• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If a ban is passed on so called "assault weapons, what happens next?

We Never Know

No Slack
If a ban is passed on so called assault weapons. What happens next?

-Does the government confiscate the ones that people already own
-Does the government allow the owners to keep what they have but not allow any more sales
-Does the government buy back the ones people already own at their set price
-Does the government say you have 60 days to turn them in or else
Or......
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who knows? You might need to talk to a constitutional lawyer to unravel this.

And I do not care what a weapon looks like. It is not the assault style weapons themselves that cause so much havoc with mass shootings. It is usually the high capacity magazines. Pray and spray works when one has a big crowd of people and one does not really care who one hits. If the spraying was limited then we would likely see fewer multiple killing events.

But I think that it would do very little to lower the overall murder rate. At best it would only affect the most dramatic of killings. They are the exceptions. We would still have a very high gun death rate even if assault weapons were banned. It is more of a feel good law than anything else.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If a ban is passed on so called assault weapons. What happens next?

-Does the government confiscate the ones that people already own
-Does the government allow the owners to keep what they have but not allow any more sales
-Does the government buy back the ones people already own at their set price
-Does the government say you have 60 days to turn them in or else
Or......
It will probably be like the UK or Canada.

Probably.

I'm guessing most will comply because it will screw up their careers if they don't.


Realistically I think there will be concessions and compromise with peaceful protest. It's basically what transpired in New York. Elsewhere?

Probably.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Who knows? You might need to talk to a constitutional lawyer to unravel this.

And I do not care what a weapon looks like. It is not the assault style weapons themselves that cause so much havoc with mass shootings. It is usually the high capacity magazines. Pray and spray works when one has a big crowd of people and one does not really care who one hits. If the spraying was limited then we would likely see fewer multiple killing events.

But I think that it would do very little to lower the overall murder rate. At best it would only affect the most dramatic of killings. They are the exceptions. We would still have a very high gun death rate even if assault weapons were banned. It is more of a feel good law than anything else.
It's only going to affect law abiding people anyways.

Criminals don't usually go to Bob's Gun Shop to buy firearms.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Who knows? You might need to talk to a constitutional lawyer to unravel this.

And I do not care what a weapon looks like. It is not the assault style weapons themselves that cause so much havoc with mass shootings. It is usually the high capacity magazines. Pray and spray works when one has a big crowd of people and one does not really care who one hits. If the spraying was limited then we would likely see fewer multiple killing events.

But I think that it would do very little to lower the overall murder rate. At best it would only affect the most dramatic of killings. They are the exceptions. We would still have a very high gun death rate even if assault weapons were banned. It is more of a feel good law than anything else.

Mentally stable and emotionally stable people don't commit mass shootings.
More focus needs to be on people that are allowed to purchase firearms than firearms themselves.
The government can or should be able to check medical records to see if people are being or have been treated for ANY emotional or mental issues period. Red flags should pop up if they are or have been.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Who knows? You might need to talk to a constitutional lawyer to unravel this.

And I do not care what a weapon looks like. It is not the assault style weapons themselves that cause so much havoc with mass shootings. It is usually the high capacity magazines. Pray and spray works when one has a big crowd of people and one does not really care who one hits. If the spraying was limited then we would likely see fewer multiple killing events.

But I think that it would do very little to lower the overall murder rate. At best it would only affect the most dramatic of killings. They are the exceptions. We would still have a very high gun death rate even if assault weapons were banned. It is more of a feel good law than anything else.
You do realize Timothy McVeigh didn't use an assault weapon. He built a bomb out of components that near anyone can get and build with the right knowledge.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Just a heads up before I answer this: I'm not from the US so not only am I coming from a culture with an entirely different view on guns, I'm also not that knowledgeable about guns or current US gun laws.

-Does the government buy back the ones people already own at their set price

This would be the best way to do it in my opinion. People own those guns legally at the moment so just confiscating them all without compensation is incredibly dicey. You'd effectively be punishing people retroactively.

-Does the government allow the owners to keep what they have but not allow any more sales

This is the second best option, though it would certainly be much easier to do than the first. You would still need the government to buy the stock from gun shops though. It may also be necessary for owners to register their weapons (if that isn't already required) and to report any lost/stolen guns to help combat illegal sales.

-Does the government say you have 60 days to turn them in or else

See my comment on retroactive punishment above. "Hand in your guns or else," implies confiscation to me.

However, doing a buyback scheme and/or sales ban would require a timeframe in which people either have their guns bought by the government or register the ones they already have. If you're going to make certain guns illegal, you need to provide a sort of transition period before you even consider pressing charges against somebody. I couldn't tell you how long that timeframe would need to be but I will say that 60 days seems far too short.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If a ban is passed on so called assault weapons. What happens next?

-Does the government confiscate the ones that people already own
-Does the government allow the owners to keep what they have but not allow any more sales
-Does the government buy back the ones people already own at their set price
-Does the government say you have 60 days to turn them in or else
Or......
The last time the US government had a national assault weapons ban, the only thing that was banned was the manufacture of new firearms that met the law's definition of "assault weapon."
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
From what little I've read on the subject, bypassing even a widespread ban on certain types of firearms in the US seems to be almost trivial to circumvent for a sufficiently dedicated buyer of the correct background, as plenty of venues (such as trade fairs) can basically sell to whomever they want with only minimal amounts of scrutiny involved.

This seems to be by design, as the kind of person who can stockpile weapons with minimal oversight tends to often strongly align with the existing socio-economic order, and when they do snap, would likely prefer to rain down their violent ire on minorities and other soft targets rather than security forces or the military.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If a ban is passed on so called assault weapons. What happens next?

-Does the government confiscate the ones that people already own
-Does the government allow the owners to keep what they have but not allow any more sales
-Does the government buy back the ones people already own at their set price
-Does the government say you have 60 days to turn them in or else
Or......
In the representative democracy we have, that will be the choice of those whom we elect.

If anyone seriously believes having roughly 300,000,000 estimated guns in circulation in the U.S. alone making us safer, they should go ion for drug testing.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Mentally stable and emotionally stable people don't commit mass shootings.
More focus needs to be on people that are allowed to purchase firearms than firearms themselves.
The government can or should be able to check medical records to see if people are being or have been treated for ANY emotional or mental issues period. Red flags should pop up if they are or have been.
That's probably going to be most of the population.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Mentally stable and emotionally stable people don't commit mass shootings.
More focus needs to be on people that are allowed to purchase firearms than firearms themselves.
The government can or should be able to check medical records to see if people are being or have been treated for ANY emotional or mental issues period. Red flags should pop up if they are or have been.
That's a violation of an individual's right to privacy. You really want to have to devuoge your medical history to buy a gun? And why should someone with a mental illness not be allowed to have a gun? Someone has anxiety so they shouldn't be allowed to have a hunting rifle?

No, what they need to do is ban people who have been judged a danger to themselves or others or people convicted of violent crimes from owning a gun, at least for a number of years (people can change). My upstairs neighbor is on probation and a violent idiot who has brandished it at people, but somehow he's apparently allowed to own a gun. Go figure.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's a violation of an individual's right to privacy. You really want to have to devuoge your medical history to buy a gun? And why should someone with a mental illness not be allowed to have a gun? Someone has anxiety so they shouldn't be allowed to have a hunting rifle?
It does conflict with Hippa. I think a ban should only apply to those with mental illness that resulted with an actual run in with the judicial system.

Something like having a personality disorder or other mild issue shouldn't be included.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As i remember in the UK, when ownership of hand guns were banned the owner deposited the gun at a local police station, no compensation was given.
 
Top