Since George Banks began his 13-victim killing spree on Schoolhouse Lane in Wilkes-Barre in 1982, through the antisemitic shooting that left 11 worshippers dead in a synagogue in the Squirrel Hill section of Pittsburgh in 2018, to last summer’s shooting spree in Philadelphia that took five lives, at least 59 Pennsylvanians have died in mass shootings involving semi-automatic weapons. Yet in all that time, the General Assembly has done little to restrict the sale of those firearms or the high-capacity magazines that help make them so deadly.

Recently, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, in a party-line vote, advanced a bill that would have the commonwealth join 10 other states in banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons. A vote on the House floor probably won’t occur until after a February special election that will break a 101-101 tie between Democrats and Republicans in the chamber. But even if the bill were to pass the House, history suggests it is unlikely to get a hearing in the Republican-controlled Senate. A gun-safety package passed in the House last year was never called up in committee in the upper chamber. That’s a pity, because the citizens of Pennsylvania deserve an open debate on the ready availability of weapons capable of inflicting such unimaginable carnage in the blink of an eye.

Arguments that an assault-weapons ban would make the Second Amendment a “second-class amendment” ring hollow when one considers there are numerous laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms and a whole host of certain weapons cannot legally be sold to the general public. Americans already own an estimated 20 million assault-style rifles and it is difficult to imagine who would benefit from adding to the total, save gun manufacturers.

The United States banned the sale of such weapons from 1994 to 2004 with no harm to the republic, but Congress regrettably allowed the ban to lapse. Since then, a number of studies have reached conflicting findings on the effectiveness of such bans. In an independent review of studies of statewide bans last year, the Rand Corp. noted there was some evidence they reduced mass shootings, but found it inconclusive. There was stronger evidence, however, that bans on high-capacity magazines did reduce mass shootings.

That very uncertainty should motivate the General Assembly to further probe the question rather than allow the House bill to wither through the type of legislative gamesmanship that too often gridlocks our politics in Harrisburg and Washington.

Polling shows Pennsylvanians broadly support stricter gun laws when it comes to red flag laws, expanded background checks and safe storage. Their views on an assault-weapons ban are less clear. That’s why it is incumbent on the state Senate to allow a full examination and debate on the bill pending in the House.

Scranton Times-Tribune