Post Shooting Trauma

Part of the very basis of PTSD (it can be any kind of trauma), is the conflict within.
On the one hand, you feel exultant and happy at having survived.

On the other, you feel bad because you have violated societies strongest norm by taking a life.

Consider if the life you have to take is that of a young female, later found to have a toy or unloaded gun - the worst possible case, that of having shot a child.

The trigger is usually comments by your friends - for cops, it is "jokes" in the station. On officer had to leave the job and suffered for years because, after a justified shooting of an (adult) female whom he shot in the head, someone on his squad said "There goes "Joe", the women lose their heads over him!"

In the military, usually the more of "them" you kill, the more 'pats on the back' for having done your part in the mission.
In the civilian world, you can expect criticism, questioning, and the civil lawsuit alleging you are a bad person (usually in the newspaper too). Been there, done that.

These "jokes" by your friends are the hardest things to overcome.
 
Aarond,
I have read that a historian went to a WWII reunion, and after he gained the confidence of the men, they admitted that many felt the same as the Viet vets. The problem was, it was socially unacceptable. Home town folks would applaud the vet who had killed the most. If anyone expressed remorse (or PTSD), the folks who felt they had 'sacrificed' for the war effort would shun him.
So, many of the Vets who suffered PTSD hid it. Plus, there were so many vets, it was easy to sit down with your pals.

There is some evidence that it was worse for vets from Europe, who killed people who looked like them - and may have even been related. Those who fought the Japanese, who did NOT look like them, combined with the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, had fewer PTSD cases.

Perhaps the biggest negative of Vietnam was the individual rotation policy. Replacements went alone, served with strangers, came home alone, and 24 hours after leaving combat they were dumped out on the streets with no support system, and a society that, at best, had mixed feeling about the war.
 
On the other, you feel bad because you have violated societies strongest norm by taking a life.
Click to expand...

This is probably very true. But you hit a nail that I wonder if you realize you hit. It is societies strongest norm. In other words, it is learned behavior. Not part of your genetic makeup, at least not yet given the shortness of time since it became "societies strongest norm".

So, it should be possible, and in the opinion of many is possible, for a perfectly well adjusted, emotionally normal human being to shoot another human being with no more "feeling" than one gets from shooting a deer. It's a matter of training and preparation. Which is all learned behavior is.
 
Pick up a copy of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's "On Killing"; it addresses any of the points and counterpoints in this thread, and brings to light the general change in society over time as to killing other human beings and the effects it has on shooters. An excellent read.
 
Lawnboy, I knew what I was writing. This is one of the problems with Islamic Terrorists - their society says it is commendable to kill non-believers!

So, the "surround, SWAT, and Talk" tactics don't work, as they want to kill all the hostages. Thus they get to sit at the side of Mohammad.

In our own society, it was OK to imprison Japanese-Americans, who looked different and whose relatives engaged in a sneak attack. But no move was made to imprison German-Americans - they looked like us, and declared war without any (major) "sneak" attacks. Of course, there were economic motives as well for taking everything from the Japanese-Americans.

And in some parts of our culture, not so long ago, it was OK to kill those whose skin was "different" from the majority.

Makes me wonder who it will be OK to kill in a few years?
 
Lawnboy, I knew what I was writing. This is one of the problems with Islamic Terrorists - their society says it is commendable to kill non-believers!

So, the "surround, SWAT, and Talk" tactics don't work, as they want to kill all the hostages. Thus they get to sit at the side of Mohammad.

In our own society, it was OK to imprison Japanese-Americans, who looked different and whose relatives engaged in a sneak attack. But no move was made to imprison German-Americans - they looked like us, and declared war without any (major) "sneak" attacks. Of course, there were economic motives as well for taking everything from the Japanese-Americans.

And in some parts of our culture, not so long ago, it was OK to kill those whose skin was "different" from the majority.

Makes me wonder who it will be OK to kill in a few years?
Click to expand...

All true and factual. As to the last question you posed: it will be ok to kill the enemy. However the enemy is defined.

My point was that the ability to kill another human is a reflex, like blinking when something comes close to your eyeball. It can be trained out of you. And modern society has been very successful at this. Successful enough that many people encounter emotional problems when they kill a human or humans.

And, if we take at his word the man who says he feels emotional trauma after using a firearm to kill a human being are we not obligated to also take at his word the man who says he feels nothing but exhultation at the victory? My cursory read of the thread show me that the general tenor of those who feel that trauma is inevitable is to assume that those who say they feel no trauma are lying (or deficient in some way). The general tenor of those who feel that trauma is optional is NOT to assume that those who feel otherwise are lying but to point out that there is another way.

What conclusions can be drawn from that?

For those of us who intend to use firearms if the situation ever requires it these are important questions that deserve as much time and effort as the ability to perform a stoppage drill under pressure.
 
Last edited:
The problem with threads like this is that there are many opinions based on anecdotes and pronouncements. There is quite a bit of study of this. One should use Google scholar and read some of the literature.

1. People who deny it happens outright are incorrect. If they state people who do get stress disorders are weak - they do no service to their professions. If it is through ignorance or bravado - who cares. They are wrong. I know of cases of folks who have impeccable credentials and then in force on force training later have a stress related incident or flashback to some previous action.

2. No, it doesn't happen to everyone. Numbers vary. We can't predict who will be at risk with enough certainity at the present time.

3. If you don't get it - it doesn't mean you are disordered either. Some small percent of folks without remorse may be but it isn't everyone.

4. Great point that folks should be educated before! Stress innoculation and knowing how to be aware of symptoms is a great step forward in critical incident education. However, I will disagree that preparation can give you a guarantee of immunity. As in all things, it can help but an absolute guarantee you get it or don't - doesn't exist. But training is essential.

5. Changing the mindset so those that need help will get is also a great step forward for folks involved in critical incidents.

6. Knowing what treatments are efficacious is also important. There are crackpots out there.

Deadly Force Encounters: What Cops Need To Know To Mentally And Physically Prepare For And Survive A Gunfight - Alexis Artwohl

Into the Kill Zone: A Cop's Eye View of Deadly Force by David Klinger

Practical Police Psychology: Stress Management and Crisis Intervention - Miller

are all accessible reads for anyone.
 
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately. I'm currently reading A Rifleman Went to War by H.W. McBride. He was an American who resigned a commission in the National Guard to go to Canada and enlist in British Army so that he could get into WWI quicker.

He is decidedly on the "feel no compunction about killing the enemy" side of the balance. Jeff Cooper wrote the foreword to the edition that I'm reading. His account of his actions and feelings is readable, interesting, thorough and believable. He acknowledges that he is aware that his attitude towards his actions in the war makes some people squeamish, but he doesn't temper it or back away. His attitude can be summed up as "They're the enemy. Kill them or they will kill you. What's for lunch?".

It seems to me that this is a desirable attitude in a soldier. It also seems to me that this is what the USMC was aiming for when I was there. I was never tested so I don't know if in my particular case they were successful. It seems like a desireable attitude in anyone trained to use deadly force whether this is a private in the USMC or a private citizen with a CPL who has taken an NRA defensive handgun course or anyone in between.

But only you can decide where you stand on the issue.
 
I wonder if there's a correlation between the age of the shooter and the amount of emotional trauma? When you're, say, 50 or 60, you have a lot more life experience to help put it in perspective than when you're 20. You're also old enough by then to be aware of your own mortality and by extension everybody else's.

I also suspect some PTSD is a learned response. (kind of like people who fall down dead from a non-life-threatening gunshot wound because they just know they are supposed to die.

The mind is complicated.
 
i believe prudence and pragmatism are key in this discussion

- one must first be able to shoot and master one's firearm at a range
- then they should be able to take arms 'gainst nonhuman animals, mortally to be followed by a good, sober meal shared with family and friends
- then be prepared to use his/her firearm on an intruder into their home or property upon an unwarranted intrusion
- then and only then should they carry in public away from home in cause of self defence

- ideally only proffessionals, and ideally only after filling first of above three req's, should be called to offer public defense (i.e. LEO's)

- ideally only proffessionals, and ideally only after filling first of above three req's, should be called to take arms to other countries in the cause of Liberty

- the taking of one's own specie's life is completely unnatural and an almost nonexistent occurance in the animal kingdom.

- what are we anyway?

- unfortunately, it is often far too romantisized in modern theatre and media

- again, fulfillment of the first three may, may prepare one to take another's life

- key is that one has played such entire scenarios through one's mind- from initiation of situation, to pull, to trigger, to recipient's aftermath, to LE arriving and questioning post occurence, to family members and community of recipient arriving, to local media attention, to court perhaps, to personal shock, aftershocks, and waves of such, after incident, to possible PTSD, etc ad infinitum

- as a side note, i wouldn't doubt if the recent Pakistani Compound takedown team has already, medically, forgotten completely about the incident

Be careful out there, Gentlemen.
Regards,
- MN
 
Last edited:
the taking of one's own specie's life is completely unnatural and an almost nonexistent occurance in the animal kingdom
Click to expand...

So is written language and the use of tools. Yet here we are.
 
Last edited:
written language to humans is akin to a coyote urinating in the dirt and brush for his breathren to read later

tools to humans are akin to deer and mooses rubbing antlers on birch to rid of old skin

coyotes eating coyotes. . . hmmm, don't think so. . . :( :barf: :mad: :eek:

deer eating deer- think mad cow disease

and we humans are like 75% herbivore- ImO there's a relation
 
Last edited:
to further the discussion

- there is no wrong in self protection and the protection or saving the lives of others
- there is wrong in one killing another of one's own species- again look to wild animals here
- unfortunately for us, with our overpopulation and misguided grouping and societal skills, the latter sometimes necessitates the former

- this is why our Armed Forces mandate strict adherance to ROE

- domestically, and rightly ImHO, LE and us are given more flexibility


- if ROE is not adhered on foreign soil, and it happens, be there a coverup or not- this is where severe long term disorders prevail


- one's breathren group fixating that point two above is good when obviously it is just a necessity for successful achievment of point one above- power in numbers- more power in truth. man. . .


- for us guys domestically, the same should be true with regards to our additional given flexibilities- karma, karma


- the GI's in Vietnam fought the toughest battle personally of all US wars, ImHO

- dropped in the middle of a freaking JUNGLE, i repeat- a JUNGLE, insurgents, communities, patrols, who's who's???, what's what's???, things that go creak, knock, thump, pop, pow, bang- in the day and night. years durations, rampant drug use, etc, etc. . .


anyway, just to further the discussion. . . .
 
Written language, like that used to write about firearms, requires abstraction and introspection unavailable to a coyote.

You can see a coyote urinate in the dirt and another come along an hour later, smell it, and head in the opposite direction. You can infer from that that some kind of marking occurred. Introspection allows you to put yourself in the mind of another and speculate on what is going on there. Abstraction allows you to recognize communication when you see it. You can then use these human traits to outsmart the coyote (whose senses are all superior to yours) and draw him into range to shoot him.

You can show one of those two coyotes a copy of the 2nd Amendment and he can infer nothing from it. It does not help him realize that there is a good chance that you have a rifle.

If a buck loses to another buck in a contest over females he does not leave the scene and return with a better weapon. Like a rifle.

And coyotes are scavengers. They'll eat anything. Including other coyotes. So when you shoot that coyote you called you better hit him solid. If you wing him he'll limp away and that other coyote will eat him after he drops.
 
i agree that a coyote of the canine variety would have a hell of a time graduating from Oxford or similar

, but think how well we'd do and how long we'd survive dropped in the middle of the wild without MRE's and water. . .

they don't introspectively understand our language- don't assume that we know much about theirs

they have a lot less free time too, so i understand why coyotes of the canine variety had no part in writing the god blessed US Constitution :D

Best Regards,
- MN
 
I'm bored, its late and I friggin love verbal fencing. Or, given our virtual location, a verbal shootout.

No offense taken! G'Nite
 
you like verbal fencing

i like corners, or getting out of them at least :)- some say by swinging from ceiling fans :D, so all's good

Good Night, indeed, Sir.
- MN
:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top