Choose the Right Tool for the Job- Guns and Ammo Edition

Much of the current gun debate here in the US has centered around assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Predictably, this has prompted outrage and strawman arguments form the pro gun groups.

I'm neither dogmatically pro gun or anti gun. I'm a guy with a history degree and some Marine Corps time under my belt. Here is a little perspective on the history, development and uses of assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

They were developed by and for the military, to fit military needs.  A soldier and a civilian have different requirements from a gun.

A soldier wants a gun that holds lots of rounds and is quick to reload because he’s shooting at people who are trying to kill him. If he misses, he wants to get that second shot off fast, because the guy he missed is trying to kill him. Even if he hits, the guy’s buddies are still trying to kill him. Firing that next shot quickly becomes really, really nice. As the Zulu War and Little Bighorn showed, even an enemy with Stone Age weapons can rush you and kill you with a spear or tomahawk or bow and arrow while you grope in your ammo pouch between shots.  This is why armies developed fast firing weapons with bigger magazines, going from muzzle loaders to breech loaders to magazine rifles to semi automatic magazine rifles.   

The assault rifle was invented by the Germans in WWII as just that. A weapon with the rapid fire of a submachine gun but the longer range and accuracy of a rifle, to use in an assault. They even called it the Sturmgewehr, which is just German for “assault rifle.” The purpose of the rapid firing rifle is so that some members of a rifle squad can use the fire to keep the enemy’s head down while the rest of the squad moves in. It’s the best thing since sliced bread for fire and maneuver tactics. If you want to keep an enemy suppressed so your buddy can get close enough to toss a grenade in his trench, you want an assault rifle. It tends to be short, light and easier to quickly point and shoot than a traditional rifle, and uses a smaller cartridge than a rifle, but still bigger than a submachine gun, which usually uses a pistol cartridge.           

The best weapon for a guy who wants to shoot a deer is not a high capacity assault rifle. A hunter wants to hide and wait until he has a good shot, then he gets one shot, and the deer is hit or it bounds off through the trees, presenting a very difficult target for a second shot. The goal is a one shot kill. The best rifle for that is a bolt action .30-06. It’s more accurate than an assault rifle, and it’s a bigger bullet, with more knockdown, so a hit is more likely to drop the animal so you don’t have to chase it through the woods.

Deer don’t wear Kevlar, so you don’t need a full metal jacketed .223 round.. Deer don’t attack in waves and gore you while you reload. Deer don’t take cover and shoot back, so you don’t need to suppress them so your squad can outflank the deer’s position.

In fact, the best all purpose hunting weapon is the 12 gauge shotgun. With just a change of ammo you can hunt ducks, geese, deer, rabbits, squirrels, turkey, and pretty much anything with a legal season in the US. Plus, it’s perfectly adequate to defend your home.

If you want to protect yourself from being mugged and raped walking to the bus stop, an assault rifle is a lousy choice as well, since it doesn’t fit in your purse. A handgun with a standard magazine should be fine. Threats will be at close range, and as a friend of mine once said when questioned about the capacity of his choice of handgun, “anything that can survive six rounds of 44 ammo deserves to live.”

This isn’t opinion. This is history. The high capacity magazine was designed to meet a military need. The assault rifle was designed to meet a military need. They’re good for shooting a lot of people with very little time between shots. So, yeah, they are pretty much ideal for all kinds of illegal stuff, like shooting up a mall or school or mowing down firefighters, but sub par for most legitimate civilian reasons, like hunting or self defense. You aren’t allowed to mount an M-60 to the rollbar of your Jeep and play Rat Patrol either and we’ve managed not to turn into Russia.

So, yes, we can question the civilian desire for high capacity magazines in the same way we can question the guy who wants to use an F-350 as his city commuter vehicle and haul firewood with a Smartcar.

Playing with the Third Rail.

The biggest single problem with guns in this country is that we are unable to have a conversation about them that doesn’t degenerate into bumper stickers.

Now, I’ll say up front, I like guns. I like the feel as the weapon settles in the hand, I like the noise and the push of recoil and the smell of burnt power which authors call cordite but which isn’t. I like the catharsis of watching targets fall and the zen like concentration of lying prone with a support sling wrapped around your arm, plotting shots in a range book as you methodically make adjustments to bring your rounds onto a target five hundred yards away.

I understand that people have lawful, legitimate reasons to own guns, and I think that guns run deep in our culture. I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest banning them all, and it’s not like making meth illegal made it all go away.

But I think, on the other hand, we have to admit that guns are dangerous. They’re designed to be dangerous, at least to stuff downrange. And they’re dangerous to friends, family and neighbors of any careless, sloppy or just plain dumb operator.

Now, people argue that more people are killed with cars or baseball bats or bad sushi every year than with guns. This is true.

It’s also true that we regulate the shit out of motor vehicles, sports equipment and food. And unless you are being completely disingenuous, you have to admit that nobody has ever walked into a shopping mall with a hammer and racked up a double digit body count.

Any and all regulation is by definition an infringement on freedom. But we routinely accept large amounts of it because it makes sense. You expect your electrician to be licensed so your house doesn’t burn down. You expect your daycare to do background checks on the people who watch your kids.

I don’t think any of us feels that letting a legally blind man with a DUI and a seizure disorder drive an overweight tractor trailer with defective brakes over the speed limit without any sleep is just letting him exercise his freedom.

So why is it so unthinkable to suggest that maybe a criminal background check is warranted before we let a person buy an AK-47? Why is it un-American to question your lawful purpose in buying a 100 round drum magazine for your assault rifle. Do you even need an assault rifle? Do you plan to suppress the deer so your hunting buddy can get to hand grenade range?

So I think it time–actually far beyond time– that we start treating firearms like really dangerous stuff like motor vehicles or dairy products and put some sensible regulations in place.

Ask a Bitter Medic: Vaccinations

I’d like to talk about some facts versus folk wisdom and pseudoscience about vaccinations, and flu shots in particular.

“But the flu shots just makes me sick,” you say. “Why take a shot that makes me sick?”

A fair question, and one that is easily answered, but we’re all too damn overworked, underfunded and harried to explain it, plus, we hear any anti-vaccine stuff and we just roll our eyes and punch a wall, pretending it’s Jenny McCarthy. 

Now, I know Ms McCarthy has tried to make amends for her crimes against public health by posing again in Playboy, and we’re grateful, but, Jenny, that’s not quite gonna cut it.

So, anyway, here goes:

The flu shot does not “make you sick.” It’s a dead virus. Your body recognizes the foreign invader and the body’s immune response can make you feel lousy. Fever, inflammation, nausea, these are all part of your body’s immune response.

The reaction to the flu shot lasts a day, and can be unpleasant. My five year old son got the shot and was cranky and achy for one evening. He coped, and HE’S FIVE.

The alternative is he maybe gets the flu.

Influenza is a highly contagious and dangerous disease. 250,000 to 500,00 people DIE worldwide each year from the flu.  Mostly older people, very young people and those with preexisting medical problems, but even the healthy flu sufferer will have severe symptoms for a week or two. And the flu sucks. You’re not limping in to work, like you have a cold. You are lying in bed with a high fever, praying for death’s sweet release.

Plus, once one member of the family has it, it will rage through the household like Chlamydia through a Christian Youth Bible Camp, and you lose a week’s sick time (or pay, if you’re one of us who doesn’t have all that much sick time) taking care of a sick kid while praying for death’s sweet release.

And if you follow Mitt’s advise and call an ambulance, we will take you to the ER, where they won’t be able to do a damn thing to cure the flu, but will subject everybody else to your germs, and run up a bill.

All the while, thinking “Why didn't you just get the fucking shot?’

This has been a Public service announcement by Bitter Medics Against Pseudoscience. We return you to the internet.

Yeah, we kinda know we’re fighting a losing battle, but there ya go.