This is going to sound extremely snarky, but I assure you it is not.
Quite a few gun rights advocates say that a firearm is essential for their safety, as they may be a long way from emergency services. This came up a couple times in the neighboring thread about home defense.
Depending on whose statistics you believe, it appears that heart attacks are roughly as common as defensive gun uses inside and outside of the home. (Of course, some may say that one is more frequent than the other, but in rough ballpark terms, it seems reasonable to think of them as generally of the same frequency.)
Automatic external defibrillators are now common in many common spaces, from airplanes to libraries. It looks like a new one costs roughly the same amount as a well-made AR-15, and refurbished AEDs appear to be about half the price. Plus, they are so easy to use that you don’t need to practice on them each month!
So gun owners, have you ever thought about buying an AED so you and your family could be prepared on your worst day? Why, or why not?
I’m not a gun owner (just to keep the same theme as in the other thread ;)), but people are really, really bad at risk assessment. This goes for anti-gun folks as well as gun folks (as well as anti-vaxxers, anti-nukes and those who feel Trump will give them cancer…um, well, ok, that last group is right). They always worry about things that are usually a low probability while dismissing things that are either equivalent or more risky. The chance of being killed, even in the US by a fire arm is minuscule compared to many day to day things we do, yet some folks fret about it. The chance of having your home invaded and it being exactly the right circumstances where you could use your home defense fire arm are even more minuscule from a probability perspective, yet, again, folks fret about it. Most likely what will kill the fretters on both sides of the issue are things like car crashes, drunk drivers, or chili cheese fries and trough sized diet cokes with triple cheese burgers…or cancer. Hell, you have a higher risk of dying, even in the US, from just breathing than from either home invasion or by firearm.
So, that’s really the answer…their perception of risk is geared towards what they fear, not towards analyzing all of the potential risks and addressing them in some sort of systematic way. Hell, risk is part of my job and I had a large sausage, pepperoni and extra cheese pizza for lunch (I didn’t eat it all…I’m saving the rest for tonight :p) with a huge coke and I plan to have my weekly cigar on Sunday, as always.
First, the guns I have are sporting firearms, not self-defense ones, so I don’t really have a ideological dog in this fight.
But I’d think if I lived somewhere where I was far enough from cops/sheriffs to warrant needing a personal defense gun, I’d be far enough from medical services to warrant a defibrillator and other first aid type equipment as well. Actually I’d probably be more likely to buy the first aid/defibrillator stuff, as an armed intruder is essentially a random occurrence, but heart attacks get more likely as you age.
I know we disagreed in the other thread, but I think you nailed this one on your first post.
OP, I doubt you’ll sway anyone with this line of reasoning. Besides, I think at the end of the day this is a culture war of sorts rather than a real policy issue. If you like guns, you just like them, despite the fact that in reality they’re pretty much obsolete for civilian life in our modern society, and you don’t care about any costs to society at large. If you don’t like guns, you’ll see that they are a net drain on society, and you’ll be against them.
No, never really considered it. I’m still relatively young and healthy. I’ve got a moderate first aid kit at home and in my vehicle, but AED was not an item I’ve considered adding. I do live a whopping 0.3 miles from the closest hospital, so that’s probably a factor too.
But really you could pose the question without including guns and get similar answers. I’m overweight, hispanic (which has a higher risk of heart attack in the US), eat terribly, smoke and drink…basically, I’m a perfect storm of risk factors wrt heart attack (so if I go silent on this board some time, raise a glass to my memory :p), part of my job is how to assess and evaluate as well as mitigate risk, and I don’t have a defib kit or anything like that. I have no plan for this, aside from going to see the doc every once in a while. My WAG is, gun owner or no gun owner or someone who has chihuahuas instead of pit bulls, most folks don’t have either a plan or a defib device or anything like that, regardless of the risk, because it’s not something most people worry about (even if, like me, they should).
BTW, along the lines of the other part of your question, there is a hospital (2 actually) within, oh, say 10 miles of my house. There is also a fire station (volunteer though, so not always manned). The neared police station (sheriffs department) is nearly 20 miles away, unless we count tribal police who wouldn’t respond into my area regardless. Not sure what that demonstrates, but thought I’d give you that data point too in case it’s something you are looking for.
Well, the answer is that very few people buy a gun because they want to defend themselves. They buy a gun because they want to go sports shooting, or they want to hunt, or they think guns are just cool, or they like the way it looks on the wall.
There are some people who actually buy guns for self defense, often after a trauma or something. But that’s not how most people end up buying a gun.
In terms of sudden, traumatic death, “miniscule” is clearly wrong. Gun deaths are the fourth most prevalent type of injurious death in the United States, behind poisonings/drug overdoses, car accidents, and falls, and they are not that far behind. Those four are way ahead of anything else.
That’s really cherry picking the data, though. In terms of number of deaths, it’s pretty far down the list, even in the US which has one of the highest per capita for fire arms ownership in the world. You can always tweak the stats to show what you want to, but in terms of things that are likely to actually kill the average American (violent or not), it’s one that is low on the list.
Nitpick: Defibrillators are helpful in restoring a heart to its normal rhythm in the case of a sudden cardiac arrest. Heart attacks may lead to cardiac arrest, but defibrillation is otherwise useless in treating a heart attack.
IIRC, total suicides are 10th among death rates with 14 per 100,000, and gun suicides are around 7/100,000, and gun homicides are a little more than 4.5 per 100,000
By comparison, heart disease is #1 with 165 per 100,000.
Because arguing over the frequency of either one isn’t the point of the thread. If you want to fight the hypothetical, you’re welcome to do so; but I won’t engage in that because it isn’t interesting.
But most deaths due to heart disease aren’t preventable with the use of external defibrillators. Most cardiac arrest victims can’t even be saved by a defibrillator as most aren’t due to abnormal rhythms that are shockable (and some cardiac arrests aren’t due to heart disease).
I’m sure arguing over the frequency of either wasn’t your point, but how useful AEDs would be in saving lives as compared to defensive gun uses inside and outside of the home was relevant to your OP. Quartz’s request is reasonable as comparing usefulness requires statistics.
I know I’m an outlier, but I displayed (never fired, never pointed) a firearm five times in the 11 years I lived in north Minneapolis (1991-2002) to deter burglars. I don’t feel the need to detail those incidents yet again. I was in the city, not any distance from services.
It isn’t exactly the myth made out to be by gun control enthusiasts.
OTOH, I haven’t needed to do the same since then, living in a different neighborhood and then the suburbs.
