more likely it'll be to trigger an episode, I'd presume. Gunfire, being quite precisely the original stressor, in particular.
All that said, the victim is clearly a hero. And his intentions were clearly good. So I think it would have been in better form to phrase your reservations differently. We all make mistakes. Happily, they don't generally cost us our lives. But he chose to tackle a very serious issue (one that doesn't get aptly addressed by our own government), made a mistake, and paid with his life.
I think it's possible to regret his loss, have reservations about his approach, AND respect his memory. I urge everyone to consider that.
Stuart
