Originalism and technological changes

[Michael MASINTER]

Military assault rifles are not designed for accuracy (and certainly not
for inaccuracy); they are designed for rapid fire.  Their particular
danger arises from their capacity to discharge many rounds quickly, not
from their capacity to dicharge them accurately.  Were I concerned with
the accuracy of a single shot, I would choose a well designed and balanced
bolt action rifle.  Were I concerned with causing the maximum harm to the
maximum number of people, I would choose an assault rifle.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at nova.edu                       Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Greg Sisk wrote:

> Just as a note, which has some ironic aspects given the debate,
> military assault weapons -- which are the subject of the strongest
> federal limitations and often tauted by politicians for political
> reasons -- in fact are designed to be somewhat less likely to kill
> than to wound and incapacitate, the reason being that in war-time
> causing injury to enemies is more debilitating because the injured
> soldier's comrades are distracted by attending to him and then
> transporting him to medical assistance.  The average deer-rifle,
> subject to the most minimal of gun-control restrictions, is a much
> deadlier weapon, as one of the school shooting episodes demonstrated.
> As ironic and perverse as it may seem, but strangely true, more of
> those shot during that episode would have survived if the fire-arm
> used to commit the crime had been a so-called "assault weapon" rather
> than a deer rifle.  Whatever one's views about gun control, we must
> acknowledge that much of the debate is misguided.  The so-called
> "assault weapons" ban focuses primarily upon the cosmetic appearance
> of certain firearms, not upon their functional capacities.
>
>
> >  >        It turns out that fewer than 20-25% of all assault wounds inflicted
> >with firearms today lead to death (see National Safety Council,
> >Accident Facts).
> >The fraction is even less for handguns as opposed to shotguns.  Do we know
> >whether this is an appreciable increase -- or for that matter an appreciable
> >decrease -- from the lethality of firearms in the late 1700s.
> >
> >During that period, infection was the major killer.  Gunshot wounds,
> >especially
> >those that were made through cloth, tended to infect easily.  Actual piercing
> >wounds to the viscera would almost always result in infection, if they did not
> >kill acutely.  In either case, if you hit your target, you tended to kill him.
> >Modern guns are much more lethal acutely, even with modern surgical
> >care, but we
> >lose far fewer to subsequent infection.  While hitting the target was a real
> >problem, it probably did not reassure folks much when the expectation was of
> >slow and very painful death if hit.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> >Edward P. Richards
> >Executive Director - Center for Public Health Law
> >Professor of Law
> >University of Missouri Kansas City
> >(816)235-2370 Fax (816)235-5276
> >richardse at umkc.edu
> >http://plague.law.umkc.edu
>
> --
> Gregory Sisk
> Richard M. & Anita Calkins
>    Distinguished Professor
> Drake University Law School
> 2507 University Avenue
> Des Moines, Iowa  50311-4505
> 515-271-4184
> greg.sisk at drake.edu
>
>