Opinion | An assault weapons ban would slow mass shootings

In his explanation of the answers to the “right question,” he used survey data, first from a Gallup poll taken in 2017 that found that “60 percent of Americans wanted gun laws to ‘be made more strict,’” and then from a 2021 Washington Post-ABC poll that “found that 53 percent of respondents believed that stricter gun control ‘would not reduce crime.’” Of course, banning assault weapons would not “reduce crime” in general; no one claims that it would. People will still use other types of weapons — handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, even knives and explosives — to commit crimes that result in death. But if assault weapons are not available, a disgruntled employee will not be able to kill his boss, his boss’s secretary and 20 other workers in less time than it takes to take a sip of coffee.

The assault weapons ban in force from 1994 to 2004 did not “reduce crime”; it did reduce the number of what are defined as mass killings and the number of victims of any single crime involving firearms. It was a small step. Why can’t we take this one small step to save more 9-year-olds from being blown apart because someone had a bad day and a big gun?

Katherine Keller, Washington

Ramesh Ponnuru wrote those who embrace gun control are asking the wrong question. Perhaps, but I think there is an even more basic question: Are the killings by guns in our country a problem? If yes, then we should work on answers and toward action taken by responsible legislators. If no, then weapons of war, with the ammunition of war, can continue to be paraded on the streets and stashed in glove compartments and closets across the country. Bought legally and displayed openly. All legal.

Some years ago, slavery was legal, and it required a war and constitutional action to correct. Perhaps, on the issue of guns, people of good faith and sound minds can find solutions that change the equation and place public safety ahead of mindless slogans without resorting to extremes.