All posts by Michael Schwarz

Q&A: Shot by pets

This might be a strange question, but how likely is it that an animal could accidentally discharge a modern pistol, (such as a Glock) disregarding the horrible gun safety violations it implies, such as the safety being off and the gun being loaded? I’ve heard of animals accidentally discharging firearms by knocking them onto the floor, but would the amount of force required to pull the trigger be too much for, say, a dog or cat? thanks for indulging my odd request.

It’s possible. I remember reading a news story a couple years ago about a hunter who was shot by his dog. He left his rifle propped against something, the dog stepped on the trigger, and the bullet struck him. Though I don’t remember the details.

I can’t find the specific story now, because a websearch shows a number of similar stories. (Though Google does helpfully suggest I may want to limit my search to Floridians being shot by their pets. Statistically, if you’re shot by your dog, it seems there’s a roughly 40% chance you’re in Florida.)

Incidentally, there’s also a few stories of people being shot by their cats, though most of these are cases where the cat knocked a loaded pistol onto the floor.

In case the point was somehow missed. These are all gun safety failures, on the part of their owner. I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who mishandles their gun and takes a bullet (or shotgun blast) as a result, and as funny as the image is, the animals are not at fault.

As for the specific example, I’ll just have to keep saying this, Glock pistols do not have manual safeties. It’s a specific design feature.

Depending on the firearm, having the safety on won’t necessarily prevent an accidental discharge from something like dropping it. Most modern pistols have some safety mechanisms to prevent this from happening, but there’s no universal rules.

In spite of having similar external characteristics, each firearm model is unique, and it can be impossible to fully determine how one works from an external examination. Idiosyncrasies, like how the safety functions, or what safety features a gun has vary wildly, sometimes even within a single manufacturer’s various product lines.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

Q&A: Non-Violent Revolution

I’m writing a story about how four characters react to a clash between the revolutionary movement and military in their society. How could one of the characters prevent all out war while also overthrowing the government?

Not easily. My department chair in college focused on non-violent revolutions when he was getting his doctorate. His comment at the time was that there’s virtually no (scholarly) literature on the subject.

Avoiding violence in a revolution requires two things: You need to convince those in power not to use violence to enforce their authority and you need to convince everyone in the opposition from resorting to violence and deliberately escalating the situation.

The former is very difficult, the latter is nearly impossible.

When you’re looking at the factors that create a revolution, you’re primarily interested in oppression, exclusivity and capacity.

Oppression is fairly self explanatory, but the fact remains, if a government is not mistreating its citizens, or the vast majority of the population considers the system just, then you won’t have people rising up in revolt. People are stirred to action when they feel wronged. Normal bureaucratic malaise doesn’t cut it.

More disturbingly, it can be incredibly difficult to detect oppression, depending on how it is presented. If the population doesn’t feel oppressed, then they’re not going to rise up, even as members of society are being put down brutally and executed in the streets.

Exclusivity is the ability for private citizens to affect the government. An exclusive government is one that does not allow the civilian population to influence policy. It may also be highly nepotistic, with many key positions filled by family members of the head of state, or by close friends.

As with oppression, exclusivity is highly dependent on public perception. A dictator that frequently takes public input under advisement and acts on it wouldn’t be an exclusive system, even if their entire cabinet is made up of family members and close personal friends. Likewise, a state with rigged elections, and no public input wouldn’t be perceived as exclusive, unless the voter fraud is exposed.

It’s also worth pointing out, a state can be oppressive and exclusive, but still be perceived as the protector of its population. In these cases, you won’t see a revolution because people believe the state has their interests in mind. Of course, if the illusion shatters, everything else follows.

Capacity is the ability for a government to enforce its will. In the context of revolutions, we’re normally interested in its ability to inflict violence on the population.

Again, if a government has the capacity to kill everyone involved in ther evolution they’ll hunt them down as a warning to any future rebels. Remember, when we’re talking about what the government can actually do, not what it should hypothetically be capable of if everything goes according to plan.

Capacity rises and declines based on a number of factors. Their available manpower, their financial and material resources, the quality of their intelligence. Prolonged warfare, military dissent, economic unrest, technical obsolescence, counterintelligence, deteriorating public support and espionage (among other possible factors) can all whittle away at a state’s capacity.

What you’re looking for in a revolution is an oppressed population who cannot influence government policy and a weak state. If any of these three elements fail, then your revolution can’t happen, at least not normally.

A non-oppressive totalitarian regime sounds weird. It’s a kind of political philosophy unicorns that keeps coming up in hypothetical discussions on governance. From Plato to Machiavelli, the idea refuses to die.

A powerful and oppressive regime with public access is also, surprisingly, hard to unseat. There have been plenty of examples of these without associated revolutions.

Well funded and equipped, totalitarian regimes are, sadly, something we have plenty of examples of. A number of these did eventually fall to revolutionary forces, but it only came after the state’s capacity was undermined or decayed.

Under normal circumstances, you have a state that’s subjugating it’s population, an isolated elite pulling the strings, and a government that can’t actually wipe out a potential rebellion before it gets rolling, and recruiting real numbers, and engaging in actual combat operations.

In a non-violent revolution, you need to convince the state to sit down and listen to your grievances without resorting to violence. The reason I described this as “very difficult,” is because, you need to sit down with someone and get them to agree with you, when their first impulse is going to be to toss you in prison and wash their hands of the problem.

This can happen. When the threat of violence, and a painful death appears imminent, and your revolutionary is offering a way out that doesn’t end with the city in flames and the roads coated in blood. Managing to actually do this is truly impressive stuff, and most of the people who have attempted this in the real world ended up imprisoned and/or tortured.

Your revolutionary can’t step in earlier, because the state won’t listen,
and once the situation has degenerated into outright warfare, it’s too late.

The second problem is that revolutions are not homogenous entities that operate as a single coherent organization. They’re a coalition of groups who are unified by one common belief, that the state needs to be replaced, and not much else. They can agree that the guy in power needs to go, but not what the shape of the new government will be, after it’s over.

In case you’re wondering, you can’t really skip the coalition building phase of getting a revolution off the ground. Having a single, ideologically unified group to overthrow the government would be ideal, but reality is rarely so accommodating. Finding enough people to actually overthrow the government means making unlikely allies, and working with people you normally wouldn’t want to talk to. They have live bodies, and together you’ve got enough to turn the tide. “Stand together or die alone,” and all that.

Keeping everyone non-violent before the revolution is hard enough. You’ve got a lot of people who have a grudge against the existing government. These are people who feel strongly enough about their grievances to die for them. Finding enough people who are willing to do that is hard enough. Finding enough people who are willing, are smart enough to realize that there might be a way out of this without killing, and are also okay with a non-violent solution to the situation is nearly impossible.

A revolutionary leader who can hold their movement together on sheer force of will, and can inspire people into a unified cause can, potentially knit their revolution together to prevent this. Someone who is very careful in how they bring people in, and how their revolution operates can, potentially, keep this from becoming a problem.

After it’s over is the nearly impossible part. When all of these different factions united by one common goal have achieved that, the only thing they have left is a desire to reshape the state to suit their image of how things should be. Far too often, this translates into purges and civil war.

In a non-violent revolution, overthrowing the government is the easy part. Keeping all of the different political factions, which were oppressed under the previous regime playing nice while you try to build a new state is the hard part.

The most dangerous thing after the revolution is someone more ruthless than you. Revolution is not a pleasant business. It destroys the idealists and rewards the pragmatic and ruthless. The process of running one is a crucible. No one who goes in will come out exactly the same person. After the revolution, if you’re not the most ruthless person in the room, you’re not long for this world.

Keeping a coalition together after a revolution isn’t impossible. There are historical examples, including the United States, but it is an exceedingly difficult bar to hit. It’s far more common for the victors to begin by purging remnants loyal to the old regime, and then work their way through various minor factions who aided them, but are no longer necessary, and have become a potential liability. This can be framed any number of ways. It can be carried out covertly, it can be framed as remnant loyalists, it can be treated as normal criminal arrests.

In cases where the prior regime was supported by a foreign power, these purges are often couched in terms of removing foreign agitators or spies.

In fact, it’s very easy to end up exactly where you started, or worse off.

The best case examples are probably Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Mandela kept South Africa together by instituting policies that kept members of the Dutch government as members of the new integrated government, and pushed hard for a policy of no retribution. This, arguably, did a lot to keep South Africa intact. In contrast, while Gandhi managed to remove the British from India without resorting to violence, he did see his nation break apart into separate states.

Even if your revolution manages to hold themselves together, and don’t turn on each other, they’ve created a serious problem. They’ve destroyed their state’s capacity, creating a power vacuum. Other factions that may not have participated in the revolution are now in a far better position to exploit the current situation. This could include groups like organized crime, or even foreign powers, who aren’t above using the chaos to opportunistically grab a few bits for themselves.

Non-violent revolutions aren’t a panacea against this either. Even simple political instability can open the door for an aggressive foreign power to move in, “in order to ensure the peace” and annex anything that’s not nailed down. It also allows organized criminal enterprise to become more brazen; even under the best circumstances, you’ve removed the checks that were holding them in place, and any less oppressive policies will be viewed as a practical invitation.

A military junta isn’t off the table either. This is especially true if the previous regime kept the military under control because of close personal ties, and the transition to the revolutionary government would diminishes the military’s political influence. They may even view this as an act of self defense. Sadly, the term “military junta” is an established phrase because this exact kind of coup has happened many times before, including cases where there was a democratic regime change, and not an actual revolution.

So, how would someone walk into all of this and keep it from degenerating into a bloodbath? Search me. You’re talking about a very singular kind of character, and they could still end up splattered across the pavement because of a fanatic.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

Welcome to the New Site

Welcome to HowtoFightwrite.com In the coming months, we’re going to start converting over our old articles from Tumblr to a more convenient and accessible format.

We’ve also set up forums which will allow our followers to get critique on their writing. Something we weren’t set up to handle on Tumblr.

We’ll be working on expanding this moving forward. If you’d like to see something specific here, please drop a comment below.

-Starke

Q&A: Hand Cannons

In this story I’m working on, the protagonist is a security officer working for a shady human augmentation corporation. They routinely come into contact with cybernetically-enhanced criminals and they chose a Desert Eagle .50 in order to actually do damage to any augmented threats. But I was wondering just how practical would that choice be? From what I’ve found, a box of that ammo goes for about $42, but I’m no expert on firearms.

It’s not. As firearms go, the Desert Eagle is sort of ridiculous. It’s a stupidly big and heavy gun. They’re designed more around the idea of looking cool and imposing, rather than actually being a practical combat weapon. Which is part of why Hollywood loves them.

They have a home in the high end sport shooting market. Basically for the same reasons they found a home in films; it’s big, showy, and looks cool. If you view guns as recreational equipment, want to have the biggest toy and are willing to spend, that’s what the Desert Eagle delivers. That’s also pretty much all the Desert Eagle delivers.

The spending part is important, the Desert Eagle itself is not a cheap gun. Aftermarket rates for .50 Desert Eagles range from $1.5k – $3k. It’s not just the gun, as you pointed out, .50 AE run close to $2 a bullet.

Put this in perspective, your character could buy a Remington 870, and keep it loaded it with FRAG-12s for less than a Desert Eagle would cost. (Assuming they could actually buy FRAG-12 rounds to begin with.)

Assuming your character’s gun is actually part of their job, there’s a decent chance the corporation would be the one paying for it, and the ammo. Especially if they actually expect your character to be using it on people. That said, the expenses would still be relevant, if only because accounting wouldn’t want to see the security division snorkeling through cash when cheaper, better, options exist.

Regardless who’s paying, your character would probably be better off with a 10mm pistol. A Glock 20 will run you around $600, and the ammo is around $0.35 a round. That’s still somewhat pricey as handgun ammo goes, but it’s far cheaper than .50 AE.

That said, the entire reason 10mm Auto never caught on in the real world is because it kicks hard. As with the .50 AE, 10mm Auto is an overpowered round. For perspective, it’s muzzle velocity is between the .357 and .41 magnum cartridges.

If your character absolutely needs something with stopping power similar to a Desert Eagle, they’ll be better off getting a rifle or carbine chambered in 5.56mm. For visual aesthetics, you might want to take a look at the H&K G36C or the SIG552.

Realistically, handguns are what you give someone when you don’t expect a problem but they should have something, “just in case.” If your shady cybernetics company is sending their security forces out to deal with criminals, they’re better off with automatic rifles.

FRAG-12s aren’t off the table. These are impact detonation grenades designed to chamber into a 12 gauge shotgun. Basically impossible to obtain on the civilian market, but for a corporation with defense contracts these might an option.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

 

Q&A: Kockouts

How plausible is it to knock someone unconscious without killing them? I have a monster character that, when people annoy him, picks them up and slams to either knock them out or kill them. One of my characters has to have this happen to them and they survive it, but I’ve heard it’s actually really rare to knock someone out and not kill them. Is it true that this isn’t plausible, and if it’s not is there anything else, like smothering, that they *could* survive? I love your blog by the way.

I know we’ve answered this one in the past, but it doesn’t seem to be properly tagged, so I can’t find it. The very short version is, “It’s entirely plausible, but your character will probably end up a vegetable after the fact.”

Being knocked unconscious is actually a concussion. It’s a life threatening injury. Being knocked out for more than a few seconds (of the top of my head, the number is somewhere around 30) will result in permanent brain damage for the victim. Being unconscious for more than a few minutes will result in either a coma or death. (For what it’s worth: I’m phrasing it like the symptom is the cause. The concussion’s severity determines both how long the victim is out, and the extent of other neurological damage.)

So, while it’s entirely possible to be knocked out by being body slammed into a wall, freeway support column or ‘57 Chevy, undertaking complex tasks like walking, talking, or remembering your own name, will probably be out of reach afterwards. Depending on the severity of the concussion these symptoms could last for minutes to permanent.

It’s also worth pointing out that concussions are cumulative. They’re literally bruising on the brain itself, from bouncing against the inside of the skull. These do stack up, meaning future concussions occur more easily, and are more severe. Knocking characters out repeatedly will kill them, quickly.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Sci-fi Firepower

For a sci-fi webcomic, I’ve been working on the specs of a class of power-armor clad enforcers (called Jotunns) and their weaponry; they have a specific handgun they use. For ammunition I was thinking of two types they carry: 12.7mm hollowpoint for soft targets and shorter range, and tungsten-tipped sabot rounds as ‘high-power’ rounds, for anti-armor/anti-giant-mutant and long-range use. Is this just me going way off the mark for firepower, or could this be justified for a man-scale tank?

So, 12.7mm is a real round (well, several different rounds), and it makes this entire question a little strange. We talked about the idiosyncrasies of firearms a couple weeks ago, and I had to check, but 12.7mm did come up as an example. 12.7mm is half an inch, so .50. Occasionally, you’ll see .50 BMG listed as 12.7x99mm instead of the imperial caliber.

I’ve seen 12.7 come up as a distinct round in, basically, two places. There’s a 12.7x108mm Chinese AM round, which is their answer to the .50 BMG, and, Fallout: New Vegas.

Ironically, the reason New Vegas calls it a 12.7mm is actually in the above paragraph. The game includes an Anti Materiel rifle patterned off the Barret which fires .50 BMG rounds. Because of how New Vegas formats ammunition names, this creates an immediate problem. There’s two different .50 rounds. The BMG and the AE. The AE is a handgun round (12.7x33mm), the BMG rifle round (again, 12.7x99mm). So, if you include a .50 pistol, and a .50 rifle, people who aren’t very firearms savvy are going to wonder why they don’t share ammunition. “I mean, it’s all .50, right?”

What Obsidian (I think this was specifically J.E. Sawyer’s call, but I’m not completely certain) chose to do was label one as 12.7mm, and the other one .50. Since the Barret has slightly more name recognition it got to keep the imperial name, and the pistol got the metric.

The other thing weighing on giving the pistol the metric name was, it’s a returning design from the first two Fallout games. They had something called a 14mm pistol (externally based on a SIG sporting pistol, if I’m remembering correctly), which was an upgrade from the .44 Desert Eagle, in game terms.

All of that said? .50AE isn’t a great round, and, while I could be wrong, I don’t see it having a real future. It fits with Fallout because it’s chromed steel excess meshes well with 1950s consumer design.

Hell, the Desert Eagle is an excellent example of that era’s design aesthetics. Big, heavy, more steel and chrome than is practical. It’s a four pound pistol. Even though it’s Israeli and didn’t actually enter production until the 1980s, it’s an excellent flash card for that era of Americana.

So, here’s the hard part. For someone who’s not wearing a powered exosuit, a .50 is an annoying round to control. In an exosuit, and against the kind of targets where you’d really need that kind of firepower, I’m inclined to think it would be kind of anemic. Why use a .50 round, when you could simply have a standardized 19mm or 25.4mm high explosive round? With varying payloads depending on what you’re shooting. Sure, no normal human could use it, but if you’re in powered armor, that’s not an issue.

A sabot round is, basically, a dart loaded into a shotgun shell. Now, that’s not completely accurate, but if you’re dead set on using one. I’d recommend just using solid darts, rather than having a distinct tip. For serious AP capability in a high power rifle, I’d actually be more inclined to point at man portable gauss weapons, rather than wasting space on a sabot.

All of this is going to be predicated on the technology your characters have access to. So, it’s possible your setting just doesn’t have portable gauss weapons. Also, feel free to ignore the bolter calibers I listed back up there. That is a Warhammer 40k reference. But, for ways to load out a suit of powered armor, 40k is a fantastic thing to look at.

Some quick primers for powered armor:

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein is probably the patient zero of SciFi space marines in powered armor. I deeply dislike the politics that Heinlein was advocating, but the book is worth reading. I’m much more partial to the film, but that’s a brutal takedown of the military jingoism that Heinlein was celebrating.

Armor by John Steakley is written as a rebuttal to Starship Troopers. I’m inclined to say it’s actually a better book, but that’s my bias seeping in. Either way, Steakley does some good worldbuilding.

If you haven’t, Warhammer 40k’s Space Marines are something you really should be looking at. You can check the Lexicanum to get a quick overview, and some basic statistical data; it will also work as a good quick litmus test to tell if the setting’s zealotry dialed to 11 and played for laughs is something you can actually get into and enjoy. For specific recommendations, first impulse here is to actually point at the THQ games. The generically titled Space Marine is a surprisingly good third person action title. Dawn of War was my first real introduction to the setting, and Dawn of War 2 specifically isn’t a bad starting point.

Generally speaking, when you’re looking at characters in powered armor, it can trace it’s lineage back through one of these sources. So it’s probably worth looking at them, if you’re working with this sub-genre.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Q&A: Vampire Feeding Symptoms

If a vampire drains a victim completely of blood, would they show any bruises? If not, what other trauma would they show?

Given that a bruise is, literally, a sub-dermal hemorrhage… I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say, probably not. Actually, if you want something sufficiently messed up; a vampire that preferentially goes after bruises is a possibility.

That said, corpses don’t generally bruise. So, if they were killed, then exsanguinated, there wouldn’t be any bruising. Depending on how fast the vampire was draining them, I’m not even sure if bruises would form.

Now, what would happen if you hooked a vacuum cleaner up to someone’s vascular system? Yeah, I don’t know, and I really don’t want to research that. (Mostly, because I know it’s been done, and will return valid information.) But, depending on the specifics of how vampires work in your setting, they could actually rip apart the victim’s circulatory system, resulting in massive hemorrhaging, or collapsed veins and arteries.

Of course, if your vampires are messy eaters, and literally rip their victims apart… you’d see that on the victim.

This kind of illustrates the problem with vampire questions in general. There isn’t much consistency. Either in fiction or folklore. Most societies have some kind of vampire myth. It builds out of cultural anxieties, usually in reference to death and handling the dead. Though, it’s probably worth pointing out that Dracula, and the modern vampire mythos spawned from him has a lot more to do with sex, sexuality, and xenophobia, than anything to do with funerary rituals being botched.

The result is that vampires are as varied as the human cultures that created them. So, asking, “how would they work?” Is going to result in a fair bit of guess work. The other side of this is, in using them, you have a lot of freedom to decide how the rules work for your vampires.

In the past I’ve identified Ravenous (1999) as a pretty fantastic vampire movie. I stand by that. But, there aren’t any vampires in it. Not explicitly, anyway. It’s about cannibals who are empowered by feeding on human flesh, rejuvenating them and granting superpowers. The movie calls them Wendigo, but, they’re vampires.

For modern settings, I strongly recommend the parasitic variety. In the modern world, dead bodies drained of blood turning up is a clear sign that something has gone horribly wrong, and in a setting where vampires exist, you’re going to have people who hunt them. Meaning an exsanguinated victim is just one undead fashion reject signing themselves up for a world of hurt.

Although it’s a pain to find, I do still strongly recommend the British Ultraviolet TV series. It was a smart look at vampires hiding in the modern world. It’s also a very intelligent, and rational, handling of the pre-millenial anxieties of the late 90s.

White Wolf’s Vampire: The Masquerade is somewhat similar to Ultraviolet. They’re both working towards building vampires that could exist in the modern day. Though, V:TM is a lot less shy about insinuating vampires into social systems like the Police and government, while Ultraviolet is more interested in the vampire hunters. I did a full article on White Wolf’s World of Darkness setting last year. So, that might be worth skimming before jumping after them. But, for writing horror, it is a very good reference to look at and think about.

-Starke

Q&A: Honeyed Wounds

I watched The Equalizer recently. Is it really possible, in your opinion, to seal up a gunshot wound with boiling hot honey? McCall does this as a quick patch up so can keep fighting later on. Wouldn’t it just hurt more when he tries to take off the honey to treat the wound?

I’m honestly not sure. I know honey is bacteriostatic, so you can use it as an antibacterial salve on minor wounds. As for actually sealing a wound? Especially one with deep trauma. I’m skeptical. This would be (almost exactly) like trying to treat a gunshot wound with Neosporin. Yeah, it’s great for minor cuts or mild burns, but against a bullet, not so much.

If this is after field surgery to keep the wound from getting infected, it’s a lot more plausible, but not just, “boil and pour it in there.”

My recollection is that boiling honey breaks down the enzymes that make honey bacteriostatic, which is vital to preparing it for fermentation into mead. …but, the internet says I’m wrong, that you can get honey to ferment at room temperature if you cut it with enough water, and that there’s no enzyme function involved.

I suspect that, as with a lot of organic mater, your body can pretty safely absorb it during the healing process. So, getting it out of the wound is a lot less important than you might think. That said, if you do need it out of the wound, you can wash it off, which you need to do when cleaning most wounds.

-Starke

Q&A: Stab Wounds

Hi in my fanfic I’ve just been writing my character dies after having a thrown knife stab her in her side and then ripping it out to kill the other person. Is it feasible that my character dies quickly or will she need help?

Yeah, so, basic first aid. If you’ve been stabbed or impaled, do not remove the foreign object. The exception is if the object is causing more damage by staying there.

This even extends to situations where a character’s been run through on a piece of rebar. They’re better off being cut down and taking the pole with them to the hospital than pulling it out.

Pulling out a knife (or any impaling object) will result in more immediate trauma. It got in there, but pulling it out won’t reliably follow exactly the same path. This is especially true of things like serrated or hooked blades.

So long as the object remains it will still obstruct the bleeding… some. This isn’t going to be enough to save their life, but pulling it out can tip the balance the other way. This is especially true if you end up with a blade nicking an artery, or a blood rich internal organ like the kidneys or liver. You’ll lose some blood, but pulling the blade out can turn things to life threatening very quickly.

-Starke

Q&A: Starke is not a Real Doctor

Starke, as you have reminded us on 24 occasions, you are not a doctor. How then did you manage to build up such a large amount of medical knowledge?

Scouts, family, and research.

I’ll snark on the subject occasionally, but the Boy Scouts do actually force you to learn some intermediate first aid procedures. It never gets into the range of full field surgery, but there’s actually a lot of training that goes into reaching Eagle. Medical, and otherwise. Some basic stuff comes straight from that.

Second, there’s a stupid number of medical professionals in my immediate family. My mother taught pharmacology and substance abuse (diagnosis and treatment) for most of my life growing up, and a lot of that rubbed off. It’s also part of why I have a more solid grasp of drug interactions and effects than basic A&P.

My father was a certified EMT for a few years, and, while less of that rubbed off, he was also one of the people responsible for handling the first aid classes in Scouts, which meant it ended up more advanced than was probably strictly necessary, by the book. My oldest brother is an actual doctor, and, while I’ve never lived with him, I did have the misfortune of being stuck at the table during extensive discussions about his work. Forensic radiology, and later emergency radiology, if anyone’s wondering. Also, as with my father, he’s an Eagle Scout as well, which gets towards the slightly skewed perspective I have of thinking, that the rank, and associated skills aren’t that unusual. Even when they are.

Finally? Research. This is one that’s, technically, open to anyone. It depends on exactly what the question is, but with some stuff, like the intracardiac injection question yesterday, or the malnourished teenager question a while back, I just need to look it up and check. There’s a couple decent medical resources online. WebMD comes to mind, though honestly I use google on the term, and then sort through the responses based on where it’s coming from. The other thing about researching basic medical information is, this stuff is really well documented. It’s not always as accessible as medical professionals think it is. But, it is out there.

Part of the reason for the disclaimer is, since I’ve never had the full range of training, I want that out there. I’m doing the best I can, but it’s not technically my area of expertise, even though I’ve had to learn a lot on the subject.

-Starke