A group of senior retired generals and admirals are calling for Congress to amend a recent law that they say "dangerously interferes" with the ability of commanders to battle the epidemic of suicides among members of the military.We had quite a heated discussion about this last month. Gun control folks don't seem to have any difficulty with the idea that gun availability is a contributing factor in suicide. The Generals and Admirals who are urging Congress to change this law seem to agree.
Legislation added to the 2011 defense authorization bill at the urging of gun-rights advocates prohibits commanders from collecting any information about weapons privately owned by troops.
Critics say the law prevents commanders from talking to service members about their privately owned weapons -- such as encouraging the use of a gunlock or temporary storage away from their homes -- even in cases when the commanding officer thinks the service member is at risk for suicide.
"The law is directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives," states a letter sent last week to members of Congress by a dozen retired officers, including former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer and former surgeons general for the Army, Air Force and Navy.
"It unnecessarily hampers a commander from taking all possible practical steps for preventing suicide," one of the signers, Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, said Saturday. Dubik commanded the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq in 2007 and 2008.
As of the end of October, the number of suspected suicides by active-duty soldiers in the Army alone had reached 166, one more than the total for last year.
Only gun-rights fanatics argue such nonsense as people who want to commit suicide will always succeed in doing it even if there is no gun. No amount of surveys or academic research or indeed, common sense can dissuade them from their single-minded objective. They want to defend guns and gun ownership at any cost. They refuse to admit that the lethality and efficiency of a gun makes attempted suicide more likely to succeed.
To support their absurd argument, they insist that people who attempt suicide are never suffering from a temporary problem but are truly determined to do themselves in and will go to any length to accomplish it. Some go so far as to say it's every person's right to commit suicide and no one should interfere.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Because 166 service persons have committed suicide out of hundreds of thousands, you want the government to create a registry of privately owned firearms? How about offering mental health services with the guarantee of absolute privacy? That would save more lives.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, we've talked about suicides at gun ranges before. How hard would it be for someone to kill himself with a weapon that he's issued for training? As long as he doesn't tell anyone about his plan, who would know?
Commanding Officers want to TALK to their troops who are in trouble. What the hell kind of law prohibits that?
DeleteThe Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 bars the government from registering firearms beyond NFA weapons classified in the act of 1934.
DeleteCommanders may do all the talking they want. But the real goal behind making a list of who has private guns is to take them away eventually, and that's what my side opposes.
Disarming the populace is a goal of any legitimate State. Registration is a useful implement to achieve the disarmament of likely criminals.
DeleteE.N. reveals the truth about registration. Thanks for showing us the real agenda of the gun control freaks.
DeleteGreg Camp reveals the truth about pro-gunners Thanks for showing your real agenda of arming criminals.
DeleteArming good citizens, whom you believe to be pre-criminals.
Delete"Because 166 service persons have committed suicide out of hundreds of thousands, you want the government to create a registry of privately owned firearms?"
ReplyDeleteACTIVE DUTY servicemen, pumpkin. Active duty.
Estimates by the VA are that 950 of the veterans enrolled in VA (approximately 22% of all veterans) healthcare programs attempt suicide--each month*. Other estimates of up to 18 veterans per day committing suicide in the U.S. are unsubstantiated and rely on a combination of actual data and extrapolation of that data by various agencies to arrive at a figure of 6-7000 U.S. veterans killing themselves per year.
According to this CBS news report:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-3498625.html
DoD only tracks active duty soldiers for its suicide figures, VA only tracks those veterans in its care and its tracking is complicated by concerns for privacy issues. Various other state and federal agencies have different methodlolgies and means for gathering data and analyzing it.
It appears that you are as uninformed about suicides in the ranks of active duty/veteran service members as you are of the japanese who commit suicide--and just as likely to talk out of your ass about it.
What comes through, clearly, in every comment you make about murder, suicide, domestic violence and other violence facilitated by ease of access to firearms--particularly handguns--is that you simply don't give a fuck if other people live or die so long as you can have your precious penis substitute.
* http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-va-aims-to-get-better-data-on-vet-suicide-rates-022812w
Democommie, you need anger management classes. If you'd calm down, you'd see that the article in question is about active-duty personnel, not veterans. You let your rage interfere with thinking.
DeleteWhat comes through in my comments is that I believe in individual rights and choice. Your comments are filled with anger, but you never commit yourself to a solution nor state a position. I doubt you'll come back for even much of a discussion.
Brave enough today?
Japan.
ReplyDeletemikeb said..."Gun control folks don't seem to have any difficulty with the idea that gun availability is a contributing factor in suicide."
ReplyDeleteThen why do prisoners kill themselves at a rate of three times (pdf) more than the rest of us that have access to a gun?
Because the gun is not the ONLY factor. Your side says it's not a factor at all. Who makes more sense?
DeleteBut we've shown you that suicide rates aren't affected by gun laws. I'd say we make more sense., based on evidence.
Deletemikeb, I'm not disputing that maybe, someone who wants to harm himself, might not do it if they didn't have a firearm, I'm disputing the gun controller's position that gun laws will have an effect on suicides. Canada has a suicide rate very similar to that of the US, but the gun ownership rate in the US is three times that of CA (and the US has 27 times more firearms). Germany has a gun ownership rate similar to Canada, but a slightly lower suicide rate. S. Korea has nearly zero gun ownership but a suicide rate nearly three times that of the US.
DeleteGun ownership and access to guns apparently have no affect on suicide.
sources
Could the root of the problem be perpetual war? The president creating wars out of thin air and sending kids into these war zones to do things that are not normal for human beings to do and then having to live with the guilt.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Yes that's the root. But the commanders should still be allowed to intervene when necessary.
DeleteMikeB wrote, "Only gun-rights fanatics argue such nonsense as people who want to commit suicide will always succeed in doing it even if there is no gun."
ReplyDeleteThere are effectively no guns in civilian hands in Japan and their suicide rate is much higher than the U.S. That makes it pretty clear that people who want to commit suicide will do it with or without firearms. Apparently facts are nonsense to MikeB.
And more directly to the point, we also have a right to privacy in this country which the Fourth Amendment indicates and U.S. Supreme Court rulings have validated. Active duty service members have a right to privacy especially when it comes to their personal lives. Compelling them to disclose anything about their personal lives to commanding officers is wrong -- whether the details are about their garden, stamp collection, firearms, sexual preferences, or whatever.
As to the right to privacy, I do agree with one caveat. When I joined the military it was understood that I gave up some of my rights when I joined. The UCMJ does not follow our Constitution, and I seem to remember not having a right to privacy (or any protection from double jeopardy,for example, as any service member who was arrested by the police and then charged by their command for NJP can attest).
DeleteI still believe that removing a right from a citizen of the United States without due process is wrong (so the VA does not have any leg to stand on here), but I am not sure if that removal was already done to active duty personnel voluntarily.
I know, how about every red blooded-able bodied American gotta have a gun join the Army and take the heat off men that do way to many tours of deployment.
ReplyDelete