Red Flag Laws

[MaverickNH]

Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings: A Case Series
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

I posted a comment on the journal’s web site but expect it will not be published. They already got their message out with an Altmetric score in the top 5% of news outlet and social media uptake for monitored research. They know they are pumping junk science to the liberal press and gun advocates. They know we know. And they know they will not be accused of academic dishonesty. They will, in fact, get more funding from Joyce Foundation and other such fronts that funnel Blooberg’s And Soros’ money into anti-gun and pro-socialist efforts. Shameful but they remain shameless.

“With the link between mental illness and gun violence being hotly debated, mental health care professionals maintain they have little or no ability to predict who will become lethally violent. “...45 percent of the mass public shooters from January 1998 through June 2019 were seeing mental health care professionals within six months of their attacks.” (What type of gun control will actually make us safer? John R. Lott, Jr. President, Crime Prevention Research Center, Before the Pennsylvania State Senate Judiciary Committee September 24, 2019) While patients under direct treatment of mental health care experts cannot be accurately identified as potential killers, the authors do so by retrospective document review, counting “saves” attributable to Red Flag orders. With 38% of ERPO cases reviewed, 13% of those were counted as “saves” in prevention of mass murder. While the authors heavily caveat their ongoing work, the media and gun control advocates promote this work as proof that Red Flag laws work. While authors cannot held responsible for misinterpretation of preliminary results by partisan advocates, academic press offices rarely emphasize caveats in press packages provided under embargo until date of publication. Scrutiny of publications usually happens well after the news and social media have made such scrutiny a moot point.”

They *did* published my comment and the authors *did* reply - largely avoiding my comments. They set up an article to be referenced by the media to prove the effectiveness of ERPOs but then deny that was their aim.

”As the commenter notes, we drew no inference of a causal relationship between the use of gun violence restraining orders and the non-occurrence of mass violence in the 21 cases we reported; the commenter is counting “saves,” not us. He appears to raise the larger question of the effectiveness of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). As we reported, three studies have found an association between use of ERPOs and reduced risk of suicide, with a number needed to treat of 10-20 for prevention of a fatality (1-3). These are very promising findings, and we look forward to further information on the outcomes of extreme risk protection orders in California and elsewhere.”

 

[xtry51]

Do the suicidal people call and report data points when they want to kill themselves, but can't get a gun? The idea they can collect any real data on suicide prevention is complete bullshit.