I have no objection to the measures proposed by the editors of the Washington Post for reducing the number of mass shootings:
Background checks and so-called red-flag laws, the subject of another bill backed by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), represent only the bare minimum of reform. To tackle the specific, acute problem of mass public shootings, Congress must address the actual hardware: assault-style firearms, along with large-capacity magazines. Both should be banned, as assault weapons were at the federal level between 1994 and 2004, and as the law in several states already provides.
If anything, the large-capacity magazine ban may be the highest priority: Such devices, which augment the lethality of semiautomatic weapons, were involved in half of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, according to a 2013 report for Mother Jones. A 100-round drum of bullets enabled the Dayton shooter to fire 41 shots in less than 30 seconds. “It is fundamentally problematic,” the city’s police chief observed, “to have that level of weaponry in a civilian environment, unregulated.” Could the president or Mr. McConnell look him in the eye and deny it?
I have no objection to any measure within the bounds set by the Constitution. However, as suggested above, I believe the editors will be disappointed with the results. As they note only half of mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines. Is it credible that they wouldn’t have taken place without them? I doubt it.
IMO measures far beyond bans on firearms or equipment will be necessary including changes in the practices of the media. More than anything else we need a general decrease in the temperature of discourse.