[justshutupandtakeit]

The real point is that more casualties in armies of the 18th century resulted from poor sanitation, infections, sickness rather than wounds. Your silly hypothetical doesn't change that. Since I would be laying on the ground ripping you apart all the crap you fired would not even hit me or anywhere close. If it was so effective why would soldiers have bothered with anything other than "shots of junk?"

[Travis McGee]

People died from many causes in the 18th century that are routinely cured today. You never address my point, which is that today's "militia weapons" are not more dangerous than the "militia weapons" of 1780, because modern medicine has more than kept up with the wounds produced. Weapons were dangerous in 1780, just as they are today. A lunatic could take a blunderbuss loaded with 100 rusty nails to wipe out a picnic in 1780, just as a lunatic could do so today with an AK-47. Blunderbusses were not outlawed in 1780, and there is no difference when it comes to outlawing semi-auto rifles today. Both could cause heavy casualties in the hands of a killer.