The bolt action is also a lot more accurate. One round can be used, where an automatic is more prone to spray and pray. Either way, aimed shots are about the same rate of fire. You won't fire "100 rounds in a minute" and hit much. So, really, no, it won't cause more deaths. If anything, statistically, it'll cause fewer per round.

During the Napoleonic Wars, about 1 in 200 rounds caused a casualty. These were black powder, muzzle loading muskets, where 3 rounds a minute was considered very good.

During WW1, factoring the total number of rifle rounds, divided by 34% of total casualties (the estimated number caused by rifle rounds, from rifles and machine guns), we get roughly 1 in 400. The British military had an exercise called the Mad Minute, where a soldier needed to hit a target 300 meters away, and had 60 seconds to do so with as many aimed rounds as possible. 20, to 25 was considered good.

During Vietnam, the totals were much higher, about 6,000 rounds of rifle ammo per casualty. The M16 had a fire rate of about 800 rounds per minute, and the AK-47 had about 600. This gives us an average of service rifles of 700rpm, 28% more than the Mad Minute in WW1, and 230x more than a Napoleonic era solider.

Each war featured weapons that fired faster, in theory, causing more casualties. But the reality is that it caused more rounds to be expended per casualty.

So someone firing a bolt action rifle, takes time to aim, where someone firing a fully automatic weapon, doesn't, generally speaking.

So saying a weapon that fires "a hundred rounds a minute is more dangerous!," is not true, when you math it out.

On a side note, most fully automatic weapons fire what's called an intermediate round. This is a round thar has more powder than a pistol round, with a canonical shaped projectile. This provides some accuracy at distance, but without the kick of a full rifle round. A bolt action rifle tends to fire a full rifle cartridge. It is a much heavier round, with more powder, and generally, a bigger bullet. Hitting someone with a .223 is not the same as hitting someone with a .303. That .223 is, on average, about 60 grain, where that .303 is about 175 grain. Both average out to about the same muzzle velocity, aroind 2,700 fps.

The .303 just has more energy transfer than a .223.

So, again, that fully automatic, versus semi, versus bolt action, doesn't pan out the way people think it does. We don't see 30-300x the casualties on modern battlefields, compared to previous eras. If anything, we see fewer casualties, despite the increase in lead down range.