HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » As Military Suicides Rise...

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:15 PM

As Military Suicides Rise, Focus Is on Private Weapons

Source: new york times

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.

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.”

Dr. Woodson, who declined to provide details, said the campaign would also include measures to encourage service members, their friends and their relatives to remove possibly dangerous prescription drugs from the homes of potentially suicidal troops.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/with-military-suicides-rising-new-policies-take-shape.html?_r=1&



The News here is the Pentagon and Congress are actually starting to address the problem... And get rid of am obviously destructive law prohibiting the discussion of firearms.

What I would like to know is what Congressmen helped put in place in 2011, this stupid law that prevents counselors from discussing guns with suicidal troops? Why would the nra and Congress even care about that? I would also like to know if the suicide rate has increased since these 2011 don't ask policies have been in place, and if they have? Who's dumb idea was it in the first place?

I will start looking into this further, if anybody has any additional info, please post, thanks

Article on repealing from 2011: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nra-blocked-effort-prevent-military-s

Article about Congress inaction, also from 2011: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/07/362689/nra-military-suicides/

29 replies, 4397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply As Military Suicides Rise, Focus Is on Private Weapons (Original post)
trailmonkee Oct 2012 OP
OKNancy Oct 2012 #1
trailmonkee Oct 2012 #6
gejohnston Oct 2012 #2
truthisfreedom Oct 2012 #3
PavePusher Oct 2012 #12
Hoyt Oct 2012 #26
TahitiNut Oct 2012 #4
PavePusher Oct 2012 #14
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #5
Kolesar Oct 2012 #8
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #10
aikoaiko Oct 2012 #7
jmowreader Oct 2012 #9
hack89 Oct 2012 #15
jmowreader Oct 2012 #16
hack89 Oct 2012 #17
bluedigger Oct 2012 #21
hack89 Oct 2012 #22
bluedigger Oct 2012 #23
PavePusher Oct 2012 #24
bluedigger Oct 2012 #25
PavePusher Oct 2012 #28
PavePusher Oct 2012 #18
hack89 Oct 2012 #19
PavePusher Oct 2012 #27
hack89 Oct 2012 #29
Exultant Democracy Oct 2012 #11
PavePusher Oct 2012 #13
PavePusher Oct 2012 #20

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:32 PM

1. Your link doesn't work... also

I suggest you post the original article from the New York Times with the original title.

As Military Suicides Rise, Focus Is on Private Weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/with-military-suicides-rising-new-policies-take-shape.html?_r=0

Thanks, Nancy ( LBN Host)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:05 PM

6. ? i just tried and it works?

Out links to an msnbc article that matches the title of the post? Either way, I and out right now, buy when I get back to my laptop, ii will change per your recommendation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:41 PM

2. suicide rates are independent of means

it is nice feel good theater, but that is it.
if the member lives in dorms or barracks, personal weapons are kept in the armory when not in use. In military family housing, they may be kept at home but must be registered with the military police unit (Canadian military has the exact same policy). If the person lives off base, there is nothing a commander can do about it. If you lie to your boss or commander about privately owned guns kept off the installation, no one can verify. No military judge or magistrate is going to sign a search order for something like that, nor should they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:52 PM

3. I doubt the NRA has the compassion to allow any movement on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:11 PM

12. I'm trying to figure out what the NRA has to do with this.

 

HOW ABOUT SOME ACCESABLE FUCKING MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND FEWER DEPLOYMENTS, I.E. GET OUT OF THE WAR?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:47 PM

26. Agree. Plus, remind everyone this country is not a war zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:53 PM

4. CheesuzFreakingKeerist! HOW ABOUT A FUCKING DRAFT???

Sending the same people repeatedly to the hell of a war zone is FUCKING INSANE! The people of this country should be fucking ashamed!! "Oh, but they 'volunteered'!" Bullshit. Economic coercion! Broken promises. Betrayal of trust! "Not MY child!!" That's the most lily-livered, cowardly bullshit of all. "Involuntary servitude!" Horseshit! That trivializes the abomination of slavery!

The idea that "we" can wage wars and NOT share the burden is an abomination!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:17 PM

14. Also some commodities rationing, war taxes and war bond drives.

 

Make everyone feel some sacrifice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:54 PM

5. I hope that this does not promote lying about emotions. Too many already avoid

talking about their issues so as not to lose their clearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:32 PM

8. Combat veterans are prescribed antidepressants in "large quantities"

Peace to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:01 PM

10. not the One I know unless he is lying to me and he very well could be. YMMV.

Peace to all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:18 PM

7. The law seems to allow the military to find out if a service member has a firearm if

he or she constitutes a danger to him or herself or others. See 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:43 PM

9. The NRA is, as usual, full of shit on this one

If you live in the barracks, or are stationed overseas, your privately-owned weapons are stored in the arms room--and the commander has a complete list of everything in it including the cockroaches.

If you live in on-post family housing you must register all your guns with the Provost Marshal, and the commander gets a copy.

If you live in off-post, non-government-owned housing, you don't have to register--but very few troops are going to move off post just so they don't have to tell the CO what guns they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:28 PM

15. Commanders at Fort Riley required soldiers to register off base guns



Excerpts from new FR Reg 190-1:

Para. 6.b(2) Unit Commanders will: Register the privately owned firearms of members of their command and their Family members. Commanders should not require off-post weapons to be stored on-post absent some threat concern (domestic, threats of violence against others, suicidal ideations, etc).

Para. 7.c(1) Registration Procedures: Military personnel will: Register all their privately owned firearms and the firearms of their family members that are stored in their residence or within the state of Kansas, with their unit commander on an FR Form 102 or an FR Form 102A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:00 PM

16. I haven't read the current army gun regs, so thanks...

I would not be surprised if every Army post has the same regulation now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:24 PM

17. They don't - that was the point of the legislation the OP talked about

the Army has no business tracking private guns in off base houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:00 PM

21. Why not?

You surrender many of your Constitutional rights as a member of the Armed Forces. That's why you are subject to a separate legal system (UCMJ). I don't see any reason why the 2A should be excepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:15 PM

22. We surrender some that is true

but in every case it made sense from a military perspective. And the UMCJ still does provide most of the Constitutional rights all Americans enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:57 PM

23. Preventing suicides is conducive to maintaining order and discipline in the ranks.

Commanders have huge discretionary powers under that rubric, and (I would think) could easily defend their actions - but I'm sure it will have to be proven in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:26 PM

24. No, we do NOT "surender" ANY Rights.

 

But some of them do become modified and more limited than in the Civilian world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:30 PM

25. Point won on semantics and lost for spelling.

Call it a draw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:18 PM

28. Game called on account of typing with my elbows...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

18. How recent was this? Last I knew, when an Army Commander in Alaska tried the same stunt...

 

it was shut down pretty quickly, but this was a few years ago.

I'll try to find the info on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:48 PM

19. This is the regulation that prompted the law mentioned in the OP

so I would imagine in 2009 or 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PavePusher (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 07:39 AM

29. I know - but they still prompted Congress to pass legislation. My only point.

From the OP

But the N.R.A. said that the provision was a response to efforts by Army commanders to maintain records of all the firearms owned by their soldiers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:49 PM

11. Some guns should be grabbed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:16 PM

13. Which ones and why? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:49 PM

20. I guess I shouldn't have expected an answer...?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread