Great work, as usual, with a caveat. I don’t have the data handy, but I suspect the decline in unintentional firearms deaths precedes Jeff Cooper and 1980. I suspect it goes back into the 1940s with hunter safety education (thanks NRA!). I am reminded of the NRA’s gun safety video from 1946, “Trigger Happy Harry.” See: https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/12/06/enjoy-a-national-rifle-association-gun-safety-video-from-1946/
> What do we do today that falls into the same bucket? Plastic contamination is heating up as a source of future facepalms. So is indoor air quality:
Long time ago, I was always super sleepy in my office, so I bought a $50 CO2 monitor. I measured between 1500-1800 ppm in that office. OSHA requirements are that it should never exceed 1200. Nobody cared
Since then, I always take readings. CO2 levels inside are waaaaay higher than they should be, almost everywhere. Keep a window open if you can, at all times
Pretty shocking how high CO2 gets in pretty much any room when you close the door. Cooking creates a ton of CO2. Even with electric, particulates spike when you cook. ERVs are going to become much more common in the next few years. That plus a convention of always running the vent fan when you cook.
I loved having a gas stove, but to put this in perspective: the gas stove was opposite a very old, very poorly sealed window in my old kitchen. Even when "closed" there was enough of an air gap to make the CO2 levels on the windowsill stay near 400, but 20 minutes of the gas stove and the area around it would go almost as high as 2000.
Of course, it would go back down to 400 within a minute or two of cutting the burners but, yeah. Fascinating stuff
Yeah gas is fun to cook on but pretty ruinous for indoor air quality. Once you've used induction, it's hard to go back to anything else. Even then though, IAQ tanks if you're doing pretty much anything other than boiling water. A good range hood is the only solution, and then once you start pulling on that thread, you realize you kind of need a makeup air system. Quite the rabbit hole.
Do you have statistics on med kit/TQ use in civilian use of firearms, deadly force encounters, etc.? Are you referring to my using a TQ on my self after a deadly force encounter, on others in a deadly force encounter, or just in general life where shit happens?
What is the context/situation where "statistically you’re more likely to eventually use a tourniquet than a gun." ? I've seen others say the same thing (Greg Ellifritz comes to mind) but I haven't seen the numbers anywhere.
I appreciate your work, it's good stuff, and I appreciate anything you can tell me. God bless.
- The Venn diagram of "situations where you fire a gun at someone" and "situations where you need a tourniquet" has significant overlap. Might need a tourniquet for yourself or a loved one/bystander, or for the aggressor if you can approach/treat them safely.
- And just generally, the "situations where you need a tourniquet" circle in the Venn diagram is much bigger than the "situations where you fire a gun at someone" circle.
Fair call that it's more an assertion than a rigorous statistical claim though.
Which takes us back to probabilities and impacts. Depends on where and how I live my life, but The odds of me needing either are pretty low, the odds of me needing both are lower still.
The impacts, however, are pretty high. Hence the decision to be armed in the first place.
So, while we are at it. My wife and I have completed living wills specifying DNR to include prohibiting use of AED or CPR. Do you have data or thoughts on longevity and quality of life AFTER being resuscitated?
Depends heavily on why you needed the AED or CPR, as well as how quickly they're applied. But with AEDs especially, lots of the people who survive go on to live normal lives for years/decades.
> Among 49555 out of hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs), 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07–3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17–3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer.
Great work, as usual, with a caveat. I don’t have the data handy, but I suspect the decline in unintentional firearms deaths precedes Jeff Cooper and 1980. I suspect it goes back into the 1940s with hunter safety education (thanks NRA!). I am reminded of the NRA’s gun safety video from 1946, “Trigger Happy Harry.” See: https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/12/06/enjoy-a-national-rifle-association-gun-safety-video-from-1946/
Super interesting, thanks!
> What do we do today that falls into the same bucket? Plastic contamination is heating up as a source of future facepalms. So is indoor air quality:
Long time ago, I was always super sleepy in my office, so I bought a $50 CO2 monitor. I measured between 1500-1800 ppm in that office. OSHA requirements are that it should never exceed 1200. Nobody cared
Since then, I always take readings. CO2 levels inside are waaaaay higher than they should be, almost everywhere. Keep a window open if you can, at all times
Pretty shocking how high CO2 gets in pretty much any room when you close the door. Cooking creates a ton of CO2. Even with electric, particulates spike when you cook. ERVs are going to become much more common in the next few years. That plus a convention of always running the vent fan when you cook.
I loved having a gas stove, but to put this in perspective: the gas stove was opposite a very old, very poorly sealed window in my old kitchen. Even when "closed" there was enough of an air gap to make the CO2 levels on the windowsill stay near 400, but 20 minutes of the gas stove and the area around it would go almost as high as 2000.
Of course, it would go back down to 400 within a minute or two of cutting the burners but, yeah. Fascinating stuff
Yeah gas is fun to cook on but pretty ruinous for indoor air quality. Once you've used induction, it's hard to go back to anything else. Even then though, IAQ tanks if you're doing pretty much anything other than boiling water. A good range hood is the only solution, and then once you start pulling on that thread, you realize you kind of need a makeup air system. Quite the rabbit hole.
Do you have statistics on med kit/TQ use in civilian use of firearms, deadly force encounters, etc.? Are you referring to my using a TQ on my self after a deadly force encounter, on others in a deadly force encounter, or just in general life where shit happens?
What is the context/situation where "statistically you’re more likely to eventually use a tourniquet than a gun." ? I've seen others say the same thing (Greg Ellifritz comes to mind) but I haven't seen the numbers anywhere.
I appreciate your work, it's good stuff, and I appreciate anything you can tell me. God bless.
Don't have stats, but it's the combination of:
- The Venn diagram of "situations where you fire a gun at someone" and "situations where you need a tourniquet" has significant overlap. Might need a tourniquet for yourself or a loved one/bystander, or for the aggressor if you can approach/treat them safely.
- And just generally, the "situations where you need a tourniquet" circle in the Venn diagram is much bigger than the "situations where you fire a gun at someone" circle.
Fair call that it's more an assertion than a rigorous statistical claim though.
Which takes us back to probabilities and impacts. Depends on where and how I live my life, but The odds of me needing either are pretty low, the odds of me needing both are lower still.
The impacts, however, are pretty high. Hence the decision to be armed in the first place.
Good exercise in risk analysis. Thanks
So, while we are at it. My wife and I have completed living wills specifying DNR to include prohibiting use of AED or CPR. Do you have data or thoughts on longevity and quality of life AFTER being resuscitated?
Depends heavily on why you needed the AED or CPR, as well as how quickly they're applied. But with AEDs especially, lots of the people who survive go on to live normal lives for years/decades.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030700 says:
> Among 49555 out of hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs), 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07–3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17–3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer.
ChatGPT summary: https://chatgpt.com/share/67c5fa92-f378-8002-a008-01d840e089d6