With the increasing crimes pertaining to #gun violence including mass shootings, the debate regarding a mandatory gun buyback program for assault weapons is a heated topic

Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—meaning that they fire a round every time the trigger is pulled—that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and have another military-style feature such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, or a threaded barrel. Firearm manufacturers, in response to declining sales of handguns, began selling assault rifles in the civilian market in the 1980s as part of a broader effort to create a new market for military-style guns among civilian gun owners.

People who are in favor of a mandatory #buyback program for assault weapons believe believe it is an effective way to reduce crimes and mass shooting in the U.S., and use Australia's implementation of it as an example. At the core, they believe that the presence of the assault weapons in the hands of the public is hazardous to the peace.

Those who oppose a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons stand behind their interpretation of the constitution. They believe that a "mandatory" buyback program is a violation of the second amendment which provides people with a right to bear arms. They further stress the notion that systematic reforms instead of mandating gun buyback programs are the way to go to reduce crime and mass shootings.

The question for debate is: should the U.S. federal government implement a mandatory gun buyback program for assault weapons?