The Military Suicide ‘Epidemic’ and an NRA-backed Law
As discussed here, in trying to find reasons or causes for the alarming upward trend in military suicides, TIME Magazine reporters Mark Thompson and Nancy Gibbs suggest that combat trauma alone can’t account for the trend and offer the following data:
Nearly a third of the suicides from 2005 to 2010 were among troops who had never deployed; 43% had deployed only once. Only 8.5% had deployed three or four times. Enlisted service members are more likely to kill themselves than officers, and 18-to-24-year-olds more likely than older troops. Two-thirds do it by gunshot; 1 in 5 hangs himself. And it’s almost always him: nearly 95% of cases are male. A majority are married.
“Two-thirds do it by gunshot.” Of course, you say. Our military are trained to use guns, they are “the tool of their trade,” troops have access to guns and many personally own firearms in their homes.
Naturally, Defense and military leaders are doing everything within their power to prevent or at least reduce this horrible, unnecessary loss life among the troops.
As part of what these leaders are doing to combat the suicide “epidemic,” they would like to talk to our servicemen and women who own a personal firearm and live off post.
There is one small catch, however. A relatively new law backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) seems to prevent them from talking to these servicemembers.
According to a Christian Science Monitor article:
As they cast about looking for possible ways to bring down the rates of suicide, commanders say that the answer may lie in having candid discussions with their soldiers about their personal firearms–and to take personal weapons away from those who appear likely to hurt themselves.
Gen Peter Chiarelli, the former Army Chief of Staff, says, “The majority of [suicides] have two things in common: Alcohol and a gun. That’s just the way it is…And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house,” according to the Monitor.
However, the new law prohibits military personnel from discussing weapons and safety issues with a soldier who has a privately-owned weapon.
Again, the Monitor:
While commanders are permitted to ask troops who appear to be an imminent danger to themselves or others about private firearms–or to suggest locking them temporarily in a base depot–the law requires that if the soldier denies that he or she is thinking about harming anyone, then the commander cannot pursue the discussion further, he adds.
Yet determining whether a service member is an imminent danger to himself or others has been an elusive and frustrating pursuit for the Pentagon.
“I’m struck by the number of folks who come in for behavioral health counseling and are rated as ‘low to medium risk’ [of harming themselves or others] and two weeks later commit the irrevocable act of suicide,” Chiarelli says.
Department of Veterans Affairs officials are backing US military officials in this matter, according to the Monitor.
Some say that the law is not meant to preclude commanders from talking about firearms.
For example, the Monitor says:
“Obviously, the intent of the law is not to preclude a commander from taking steps necessary to mitigate a suicidal or dangerous situation,” says Jared Young, Communications Director for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, in an email. Senator Inhofe was the author of the legislation. Spokesman Young said the senator is “very concerned” about suicide within the military. “At the same time,” he adds, “individual rights must be protected.”
That said, Mr. Young adds that Sen. Inhofe has “reached out to the DOD and other interested parties to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.” The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a question about what a changed policy should include.
In my opinion, this is a difficult and controversial issue. It pitches Second Amendment and privacy rights against the Army’s interest to counsel, advice and protect its members in view of what truly is a national tragedy, an “epidemic” among our troops.
Your thoughts?
Share This
Related Posts
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
A Vast Majority of Veterans Support Firearms Background Checks
Posted on Apr 11, 2013
-
Jim Carrey is Funny, But That Doesn’t Mean He’s Always Right
Posted on Apr 9, 2013
-
Defense Update in Images and in a Few Words
Posted on Mar 15, 2013
i would think that the one person on this planet that would be best be able to tell if a soldier is in a tough state of mind and might need his or her weapons taken …
it would be their commanding officer.
This is just politicians and the NRA not thinking.
Thanks Dorian… Many years ago i saw Full Metal Jacket and in truth do not know if it was a fair representation of what basic training is like….but wonder about the vulnerable youth that all to often are allowed in the military and if they are equipped to deal with the programming that it takes to create a soldier… It is all so very complex and sad.
Have you seen this link?
” One factor that we may be ignoring is the effect that all this media attention may have on the suicide rate. Especially in tight-knit communities like the military. Especially among members of the population who are under 24 years old.
Since 1974, it has been established that suicide imitation can be spread inadvertently by media. Sociologist David Phillips called it “The Werther Effect.” Other scientists refer to it as “media contagion.” Whatever you call it, certain details of news coverage of a suicide — such as describing exactly how a person died and publishing tributes from family members –have been shown to significantly increase the rate of suicide deaths.”
http://www.military.com/spouse/military-life/are-military-suicides-contagious.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2
It seems there are blocks from every direction….once i would of read the above link without wondering the background influences of the research data. Nowadays one never knows the extent of the NRA fingers…
It seems completely insane to have NRA influence at any level here…
If we were talking about a civilian boss taking away an employee’s weapons, that would be a 2nd Amendment issue. However, when it comes to miltary commanders and their troops, we are “on duty” 24/7. If the CC wants you turn in/lock up your guns, you lock up your guns. I mean seriously, when there’s a marital dispute, the Commander can order you to stay away from your spouse for a specified period of time. Why shouldn’t he/she also be able to prohit you from being in the vicinity of a weapon if/when the situation warrants?
The NRA is putting 2nd Amendment rights over all other rights, including the right to get help. Looking at the world through only one lens is a symptom of insanity.
He/she can. At any time they can give orders that take you away from your house or mandate medical treatment. They may also control access to firearms on base. What they can’t and shouldn’t do is control legal private property in a solders home. Media was mentioned as a possible factor in some suicides. Would a commander be able to order someone to turn in their tv? Military deaths on motorcycles are considered a huge problem. So much so that they make all kinds of rules about on base use, training, etc. But guess what that ends at the base gate. Making exceptions for firearms would be wrong.
EEllis said: “Military deaths on motorcycles are considered a huge problem. So much so that they make all kinds of rules about on base use, training, etc. But guess what that ends at the base gate. Making exceptions for firearms would be wrong.”
Actually, if we’re going to use motorcycles as an example, the rules most certainly do NOT “end at the base gate”.
If an active duty service member gets caught riding without all the required PPE there will definitely be consequences. And if they should have an accident when they’re not wearing the proper gear, they might just find themselves footing their own medical bill .. in addition to the trouble they’d be in at work.
Commanders are given pretty wide discretion when it comes to the well-being and preparedness of their subordinates. From my perspective, if someone has a real conflict between the need to exercise their rights in regards to their “legal private property”, and obeying the orders of their commander .. well that could be an indication that they’re just not compatible with military service. (again, just my personal opinion)
Sorry not the same. There is no restriction in the USCMJ against having a gun in your home if legal in that jurisdiction. There is a reg that says you must wear helmets and other measures. This is not the commander singling someone out, it’s the regs. Want to try and get the regs changed to prevent possession of firearms, good luck with that.
Thanks for the comments and opinions.
@ ToddM: Having been in the military for 20 years I agree with you that he military has “pretty wide discretion when it comes to the well being and preparedness” of its members, on base as well as off-base. In this case, because the powerful NRA is involved it has become an issue.
@ Sparrow: As with a lot of other things, the “copy-cat syndrome” is probably a factor here, too. How much, I don’t know.
Motorcycles and tvs are a it different than trained killers and their private firearms. Once you joint he military, your access to your own firearms should be regulated.
So only while you are working as a trained killer, or as I would call it serving our country, or forever? Maybe I am getting the wrong idea but the idea that those serving in the military are somehow less trustworthy and need to be described as “killers” at all is pretty repugnant to me. YMMV
Can you say disingenuous? Repugnant or not, the military IS in the business of (among other things) training people how to kill.
You can ask but unless they agree or someone has reason to take further action you cannot force.
Ellis i don’t agree with you on that…
Even in the civilian world if someone is evaluated to be a threat to themselves or another action can be taken to perverse life.
Of course they are trained killers. Oh wait, I forgot, Republicans call them nation builders.
So long a member of the military is serving our country, their own access to their own weapons should be regulated, this would include the soldiers in my family.
And this law changes that not one bit. If a commander or doctor wants to take action then they can do so. What the law stops is them removing rights without need for them taking action