Letters to the Editor: Banning assault weapons won’t solve our gun crisis, but it would certainly help
—
To the editor: Malcolm Gladwell gets a lot right in his new book, but his contention that assault weapons are no deadlier than handguns — and that banning these weapons of war is a waste of time — doesn’t line up with the facts (“Malcolm Gladwell thinks everything you know about gun violence is probably wrong,” Oct. 27).
Consider ammunition. Assault weapons typically fire bullets that can travel up to four times faster than the most common handgun caliber, which makes the physical damage far worse.
Or consider how assault weapons are designed. These rifles can accept 100-round magazines, double the largest handgun magazine.
Or consider the accessories. Assault weapons can be customized with an array of deadly add-ons, including bump stocks, which turn assault rifles into machine guns.
Given these factors, it’s no surprise that the 10 highest-casualty U.S. mass shootings from 2016-2025 involved an assault weapon. There’s also strong evidence that banning assault weapons works. One study found that if the federal ban of 1994-2004 remained in effect through 2022, 38 public mass shootings could have been prevented.
Gladwell is right about this much: Banning assault weapons alone won’t solve America’s gun violence crisis. That’s why the gun safety movement is also fighting for background checks on all gun sales, secure storage requirements and other common-sense laws. That being said, banning assault weapons would deprive mass shooters of their most devastating tool, and reassure every American who can no longer enter a public place without checking for the exits.
John Feinblatt, New York City
This writer is president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence.
..
To the editor: Gladwell is correct that violence is a scourge, and we need to take it seriously. His prescription to simply hire more police, however, is wrong. This outdated strategy has been tried time and again, from Richard Nixon’s surge in federal law enforcement funding to Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill that put 100,000 more police on the streets.
We have learned a lot in the intervening decades about what works to prevent crime and break its cycle — effective, accountable policing alongside community-based crime prevention programs. Baltimore is a shining example. The city’s community violence intervention program deserves significant credit for its crime decline, while Baltimore police have increased arrests for serious violent crimes and improved homicide clearance rates without raising the overall arrest rate.
Gladwell’s call for more police reflects either the lazy, conventional political wisdom of years gone by or ignorance of the growing evidence about what makes communities safer.
Insha Rahman, Brooklyn
This writer is president of the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for criminal justice reform.
