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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Zipcode:
These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of Gun Buyback
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Buyback
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No
@9F94WSGLibertarian2yrs2Y
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
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
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
@ScottK12326mos6MO
FAR too much wishful thinking. You oppose police militarization but most gun owners aren't willing to follow even basic gun control laws like those implemented in Illinois in the past year or two. We saw very few guns registered compared to estimates of all assault weapons in the state. How do you plan on taking said guns away, then, after they refuse to turn them in? And if you think physically controlling Americans isn't a good thing how do you expect to even begin confiscations? This doesn't make sense.
@@1876-Elbert7mos7MO
I feel safer when I know that the guy next to me has a loaded 9mm to defend his family, and by extension everyone else.
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
@B2DFM8K4mos4MO
Couldnt have said it better myself
@9F7S9882yrs2Y
Why put police officer lives needlessly on the line.
The second amendment gives me the right NOT to give the government power over my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS 💪
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 6mos6MO
I don't know if you read a different Bible than me, but last time I checked the right to have a gun is not a God Given right.
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
No, it's not, but a right to life is. If I need a gun to defend my life and others, I will not give it up until they shoot me dead.
@Grognard28 4mos4MO
Engaged Social Issues #1 Engaged Gun Buyback
I can understand why you feel that way, but the Bible says, " Do not resist the one who is evil." (Matthew 5:39, ESV). Christians are not supposed to defend themselves.
@9DC6MQZ2yrs2Y
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
@KeenSwan2yrs2Y
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
@9T6S2DX 8mos8MO
I thoroughly disagree with everything you said. A lot of what you said was misguided, not based on facts, or completely incorrect.
First, "assault weapon" does NOT "generally refer to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use.". I will tell you why, then I will tell you what it really means. Any firearm that is semi-automatic, is inherently not built for rapid fire. Hence the reason it is semi-automatic. One round per one trigger pull. That is not a characteristic of any firearm built for "rapid fire". Next, semi-automatics are not built for… Read more
@9T6S2DX8mos8MO
Also, more people die from soda machines than they do "assault rifles" every year. They just publicize these occurrences for the obvious agenda furthering narrative. It's sad because I truly feel like you and most people who want gun control, have good intentions and truly value life but you have been fooled into thinking the government, more specifically, Democrats feel the way you do. The truth is, they don't care one but about the life lost in these shootings. They have 1 goal and 1 goal only and that is to disarm Americans. They just use fabricated emotions as a disguise like they care. They don't. Hence the reason they immediately use these shootings for political gain and nothing else. If they cared, they would fix the root problem and leave the guns alone.
@9VZHHFPRepublican7mos7MO
"They are often characterized by certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and more.", other than a minority of rifles, most shotguns and, revolver style handguns, most firearms have detachable magazines and a lot of the time firearms that don't have them are able to store just as much ammunition as those with detachable magazines.
@9F9J8T32yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes
@Yaunti2 2yrs2Y
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.
@9FTGQ422yrs2Y
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.
@9FPF3VNRepublican2yrs2Y
Abortionists will argue "banning abortion won't stop abortions". The same can be applied to this debate - banning firearms won't stop public shootings.
@9FQ34CD2yrs2Y
Firearm buybacks also affect the ability of someone to defend themselves. Taking away all firearms means that the bad things they are used for will go away but so will the good things they are used for.
@9FPHZPQ2yrs2Y
The constitution is absolute. You have the right to defend yourself. Look at what they did to Australian citizens especially during Covid. And criminals do not follow these buy backs. It would be ridiculous to suggest this
@9FMNPCK2yrs2Y
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.
@B2Y78LD 3mos3MO
i stand with gun buy back and dont some people are still using there weapons everyday in life and people who dont need that anymore or are not in need of it anymore this gives a perfect way to give it away llegaly
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
I'd like to see you try. You're only getting it when you kill me, and maybe not then.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, this is a violation of the 2nd amendment
@Yaunti2 2yrs2Y
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.
@3GJFQQG10mos10MO
No studies have shown gun buybacks work
@9FBXPCZ2yrs2Y
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.
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
"Shall not be infringed."
@9F85M6R2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, increase mental health and background checks instead
@9FLBWZ4Independent2yrs2Y
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.
@9FMNPCK2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes, but start with a voluntary buyback and ban on purchasing assault weapons before enforcing a mandatory buyback
@9FN2RQV2yrs2Y
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.
@9FRRWZV2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes, and we should also demilitarize local police departments
@9F7CR822yrs2Y
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?
@S3curityOilSocialist2yrs2Y
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?
@9F7CR822yrs2Y
“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
@9FFJJL32yrs2Y
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
@9F72GC3Republican2yrs2Y
If we want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers, lets ban driving sober. That is what you mean when talking about gun buybacks and defunding police.
@9F9J8T32yrs2Y
no, and militarization of police departments protects us as people,. if more people would do what they were supposed to do and not break the law then there would be less "police discrimination".
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, it should be voluntary with strong financial incentives instead
@9FLBWZ4Independent2yrs2Y
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.
@@1876-Elbert7mos7MO
"Stronger fist." How? By eliminating the only reason we are here to have this conversation today? The only reason America exists is because the civilians are armed, and the moment that stops America will devour itself.
@8GNZSYYIndependent5yrs5Y
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
@9N6W4T211mos11MO
@9MWHFY912mos12MO
Yes, but start with a voluntary buyback and ban on purchasing semi-automatic rifles with large magazines before enforcing a mandatory buyback
@B3MH69J2mos2MO
Okay, for one, it is unconstitutional to ban the ability to purchase a firearm. The only way you could ban semi-automatic rifles is if the Second Amendment is revoked (which will never happen). I believe voluntary buybacks are okay, but mandatory buybacks are unconstitutional on so many levels. It is a violation of your Second Amendment right to be forced to give up your gun to the government. Sure, they would get money for it, but most people probably don't want to give up their gun.
@8VD7KQT4yrs4Y
No, and there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"
An "assault weapon" as a "civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon." Factsheet: Assault Weapons | Office of Justice Programshttps://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/factsheet-assault-weapons
@Grognard28 4mos4MO
Engaged Social Issues #1 Engaged Gun Buyback
Aren't all firearms assault weapons?
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.
@94KMKB73yrs3Y
No, and abolish the police.
@Grognard28 4mos4MO
Engaged Social Issues #1 Engaged Gun Buyback
“abolish the police.”
What in the name of all that's holy are you thinking? Abolish the police? Do you want the U.S. to descend into anarchy?
@Cuz-I-Know-Stuff4mos4MO
Please, PLEASE tell me why we should abolish the police?
Deleted1yr1Y
No, America is too deep into gun rights for this to work effectively. Instead, we should stop making parts and ammunition for assault weapons. While black market parts and home-made ammo are still an issue, this may help.
@B3MH69J2mos2MO
I think you make an interesting point about "black market parts" and "home-made ammo". I could be wrong, but it sounds like your saying we should focus on stopping legal production rather than going after illegal production. I understand that we can't just sign a law and make the black market shut down, but if we crack down more on the illegal production of parts, than we negatively impact the illegal gun market as a whole, which would be more beneficial in the fight against gun violence. Also, can you please explain to me what an assault weapon is (asking with sarcasm)?
@8FP3LHC5yrs5Y
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.
@8SH3HCL4yrs4Y
Yes and increase mental health and background checks as well.
Yes, start with a voluntary buyback program with strong financial incentives and increase restrictions and background checks on criminals and mentally ill individuals instead
@9FQZ4952yrs2Y
Yes, and we should also demilitarize local police departments Yes, but start with a voluntary buyback and ban on purchasing assault weapons before enforcing a mandatory buyback
@97X5T792yrs2Y
No assault weapons is a vague missleading and poorly defined term
@958BV5B3yrs3Y
Just get rid of all guns
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
You'll take it from me when you kill me.
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
I'm sure criminals will obey.
And after UK did this, Knife stabbings increased.
If you want to kill me, you will find a way.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
No, for the sake of the constitution, the 2nd amendment, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances, they should not.
No, increase mental health and background checks instead but its also a violation of the 2nd amendment.
@9XL4P33Peace and Freedom6mos6MO
i feel yes they should cause it encourage many people to give up their weapons and can maybe decreas deaths and injuries or crimes in the life. but also a issue that might occur is that people might hurt someone or use their weapon in a dangerous matter and then just give it in and get paid for it.
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
You can't encourage me to give it up. You can only take it. And only then when I'm dead.
No, and Yes, I think firearms should be banned for civilians, but things like tranqs, tasers, and primitive weapons would be allowed and keep our 2nd amendment intact. I believe our military should be trained but not have access unless we declare war, and I think local police shouldn't have firearms unless they are given kill orders (which will have a legal trial if used). Mental health and background checks should be increased and way stricter for firearm usage.
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
You'll take my gun when I'm dead. And not even then.
@9TXYXTV8mos8MO
Yes, anything more than a handgun/hunting rifle, including gun accessories should be have a mandatory buyback. As they are excessive and nothing is needed beyond a handgun or hunting rifle.
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
@9TR7955 8mos8MO
Bill of rights is sacred! Untouchable !
@9TLRXYP8mos8MO
No, this is a violation of the 2nd amendment and what the hell is an "assault weapon" in the first place? I can kill you with my hands or a frying pan.
@9SLNSWV9mos9MO
I want it to happen, but it never will, because you cannot go into peoples homes and force them to give their guns. So it's a moot point.
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
@9S9XMDPConstitution9mos9MO
No we shouldn't. Let's be real here most gun crime is committed with pistols not these so called assault rifles. You have a higher chance of being harmed by a car then an assault rifle she we start banning cars that go over 80 mph
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
"...we start banning cars that go over 80 mph" I don't imagine that would go over well in Texas...
@9XBWDX76mos6MO
I think we should have more mental health and background checks. And ALSO start with a voluntary buyback and ban purchasing assault rifles. Then enforce it.
@9D8N3Q42yrs2Y
No, there’s no such thing as “Assault Weapons”
@TonyForCA 2yrs2Y
Yes, and make it illegal to not participate in the buyback
@@1876-Elbert6mos6MO
You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Don't worry about the money.
@9H9HPBY 1yr1Y
Start with a voluntary buyback of assault weapons with mandatory mental health checks for owning assault weapons along with universal background checks. Any violent offender is banned from owning any firearm for 10 years. Also require deescalation classes after purchasing any firearm within the first year on penalty of hefty fines.
@9D5Q3V22yrs2Y
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.
@9D4S75TIndependent2yrs2Y
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.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
