Crime has dropped significantly since the early '90’s too.
Why not? It’s a swell line of reasoning!
If guns are so essential for self-protection, how come on the TV channels that show “Perry Mason”, “Matlock” and other old geezer shows, they never have ads for Glock and Remington, but lots for medic alert bracelets and bladder leak containment wear?
It’s incontrovertible!!!
If someone wants to say that they have determined the risk is low - whether because of the usefulness of AEDs or because they are at zero risk of heart disease (which HD kind of implied) then I’m not going to argue that everyone needs an AED or that a poster Ian about to drop dead.
But I would be interested to see how they do their math on those counts. It would be informative to me.
That’s not what the statistics show. 67% of gun owners (71% of rural gun owners) cite “protection” as a major reason why they own guns. It is the top reason given by a long way.
cite
Your OP hinges on the frequency of the life saving-ness of AEDs being “roughly as common as defensive gun uses inside and outside of the home.” However, you made the mistake of equating the usefulness of AEDs to the number of heart attacks that occur.
If, for instance, the usefulness of AEDs is determined to be far less common than the usefulness of defensive gun uses, then the point is moot. You may find comparing statistics uninteresting, but they’re very relevant.
Why people do things, why people think they do things, and why people say they do things are three different things.
AEDs are a pretty obscure item. They don’t fix all heart attacks, only the specific condition of tachycardia and fibrillation, right? And I’m guessing you couldn’t effectively apply them yourself. And even then, it just keeps you alive long enough ideally for medical help to arrive. So these aren’t magic heart attack saving boxes, it’s not clear that owning one in a home as an individual is a very useful plan.
So why don’t we draw a closer comparison? Fire extinguishers. Simple, common, easy to store, available whenever you need it, no special training required, second person not required, follow on emergency care not generally required. You just use them in the unlikely event you need them, and they generally solve the problem they were created to solve. The analogy is far more perfect in this case than with an AED.
This is a silly thread. I guess gun owners are all hypocrites if they don’t own an AED, which is not something that I’ve heard medical professionals advocate for being as a normal piece of equipment in the average home, because hey, if you think you need a tool to help you in one emergency, you need tools to be able to help yourself in every kind of emergency, or you’re a hypocrite I guess.
None of them.
And only specific types of those conditions.
You can.
I wouldn’t call that a “just.” The chances of survival after defibrillator use following a shockable abnormal rhythm are much greater than no defibrillator use.
I think I misunderstood your statement. No, when one needs to use a defibrillator, he won’t be able to use it on himself.
Assuming Chronos was responding to the above quote, I agree.
Also, the results of that linked to survey don’t necessarily refute Babale’s claim as they are major reasons, and not the major reason. For instance, suppose someone bought a gun because his job requires it and otherwise wouldn’t have, he still might check off “protection” as a major reason for having one. The same for someone that specifically bought it for hunting, etc.
My firearms are for recreational shooting, not home/self defense purposes, though several could double up, duty-wise, with no trouble. But home/self defense wasn’t the reason I bought them, nor the reason I continue to own them.
I do believe in being prepared for eventualities, so I do have a decent home first aid kit, as well as smoke/fire detectors and two fire extinguishers. I have a good roadside emergency kit in my car, as well.
I don’t have plan for a heart attack. I passed my last physical with flying colors (BP was a touch high, but well within the healthy range for my age). My cholesterol was so good, my Doctor was sure there was some mistake.
Lol. Same here. I get it checked every year like clockwork, it’s always low and they always look at me like I’m gaming the system or something.
I didn’t purchase any of my guns for self-protection. I purchased them for hunting (which I haven’t done in 30 years now) and for recreational shooting (which I enjoy).
Sorry, but this is GD, not the Pit or IMHO.
I’ve had a heart attack as well as multiple episodes of unstable angina. I kind of blew the episodes off until seeking medical advice over a month later.
I don’t want an AED. My next cardiac malfunction will be my last.
I own a gun for home protection. In my case buying it was not based on a statistical decision. I doubt it ever is, since home invasion frequencies would make it a sort of sick lottery to enter.
There is a matter of principal that if someone is coming into my home to do me or my family harm - I want to be able to fight back. I refuse to let that human take away my right to live peacefully without me at least having the ability to put up a fight regardless of outcome. I get an opportunity to decide if another human being is going to do me harm in my own home.
If I have a heart attack… well, then that is just bad luck but at least a natural event is occurring to me rather than a malicious human being who has decided that stealing my property/doing me harm/whatever is more important than me continuing to live my peaceful life.
In short, it is a matter of principal. That said if defibrillators were cheap enough sure I might buy one. I own fancy smoke detectors and several up-to-date fire extinguishers because I’m paranoid of a house fire too despite it having a low probability of occurring.
Oh, well, you’re going with just gun accidents now and then comparing it to things like cancer; yes, if we use the term “accidents” it drops very low on the list, because a homicide or suicide is not an accident, and a huge portion of people who die are old people who die of cancer and heart disease. I was simply going with all causes of injurious death, in which case guns are fourth.
When AEDs started being installed everywhere I was quite skeptical, but many, many sources say they have saved hundreds of lives. I find that shocking (haaaaa!) but a lot of different authorities have studied in in detail and come to the same conclusion.
The question, though, is whether saving a few hundred lives - the rough approximation for the USA - is worth the cost. AEDs ain’t cheap. Everything has an opportunity cost.
Even at that, the number of heart attacks (fatal and non-fatal) dwarfs the number of gun deaths from all causes by twenty times.
I haven’t been able to find any exact numbers, but it stands to reason that having a defibrillator on hand is a much more sensible thing in terms of preserving one’s life, especially if you live in a remote area and/or are older.
Read post 14. It seems you missed it.
I often use this same line of reasoning with hikers who carry guns for protection. I ask them if they are carrying a flashlight and/or rescue beacon, or even an Epi-Pen, which weigh much less and are statistically more likely to save your life. Some people have thought it through and carry multiple emergency items, others are fixated on defending themselves from unlikely human attack (or even more unlikely animal attack).
When choosing to carry things while hiking weight is pretty important, but feeling in control of a situation is a bigger factor for many people.
Didn’t actually open the cite, ehe? No, I’m not going by just gun accidents…the cite was to show what the major causes of death in the US are. I was talking about murders, however (gun accidents are extremely small in the US…less than a thousand a year. I think they are on par with tooth pick choking events or TV crushing events, IIRC). The total number of murders in the US (with and without guns) was around 17K (6K or more were from non-gun related murders). Now, go back and actually click that link…the lowest on the list in there was Chronic Liver Disease (number 12) at nearly 40K. I’m no math wiz, but I THINK 40K is more than 17K…by quite a lot, really. I’m sure at this point you want to bundle in all of the suicides as well to really pump those gun deaths numbers up, but suicides are a separate category and, IMHO, are a sunk cost…IOW, IMHO they would happen anyway, and half of the suicides that happen don’t involve a gun. Even putting gun murders with suicides you get less than 40K a year…IOW, less than the 12th most common means of death in the US. I’d say that, even cherry picking the data, my original point stands.
Sure, if you want to really cherry pick and go with violent death (which is rare in the US wrt what people actually die from), then guns are in 4th…but that is spinning the data to show what you want to show. Compared to the things that kill actual Americans every year, it’s way down the list. But folks THINK it’s huge (I can recall asking people what they thought the number of murders in the US was in some of my risk classes, and getting answers like 1 million…or 5 million…or more…and total disbelief when I said, no, it’s closer to 20K for all types).
To recap, people, even really smart people, are just terrible at risk assessment. They worry about low probability events happening to them while blithely running risks in their every day lives that have a much higher probability of killing or injuring them. The classic example I use is the guy who drives to work every day chugging down a coffee, driving aggressively, tail gating while listening to loud music on his blue tooth head set worries about the plane he plans to take on his once a year trip to see his mother crashing.
This isn’t to say we should not worry or do nothing about gun deaths in the US. We should. But I wish people could put this in some kind of perspective. I’m sure now I’ll hear how in other countries they don’t have this issue, but, really, they have other things usually that are a higher risk and tend to kill as many or more per capita than guns do in the US.