Originalism and technological changes

[Jeff Renz]

I beg to differ, and admit that my disagreement is anecdotal.  The M-16 that I
carried for over four years as an infantryman was more accurate than the deer/elk
rifle I carry today.

Jeff Renz
U of MT

Michael MASINTER wrote:

> 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
> >
> >