Mortality rates and technological history of Guns
calvin johnson
chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
Sun Nov 5 13:44:58 PST 2000
I suppose I dont much object to allowing criminals to have flint locks.
They are highly unreliable; like a sword or bayonet in mortality. You have
to have a phallanx to be an effective defensive weapon (even against a
tomahawk) because it takes so long to reload. To go from there to putting
the AK 47 on the streets of Los Angeles as a matter of right is a big leap.
The AK 47 as a matter of right is going to kill a lot of very fine people
for reasons that the Founders would never have tolerated. For goodness
gracious, the Colt 45 is a much more dangerous weapon than the founders ever
thought about. I know in America that outlaws are heroes, I take it because
they are fighting for liberty against Federalist or blue helmet troops. But
realize in a world that can not distinguish between anti-government
fighters and viciously violent anti-government punks overrunning UCLA that
this debate is really about how much armament we want some very very bad
actors to have. Not much in my book, then or now.
The 2d Amendment was a sop to the opposition, signifying as little
as possible. The Anti-Federalists amendments called for no Standing armies
or at least 2/3 approval, and Madison denied the AntiFederalists what they
wanted and gave them trivia instead. The debate in the house focused on
exemption for Quakers, with the express language for exemption deleted
apparently because we should leave this humane measure to the good judgement
of the Government. The real debates just do not fit the Posse Comitatus
interpretation. The tradition comes from Whig demands for Protestant army to
balance King James Catholic standing army, ie for the phallanx again.
Picking and chosing from Tucker, so many years later, is not originalism in
my book. The history does nto require that you interpret the Constituion as
a covenant with death, unless you want to. Plus since the technological
value of the flintlock was in the phallanx, the thought process has to be
mostly thinking of the phallanx.
Read arms as parallel to religion and even Soledad has some
limited rights to arm. Read arms as like freedom of the press and you have
deconstructed written Constitutions, which is what Sandy wanted in the first
place.
> I'm no expert on the technological history of guns, much less
>specifically of handguns. Nonetheless, I'm a bit skeptical of his
>proposition (though perhaps I don't have it quite right).
>
> First, if the claim is that the Framers contemplated that
>individuals would deter government tyranny with "arms" in the sense of bows
>and arrows as opposed to arms in the sense of guns, that claim seems to me
>highly questionable. As Prof. Johnson points out, the firearm was indeed
>more lethal *in practice* in the hands of a not exceptionally well-trained
>person -- the firearm was the weapon of choice for a reason. And if that's
>true when the person is a recruit into a standing army, then that's even
>more true when the person is a member of the armed citizenry at large (the
>militia), required to formally train a couple of times a year at most. If
>Blackstone, the Framers, Tucker, Story, or anyone else envisioned the public
>deterring government tyranny with bows and arrows or with Roman gladii, to
>my knowledge they kept this vision to themselves -- I know of no evidence
>that supports such a proposition.
>
> Second, if the claim is that the Framers just never anticipated that
>technology would make modern handguns as lethal *in criminal use* as they
>are today, that too seems to be highly questionable. I'm quite certain that
>modern firearms are far more accurate at longish distances than they were
>back then, but my guess is that the handgun (or the musket) of the late
>1700s was pretty accurate at the distance at which most crimes occur. True,
>modern handguns can fire more rounds, and my guess is that muzzle velocities
>are greater; but there's the extremely significant contrary effect caused by
>better medical technology.
>
> The bottom line is that, to the best of my knowledge, about 15% of
>all intentional handgun woundings today lead to death; the fraction for
>intentional gun woundings generally is about 20-25%. (The former number is
>from memory, the latter is from the National Safety Council's Injury Facts
>1999 [p. 121]; the latter number is higher because rifle and especially
>shotgun injuries are generally more lethal than handgun injuries.) This is
>one sensible test of the lethality of modern handguns. My guess is that,
>even considering the fact that fewer wounds in the 1700s would have been
>multiple-bullet wounds (since each gun fired one shot and most people who
>carried a gun carried at most one or two), the lethality of the typical
>handgun wound in the 1700s was at least at this level or higher. Certainly
>I doubt that the Framers would have been shocked at a lethality level of 15%
>for handguns and 20-25% for guns generally, and seen it as some tremendous
>technological increase in the weapons' deadliness.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Calvin Johnson [SMTP:chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 10:39 AM
>> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
>> Subject: Technological history of Guns
>>
>> An accurate use of originalism would have to emphasize the rather
>> modest technological status of guns in 1787.
>> "The lethality of early gunpowder handguns is often
>> overestimated, and in fact befroe the invention of rifling in the 1830s
>> remained no more lethal than bows and less so than the Roman gladius
>> [Richard Gabriel, The Culture of War. Invention and Early Development 126
>> (1990)]. The advantage of guns was that they were easy to use (far easier
>> than the much more effective longbow); large masses of conscript infantry
>> could therefore be trained in their use. But this presupposes the ability
>> to conscript and train large masses of infantry." Stephan Morillo,
>> Warfare Warfare underthe Anglo-Norman Kings. (Suffolk, UK 1990).
>> If Morrillo and the technological historians are right, it is the bow and
>> arrow that the better protector of individual rights, and the powder gun
>> that is the weapon of the large massed army or militia. And to the
>> thinkers of the time, any individual right to powder arms has to have
>> been assumed to be a right slightly less dangerous than the sword or the
>> bow and arrow.
>> I am of course the truly faithful originist on this issue,
>> upset by the misuse of history way out of context to support something
>> that was never contemplated.
>>
>>
>> Calvin H. Johnson
>> Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
>> The University of Texas School of Law
>> 727 E. 26th St.
>> Austin, TX 78705
>> (512) 232-1306 (voice)
>> FAX: (512) 232-2399
>> Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
><META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
><TITLE>RE: Technological history of Guns</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>
><P> <FONT COLOR="#000080"
FACE="Arial">I'm no expert on the technological history of guns, much less
specifically of handguns. Nonetheless, I'm a bit skeptical of his
proposition (though perhaps I don't have it quite right).</FONT></P>
>
><P> <FONT COLOR="#000080"
FACE="Arial">First, if the claim is that the Framers contemplated that
individuals would deter government tyranny with "arms" in the
sense of bows and arrows as opposed to arms in the sense of guns, that claim
seems to me highly questionable. As Prof. Johnson points out, the
firearm was indeed more lethal *in practice* in the hands of a not
exceptionally well-trained person -- the firearm was the weapon of choice
for a reason. And if that's true when the person is a recruit into a
standing army, then that's even more true when the person is a member of the
armed citizenry at large (the militia), required to formally train a couple
of times a year at most. If Blackstone, the Framers, Tucker, Story, or
anyone else envisioned the public deterring government tyranny with bows and
arrows or with Roman gladii, to my knowledge they kept this vision to
themselves -- I know of no evidence that supports such a proposition.</FONT></P>
>
><P> <FONT COLOR="#000080"
FACE="Arial">Second, if the claim is that the Framers just never anticipated
that technology would make modern handguns as lethal *in criminal use* as
they are today, that too seems to be highly questionable. I'm quite
certain that modern firearms are far more accurate at longish distances than
they were back then, but my guess is that the handgun (or the musket) of the
late 1700s was pretty accurate at the distance at which most crimes
occur. True, modern handguns can fire more rounds, and my guess is
that muzzle velocities are greater; but there's the extremely significant
contrary effect caused by better medical technology.</FONT></P>
>
><P> <FONT COLOR="#000080"
FACE="Arial">The bottom line is that, to the best of my knowledge, about 15%
of all intentional handgun woundings today lead to death; the fraction for
intentional gun woundings generally is about 20-25%. (The former
number is from memory, the latter is from the National Safety Council's
Injury Facts 1999 [p. 121]; the latter number is higher because rifle and
especially shotgun injuries are generally more lethal than handgun
injuries.) This is one sensible test of the lethality of modern
handguns. My guess is that, even considering the fact that fewer
wounds in the 1700s would have been multiple-bullet wounds (since each gun
fired one shot and most people who carried a gun carried at most one or
two), the lethality of the typical handgun wound in the 1700s was at least
at this level or higher. Certainly I doubt that the Framers would have
been shocked at a lethality level of 15% for handguns and 20-25% for guns
generally, and seen it as some tremendous technological increase in the
weapons' deadliness.</FONT></P>
><UL>
><P><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
><BR><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1
FACE="Arial">Calvin Johnson [SMTP:chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]</FONT>
><BR><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1
FACE="Arial">Saturday, November 04, 2000 10:39 AM</FONT>
><BR><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">To: </FONT></B>
<FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu</FONT>
><BR><B><FONT SIZE=1
FACE="Arial">Subject: </FONT></B>
<FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Technological history of Guns</FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT FACE="Arial"> An
accurate use of originalism would have to emphasize the rather modest
technological status of guns in 1787. </FONT>
><BR><FONT
FACE="Arial">
"The lethality of early gunpowder handguns is often overestimated, and
in fact befroe the invention of rifling in the 1830s remained no more lethal
than bows and less so than the Roman gladius [Richard Gabriel, The Culture
of War. Invention and Early Development 126 (1990)]. The advantage of
guns was that they were easy to use (far easier than the much more effective
longbow); large masses of conscript infantry could therefore be trained in
their use. But this presupposes the ability to conscript and train large
masses of infantry." Stephan Morillo, Warfare Warfare
underthe Anglo-Norman Kings. (Suffolk, UK 1990). </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT FACE="Arial">If Morrillo and the technological historians are
right, it is the bow and arrow that the better protector of individual
rights, and the powder gun that is the weapon of the large massed army or
militia. And to the thinkers of the time, any individual right to
powder arms has to have been assumed to be a right slightly less
dangerous than the sword or the bow and arrow. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT
FACE="Arial"> I am of
course the truly faithful originist on this issue, upset by the
misuse of history way out of context to support something that was never
contemplated. </FONT></P>
><BR>
>
><P><FONT FACE="Arial">Calvin H. Johnson </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">The University of Texas School of Law </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">727 E. 26th St. </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">Austin, TX 78705 </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">(512) 232-1306 (voice) </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">FAX: (512) 232-2399 </FONT>
><BR><FONT FACE="Arial">Website: <A
HREF="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson"
TARGET="_blank">http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson</A></FONT>
></P>
></UL>
></BODY>
></HTML>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list