The lethal-means provision would have provided mandatory training to nearly all Veterans Affairs doctors and mental health professionals, as well as private doctors who treat patients with veterans health benefits.
Like the conversations doctors have had for years with cigarette smokers, the approach involves making sure the patient understands the dangers of easily accessible guns, and then asking whether the patient wants to come up with a plan to reduce those dangers. Suggestions include locking up the guns in the house or storing them with a friend, relative or local gun club until the patients risk of suicide has subsided.
The lethal-means safety approach has broad support among major veterans groups, and it was included in a list of 10 suicide prevention recommendations released by the White House in the spring.
But some veterans groups opposed the strategy, saying the mere suggestion that veterans remove guns from their homes could deter them from seeking mental health care.
This emphasis on firearms misses the point, Sherman Gillums, chief of strategy for the veterans group Amvets, which opposed the legislation, said in a commentary posted online before the bill was passed. He said veterans mental health care should focus on better therapy techniques and reducing reliance on medications, adding, Im not encouraged by this emphasis on the action that was taken and not the underlying cause.
Anything that smacks of gun control is political kryptonite for conservatives. Despite White House backing, Ms. Underwood was unable to find a Republican co-sponsor for the lethal-means safety provision. House Democrats added the provision to the bill, but it was removed during negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.
Despite the setback, prevention experts say it makes sense to continue to expand lethal-means safety, whether or not it is mandated by law.read more
Focusing on Firearms Proves Contentious in Struggle to Reduce Veterans’ Suicides
