McVeigh and the purpose of the 2d Amendment.
chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
Wed Jan 3 10:03:03 PST 2001
The M-16 was designed to spray jungle as a counter ambush tool. In our
training in Viet Nam, we did not aim the M-16 really, we sprayed it. The
M-l is a better target competition gun with a lot better penetration
through oak doors et al. . The M-16 is a very light, very high speed
bullet that spins up a bone into soft tissue. The principle is like the
dum, dum bullet or cop killers that spray on impact. Do not underestimate
the capacity of the M-16 to kill.
It would be a bit hard to take out the whole Senate with a single clip,
you would need to reload, but it can get the job done if that is purpose of
the Second Amendment.
. At 06:32 PM 01/02/2001 -0600, you 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
>>with firearms today lead to death (see National Safety Council,
>>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,
>>those that were made through cloth, tended to infect easily. Actual
>>wounds to the viscera would almost always result in infection, if they
>>kill acutely. In either case, if you hit your target, you tended to kill
>>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.
>>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
>Richard M. & Anita Calkins
> Distinguished Professor
>Drake University Law School
>2507 University Avenue
>Des Moines, Iowa 50311-4505
>greg.sisk at drake.edu
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
More information about the Conlawprof