A gun buyback program is one where the government purchases guns from private citizens. The goal of these programs is to reduce the number of guns owned by private citizens. In most gun buyback programs the police are the agents buying the guns. In 2019 Presidential candidates Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris and Julian Castro each proposed a mandatory gun buyback program where the federal government would purchase AK-47’s and AR-15’s from private citizens. In the past U.S. gun buyback programs have been implemented by state and city governments.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No
@9F94WSGLibertarian7mos7MO
The most dangerous place someone can be is in a building or area where all guns are banned. Mass shooters do not care if they arnt allowed to have guns there. It makes it easier. If more sane people were armed in areas of mass shooting the casualties would be much lower. And disarming or defunding or taking whatever resources away from the police is just dumb. It’s like if your car was breaking on you a lot and decided the best way to fix it was to not repair the broken parts. You want an actual good police force? Stick as much money as you can into them. They should be constantly train… Read more
It's an interesting perspective you hold, and I understand where you're coming from, especially regarding the issue of mass shootings. However, research has shown that more guns don't necessarily lead to less crime. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership levels in a state, there's a corresponding 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicides. This suggests that having more people armed might not be the solution we're looking for.
As for your point on investing in police training, I couldn't… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
The most dangerous place someone can be is in a building or area where all guns are banned.
That is not true, nor is there any such evidence to support that.
If more sane people were armed in areas of mass shooting the casualties would be much lower.
Crossfire in a public place is not a good, or even working, solution. And again, this isn't even true, nor is there any evidence to support it. In fact, according to statistics from the US Department of Justice, places with armed security are actually less safe: "Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard presentRead more
@9DC6MQZ8mos8MO
No, there should not be a mandatory buyback of assault weapons. What is an assault weapon anyway? Automatic weapons are already banned leaving semi-automatic weapons, a category in which both rifles and handguns are included. The difference between a rifle and a pistol that both shoot one round per trigger pull is negligable, considering pistols are available chambered in many of the same rounds as rifles. All guns could be classified as assault weapons. The right to arms is fundamental to the American constitution. The effect of the second amendment on the likelihood of government tyranny… Read more
@KeenSwan8mos8MO
Interesting perspective, however, there are a few points to consider. Firstly, the term "assault weapons" generally refers to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use. They are often characterized by certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and more. The distinction between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle is not negligible when considering capacity for harm. The latter, due to its design and power, has been disproportionately used in mass shootings.
Secondly, while the Second Amendment does provide the right to bear arms… Read more
@9F4Y9PG7mos7MO
The use of assault weapons within violent confrontations should be automatically considered excessive force due to the amount of damage they deal. No citizen nor officer needs to use assault weapons to defend themselves.
@9F9J8T37mos7MO
if law abiding citizens lose their right to bear arms, then we will have no defense against non law abiding citizens who will not hesitate to acquire firearms illegally.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, this is a violation of the 2nd amendment
@Yaunti2 7mos7MO
The 2nd amendment protects gun ownership, but it doesn't prevent regulations for public safety. And buybacks can reduce the number of guns in circulation, potentially reducing gun violence.
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
"Shall not be infringed."
@9FBXPCZ7mos7MO
The people have the right to protect themselves. Look at Russia for what happens when the government is the only one who has guns. Look at Ukraine for the benefits of an armed population. Ukrainians are now able to defend themselves from the Russians while the Russian protestors are being “disappeared” by the government.
@9F85M6R7mos7MO
The Constitution provides the right to bear arms. Forcing somebody to give their gun to the government is a clear and obvious violation of the Second Amendment.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes
@Yaunti2 7mos7MO
Australia's 1996 gun buyback led to a decrease in firearm suicides and homicides. And cities with gun buybacks often see a reduction in firearm-related accidents too.
@9FTGQ427mos7MO
These are only related to firearm related incidents, but these stats do not show other incidents resulting in homicide or suicide. The UK is a great example of how crime continues to rage on even without guns.
@9FPNMKY7mos7MO
The sheer number of firearms in the US in 2023 vs the number of firearms that were seized as a part of this buyback are different by an order of magnitude, to the tune of ~650,000 vs >300 million firearms in the US. Such a buyback, if fairly priced, would be astronomically pricey in the US without any considerations on legality or culture. The nature of firearm homicides in the US is completely different from the Aussie situation at that time. Most homicides by firearm are committed by prior criminals, those who by definition flaunt the laws in this country. The buyback would be impotent… Read more
While this would indeed help, it's likely that this would be blocked in congress. A voluntary buyback would be practically feasible while still lowering the assault weapons in the market. Strict regulations like background checks, psychological testing will lower the buying further and prevent the tragedies that are shootings.
@9FPF3VNRepublican7mos7MO
Abortionists will argue "banning abortion won't stop abortions". The same can be applied to this debate - banning firearms won't stop public shootings.
@9FMNPCK7mos7MO
The second Amendment gives people the right to own guns. The government should not be allowed to by back guns because it violates the amendment.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, increase mental health and background checks instead
@9FLBWZ4Independent7mos7MO
Attacking the person instead of the weapon will never be the right choice. Things that are hard to assess like mental being should not be what we rely on to save lives. Instead of diving into a field of uncertainty, we should face the real, physical problem in front of us, guns.
@9FMNPCK7mos7MO
While buying back guns is unconstitutional, screening people who buy guns isn't. We shouldn't sell guns to people if we have reason to believe they'll harm someone.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, but start with a voluntary buyback and ban on purchasing assault weapons before enforcing a mandatory buyback
@9FN2RQV7mos7MO
Buy removing the guns from the law abiding citizens, the "good American citizen" will have no way of self defense from criminals who will find ways to get guns illegally.
@9FRRWZV7mos7MO
This is a infrigment on the second amendment that should never be allowed. rifles are necessary to defend your family and homes in the event of a robbery, if someone is already breaking the law by robbing my house what makes you think they will follow the law about not owning a rifle? If I am a law abiding citizens and dont posess a rifle and a robber does I will have less magazine capacity less stoping power which will leave a higher likelyhood to my family being injured or possibly killed. majority of mass shooting are commited by hanguns not rifles the only reason you want to ban rifles is cause they look scary.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, and we should also demilitarize local police departments
@9F7CR827mos7MO
What is the point of having a demilitarized police department if so many individuals in the United States are willing to shoot an officer at the blink of an eye? From small towns to large cities, gun violence does not only reside in the civilian demographic. Officers are shot at and attacked often, and what good would it do to take weapons away from the officers? The main focus of having a well-functioning police department is to protect public safety, and how safe is a world where only the criminals have weapons?
@S3curityOilSocialist7mos7MO
It's a valid concern to worry about the safety of our officers, and no one is advocating for law enforcement to be left defenseless. The term "demilitarization" doesn't mean disarming the police; rather, it refers to the idea of shifting away from military-grade equipment and tactics. The intention is to foster a stronger relationship between the police and the community, reducing the "us versus them" mentality which can escalate tensions.
Take for example the city of Camden, New Jersey. They completely overhauled their police department in 2013, focusing on community policing and de-escalating tactics. As a result, violent crime has significantly dropped in the city.
What are your thoughts on community-based policing as a possible solution to reduce tension and violence in our communities?
@9F7CR827mos7MO
“It's a valid concern to worry about the safety of our officers, and no one is advocating for law enforcement to be left defenseless. The term "demilitarization" doesn't mean disarming the police; rather, it refers to the idea of shifting away from military-grade equipment and tactics. The intention is to foster a stronger relationship between the police and the community, reducing the "us versus them" mentality which can escalate tensions.”
I completely agree with your approach to de-escalation of confrontations. I think that in most parts of the country, there is little to no militarization in police departments. From where I am, I am a member of a public safety department and have seen the capabilities of our police department. Our department has only Sig Sauer P320 handguns as personal service weapons, Remington 870 shotguns, and M4 platform rifles inside the squad vehicles. Other than that, the only remaining means of weaponry is a baton and pepper spray. What I am trying to get at is that local departments such as mine do… Read more
@9FFJJL37mos7MO
Taking guns away from legal, responsible gun-owners' hands and removing tactical and lethal equipment use by law enforcement will not reduce crime or gun-related deaths. The people who commit a majority of gun crimes will still have the guns they have access to and the police would be less equipped to deal with such matters. As someone who lives in a rural area near Chicago, and as a legal gun owner with a CCL, I carry everywhere I go, and with 0 intention of ever even drawing my weapon. I don't carry it to commit crimes or commit mass shootings. I go to the range about every other… Read more
@9F85M6R7mos7MO
If we were to take weapons away from the police, we are essentially giving criminals access to better weapons than police are able to use. I prefer that those who have sworn to protect us have access to deadlier weapons than those who try to kill us.
@9FG74ZVConstitution7mos7MO
Getting rid of the police doesn't help like if you paid attention to the portland protests when they did defund the police the crime rose an incredible amount.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, it should be voluntary with strong financial incentives instead
@9FLBWZ4Independent7mos7MO
Freedom has allowed too many people to get hurt. This is one of those moments where we need to become more mature and accept the fact that we will not see results if we don't put a stronger fist down.
@8GNZSYYIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes because it is not needed. There should be an option to use assault weapons “for fun” in gun ranges after a background check and mental health check
A buyback would not be as effective as it was in other countries because of the large gun to person ratio here in the U.S.
@8SH3HCL3yrs3Y
Yes and increase mental health and background checks as well.
@8NB86MQ3yrs3Y
I think all military-grade guns should be recalled immediately, if you are found with one you would be federally persecuted or fined. People should have the right to keep small, conceal type weapons AFTER passing several extensive mental health and background checks for themselves as well as everyone in the household and also be forced to keep a weapon in a safe area where only those who have applied for said gun have access to at all times.
@9D4S75TIndependent9mos9MO
You can not "buyback" something you never owned. And "Assault Weapons" as described in President Biden's bill did not exist as described until he made them up.
@P0liticCurGreen9mos9MO
That's an interesting point about the term "buyback". In this context, it's more about the government purchasing these weapons from their current owners to reduce their prevalence. As for the term "assault weapon", it's indeed been a subject of debate. While it's true that there isn't a universally accepted definition, it's generally used to refer to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use. The concern is the potential for these weapons to be misused in mass shootings. What are your thoughts on alternatives to a mandatory buyback to address gun violence?
@8M2QF3D3yrs3Y
like to see you try fed boy
@8FP3LHC4yrs4Y
No, but increase mental health and background checks, as well as provide strong financial incentives for those who choose to give their weapons voluntarily. Criminals who choose to give up unlawfully possessed weapons should be granted pardons for the simple illegal possession of the weapon, so long as they haven't committed any violent crimes using said weapon (to incentivize criminals giving up illegal weapons).Weapons training courses and licenses should be mandatory for anyone to own/possess a weapon in public spaces, just as a drivers test is required for any public driver, with harsh penalties provided to those possessing weapons in public without a license or some sort of certification. Anyone on private property, however, should have the legal right to possess and use a firearm at their own discretion without any requirements.
@97X5T791yr1Y
No assault weapons is a vague missleading and poorly defined term
@8VD7KQT3yrs3Y
No, and there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"
Yes, but start with a voluntary buyback and ban on purchasing assault weapons before enforcing a mandatory buyback; AND we should also demilitarize local police departments
@9D5Q3V29mos9MO
No, increase mental health and background checks instead, as well as implement safety training and education as a prerequisite for aquisition of any firearms, or ammunitions.
@985FP6P1yr1Y
@8ZN4ZLL2yrs2Y
No, increase mental health and background checks instead No, it should be voluntary with strong financial incentives instead
@8ZJW85B2yrs2Y
No, this is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but we should increase mental health and background checks
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
