Originalism and technological changes

[Greg Sisk]

I don't disagree with Professor Masinter's statements, but it doesn't
respond to my point about much of the gun-control debate being a
matter of political image issues rather than substance.  Of course,
he is correct in saying that true military assault rifles are also
designed to fire rapidly -- that is, they are fully automatic
(continuing to fire bullets as long as the trigger is depressed).
Quite independent of any current gun control proposals or the
supposed "assault weapons" ban, fully automatic weapons are illegal,
that is, they may not be sold or possessed (except under very strict
licensing limitations).  In other words, the ban on so-called assault
weapons is not directed at fully automatic weapons, which already are
prohibited by other laws.  Instead, the assault weapons ban is
directed at rifles that by appearance look like a fully automatic
military weapon, even though they functionally are not -- it remains
a matter of cosmetics.  Nor is the assault weapons ban directed at
semi-automatic weapons (a bullet fired every time the trigger is
depressed again), which would describe most rifles and handguns and
thus would broadly prohibit most gun ownership (very few politicians
openly take that position, at least as yet).  The assault weapons ban
was a politician's dream, because it allows the supporter to pretend
to his or her constituents that a dangerous weapon is being banned;
in truth, nothing of significance is eliminated from the fire-arms
market by this ban.

>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
>>
>>

--
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