Actually, quite a few people at risk of heart attacks (specifically arrhythmias) do in fact purchase a defibrillator. It’s surgically implanted just under the skin on the chest wall, and serves to kick things back to a normal rhythm if the heart goes wonky.
^ An AED is an external defibrillator. And again, an arrhythmia is not a type of heart attack.
In the hiking example, weight is a factor. You could say “the weight of your gun might be better spent in extra water or rescue gear”, fair enough. I think this is something you can make a case for, rather than being something clear cut. A gun, after all, can be used to deter human aggression, animal aggression, be used for signalling, and could be used to hunt with. It’s a pretty versatile piece of survival gear.
But in the OP’s example, there’s no practical limit to the amount of contingency gear you can have in your home. So what’s his point? “If you don’t have an AED, but you have a gun, you’re a hypocrite”? Not only is this line of reasoning flawed, what’s it even supposed to mean even if it were true? It just seems like a really weird, ineffective, and nonsensical way to attack gun owners.
Except that I’m not attacking gun owners. I would suggest that you not project whatever your agenda is onto me.
You’re trying to say that gun owners are all irrational because a gun is less likely to save you than an AED. The rest of the thread calls that into question, concerning the utility of AEDs for home use, but you’re just dancing around trying to imply a point.
Why not ask “people who wear a seatbelt, what’s your plan for an accidental poisoning?” - it’s about as meaningful a question.
If you think owning an AED in your home is a great and cost effective and improvement to safety, why aren’t you asking the general public why they don’t own one? Why gun owners specifically?
I missed the edit window:
And in terms of calling people hypocrites, that’s not really my bag. If you were to look through my posting record, I’ll bet you anything that my record of calling BS on people getting worked up about supposed hypocrisy far, far, FAR outnumbers any time I had criticized someone as being a hypocrite themselves. (In fact, I would be surprised if I ever made such a charge, but after 30,000 posts or whatever I’m up to, there’s definitely a chance I may have said something so facile and stupid.) If anything, I’ve frequently used the quote, “Hypocrites can still be right.” So no, I’m not charging anyone with hypocrisy, as much as you’d like to think so.
I’ll ask you one more time not to project your agenda on me. Clearly, you are suffering some kind of insecurity about this issue, and you seek to use it to attack me – but that’s not my problem.
The other thread in GD started by Urbanredneck was an interesting one, I thought, because it illuminated an issue of how people see risk. It also tied into many other issues of how people view themselves, like to what degree they seek to be self-sufficient, even in crises.
If you’ll note in that other thread, I did not attack the OP for having an agenda. Others on either side of the home defense issue did bring their baggage into the discussion. But my contribution to that thread was an honest response to the OP’s question, and I note there’s been quite a few interesting responses to my question in this thread.
Why did I post this thread in GD? For no other reason than I assumed that since the other thread wasn’t moved to IMHO, this one should be in the same forum.
Many of them are combined defib/pacemakers nowadays so they can deal with more problems.
Aha, I didn’t realize this was a… counter-thread? to another thread. Just seemed like a weird, out of the blue question with some sort unstated agenda. I wasn’t aware of the other thread.
I still think you’re refusing to state your agenda. You’re trying to imply an AED is a smarter purchase for life risks than a gun. You point out that an AED and AR-15 cost the same amount. Or at least that they’re in the same ballpark of risk and cost, so why buy one and not the other.
Maybe this is, as you say, basically an informal poll put in GD, but can you not see why your post appears to imply an agenda?
I don’t see how my potential insecurities play a role in that interpretation. It’s not like I’m against safety devices. Seat belts are great, fire extinguishers are great, guns can be great in the right situation, AEDs may be great but I’ve never seen a push for them to be available to the average home, so of all those potential emergency-resolving devices and the expectation that you should own one, that’s the one that stands out to me.
If this thread doesn’t actually have an agenda, then it just seems like a completely random question, akin to, as I said, “seat belt wearers, what’s your plan for accidental poisoning?”
I have three guns in my home one of which could be practical for home defense. It was purchased for bear defense at a point in time where I was doing a lot of backpacking/hunting/fishing in a region where problem bears had been relocated to. I still carry it when ever I go into the back country.
We don’t have an AED in the home but we get CPR certified every couple of years. I am much more likely to be home when my wife is there and CPR is useful in more scenarios then an AED. I think its a good idea to be prepared for a variety of scenarios.
As far as what do I carry into the back country I do carry a flashlight, fire making supplies and a shelter. I don’t have a rescue beacon but I do give my planned coordinates to my wife before I leave I also carry two epi pens and typically an extra days worth of food. The people who just wander back with a fanny pack and a sandwich amaze me unless they are with large groups.
I’m not sure how I can put a finer point on it: my agenda is to read people’s responses, and perhaps ask further questions if the fancy strikes me.
I think there have been a number of thoughtful responses so far, and I sincerely thank those posters for sharing their opinions and personal circumstances.
I’ve never considered buying an AED. They have limited utility in my view. Guns on the other hand, while they serve the primary purpose of defense, they are also fun to shoot so their utility is multifold.
It’s not going to be easy to determine how comparable the usefulness of having an AED in the home is to the usefulness of owning a gun for self-defense.
Let’s suppose that cardiac arrest deaths are roughly as common as defensive gun uses inside and outside of the home according to the stats. That still wouldn’t tell us much.
How many of those cardiac arrest deaths happened in the home? How many had someone else in the home capable of using an AED? How many had shockable rhythms? How many already had an external defibrillator implanted? How many people are there that can’t afford an AED but inherited a gun with a poor resale value?
How reliable are the stats on defensive gun uses? Do data collectors get data from police departments regarding when someone pulls a gun on someone to defend themselves and that was enough of a deterrent without shooting? How many of those instances are even reported to the police? Are some gun owners aware they live in areas that make them much more likely to attack than the national average? Do data collectors know how many attacks don’t happen because would be attackers are aware that people in a particular community are carrying or have guns in the home? The potential of owning a gun can stave off attack; owning an AED doesn’t scare your heart into not messing with you.
Those are just issues off the top of my head with attempting to determine an equivalency, but there is a much bigger issue with the comparison in the OP. Why would we compare all cardiac arrests to all defensive gun uses? The former is not regarding when an AED was used, but when a cardiac arrest occurred. The latter is regarding instances where self-defense use of a gun already happened, so a gun was used. Comparing instances of where an AED could have been used and may or may not have been, to instances where a gun was used is not a fair comparison.
So, if it were true that cardiac arrest deaths are roughly as common as defensive gun uses inside and outside of the home, then it can be assumed that having a gun is far more useful than having an AED in the home as there are going to be many more instances where firearm self defense would have been used but a gun wasn’t available. But it’s still a big assumption due to the variables mentioned and still more, such as how many defensive gun uses actually helped the situation? How many made it even worse? Too much to calculate.
Well we know how many fatal out-of-hospital cardiac arrests there are:
356,461 out of hospital cardiac arrests per year, 90% of which are fatal, for a grand total of 320,814 deaths.
68.5% are at home, for 219,757 deaths. Of those, 19.8% might have been responsive to a AED for a total of 41,534 deaths that might have been prevented.
They weren’t all necessarily at their home, just someone’s residence. Of those that have an AED in their own home, we don’t know how many live alone or with someone capable of using an AED (they’re fairly simple to use, but some old, feeble, children, bed ridden, etc., aren’t going to be able to). We don’t know how many already had an implantable defibrillator.
Gun owner here. I didn’t know that they were that reasonably priced. I see them on Amazon in the $1200 range. I don’t have a gun that cost anywhere near that much. My most expensive gun was $700 and was a gift from my wife. But sure, I’ll consider it. Especially if I can use my HSA dollars to do it.
Thank you. Keeping aspirin or nitro medicine in the cabinet is a better analogy.
Edit: Reading this thread and all those stats is making my chest hurt. Also if my AED comes with Eva Green I’ll get one.
^ Nitroglycerin isn’t something kept on hand in case of a heart attack; it’s used by prescription only for treating angina. Aspirin is much more likely to be helpful in treating a heart attack, followed by prompt medical attention, of course.
The need and cost of maintaining most firearms are low. If not used and just stored for emergency use, close to zero. Not the case for owning an AED.
https://www.altramedical.com/aed-cost-of-ownership/
Guns are fairly simple and they usually work when needed. AEDs are more complicated pieces of equipment and there are lots of things that can go wrong when one is needed, especially without regular maintenance.
I don’t know how accurate/updated the laws are on the page below, but there are state laws to consider also.