A recent gun “buyback” in Hawaii, which netted more than 300 guns turned in to authorities, had supporters crowing over the results. Unfortunately for them, studies have proven such programs to be completely ineffective at curtailing crime, shootings or anything else.
First, the accolades.
“I want to thank everyone who turned in an unwanted firearm today, because in doing so, you have helped to make our community that much safer,” Gov. Josh Green said following the event. “Keeping ourselves and each other safe and healthy is a personal choice that also benefits our neighbors. We thank DLE Director Mike Lambert for continuing this effort and for our partners’ help in this ongoing gun buyback program.”
As for Lambert, he had a few choice words for those gathered at the event.
“We are working to make our community safer in many ways, including initiatives like this gun buyback program,” he said. “These unwanted guns will never again be used. They will never again pose any type of threat to a loved one or have an opportunity to be used in a crime.”
Now, the truth about gun “buybacks.” But first, a disclaimer. Since the government never owned the firearms they are attempting to take possession of in the first place, “compensated confiscation” is a much better term for these proposals. Of course, that doesn’t sound quite as good on a big-city mayor’s, police chief’s or governor’s resumé as a gun “buyback” does.
What Gov. Green and DLE Director Lambert don’t know—or possibly know but don’t care about—is that a recently released study on the effectiveness of so-called gun “buybacks” concluded that such “buybacks” have no measurable impact on reducing violent crime.
The paper is titled “Have U.S. Gun Buybacks Misfired,” was authored by Toshio Ferrazares, Joseph J. Sabia and D. Mark Anderson, and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
“Gun buyback programs (GBPs), which use public funds to purchase civilians’ privately-owned firearms, aim to reduce gun violence,” reads the paper’s abstract. “However, little is known about their effects on firearm-related crime or deaths. Using data from the National Incident Based Reporting System, we find no evidence that GBPs reduce gun crime.”
That said, the abstract continued even further with additional information that should put an end to the fallacy of such shenanigans once and for all.
“Given our estimated null findings, with 95 percent confidence, we can rule out decreases in firearm-related crime of greater than 1.3 percent during the year following a buyback,” the abstract concluded. “Using data from the National Vital Statistics System, we also find no evidence that GBPs reduce suicides or homicides where a firearm was involved.”
Deep within the analysis of the research are some other pretty interesting facts the trio also discovered.
“GBPs may fail to reduce gun violence for a number of reasons,” the researchers wrote. “First, if the price city governments are willing to pay gun owners is less than the value of the firearm for most sellers, a relatively small number of firearms may be collected. Second, if criminals believe law-abiding citizens (and potential victims) are relinquishing their firearms, then they may be more willing to commit gun crimes following a GBP.”
In truth, the fact that criminals don’t turn in their guns at buybacks is only a single part of the reason such programs are grossly ineffective.
Since the crime problem in the United States is not based on the supply of guns, but rather on the criminal demand for them, attempting to end violent crime by collecting “garbage guns” from non-criminals’ closets is like trying to eliminate speeders by going after bicyclists, or trying to stop a cheating husband by having all his female interns quit. Simply put, in those cases the people being targeted are not the root of the problem.
