Pentagon moving to separate servicemen at risk of suicide from personal weapons
“This is not about authoritarian regulation,” Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said in an interview. “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 be introduced over the coming months. He said that it would also include measures to encourage service members, their friends and relatives to remove possibly dangerous prescription drugs from the home of potentially suicidal troops.
In another step considered significant by suicide-prevention advocates, Congress appears poised to enact legislation that would allow military mental health counselors and commanders to talk to troops about their private firearms.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
the problem isn’t drugs and guns, in my opinion. it’s our culture. we embody this two-mindedness about the war that weighs heavy on vets. legislation is not the answer. but pols want to feel good about themselves so they’ll pass more laws and make more rules.
Steven McGregor on October 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Leadership (at the top) of our military is the worse I have ever seen it in my life – I am 52 years old.
Today’s leaders coddle everyone and everything. Young people respond to strong principled leadership,, and at the very top of our military and civilian personnel – that is lacking badly.
jake-the-goose on October 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Where might this go from here? Some RLMF is going to suggest no one in the military should have personal firearms because each might have a moment of weakness sometime. Or something. But it’s still OK for them to armed in the field (unless they’re guarding an embassy or something).
apostic on October 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM
I am curious about the active duty suicide rate compared to civilian suicide rates within the same age brackets. I’m not making light of this important topic, but 270 suicides for the year strikes me as quite a small percentage of AD personnel. Is it comparable with a normalized overall population suicide rate?
hungrymongo on October 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Suicide prevention for soldiers — complex issue. I don’t believe for one moment that the suggested measures will have the intended effects. How about this one — prevention of accidental deaths of soldiers because they are more prone to engage in risk-taking behavior. Both these issues have a lot to do with the most commonly-abused drug which is too much a part of military culture IMO, alcohol.
The military has done a fair amount to address the reluctance of soldiers to seek help when needed and certainly have been educating spouses on warning flags almost since the war began. Ever since 4 spouses at Ft. Bragg were killed by their soldiers back in 2002-3 I believe. We’re about to embark on the 4th deployment in the immediate family since my husband was first deployed 10 years ago. I’m at the point where I believe the only way to address some of the most serious issues in our military is to bring our folks home and rebuild our military.
mubando on October 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Wouldn’t it be wise to disarm the members of society that have had special weapons training before going after the general populace?
Just saying….
They are planning, make sure you are also.
trs on October 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Hungrymongo, good point which has been discussed in our home from time to time.
See this link for discussion of the subject:
http://deploymentpsych.org/topics-disorders/suicide
mubando on October 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM
First the veterans, then the rest of us. Who doesn’t have a moment of weakness at some time?
Qzsusy on October 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Of course not! This is just common sense. After all it’s not like a well trained soldier could harm someone with a kitchen knife or assemble an explosive with easily obtainable materials- oh wait…
Browncoatone on October 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Because suicides, like homicides can only be accomplished with a gun.
astonerii on October 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Claim PTSD, lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Simple as that.
The Obama end-around. Should be a dance, or something. Sadly, it’s a form of governing practiced -and perfected by the left.
BKeyser on October 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM
That Bill of Rights was written in a much different era you know, and those Swiss that issue large numbers of automatic weapons and ammo to their citizen Army to keep at home are practically another species from us you know.
I was watching a clip about one of the Swiss veterans. He showed a gun cabinet at his place of business. In it were his father’s rifle and his rifle from their times of service, and his son’s rifle from his current service. He said his grandfather’s rifle was at home, up on the wall.
claudius on October 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Thorny subject that brings to mind Major Nidal Hassan. A man who told conference sized groups about the duty of jihad before going on a mass murder spree at Ft. Hood. So forgive me if I doubt the Forces are equipped to handle mental health issues effectively.
Anecdotally, the people who tend to do better mentally after the extreme stress of combat are career military. This held true in Vietnam and is proving true in the Sandbox. Your career soldier, sailor, airman, and marine are statistically far less likely to top themselves than your reservist or 4 year enlistee.
Either way, I do not trust the DoD to get this right. The problem is complex and at its core are several things. The one my friends gripe about most is the ROE. They want to do their job and stay alive. They really do not want to be tried for murder / war crimes in the USA on their return. That’s a major stress factor.
You just want to get home one day.
CorporatePiggy on October 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Should we also seperate woman from guns after childbirth. Supposedly post-partum depression creates a greater liklihood for sucide and violence too.
tommyboy on October 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Thanks, CorporatePiggy, for bringing up the ROE. That, with green-on-blue is what concerns me more about this upcoming deployment than any of the previous ones.
mubando on October 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM
The Pentagon is going to need a house cleaning of all the idiot liberals that have taken up residence there.
Kjeil on October 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Thanks, mubando. Insightful link.
hungrymongo on October 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM
It’s because the commander of the suicide victim is held responsible to an extent. No commander wants to have a suicide on his/her watch because it goes on their record and its impossible to get promoted afterwards. So, the military machine frowns on suicides the same way it frowns on obesity. Don’t make the commander look bad by placing a loaded firearm in your mouth. They couldn’t care less about your feelings.
long_cat on October 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM
HTH did you come up with this?
I used to compile stats for Wing Standup in my squadron. One of the slides (well a few of them, we had a lot of units on base) was a breakdown of all the alcohol related incidents from each unit – DUI’s, underage drinking, that kind of stuff.
Training squadrons ALWAYS had HUGE rates of minor alcohol related offenses, we’re talking dozens (per some units), sometimes hundreds (base wide) a month. I saw plenty of CCs get screamed at but I never saw ANY CC held back for promotion or any other positive career enhancement because of it.
I also never saw a junior officer, SNCO or supervising NCO held back for promotion either.
Suicide is a terrible thing, but it is still an individual decision. CCs are not responsible for everything their subordinates do in their personnel lives. CCs are not responsible for the guy who beats his wife or the mother who beats their kids. CCs are not responsible for the adulterers in their midst. They’re not responsible for the financial irresponsibility of their members. Etc. The individual is responsible for themselves. Maybe in the rarest of cases, where a troop killed themselves on duty (which does happen) would a CC be held more accountable but that wold be a case by case basis and only under weirdly extreme circumstances.
While I do agree that at a certain level some CCs are really only interested in themselves and furthering their career, I take umbrage with your characterization and generalization that most CCs are this way. I had the pleasure of dealing with many first rate men and woman as commanders directly over my 22 years of service. Most of them DID care for their people.
catmman on October 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Look I’m not trying to offend anyone, especially our brave men and women in uniform. I know there are a lot of good leaders in our military, but for every good one, there are dozens who are only interested in their bottom line. You illustrated this perfectly by referencing how you prepared stats for a wing stand-up. Thats all it is, sometimes (and sadly). Just stats. Unfortunately, these stats affect their bottom line. No commander wants a suicide on his watch much the same as an EEO complaint. Both look equally bad that’s why their is such a focus on these hot button issues. Again, sorry to offend, was not my intention.
long_cat on October 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM
The gulf between the average G.I. Joe and the brass-bottomed idiots in the Pentagone-crazy is widening. The only reason that lot ‘cares’ is because a weary veteran deciding to end their misery “doesn’t look good” on their precious record.
I say let servicemen keep their personal firearms…as well as responsibility for their own lives.
MelonCollie on October 8, 2012 at 5:58 PM