OPINION: Readers response: Is meaningful gun control an impossibility?
Is meaningful gun control essentially an impossibility in Washington? We posed that question to our readers last week, after the mass shooting in Las Vegas led to a now-predictable pattern in the nation’s capital — with Democratic lawmakers calling for new gun-control measures, Republicans saying it was wrong to politicize a tragedy, and no one expecting much of anything to happen in the end. This time, there may be bipartisan support for a narrow ban on bump-stocks, a device used by the shooter that essentially can turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons. But even that is far from guaranteed. So, what, if anything, can and should be done about the issue?
Many readers wrote in to say that they would support a ban on all military-style weapons. “I own both handguns and rifles,” writes Bill Miller of Pinole, California. “Assault rifles should not be legal anywhere. These guns are not for hunting … No gun should be sold that can be modified into a fully automatic weapon.” Suzy Sharpe, of Sacramento, California, agrees: “I am relieved (although do not own any guns myself) that my single-mom daughter owns a handgun and a shotgun in the neighborhood where she lives,” Sharpe writes. “I do not understand, though, why anyone should be allowed to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.”
A large number of you also said you would support universal background checks. “Any legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, children — anyone with the potential to do harm, is a blessing and necessity,” writes Lynn Garnica of Berkeley, California. “Driving a car requires registration, proof of insurance and possession of a license which is intended to prove that one can safely drive a car. Cars can be deadly. There are far better oversights for use of cars than for guns.”