A proposed ban on the sale and transfer of assault weapons in Washington is a logical, reasonable and morally justifiable step toward reducing gun violence in the state.
No, it would not eliminate assault weapons or mass shootings in the state. And, yes, it would be largely performative until Congress and other states adopt similar measures. But we are long past the time for rebuking gun-rights advocates who incessantly attempt to alter the narrative whenever a mass shooting horrifies the nation.
Reflecting upon those typical responses: Thoughts and prayers are much appreciated, but they do nothing to prevent the next shooting; mental health care must be bolstered, but we can do that and adopt reasonable gun control; and other nations have violent video games and yet are not subjected to the scourge of daily mass shootings.
Using the definition of four or more people killed or injured in a single event, the United States has seen at least 125 mass shootings in 2023. No civilized nation would accept that as the cost of freedom. No civilized nation would accept school shootings as routine or decline to admit that military-style weapons are a common thread among massacres of our children.
The latest abominable event was the murder of three 9-year-olds and three staff members last week at a school in Nashville. Appalling, indeed. But if Columbine and Sandy Hook and Parkland and Uvalde have taught us anything, it’s that outrage will subside before real change occurs — if we allow it to.
As Gov. Jay Inslee said: “We ought to be angry and we ought to insist on action. And thank goodness we live in a state where we’re going to take action.”
Lawmakers in Olympia appear prepared to pass House Bill 1240, which would ban the sale and transfer of more than 50 specific gun models, including the AR-15 — a favorite weapon of mass shooters. The bill passed the House with support from Democrats and opposition from Republicans, and now is in the Senate.
House Bill 5078 would require gun sellers to wait 10 business days before transferring a weapon and would require buyers to show proof they have completed a firearms safety program. And Senate Bill 5078 would hold the firearms industry accountable for sales to straw buyers and gun traffickers.
Combined, they would mark a major step in efforts to reduce gun violence. But it is the assault weapons ban that is most easily understood and, therefore, draws the most attention from the public. It also is the one that points out the need for broader national action.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law a 10-year ban on the manufacture of semi-automatic firearms defined as assault weapons, along with large-capacity ammunition magazines.
Contrary to tropes that are popular today, Americans were not suddenly stripped of their rights and the federal government did not suddenly become tyrannical without a heavily armed citizenry to hold it in check. Yet the ban was allowed to sunset under a Republican Congress and the administration of President George W. Bush. We have been paying a heavy price ever since.
Various studies show a decline in mass shootings during the period of the ban. At the same time, they demonstrate that state efforts to reduce assault weapons are less effective in preventing mass shootings.
That is the situation facing Washington lawmakers. While it is sensible to limit military-style weapons in our state, effective change will require efforts at the national level.
