By Virgina Kruta
In the hours following my most recent article, the comments I received via Twitter made it clear that a follow up was necessary. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things.
First, I believe that there are absolutely some mental deficits that make firearm access dangerous. One only needs to look at recent history and the stories of men like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and others to see that. One only needs to remember the murder of decorated Marine sniper Chris Kyle to understand that, yes, some of those suffering from such mental problems are military veterans. But does that mean that taking away the guns is the correct response?
I would respond to that with an emphatic “NO.” Just as I do not believe that taking away all guns is a viable solution in regards to protecting the general public from gun violence, I also do not believe that taking guns away from all veterans diagnosed with PTSD or other conditions is reasonable. For one thing, there are varying degrees of PTSD. Not all soldiers and veterans who receive such a diagnosis will ever pose a danger to themselves or others, and to take away their guns could actually put them and their families at greater risk – but I will come back to that.
Not only that, but the definition of PTSD is fluid. Just like the Roe v. Wade qualification suggesting that abortion rights should be based on “the health of the mother” was expanded to include “emotional and even financial” health, the mental problems now associated with PTSD according to the VA include everything from full on psychosis to the relatively arbitrary “makes poor life decisions” and “is forgetful.” So, as I mentioned before, what happens when the VA hires a doctor who believes that the desire to own an AR-15 (or any other weapon, for that matter) is indicative of “poor life decisions”? What happens when the VA hires doctors who are willing to use the fact that a veteran forgot to pay his phone bill to push an anti-gun agenda? Worse: what if they already have?
And now, back to what I mentioned earlier: why I believe that taking away a veteran's guns could actually pose a greater risk.
One of the arguments given for taking guns away from veterans is the prevalence of military suicides. At last tally, nearly 22 veterans take their own lives daily. Daily. The argument is that taking away their guns might stop a few of them, or at least delay them long enough to get treatment. But I think an argument can be made that it may have the exact opposite effect.
First, any combat veteran who is intent on taking his own life is not going to be stopped – or even slowed – by the fact that he cannot legally possess a firearm. He will find a way to procure one illegally, or he will find another method. In order to tackle the problem of military suicides, we must look at the source of the problem. Taking away their weapons is nothing more than a band-aid being applied to a gaping wound.
Second, among the veterans I have known who have struggled with suicidal thoughts (and there have been more than I care to mention), there have been two common threads. They all felt that they returned from combat diminished in some way – whether by physical injury or simply by the emotional toll that war has taken on them – and that they had less to offer their families and loved ones as a result. And they all said that in their darkest moments, when they almost began to believe that death was the only way out, what stopped them was family.
So imagine, then, that the VA takes guns away from a veteran who has struggled with thoughts of suicide and, by the grace of God and the love of his family, has persevered? How much worse will the fallout be if the unthinkable does happen, and he is unable to defend that family in the event of a violent attack? The government will have taken away his means to do the one thing he knows he still has the ability to do. The feeling of helplessness that follows a situation like that can drive one to suicide anyway – the effects of the same situation on someone who was already at increased risk could be catastrophic.
——
Virgina Kruta is a small business owner, veteran, blogger, and holds a BS in History and Political Science.
