3 ms·

Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people att

Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? - - - - > if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way. Okay, but then what's the intervention here? Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)

HWR_14 4y ago
> Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? Yes. > ou find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them Pretty much. Obviously, people's natural lifespans exceed how long these studies have been going on, so there's a natural timelimit. I think most studies look 5 years out. > An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again No, the exact opposite. You try to find out if the interrupted attempt was serious. I'm saying that the 2/3 number isn't counting people who idly speculate about suicide or write a note. It's counting people who take steps that realistically can be interpreted as an attempt. Of those people who made a "serious" attempt, 2/3 will not try again. > Okay, but then what's the intervention here? I mean, if you're jumping from "suicides are irrelevant" to "what policies can prevent them", I'm not sure. If we didn't care about self-defense, there would be lots of policies (requiring guns to be locked up at ranges or something), but people do care about self-defense. And any barrier that will prevent suicide likely will prevent that. Consider some magic program that assesses mental state. You're probably under similar emotional stress in both suicide and self-defense. But as is, that does seem to be one thing "red flag" laws are for.

HWR_14 4y ago

> Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? Yes. > ou find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them Pretty much. Obviously, people's natural lifespans exceed how long these studies have been going on, so there's a natural timelimit. I think most studies look 5 years out. > An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again No, the exact opposite. You try to find out if the interrupted attempt was serious. I'm saying that the 2/3 number isn't counting people who idly speculate about suicide or write a note. It's counting people who take steps that realistically can be interpreted as an attempt. Of those people who made a "serious" attempt, 2/3 will not try again. > Okay, but then what's the intervention here? I mean, if you're jumping from "suicides are irrelevant" to "what policies can prevent them", I'm not sure. If we didn't care about self-defense, there would be lots of policies (requiring guns to be locked up at ranges or something), but people do care about self-defense. And any barrier that will prevent suicide likely will prevent that. Consider some magic program that assesses mental state. You're probably under similar emotional stress in both suicide and self-defense. But as is, that does seem to be one thing "red flag" laws are for.