Posted on Apr 4, 2018
Why aren't military/veterans the first to advocate for mental health screenings for gun ownership?
30.5K
602
199
145
145
0
And here's why I say that: what's the first thing we do when we identify a soldier as a mental health hazard? *TAKE THEIR WEAPON AWAY.*
2nd Amendment
Gun Control
Constitution
Mental Health
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 107
5
5
0
1. It's not their weapon. It's the government's. They have no right to a weapon that is not theirs.
2. The military, in comparison to the civilian world is pretty quick to investigate, make a determination and act.
3. To fight the decision of the government, is most likely going to take $1,000's
2. The military, in comparison to the civilian world is pretty quick to investigate, make a determination and act.
3. To fight the decision of the government, is most likely going to take $1,000's
(5)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Maybe I misunderstood? But what I took away is that because the military man/woman has privately owned weapons, the military restricts them from access to their military fire arm while they are processed out. If they have privately owned weapons NO ACTION IS TAKEN? I was different in Germany when I ETS'd, I checked out my two pistols and packed them in my hold baggage. Now I was not aware of anyone with mental problems, nor were there too many who had privately owned weapons, but if someone met that criteria they certainly would not be allowed to ship firearms home.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSG John Wirts - In CONUS, the command has no authority to confiscate privately owned weapons stored off-base. If the mental health professional felt that was a necessary step, they had the authority and responsibility to inform local law enforcement.
In addition I think there may be some confusion, my initial post was not in response to you. It was in direct response to the initial post by Sgt Higginbotham.
In addition I think there may be some confusion, my initial post was not in response to you. It was in direct response to the initial post by Sgt Higginbotham.
(1)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Sorry but the failure to report in the airman's case cost multiple lives in a Texas church shooting. The airman was diagnosed with mental illness and discharged, no notification to civilian authorities. So he buys guns and ammunition, and shoots up a church. Is it any wonder that some people want to repeal the 2nd amendment! They do not understand the consequences, but with the lack of communication between the military, law enforcement, and the medical profession, our whole society is at risk!
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSG John Wirts - Absolutely zero argument from me. There were failures in the case of the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Your opening line "Oh so just like the FBI you ignore that the service member with mental problems has privately owned fire arms and turn him/her loose????" lays the blame squarely at the feet of the FBI. If 911 never tones out the Fire Department, is the Fire chief responsible? The fault lies squarely with the DOD/USAF which had a legal responsibility to notify the FBI so that the information was in the appropriate NICS database.
There were people who screwed up and did not do what they were supposed to do. Whether that was a USAF institutinal problem because they did not establish Air Force wide procedures for getting information into the NICS database in a timely manner, or someone along the way just neglected to do their duty, I do not know. That should be determined. Corrective measures should be taken, and if appropriate specific people should face criminal and civil penalties. But I had NO PART in the failure. Why should I be penalized? If we assume that each and every reported gun crime in America is committed by one person and that the person does not commit more than one reported violent gun crime per year, that means that approximately 0.02% of the population, 2 in every 10,000, by their misconduct requires government intervention. But only about 1/3 of Americans are actually legal gun owners. If we assume that it is legal gun owners who either directly commit each and every gun crime, or material facilitate intentionally or not every gun crime, that means that 1 in 15,000 are committing illegal acts. I'm one of the 14,999 but I should bear the burden.
I do not know what you like to do in your life. By best guesses in 2017, roughly 61 million people own 89.7 million dogs (according to Statista-the statistics portal). For sake of argument, let's say you have a dog. Every year, there are reliabily 4.7 million reported dog bites per year. On average there are 16 fatalities from dog bites per year. The founding father found no need to guarantee our right to own a dog, nor has anyone ever felt that dog ownership rose to the level of an inherent right. If a dog kills a kid in Texas, and the next day your state sends out law enforcement to seize and destroy all dogs, is that right? If so, can I assume that you will turn in your dog to animal control for euthanasia on the next business day? If you keep your dog properly restrained, I hope not. But what's fair is fair.
Let's apply the same logic to other weapons.
***Intentional Homicides by non-firearm Weapons in 2016 (according to CDC)***
Automobiles (2214), knives (1,604), Hands and feet (641), Bludgeons (472), Intentional legal Narcotic Overdoses (114), Fire (107), Strangulation by Ligature (98), Asphyxiation (91), poison (11), Intentional drowning (9), Explosives (1).
There were people who screwed up and did not do what they were supposed to do. Whether that was a USAF institutinal problem because they did not establish Air Force wide procedures for getting information into the NICS database in a timely manner, or someone along the way just neglected to do their duty, I do not know. That should be determined. Corrective measures should be taken, and if appropriate specific people should face criminal and civil penalties. But I had NO PART in the failure. Why should I be penalized? If we assume that each and every reported gun crime in America is committed by one person and that the person does not commit more than one reported violent gun crime per year, that means that approximately 0.02% of the population, 2 in every 10,000, by their misconduct requires government intervention. But only about 1/3 of Americans are actually legal gun owners. If we assume that it is legal gun owners who either directly commit each and every gun crime, or material facilitate intentionally or not every gun crime, that means that 1 in 15,000 are committing illegal acts. I'm one of the 14,999 but I should bear the burden.
I do not know what you like to do in your life. By best guesses in 2017, roughly 61 million people own 89.7 million dogs (according to Statista-the statistics portal). For sake of argument, let's say you have a dog. Every year, there are reliabily 4.7 million reported dog bites per year. On average there are 16 fatalities from dog bites per year. The founding father found no need to guarantee our right to own a dog, nor has anyone ever felt that dog ownership rose to the level of an inherent right. If a dog kills a kid in Texas, and the next day your state sends out law enforcement to seize and destroy all dogs, is that right? If so, can I assume that you will turn in your dog to animal control for euthanasia on the next business day? If you keep your dog properly restrained, I hope not. But what's fair is fair.
Let's apply the same logic to other weapons.
***Intentional Homicides by non-firearm Weapons in 2016 (according to CDC)***
Automobiles (2214), knives (1,604), Hands and feet (641), Bludgeons (472), Intentional legal Narcotic Overdoses (114), Fire (107), Strangulation by Ligature (98), Asphyxiation (91), poison (11), Intentional drowning (9), Explosives (1).
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The mental health screening is subjective to the whims of the doc performing it. My brother had to go through one as part of the process to get concealed carry permit in California. He was denied because the doc felt that he was still stressed after a motorcycle accident he was in three months earlier. Her opinion, no real precedence to back it up, so no CCW permit and $800 gone. If someone has been "adjudicated as mental defective" they're to be reported to the NICS were they will be prohibited from firearm ownership. Granted this occurs after something has happened, but it works for later attempts to purchase a firearm IF they are reported. Here's the problem I have with it: current Liberal/Democrats want to add ANYONE with PTSD that take mood stabilizers to that list. So now you go see a doc that doesn't like guns, you're taking mood stabilizers because of your Service Connected PTSD, the doc opinion says you're not fit to own a firearm. Now you're faced with a legal battle to get your rights back.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
perhaps you might remember, Sen. Dianne Feinstein say all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns. Snopes and fact check claim other, but first hand I know many elected , scorn military / naval veterans. flower children .. that never grew up
(4)
(0)
SSG Buddy Kemper
This is the only clip I could find, brother PO3 Scot Fahey. There was a longer one on C-SPAN I'm gonna check out to get the full context.
The 2nd attached video here will REALLY get ya fired up.
CHEERS to you, Sir! Thanks for your service. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsH4W55iL6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38
The 2nd attached video here will REALLY get ya fired up.
CHEERS to you, Sir! Thanks for your service. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsH4W55iL6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38
(1)
(0)
LCpl Steve Smith
Well aren't we? We were Fucked up enough to sign the Contract ROFLMAO!!! Yeah Feinstien Now there's someone that shouldn't have the power that she has lol. She's the Nut Case.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I am not a fan of Sen. Feinstein or most of the people in D.C., however, she NEVER said "all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns." She said "Veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another, mentally." Approx. 4 active members of the military (AD/Guard/Reserves) commit suicide per day. Veterans make up 7% of the total population but account for 17% of the daily suicides in this country. I am an active supporter of military rights/benefits but to just give a green light for gun ownership is not responsible. Also, for the most part, people who get "labeled" with PTSD at the VA were seeking a VA rating. We all see people who say they are perfectly fine when talking with friends and then they have a 100% VA rating for PTSD. I have no doubt that there are people who are legitimately fighting demons and deserving of this earned benefit but reality tells me many more people "worked" the system.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Scot Fahey
MAJ (Join to see) - Guess we could check with her driver of twenty years, most likely back states side by now
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Because we've experienced the green weenie firsthand, and don't want to inflict that on civillians... Do you really trust government to determine who is and is not mentally healthy? I don't.
When you join, you volunteer to forfeit many of your civil rights in the name of good order and discipline.
A civilian hasn't made any such choice. Their rights are inviolate.
When you join, you volunteer to forfeit many of your civil rights in the name of good order and discipline.
A civilian hasn't made any such choice. Their rights are inviolate.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
As a veteran as well as a mental health provider, I appreciate your sentiment. However, I am concerned that private medical information may be placed in the public domain. From personal experience, my ex-wife tried to use a test result against me (thankfully the judge took care of that). When I joined the Army in 1986, I was not given a full psych eval before going to basic training. Why should that be necessary for the exercise of a right as guaranteed by the Constitution? If this is a rational argument, then should we not screen people before they post their opinions in the public domain? After all, that too is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
With the current rate of PTSD claims in the VA system and the alarming rate of weapon violence attributed to "possible mental health issues, many Vets probably feel that they would not pass any mental health screenings. Between the stigma that the term mental health gives the general public and the shortage of mental health services in the VA system, the cry for stiffer weapons laws have only added to the pressure Vets are feeling about losing their right to bear arms because they might "go mental" at any point. So, why give the gun control advocates any more ammunition to strengthen their crusade.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Because we shouldn't violate someone's right to privacy for no particular reason despite for the concern after the last shooting.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege. That's why.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Mental health screening as a condition of ownership is a well-intended idea, however, the yield is questionable. Rights are always at stake in a discussion like this, so the best suggestions are ones where an unequivocal benefit can be projected (i.e. predictive values of a screening approaching 100%, which does not currently exist). Further, while I think that the topic is right, this suggestion would place a lot of power into a psychiatrist's hands. It's not abuse I'm worried about as much as the gravity of this charge: I bet you won't find many psychiatrists in favor of it and more likely engage in defensive medicine for reasons obvious. They can identify individuals at risk of committing suicide, but they cannot predict it - imagine then adding the expectation that they reliably predict a mass shooter.
(3)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
It's possible that some Psyrinks may like making that call concerning the possession of firearms; regardless of ones mental status:
1. You enjoy certain video games, ergo...
2. During your last deployment you witnessed XYZ; ergo..
3. You currently, or in the recent past endured "______" event; ergo...
4. The Kindergarten Bully gave you a weggie; ergo...
And so it spirals upwards until...
Z. Your parents used "Natural" childbirth methods to have you; ergo...
1. You enjoy certain video games, ergo...
2. During your last deployment you witnessed XYZ; ergo..
3. You currently, or in the recent past endured "______" event; ergo...
4. The Kindergarten Bully gave you a weggie; ergo...
And so it spirals upwards until...
Z. Your parents used "Natural" childbirth methods to have you; ergo...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
If someone is so dangerous they cant own a gun, why leave them at home a 4000lb automobile and numerous sharp objects? If they are a danger to themselves or other they need to be an inpatient at an appropriate care facility.
Beyond that there are procedures to deem someone mentally defective or a danger to themselves or others. An acknowledgment is even on the background check form ATF Form 4473. It all involves DUE PROCESS.
Beyond that there are procedures to deem someone mentally defective or a danger to themselves or others. An acknowledgment is even on the background check form ATF Form 4473. It all involves DUE PROCESS.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google