Posted on Mar 1, 2023
DOD should improve gun safety and take other “high-priority” steps to reduce service member suicides, independent panel says
196K
395
120
70
70
0
The Pentagon should improve gun safety on military property and take other “high-priority” steps to curb rising rates of service member suicides, according to a report issued late last month by an external review panel set up by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
The report, released Feb. 24 by the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee (SPRIRC), recommended nearly 130 policy changes to improve safety across the service branches.
Recent DOD data showed that the rate of death by suicide among service members has ticked up since 2011. Even though the 2021 rate was lower than that recorded in the prior year, DOD said 519 active-duty, National Guard and reserve service members died by suicide, with younger enlisted men being most at risk.
DOD can reverse these trends by implementing the SPRIRC’s recommendations, many of which overlap with and add to reforms put forth previously by DOD, public health and clinical experts, according to the committee, led by Dr. Gayle Y. Iwamasa, national director of inpatient mental health services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
“One conclusion of the SPRIRC,” the authors of the report wrote, “is that persistently elevated suicide rates in the DOD result in no small part to the DOD’s limited responsiveness to multiple recommendations that have been repeatedly raised by independent reviewers and its own experts.”
Gun safety measures merit DOD’s high-priority attention, panel argues
Although bound to be politically controversial, gun safety measures comprised about one-third of the 23 so-called high-priority recommendations — those “most likely to result in the largest reductions in suicide and have an overall benefit to service members and the DoD.”
Gun-related recommendations “are not strategies for gun control, but they are strategies focused on enhancing safety,” said committee member Dr. Craig Bryan, clinical psychologist and professor of psychiatry at Ohio State University, during a media roundtable discussion transcribed by DOD. They included:
• Repealing and replacing a law that prohibits the defense secretary from collecting or recording any information related to firearms or ammunition privately owned by a service member or DOD civilian employee.
• Standardizing DOD-approved firearm safety training so it covers topics such as suicide prevention, safe gun use and storage, and other best practices.
• Implementing a seven-day waiting period for any firearm purchased on DOD property.
• Implementing a four-day waiting period for ammunition purchases on DOD property after the purchase and receipt of a firearm bought on DOD property.
• Raising the minimum age to 25 years for purchasing firearms and ammunition on DOD property.
• Requiring anyone living on DOD property in military housing to register all privately owned firearms with the installation’s arming authority and to securely store all privately owned firearms in a locked safe or with another locking device.
• Establishing DOD policy restricting the possession and storage of privately owned firearms in military barracks and dormitories.
Given “that a significant percentage of on-base suicides involve firearms purchased on base at military exchanges,” Bryan added, “taking steps to slow down convenient access to highly lethal methods, like firearms, is the single most effective strategy for saving lives.”
Joining Iwamasa and Bryan in undertaking the comprehensive review of DOD suicide prevention programs were other experts in public and mental health, epidemiology, sexual assault, lethal means safety, service member and family support services, and civilian employment. Thousands of service members and their families and civilian and support service providers also offered insight.
Other recommendations
Grouped according to high, moderate and low priority, the recommendations were connected to the following four pillars of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention:
• Healthy and empowered individuals, families and communities.
• Clinical and community preventive services.
• Treatment and support services.
• Surveillance, research and evaluation.
They focused on restructuring suicide prevention training, providing additional resources to help service members access existing support services, promoting lethal means safety and emphasizing leader stewardship in addressing service member needs.
Other high-priority recommendations included addressing in training the risks of excessive alcohol use; centralizing responsibility for core suicide prevention activities common to all services; modernizing suicide prevention programs across the military career cycle; reducing delays in pay; and expediting the hiring of behavioral health professionals.
In a Feb. 24 news release, however, the Pentagon didn’t commit to implementing any specific policy change.
“The Department of Defense,” the statement said, “recognizes that suicide is a complex issue with no single cause or solution but is committed to promoting the well-being, health, and morale of their Total Force and preventing suicide within their ranks.”
Learn more
Read the full list of SPRIRC recommendations: https://rly.pt/3y37hpa
Read the DOD news release: https://rly.pt/3EN70L4
Read the media roundtable transcript: https://rly.pt/3KMOuWI
Read the latest DOD report on rates of death by suicide in the military: https://rly.pt/3J0Vhd9
The report, released Feb. 24 by the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee (SPRIRC), recommended nearly 130 policy changes to improve safety across the service branches.
Recent DOD data showed that the rate of death by suicide among service members has ticked up since 2011. Even though the 2021 rate was lower than that recorded in the prior year, DOD said 519 active-duty, National Guard and reserve service members died by suicide, with younger enlisted men being most at risk.
DOD can reverse these trends by implementing the SPRIRC’s recommendations, many of which overlap with and add to reforms put forth previously by DOD, public health and clinical experts, according to the committee, led by Dr. Gayle Y. Iwamasa, national director of inpatient mental health services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
“One conclusion of the SPRIRC,” the authors of the report wrote, “is that persistently elevated suicide rates in the DOD result in no small part to the DOD’s limited responsiveness to multiple recommendations that have been repeatedly raised by independent reviewers and its own experts.”
Gun safety measures merit DOD’s high-priority attention, panel argues
Although bound to be politically controversial, gun safety measures comprised about one-third of the 23 so-called high-priority recommendations — those “most likely to result in the largest reductions in suicide and have an overall benefit to service members and the DoD.”
Gun-related recommendations “are not strategies for gun control, but they are strategies focused on enhancing safety,” said committee member Dr. Craig Bryan, clinical psychologist and professor of psychiatry at Ohio State University, during a media roundtable discussion transcribed by DOD. They included:
• Repealing and replacing a law that prohibits the defense secretary from collecting or recording any information related to firearms or ammunition privately owned by a service member or DOD civilian employee.
• Standardizing DOD-approved firearm safety training so it covers topics such as suicide prevention, safe gun use and storage, and other best practices.
• Implementing a seven-day waiting period for any firearm purchased on DOD property.
• Implementing a four-day waiting period for ammunition purchases on DOD property after the purchase and receipt of a firearm bought on DOD property.
• Raising the minimum age to 25 years for purchasing firearms and ammunition on DOD property.
• Requiring anyone living on DOD property in military housing to register all privately owned firearms with the installation’s arming authority and to securely store all privately owned firearms in a locked safe or with another locking device.
• Establishing DOD policy restricting the possession and storage of privately owned firearms in military barracks and dormitories.
Given “that a significant percentage of on-base suicides involve firearms purchased on base at military exchanges,” Bryan added, “taking steps to slow down convenient access to highly lethal methods, like firearms, is the single most effective strategy for saving lives.”
Joining Iwamasa and Bryan in undertaking the comprehensive review of DOD suicide prevention programs were other experts in public and mental health, epidemiology, sexual assault, lethal means safety, service member and family support services, and civilian employment. Thousands of service members and their families and civilian and support service providers also offered insight.
Other recommendations
Grouped according to high, moderate and low priority, the recommendations were connected to the following four pillars of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention:
• Healthy and empowered individuals, families and communities.
• Clinical and community preventive services.
• Treatment and support services.
• Surveillance, research and evaluation.
They focused on restructuring suicide prevention training, providing additional resources to help service members access existing support services, promoting lethal means safety and emphasizing leader stewardship in addressing service member needs.
Other high-priority recommendations included addressing in training the risks of excessive alcohol use; centralizing responsibility for core suicide prevention activities common to all services; modernizing suicide prevention programs across the military career cycle; reducing delays in pay; and expediting the hiring of behavioral health professionals.
In a Feb. 24 news release, however, the Pentagon didn’t commit to implementing any specific policy change.
“The Department of Defense,” the statement said, “recognizes that suicide is a complex issue with no single cause or solution but is committed to promoting the well-being, health, and morale of their Total Force and preventing suicide within their ranks.”
Learn more
Read the full list of SPRIRC recommendations: https://rly.pt/3y37hpa
Read the DOD news release: https://rly.pt/3EN70L4
Read the media roundtable transcript: https://rly.pt/3KMOuWI
Read the latest DOD report on rates of death by suicide in the military: https://rly.pt/3J0Vhd9
Pentagon
Gun Control
Suicide
Resources
DoD
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 62
6
6
0
None of these steps will be effective to prevent suicide but they will negatively impact the lives of gun owning service members.
(6)
(0)
CPT Ryan Kelly
I think having brothers in arms kill themselves impacts us already. We can find a solution. We just need to step up.
(0)
(0)
I have seen this happen a good bit. While at Fort Benning I have had to deal with a few young officers that choose this path. In all of those cases they had alcohol and access to firearms. One had a firearm on post illegally and the other lived off post. As a commander I have requested Soldiers to store their firearms in the armsroom. We need to do a better job as leaders to know where the risk is. The last one I had in my company came out of nowhere. It is always truly sad.
(6)
(0)
PO3 Justin Bowen
SFC Greg Witte - Behaviors exhibited during the manic phase should throw some red flags that are observable.
To who? Trained professionals? People not trained or educated enough to recognize what manic phases in bipolar people vs high strung but not bipolar people?
To who? Trained professionals? People not trained or educated enough to recognize what manic phases in bipolar people vs high strung but not bipolar people?
(0)
(0)
SFC Greg Witte
PO3 Justin Bowen - Behaviors can be observed by anyone, and if you are in charge of people, it's part of your job. Leaders need to engage more with the people under their control and they need to be able to discuss observations and concerns with the chain of command. Someone who is bipolar will exhibit behaviors that won't be totally rite just like a functional drunk who is drunk on duty will also exhibit behaviors. It's not your job to diagnose these people, it's your job to put some type of action when these observations or concerns come to your attention.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Sadly there are many ways one can kill themselves. Guns are fast and effective. You take everyone’s guns, it becomes more brutal with less success rate, more pain for the one committing suicide.
I am not trying to be glib, just the way I see it. Military installations already have rules and regs on base, can’t do anything for off base housing, so that’s it for me. Very sad no matter how it happens.
I am not trying to be glib, just the way I see it. Military installations already have rules and regs on base, can’t do anything for off base housing, so that’s it for me. Very sad no matter how it happens.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
Executive summary and bottom line - This action is just a dog and pony show of appeasement and nothing more. It really has little to nothing to do with suicide prevention other than to make some people feel good about themselves.
It is sad to note that our current crop of leaders have either ignored the lessons that they were taught or they completely dismiss them. What is really sad, we have an organization called the Sgt Audie Murphy Club (SAMC) that has supplanted the original Sgt. Morales Club and the current Sergeant Morales Club which in its original form was to impart such lessons on our military leadership, are such a huge failures.
What is even more sad - that the Sergeant Morales story has changed from its original form and the organization bows to the SAMC. Here is a part of the problem:
Current Sgt. Morales Club statement:
The organization embraces the same attributes as the U.S.
Army’s Sergeant Audie Murphy Club.
Well the SAMC was established in or around 1986, while the Sgt Morales Club was established 13 years prior in 1973.
Now compare the two Sgt. Morales stories -
Sergeant Morales Story
After completing a tour with a stateside division, Sergeant Morales was selected for an overseas tour in Germany. He was assigned to a unit that was part of USAREUR. Before coming to Germany, he had completed his high school education, continued to improve his command of the English language, and kept himself in top physical condition. When he arrived at his unit, Sergeant Morales immediately settled in and used his experience and leadership techniques. He began his duty day in the barracks when his squad awoke in the morning, participated with his soldiers in physical training, ate his meals in the unit dining facility, organized and supervised the routine housekeeping and work details, and prepared the squad for the day’s training requirements. During the course of his supervision, he was not reluctant to get his hands dirty.
Sergeant Morales made sure that the members of his squad were trained in their military occupational specialties. In addition, he stressed the tactical, technical know-how that makes a better soldier. Race relations and equal opportunity were not new to him; he lived them.
The M113 was new to Sergeant Morales, but maintenance was not. He readily applied his knowledge to the M113. He took a hard look at the accountability of his soldiers, as well as the accountability, cleanliness, and serviceability of individual and squad property.
Sergeant Morales kept a leader’s notebook containing personal data on each soldier. In addition, he kept a soldier’s job book describing the proficiency of each soldier.
Sergeant Morales counseled his soldiers monthly in personal and job-performance areas. The counseling records reflected complimentary as well as derogatory information. The information from the leader’s notebook, soldier’s job book, and counseling was used to guide his soldiers in promotion, proficiency, and career development, including their professional and academic education. He frequently held meetings with his squad, keeping members informed of what was going on. They discussed training, problems, and areas in which the squad performed well, and sought recommendations for improvement. The soldiers in Sergeant Morales’ squad knew exactly where they stood.
The squad was united, including family members and friends, through social gatherings in the unit and community. He took pride that no squad member had ever been absent without leave. This was attributed to his personal concern for every member of his squad.
Sergeant Morales was proud of the personnel in his squad, their outward appearance, and the way they proudly wore their uniforms. Conduct and bearing were of the highest standards at all times. He ensured newly assigned members were properly oriented, sponsored, processed, and introduced to all other squad members at the first opportunity. Rehabilitated soldiers in his squad were accepted and treated the same as newly assigned squad members. Sergeant Morales took additional steps in guidance counseling and training to help the rehabilitated soldiers become effective members of the team.
The care Sergeant Morales showed for his soldiers resulted in the squad’s achievements during annual general inspections, Army Training and Evaluation Team evaluations, and maintenance evaluation team findings.
Sergeant Morales led by example. He showed true concern for his soldiers and their family members. He took great pride in his soldiers, his unit, and his country. Sergeant Morales was a member of the NATO Team. He was a leader.
Now the current version -
Sergeant Morales Story as per AER 600-2
Sergeant Morales was a squad leader for 3 years in an engineer battalion of a U.S. Army division. He was the proverbial “98-pound weakling” and had not completed high school—only the GED program. Of Puerto Rican descent, he had only a limited command of English. Despite his physical limitations, lack of formal education, and minority-group status, he strove for and achieved the highest caliber of leadership.
Sergeant Morales began his day by coming from his home to the barracks as his squad was awakening. They participated together in PT and work details as well as unit training. Sergeant Morales pitched right in with the disliked drudgery-type details. He led by example, particularly when it meant getting his hands dirty. In his pre-Army life, Sergeant Morales had some experience as a barber. At the end of the month, when money was scarce in his squad, he arranged for his Soldiers’ hair to be cut. He kept a pocket notebook with one page for each member of his squad devoted to personal data: background, education, family, MOS, problems, and so on. At least once a month, everyone in the squad and their spouses got together, socialized, and discussed problems at his quarters. During his 3-year tenure, no one in his squad went AWOL, which he attributed to knowing his Soldiers, keeping them informed, and watching out for their interests. His squad consistently placed first in company Army training tests. All of Sergeant Morales’s accomplishments were achieved despite the fact that his squad received misfits from other units for rehabilitation.
While in the division, Sergeant Morales completed high school and the equivalent of 2 years of college. Sergeant Morales had a lot in his favor but no special advantages. He just worked at his job to the best of his ability. Sergeant Morales was an exemplary leader in whom his Soldiers believed.
NOTICE the difference?
Do you even notice the important part in the original story that is missing in the second story that has a direct bearing on the mental health aspect of this whole debacle? And one more thing for some of you GEN Blanchard not only started the Sergeant Morales Club, he was also known for his attempts to combat alcoholism in the Army.
How many of you that have served in the past 10 to 20 years even have or had a leaders notebook that has this basic information in it?
Sorry to state that Be, Know, Do has been a catch phrase for way too long.
Our leadership needs to revisit the basics of leadership instead of these types of appeasement actions as illustrated in the report that we are commenting on.
It is sad to note that our current crop of leaders have either ignored the lessons that they were taught or they completely dismiss them. What is really sad, we have an organization called the Sgt Audie Murphy Club (SAMC) that has supplanted the original Sgt. Morales Club and the current Sergeant Morales Club which in its original form was to impart such lessons on our military leadership, are such a huge failures.
What is even more sad - that the Sergeant Morales story has changed from its original form and the organization bows to the SAMC. Here is a part of the problem:
Current Sgt. Morales Club statement:
The organization embraces the same attributes as the U.S.
Army’s Sergeant Audie Murphy Club.
Well the SAMC was established in or around 1986, while the Sgt Morales Club was established 13 years prior in 1973.
Now compare the two Sgt. Morales stories -
Sergeant Morales Story
After completing a tour with a stateside division, Sergeant Morales was selected for an overseas tour in Germany. He was assigned to a unit that was part of USAREUR. Before coming to Germany, he had completed his high school education, continued to improve his command of the English language, and kept himself in top physical condition. When he arrived at his unit, Sergeant Morales immediately settled in and used his experience and leadership techniques. He began his duty day in the barracks when his squad awoke in the morning, participated with his soldiers in physical training, ate his meals in the unit dining facility, organized and supervised the routine housekeeping and work details, and prepared the squad for the day’s training requirements. During the course of his supervision, he was not reluctant to get his hands dirty.
Sergeant Morales made sure that the members of his squad were trained in their military occupational specialties. In addition, he stressed the tactical, technical know-how that makes a better soldier. Race relations and equal opportunity were not new to him; he lived them.
The M113 was new to Sergeant Morales, but maintenance was not. He readily applied his knowledge to the M113. He took a hard look at the accountability of his soldiers, as well as the accountability, cleanliness, and serviceability of individual and squad property.
Sergeant Morales kept a leader’s notebook containing personal data on each soldier. In addition, he kept a soldier’s job book describing the proficiency of each soldier.
Sergeant Morales counseled his soldiers monthly in personal and job-performance areas. The counseling records reflected complimentary as well as derogatory information. The information from the leader’s notebook, soldier’s job book, and counseling was used to guide his soldiers in promotion, proficiency, and career development, including their professional and academic education. He frequently held meetings with his squad, keeping members informed of what was going on. They discussed training, problems, and areas in which the squad performed well, and sought recommendations for improvement. The soldiers in Sergeant Morales’ squad knew exactly where they stood.
The squad was united, including family members and friends, through social gatherings in the unit and community. He took pride that no squad member had ever been absent without leave. This was attributed to his personal concern for every member of his squad.
Sergeant Morales was proud of the personnel in his squad, their outward appearance, and the way they proudly wore their uniforms. Conduct and bearing were of the highest standards at all times. He ensured newly assigned members were properly oriented, sponsored, processed, and introduced to all other squad members at the first opportunity. Rehabilitated soldiers in his squad were accepted and treated the same as newly assigned squad members. Sergeant Morales took additional steps in guidance counseling and training to help the rehabilitated soldiers become effective members of the team.
The care Sergeant Morales showed for his soldiers resulted in the squad’s achievements during annual general inspections, Army Training and Evaluation Team evaluations, and maintenance evaluation team findings.
Sergeant Morales led by example. He showed true concern for his soldiers and their family members. He took great pride in his soldiers, his unit, and his country. Sergeant Morales was a member of the NATO Team. He was a leader.
Now the current version -
Sergeant Morales Story as per AER 600-2
Sergeant Morales was a squad leader for 3 years in an engineer battalion of a U.S. Army division. He was the proverbial “98-pound weakling” and had not completed high school—only the GED program. Of Puerto Rican descent, he had only a limited command of English. Despite his physical limitations, lack of formal education, and minority-group status, he strove for and achieved the highest caliber of leadership.
Sergeant Morales began his day by coming from his home to the barracks as his squad was awakening. They participated together in PT and work details as well as unit training. Sergeant Morales pitched right in with the disliked drudgery-type details. He led by example, particularly when it meant getting his hands dirty. In his pre-Army life, Sergeant Morales had some experience as a barber. At the end of the month, when money was scarce in his squad, he arranged for his Soldiers’ hair to be cut. He kept a pocket notebook with one page for each member of his squad devoted to personal data: background, education, family, MOS, problems, and so on. At least once a month, everyone in the squad and their spouses got together, socialized, and discussed problems at his quarters. During his 3-year tenure, no one in his squad went AWOL, which he attributed to knowing his Soldiers, keeping them informed, and watching out for their interests. His squad consistently placed first in company Army training tests. All of Sergeant Morales’s accomplishments were achieved despite the fact that his squad received misfits from other units for rehabilitation.
While in the division, Sergeant Morales completed high school and the equivalent of 2 years of college. Sergeant Morales had a lot in his favor but no special advantages. He just worked at his job to the best of his ability. Sergeant Morales was an exemplary leader in whom his Soldiers believed.
NOTICE the difference?
Do you even notice the important part in the original story that is missing in the second story that has a direct bearing on the mental health aspect of this whole debacle? And one more thing for some of you GEN Blanchard not only started the Sergeant Morales Club, he was also known for his attempts to combat alcoholism in the Army.
How many of you that have served in the past 10 to 20 years even have or had a leaders notebook that has this basic information in it?
Sorry to state that Be, Know, Do has been a catch phrase for way too long.
Our leadership needs to revisit the basics of leadership instead of these types of appeasement actions as illustrated in the report that we are commenting on.
(4)
(0)
SPC Vonnie Jones
Pls correct me if I am wrong m, but in the original story he took the time to make sure new and rehabilitate soldiers were properly oriented new members and took additional time with counseling with the rehabilitated members? Is that the difference?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Fools. The numbers are much higher. Soldiers are engaging in extremely high risk behavior to capture the adrenalin rush from their combat tours. Its killing them
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Interesting. Military personnel cannot be trusted to own or handle dangerous weapons. This advisory group that determined this probably comprises people who have never served. In twenty-plus years of service, I can only recall two very separate suicide attempts I had personal knowledge of. 1965 Fort at Lewis WA as a military policeman my partner and I responded to the special separations unit reference a suicide attempt. The soldier was attempting to hang himself, in the latrine, using his bootlace. We cut him down and he was sent to the base hospital. Since he was in the process of being separated I never understood his motivation. The second occurred at Lackland AFB TX. I was serving as an MTI, for basics. I had a baby flight and had finally gone home when the phone rang. It was the CQ who advised that one of my basics had tried to commit suicide. He had tried to kill himself using a bootlace. Fortunately, the dorm guard from the senior flight was advised by other flight members as to what the airman was doing. The senior flight airman used his nail clippers to cut the shoelace, and the basic trainee survived and was separated out. I wrote this out detailing the weapon of choice in both instances, their bootlaces!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It’s bad enough that the Army sends you into harms way with an M-16 with a 3 foot max effective range, now you can’t have a privately owned weapon. I’m so tired of them just glossing over the problem. It’s not the God-Damned guns. They can’t do it by themselves.Fix the problem with mental illness and PTSD
(2)
(0)
PO3 Justin Bowen
So, what you're saying is that we should have federally - and fully - funded coverage for mental health care for the military and civilians - which can precipitate the court-ordered temporary or permanent loss of the right to keep and bear firearms based on the judgement of mental health professionals - that is free to everyone at the point of service and that is administered at the command or state level with no options for commands or far right legislatures and governors to opt out of administering said programs because they believe it to be a backdoor method to impose socialism, communism, or whatever -ism it is that causes them to do just that?
If you want it to not be about largely uncontrolled and unmonitored access to firearms but instead about mental illness, then you better be on-board with DOING something about it. Everyone in the military joined an organization that has as its primary mission the defense of the country by way of killing people. Hundreds of thousands of service members over the past two decades did just that and its perfectly logical for some - if not most - of them to be experiencing the mental consequences of...killing people.
Not dealing with this at the federal level by way of mandatory programs and policies is simply not dealing with it. Period.
If you want it to not be about largely uncontrolled and unmonitored access to firearms but instead about mental illness, then you better be on-board with DOING something about it. Everyone in the military joined an organization that has as its primary mission the defense of the country by way of killing people. Hundreds of thousands of service members over the past two decades did just that and its perfectly logical for some - if not most - of them to be experiencing the mental consequences of...killing people.
Not dealing with this at the federal level by way of mandatory programs and policies is simply not dealing with it. Period.
(0)
(0)
SGT Brian Jarvi
PO3 Justin Bowen Well what you seem to be saying is if the government was to help people in the military that would be a bad thing.Just take away firearms and that would make it all right. Don’t talk about being in combat if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Liberal gun grabs aren’t the answer. People who follow the law don’t shoot up places. Soldiers who need help don’t need liberals rifling through their lives and saying it’s for your own good. Face down those demons once in your life and then tell me all about it. Otherwise give it a rest and think about how you would handle it in your own life.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Good Cun Control is hitting the target with one shot. If a man/woman/trans/queer/bi/whatever can join the military then weapons will become his main stay. It is redundant to then prevent the soldier from from obtaining, storing, shooting, that which he owns. Good military training, not kum-bi-yah campfire meetings, will motivate soldiers for the mission ahead of them. No one in the military should think of killing himself because there should be someone having his back.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My understanding is that it is particularly hard in the National Guard. Can anyone confirm?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We, as service members, are all leaders or have led in some capacity. Let me ask you guys: If one of your soldiers showed signs of major depression, PTSD, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies, and had access to personal firearms, what actions would you take?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google