How much can/should military veterans affect a state's legislation on gun control? Should they have any special influence? Do they have any special expertise? Maryland is currently in the process of considering some strong gun control measures, and I found especially intriguing the Washington Post's report that veterans in particular have influenced the process.
The crux of the argument some veterans (such as ex-Marine corporal A.J.Wynne, featured in this article) make is that the assault weapons they may have used in Iraq or Afghanistan (the same weapons the Maryland legislators are talking about restricting) "are instruments of catharsis more than violence, a postwar release, therapy through the crosshairs." Veterans (some of them) say they relieve their stress, anxiety, and PTSD by firing these weapons they grew so familiar with, either at a range or (citing Wynne again) on a farm in Maryland. And legislators (some of them), are considering leaving certain popular types of assault weapons out of the ban, so ex-combat warriors can satisfy their craving.
I am among those who - as this article puts it - "would argue that [such people are] perhaps the last ... who should be given unfettered access to high-powered, semiautomatic rifles ...." Of course they could be a danger to others but equally on point, I think, is that we know that the military is experiencing extraordinarily high rates of suicide among current and former troops.
So, our veterans could easily be a danger to themselves and to others -- a greater danger than the average gun owner. Let's assume returning vets should have the same Second Amendment rights as anyone else (they do!) -- but should we be making special exemptions for them? They may prescribe intensive weapons-firing as the best therapy for themselves, but that isn't (or shouldn't be) convincing, for two reasons:
- Nowhere else do we believe it's a good idea for the patient to self-prescribe. We recommend against people who want to be their own lawyers, we don't let inmates run the asylum or the prison, and we don't usually let a kid decide his own diet based just on what he likes. It's the same deal here.
- I feel pretty certain the way to get over a gun fetish is to get away from them. Sort of like drugs. That's the way we've done it in previous wars. After WWI, when it was "over over there," I'm pretty sure they didn't bring back early machine guns or mustard gas to try out on the farm. My father was a career military officer through WWII, Korea, and the cold war, and he had a gun in the house only rarely, only his personal sidearm, and only when duty required it; and never after his retirement. I mustered out of Vietnam without bringing back an M-16 or an Army pistol.
Long story short: The fighters of past wars matter-of-factly came back, turned in their lethal arms, and went on about their business. If they had guns later, they were simple hunting or target weapons, not the massive firepower they had during the war. What's the matter with the current generation, please, that they can't do the same?