About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

General: NRA-Backed Law Puts Soldiers' Lives At Risk

November 07, 2011 12:26 pm ET by Matt Gertz

Last year, the National Rifle Association identified what was to them a crisis: "certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations, have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights." NRA was particularly worried about restrictions on privately-owned firearms that soldiers kept off-base.

In response, NRA pushed a law which top military commanders fear puts U.S. troops in greater danger of suicide. Under the law, adopted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, the Defense Department may 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" by a member of the Armed Forces.

According to the Army's second-highest-ranking officer, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, this prevents commanders from engaging in important discussions with soldier about weapons safety, which may put them at higher risk of suicide:

"I am not allowed to ask a soldier who lives off post whether that soldier has a privately owned weapon," [Chirarelli] says.

While commanders are permitted to ask troops who appear to be a danger to themselves or others about private firearms - or to suggest perhaps locking them temporarily in a base depot - if the soldier denies that he or she is thinking about harming anyone, then the commander cannot pursue the discussion further.

Nearly half of all soldiers who commit suicide use a firearm, General Chiarelli points out. He added that "suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event" that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But "if you can separate the individual from the weapon," he added, "you can lower the incidences of suicide."

The problem, Chiarelli said, is that "we have issues in even being able to do that." 

Active duty Army suicide rates have more than doubled since 2004. According to a new report from the Center for a New American Security, "[f]rom 2005 to 2010, service members took their own lives at a rate of approximately one every 36 hours."

Chiarelli's analysis is backed by public health experts who say that some suicides are preventable. According to Harvard School of Public Health professor David Hemenway, "Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (November 07, 2011 12:32 pm ET)
      8  
      Why does Gen. Peter Chiarelli hate our troops...?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 07, 2011 10:40 pm ET)
          4
        This is yellow journalism at its finest.

        Gen. Peter Chiarelli, this prevents commanders from engaging in important discussions with soldier about weapons safety, which may put them at higher risk of suicide:


        There is nothing linking higher suicide rates with gun ownership. The military PREACHES weapons safety constantly! There is nothing preventing commanders from stressing the importance of lawful ownership of firearms.
        He goes on to state:
        Nearly half of all soldiers who commit suicide use a firearm, General Chiarelli points out. He added that "suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event" that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But "if you can separate the individual from the weapon," he added, "you can lower the incidences of suicide."


        Nearly half? Often fueled by drugs and alcohol? That would be the logical start right there. Drugs and alcohol. Maybe Gen Chiarelli should be focused on the drug and alcohol dependency of soldiers to head off any potential problems of suicide.

        BTW the number of suicides are dropping but more soldiers are attempting suicide. Oddly the number of attempts are split between deployed/been deployed and never been deployed.

        This is a serious problem in the armed forces but to try and gain link suicides for political dogma is the lowest of the low.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (November 08, 2011 12:31 am ET)
          2 1
          Tbone

          You are very stupid. It is NOT yellow journalism to accurately and correctly quote a General just because YOU disagree with the General. I am sure you know much more about military personell than a mere General the Army's second highest ranking officer. Why dont you write him and explain how much better qualified YOU are to speak to this issue than he is.

          The point is made in the article and you dont speak to it. To ignore the experts and just baselessly assert you know better than them is the stupidest of the stupid
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 08, 2011 10:15 am ET)
            1 2
            I'm stupid? Can you please show us where in the article it points to a study, by the Army or any outside entity, that links higher suicide rates with personal gun ownership. Then feel free to speak to the infringement of the soldiers constitutional rights if the good general is able to "question" the soldiers right to own weapons, and finally feel free to speak to the point about drug and alcohol abuse being the root cause of a percentage of the suicides the good general alluded to. I'm waiting with bated breath...
            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (November 07, 2011 12:40 pm ET)
      15  
      It's been my observation that the Republicans only "love" the Troops when they're serving as political cannon fodder for Republican Jingoistic Chest Thumping.

      But, if those Troops actually need something, like HealthCare or help finding a job... Republicans don't know them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by danielsangeo (November 07, 2011 12:42 pm ET)
        7  
        Or, if they're forced to acknowledge them, then they're "phony soldiers".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 07, 2011 12:51 pm ET)
      7  
      My father and father-in-law were both medics and veterans of WWII and Korea. Both of them were great believers in gun safety and careful gun owners; both of them had sons who got into their guns while they were away at work. My brother showed off an empty rifle to his friends. My husband and his brothers took their father's gun from it's locked storage space, retrieved the bullets from their locked storage space and set up targets in the backyard. After a few cars went by on the freeway on the other side of the fence, the boys realized they had been lucky and put the guns back. They didn't admit what they had done for about a decade! Lives are at stake, suicides and accidents happen in the most careful homes. If there is no freedom to discuss gun safety and the danger of guns, more deaths will result.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by truth4me (November 07, 2011 12:54 pm ET)
      4  
      And I'm pretty sure most NRA members would identify themselves as "pro-life". Yeah, they're "pro-life" until that embryo is born then it's "who gives a cr@p!!". Sickening...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (November 07, 2011 1:20 pm ET)
        4 1
        Someone once explained that to me, babies are innocent, but murderers and child molesters deserve to be executed. The Catholic Church opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. They believe that all life is sacred, at every stage. Personally, I oppose abortion, and there are better approaches to unwanted pregnancy than shouting at women as they enter clinics. If we had better access to reproductive knowledge, we'd all be better off, and there would be fewer abortions.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (November 07, 2011 1:10 pm ET)
      6  
      Being in the military is not like being a private citizen. They can require you to do all sorts of things that no private employer would be allowed to require. And they can put you in jail if you don't. They can limit a soldier's first amendment rights so why can't they limit his or her second amendment rights?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (November 07, 2011 1:11 pm ET)
        3  
        Being able to shoot other people trumps being able to talk fro yourself.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Johaely (November 07, 2011 1:10 pm ET)
      10  
      Seriously what the hell is the NRA's fear of keeping records of guns? They love to use their car analogy so i'll use one: you register a car, why not a firearm?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (November 07, 2011 1:13 pm ET)
        10  
        Good point. And not only do you have to register your car. You have to pass a test and get a license to operate it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 07, 2011 1:20 pm ET)
        7  
        It's part of their charade. They like to portray their defense of the 2nd Amendment as born out of desire for protection from the actions of law breakers. In reality, it's about having the threat of violence at their disposal for redress of grievances against the government.

        Firearm registration and licensing gives the government a perceived advantage of knowing who is likely to be armed when the apocalyptic time comes for these patriots to defend themselves against the government.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (November 07, 2011 2:56 pm ET)
      4  
      who knew Wayne LaPierre belonged to the National Restaurant associations NRA

      LOL oh the other NRA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mathazar (November 07, 2011 4:36 pm ET)
      3  
      Why does the NRA hate the troops ?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (November 07, 2011 8:32 pm ET)
        3  
        Cause any law regarding gun ownership/use is regared as being on a slippery slope that leads to them being gunless.
        Report Abuse