Military Suicides - What Can be Done?

[mikeb302000]

The New York Times reports

With nearly half of all suicides in the military having been committed with privately owned firearms, the Pentagon and Congress are moving to establish policies intended to separate at-risk service members from their personal weapons.

The issue is a thorny one for the Pentagon. Gun rights advocates and many service members fiercely oppose any policies that could be construed as limiting the private ownership of firearms.

But as suicides continue to rise this year, senior Defense Department officials are developing a suicide prevention campaign that will encourage friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or voluntarily remove personal firearms from their homes.

“This is not about authoritarian regulation,” said Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. “It is about the spouse understanding warning signs and, if there are firearms in the home, responsibly separating the individual at risk from the firearm.”

A thorny issue is right. How many disturbed gun owners are going to listen to the wife and get rid of the gun? Not too many.

This needs a bit more than non-authoritarian regulation, I'm afraid. Since military personnel are subject to their superiors, the commanding officer should be able to do more than inquire. He should be able to order the surrender of privately owned weapons. It would save lives. Don't we owe as much to our servicemen and women?

This is where the gun-rights fanatics fail. They are so biased in their single-minded crusade they lose sight of the big picture.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[trouble.smith]

1. you should start at the recruiter level

and then you should look at the operations tempo for the past decade and then maybe take a look at the leadership style of the commanding officers and NCOs.

[aikoaiko]

5. It's not worth getting..

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

... PPRed over.

I urge you to "pull up, Couger" and self-delete.

[ileus]

7. A spam blogger is never worth getting bammified over.

While true I also recommend a rewording of the post. you know the jury will already consider Mike a hero and you the zero...don't give them ammo.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. Pave Pusher, It is not worth the hidden post...please reconsider --

[glacierbay]

12. Hey Pave

like you told me yesterday, he's not worth getting a post hidden or PPR'd, I urge you to delete this post. I understand your anger on what he truly thinks of our Armed Forces personnel, I was there as you were on DK on that whole dust up when he got banned, but he's just not worth it.

[mikeb302000]

22. If you were there at DK

you'd know that's not why I was banished. You're just repeating what you've heard others say.

What I truly feel about the armed forces personnel is not expressed in this post. So what the fuck are you talking about? In this post I'm sympathetic to their problems and suggesting a solution. But as soon as that touches your precious gun rights you get shitty.

[glacierbay]

31. Yeah Mikey

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:39 AM - Edit history (2)

I was there and your vile statements about veterans with PTSD is exactly why you were banned. You said that vets were falsely claiming PTSD as the reason for committing crimes, you got hammered by other vets. You can pretend all you want, but those of us that were there know.
You don't care about vets, they're just a means to an end for you for more gun control as evidenced by your posts on DK and here.

[Eleanors38]

14. The only advantage gun banners have is the "jury system"...

The slightest remark got me canned from a thread yesterday (I got mine for channeling Spike Jones). We know he is authoritarian, and treats our soldiers as just another opportunity to push his foreign notions, but don't let his ilk get to you.

[slackmaster]

4. Suicide among veterans is almost always a mental health issue

To pretend that it's something else does a terrible disservice to those who have served.

Shame on the New York Times, and shame on mikeb30200 for spamming our forum with this authoritarian nonsense.

[mikeb302000]

25. I agree with you to a point

The real problem in my opinion is the prescription medication that is so freely prescribed. Its abuse is at the bottom of this problem. But, does that mean we should make it easy for these guys to off themselves?

[ileus]

6. You don't have to get "rid" of the firearm...it's primary function is to save lives.

And the need for it is still there to protect the family...The SO should be able to determine if their loved one is suicidal and take proper precautions.

Another reason everyone in the house should be in the survival mindset and train properly to save lives of family members. Don't put your safety in the hands of others...My wife carries her own personal safety device, and she trains on how to use it.

[mikeb302000]

23. A firearm's primary function is to save lives?

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahaha

[GreenStormCloud]

8. You obviously don't know military law.

If a serviceman lives off-base, and most do, then he can have whatever he wants to have - just like any other citizen. When he is off-duty, out-of-uniform, and off-base there is very little that his commanding officer can tell him to do.

If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it. Suicide was common long before guns were invented.

[Eleanors38]

15. He doesn't know it, but he seems to want it. For all.

[mikeb302000]

24. So in the name of all that freedom

we should just sit back and watch as more and more blow their brains out?

[gejohnston]

30. suicide is independent of means

deal with the actual problem instead of exploiting it to serve an ideological purpose.

[hack89]

32. So the answer is less freedom?

you must have loved the Patriot Act.

[aikoaiko]

9. There seems to be disconnect between the law and how its being carried out.

The law appears to allow for the exception when military folks are a threat to themselves or others (see underlined in bolded section)

SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE USE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND OTHER WEAPONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the
otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately owned ammunition, or another privately owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not—
(1) a military installation; or
(2) any other property that is owned or operated by the Department of Defense.
(b) EXISTING REGULATIONS AND RECORDS.—
(1) REGULATIONS.—Any regulation promulgated before the date of enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect to the extent that it requires conduct prohibited by this section.
(2) RECORDS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall destroy any record containing information described in subsection (a) that was collected before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense to—
(1) create or maintain records relating to, or regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense while—
(A) engaged in official duties on behalf of the Department
of Defense; or
(B) wearing the uniform of an Armed Force; or
(2) create or maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations not prohibited under subsection (a)), including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to the member or others.
(d) REVIEW.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall—
(1) conduct a comprehensive review of the privately owned weapons policy of the Department of Defense, including legal and policy issues regarding the regulation of privately owned firearms off of a military installation, as recommended by the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report regarding the findings of and recommendations relating to the review conducted under paragraph
(1), including any recommendations for adjustments to the requirements under this section.
(e) MILITARY INSTALLATION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘military installation’’ has the meaning given that term under section 2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/pdf/PLAW-111publ383.pdf

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. This is not a gun issue. It is a Mental Health Issue. Get these guys the help and support

they need. Remove the stigma of Mental Illness. Be kind to one another.

[mikeb302000]

26. Prescribe more medication and let them have their guns. n-t-

[glacierbay]

33. Noooooooooo

better funding for Mental Health services, get these service personnel the help they need.

[gejohnston]

13. military law, the UCMJ, is subject to the Constitution

This needs a bit more than non-authoritarian regulation, I'm afraid. Since military personnel are subject to their superiors, the commanding officer should be able to do more than inquire. He should be able to order the surrender of privately owned weapons. It would save lives. Don't we owe as much to our servicemen and women?

Unless he lives in military family housing, and the guns are registered with the military police, he has little way of knowing. If you live in the barracks, they are stored in the unit armory when not hunting or target shooting. If you live off base, they have no way of verifying if you do. No military judge or magistrate is going to sign a search order, which may not have the force of law outside the gate, so someone can look for them either. Surrender them to whom and for how long? Temporary storage in the armory or simply taken away? There is a 5A issue there.

This is where the gun-rights fanatics fail. They are so biased in their single-minded crusade they lose sight of the big picture.

That is the clear case of projection. The big picture is mental health, and the fact that suicide rates are independent of means. Do Italian and Canadian commanders ask about ropes? That is the most common means of suicide in many parts of the world.

[Eleanors38]

16. He says he is "afraid" more authoritarian means are in order...

No, he's not. Authoritarian solutions are his main goal.

[Clames]

17. Keep dreaming Mikey.

Not even the military can compel a service member to surrender a privately owned firearm when they live off-post. You once again display your ignorance, this time on military matters.

[MicaelS]

18. What can be done? Quite sending these troops overseas, that's what.

Quite sending them period, but sure as hell quit sending them on deployment after deployment to a place the locals apparently don't want the US there anyway, and keep trying to kill our people when we do send them.

But that doesn't fit in your worldview of "Guns are EVULLL."

[rDigital]

19. MikeB, would you support disarming all citizens if you had the power to? nt

[mikeb302000]

27. The unfit ones, yes. n.t.

[holdencaufield]

28. Who ... in your infinite wisdom ...

... is unfit in your sight to be allowed his rights under the Constitution?

I await your wise judgement.

[Clames]

29. Aside from the usual suspects...

..he likes to include the elderly and anyone unfortunate enough to accidentally knock their gun off the table while cleaning part of it. That's just unnecessary details though as he as admitted he wants complete civilian disarmament.

[rl6214]

20. Are you having a suicide problem with your servicemen and women in Italy?

"Don't we owe as much to our servicemen and women? "

[4th law of robotics]

21. Clearly it's time to disarm the military