*LOCKED TOPIC* Gun shock: Majority support ‘mandatory buybacks’ of AR-15s

[CherryTreez]

I’m with the majority here. There’s absolutely no need for any private citizen to own that kind of firearm. That’s not for protection, the name says it all: it’s an assault weapon.

Where is it in the name? I can't find it anyway.

[Deleted User 1393]

And it’s also interesting how the OP talks about AR-15s and AKs but posters immediately flip the conversation to Assault Weapons.

That happens because as demonstrated in this group most people don't know the difference between the two types of weapons.

How many criminals will voluntarily turn in theirs?

[Deleted User 1344]

There is no reason for anybody to even own an assault rifle. I support a buy back for those weapons. I also support a ban.

I agree.

[Deleted User 1344]

I’m with the majority here. There’s absolutely no need for any private citizen to own that kind of firearm. That’s not for protection, the name says it all: it’s an assault weapon.

Yep!!!

[Deleted User 1344]

https://www.policeone.com/firearms/arti ... ifference/

[Deleted User 1344]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
Definition of AK-47

[Linda_Runs]

And it’s also interesting how the OP talks about AR-15s and AKs but posters immediately flip the conversation to Assault Weapons.

That happens because as demonstrated in this group most people don't know the difference between the two types of weapons.

How many criminals will voluntarily turn in theirs?

This is a big issue in Canada. The problems with buybacks and any legislation is that only the non-criminals will participate. They Canadian government is estimating that most assault rifles are not registered.

[CherryTreez]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
Definition of AK-47

Does that mean that AR 15s are okay then? Only ak47s are assault rifles according to your website.

[Deleted User 1344]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
Definition of AK-47

Does that mean that AR 15s are okay then? Only ak47s are assault rifles according to your website.

I doubt it.
I guess I’m going to have to do more research though.

Here’s one :
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/ ... ds/545438/

[Della]

He'll never get that to pass. If he wants to try, the best he could do is use gel dummies to show what these guns are capable of doing. However, he would also need to use other guns that are not semi-automatic to show their capabilities. That is, if he really wants to make a point.

Honestly, if he wants it to pass all he has to do is change mandatory to voluntary. It won't get all of them (which mandatory wouldn't either), but it will get quite a bit and it would be a start. Pass a law that those who own them are grandfathered in and are allowed to own them, however, they would not be allowed to sell or give or pass them down without the new owner being vetted.

I doubt changing it to voluntary would do much. Just look at that woman who responded to him. Most of these owners will NOT give up without a fight.

Pass a law like the one in '94 that grandfathered them in? I would agree with a tracking mechanism for these guns. I'd also be in agreement with a yearly permit fee for owning them. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.