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.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.
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.”
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.
And who is going to step in when there isn't a wife or husband? Greg Camp and other extremists may consider suicide a "right," but the rest of civilization recognizes it as the result of a mental illness which needs to be prevented.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, a doctor should be able to talk about the potential for guns and suicide without being gagged by the NRA, and family members should be able to report those who are potentially suicidal to a psychological specialist to have his gun rights temporarily suspended until he is cleared as non-suicidal (or, for that matter, non-homicidal).
As for the gun guys who are concerned that someone isn't going to speak to a medical professional out of fear of having their gun rights removed, I have this to say: What is more important, your gun rights, or your life?
Without your rights, you have no life, so there's nothing left to lose.
DeleteAnd yes, since you're thinking it, cue up "Me and Bobby McGee."
Greg, stop equating the right to carry a gun around with "rights." There's a lot more to the world than you and your little guns.
DeleteRights are rights, whether you recognize them or not. I care about all rights, including the right to own and carry firearms.
DeleteI think we should take all the guns away from the military! After all, they can't kill themselves without guns, right?
ReplyDelete"It would save lives." First of all, a person who is committed to ending their life will accomplish their objective with or without firearms. For example Japan is about as gun free as any place in the world and their suicide rate is quite high compared to many other countries. Japanese people don't seem to have any trouble finding ways to end their lives without firearms.
ReplyDeleteAnd taking away personally owned guns from active duty military personnel would be totally ineffective if they access firearms as part of their duty.
The real solution to military suicides is three-fold:
(1) We need a huge change in foreign policy.
(2) We need to provide mental health assistance to veterans.
(3) We need to limit deployments of veterans in combat zones.
On the positive side a huge change in foreign policy would almost eliminate the need for multiple deployments of veterans in combat zones all by itself. And that is what will just about eliminate military suicides.
" person who is committed to ending their life "
DeleteWho said these guys are "committed" to it. They're not. Most are acting on a temporary and fleeting moment of despondency. You're right that people who are really committed to ending their lives will do so. But, usually suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. That's why it's so sad.
Suicide-prone people need to be disarmed for their own good.
Someone in a moment of despondency can tie a noose or swallow a bunch of pills. But human beings need to have choices. Otherwise, they're not living a fully human life.
DeleteIf my loved one were suicidal, I'd take away the guns and hide the knives. I'd do everything in my power to enable her to survive until the crisis passes.
DeleteWhat would you do, nothing, in the name of her rights and privacy?
We're talking about a few hundred in a military of millions. Typical for your side, the the New York Times is an organ of your side, you want rules to control everyone because a few have a problem.
ReplyDeleteThere's already a cultural resistance in the military to talking to shrinks. Pass this new rule, and things will only get worse. But it will also add in snitches within the home. Put it this way, some counselor asks me if I have guns, I'll say, Why, hell no. That's if I'm ever talking to such a person in the first place.
Always with the bullshit disparagement of the percentages. It's more than ever before. Isn't that enough for you?
DeleteIt's enough to suggest that we need better mental health services available for people in the military, but it's not enough to warrant infringing on their rights.
DeleteStrangely, if these same guys would commit suicide by jumping on a live grenade the liberal left loonies would call them heroes because they saved some of their fellow murderers lives.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
It is because of people like you, "orlin sellers" that the U.S. will inevitably collapse. If you show contempt and disrespect with those sworn to protect you, then you show loyalty to Americas perpetual enemy, fascism.
DeleteWhat about communism? What about authoritarianism? Those are America's perpetual enemies as well.
DeleteEN, explain how being pro-Constitution, like believing war has to be declared by Congress, not the president, is being disrespectful and showing contempt.
DeleteThen, explain how the corporatism in the US is not a form of fascism and already exists here.
Good luck with that, dude.
orlin sellers
Military personnel are issued State-owned arms, as necessary to perform their duties. Why would anyone (excluding the personal weapons of high level personnel, and some of the weapons used by special forces), related to the military need to privately purchase and possess a firearm? The only conceivable reason for a member of the armed forces to carry a personal firearm in a combat zone, is because they lack faith in the weapons that they where issued by their State, due their belief that their own weapon will malfunction, and the enemy's weapon will not. If so, they lack faith in the very government to which they serve.
ReplyDeleteE.N., you don't know about the Beretta M-9, I take it. Many soldiers have good reason to doubt the ability of a 9mm Luger full metal jacket bullet to put down an enemy right now. Some of them buy their own .45s.
DeleteBeyond that, rights have nothing to do with need. Why would a service person want a personal firearm? The same reason that any of us want one. Citizens have the right and in many cases the desire to own guns.
When a Military commission adopted the Beretta M9 service pistol (around 1980, I think), they did so with expertise, replacing a now century old service pistol, which fires a (somewhat larger) projectile at a much lower velocity, and therefore impotent against body armor. The M9 also holds 15 cartridges, (not including the chamber) while the ".45" (properly referred to as the U.S. Service Pistol Model 1911, as that is it's legitimate name for it's legitimate use) holds a mere 7 cartridges. Also, Beretta constructs their product (military materials) to a higher standard than the (currently) alternative weapons soldiers (who are not experts appointed to a commission) are mislead to believe will protect them.
DeleteAgain, as I have previously stated, unless you are acting under orders, and in duty, (military or police, as well as any other State actor or authorized person) you have no reasonable claim of a "right to keep and bear arms".
E.N., you've previously stated a lot, and all of it has been nonsense. Let me correct a bit here:
Delete1. The Beretta was adopted in 1985. It was the result of a commission, a commission of pencil pushers who were more interested in whose palms got greased than in military efficiency.
2. The 9mm FMJ round is woefully inadequate when compared to the .45 FMJ. We're not signatories to the Hague Convention, but we abide by its rules--thus the full metal jacket rounds in our pistols. Standard body armor blocks both rounds. That's the reason for the FN 5.7 armor-piercing bullet that the Brady Bunch gets all worked up about.
3. The old service 1911 indeed carried only seven rounds in the magazine. Today's magazines hold eight, for a total of nine on board. The Para-Ordnance P-14 holds 14 + 1, and that's .45 ACP.
4. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with today's Berettas, but the same is true about many other quality handguns. Soldiers who study the matter are smart enough to make choices. The problem with the standard issue gun is the caliber. But the 1911 is issued to special forces teams, along with other .45s. I didn't get specific because there are several different makes and models used.
5. The possessive pronoun "its" does not have an apostrophe.
6. I've explained to you my reasonable claim to a right to own and carry firearms. You keep yammering about how we're all just subjects of the state, but I see you here exercising your right to free expression. I don't see you getting permission to do so. The difference between us is that I respect all of your rights, while you respect none of mine.
E.N. said, "... you have no reasonable claim of a 'right to keep and bear arms'".
DeleteWho said rights have to be "reasonable"? And even if rights did have to be "reasonable", who judges what is reasonable?
More importantly, our society if founded on the Social Contract and Liberty. That simply means that we are free to do whatever we want, as long as we do not hurt someone else, and everyone cooperates for mutual gain.
I have carried a concealed handgun in a holster on my hip for years and I have never intimidated nor harmed anyone. My behavior is no different than before I started carrying. Since I am not harming anyone and I still cooperate with everyone else for mutual gain, there is no "reasonable" argument that I should not carry a concealed handgun.
Again, as I have previously stated, unless you are acting under orders, and in duty, (military or police, as well as any other State actor or authorized person) you have no reasonable claim of a "right to keep and bear arms".
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of the US Congress, the President as well as the majority of citizens disagree with u.