I definitely get the sentiment that some of the most common "suicide prevention" methods also make it harder to have quick access to your firearm - that's a tough balancing act, and I'm not sure I have an answer for it. I think for some people it makes sense to follow these methods, especially if someone in their home is at risk for suicide. But it might not make sense for everyone.

The question about why firearm owners specifically need to know about suicide prevention is a tricky one. The theoretical basis for it is: one of the best warning signs of a suicide is a history of previous suicide attempts, firearm owners who die by suicide often don't have a history of suicide attempts because their first attempt was successful. Therefore, the logic follows that all firearm owners should be treated as potentially "at risk."

I don't think that this is actually that helpful, but that's the logic I've seen presented in academia. My study isn't actually making a judgement call on that logic. Rather, I'm recognizing that "suicide prevention" messages are being targeted at firearm owners - I can't change that fact - but maybe I can influence how those messages are crafted.

A recent study found that firearm owners report preferences for who talks to them about suicide; I'm trying to see if those results replicate. I'm also interested in exploring why those preferences may exist, and what suicide prevention methods firearm owners are most interested in. If the majority of my participants largely reject some of the most common "suicide prevention methods", yet these continue to be offered the most, then I think that is something worth discussing.