Gun Buyback Research Articles

What is the Evidence for Gun Buyback Programs?

Gun buyback programs are popular in the United States. By offering citizens of a city cash for their guns, it is thought that the number of crimes involving guns in that city will be reduced. Despite their popularity, previous research has shown that gun buyback programs often do not reduce crime, at least at the city level. For the first time, the source article examines the impact of these programs at a more local level. The findings indicate that gun buybacks in Philadelphia, PA, did not reduce gun crimes or gun-related calls for service in the immediate vicinity surrounding specific buyback locations. Policy makers may need to consider whether resources allocated to gun buyback programs might be better spent on more promising prevention efforts.

The effect of gun buy-back law reform on homicides and suicides in Australia.

In this paper we use the synthetic control method (SCM) to estimate the causal effects of a national legislative reform accompanied by mandatory gun buy-backs in Australia on both suicide and homicide rates. Using a rich international dataset, we are able to separate not only these two death types, but also to distinguish deaths by firearm and by other means, thereby enabling us to test substitution-of-means hypotheses. Specifically, we apply the SCM to determine whether any reductions in firearm-related death rates where wholly or partly offset by increases in the use of other means (e.g., bladed weapons, poisons) to commit suicides and perpetrate homicides. Our findings show that these gun control policies substantially reduced both homicides and suicides by firearm, but also some evidence of other-means substitution.

Quasi-experimental study finding no localised gun crime or call reduction after gun buybacks in Philadelphia

IntroductionGun buyback programmes have been popular in the USA since the 1970s. Studies show that they have no effect on citywide gun crime rates, but more microlevel examinations around gun...

Voluntary Firearm Divestment and Suicide Risk: Real-World Importance in the Absence of Causal Identification.

Voluntary Firearm Divestment and Suicide Risk: Real-World Importance in the Absence of Causal Identification.

Prevention of Firearm Violence Through Specific Types of Community-based Programming: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Evidence-based Review.

The purpose of this review was to provide an evidence-based recommendation for community-based programs to mitigate gun violence, from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). Firearm Injury leads to >40,000 annual deaths and >115,000 injuries annually in the United States. Communities have adopted culturally relevant strategies to mitigate gun related injury and death. Two such strategies are gun buyback programs and community-based violence prevention programs. The Injury Control and Violence Prevention Committee of EAST developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) questions and performed a comprehensive literature and gray web literature search. Using GRADE methodology, they reviewed and graded the literature and provided consensus recommendations informed by the literature. A total of 19 studies were included for analysis of gun buyback programs. Twenty-six studies were reviewed for analysis for community-based violence prevention programs. Gray literature was added to the discussion of PICO questions from selected websites. A conditional recommendation is made for the implementation of community-based gun buyback programs and a conditional recommendation for community-based violence prevention programs, with special emphasis on cultural appropriateness and community input. Gun violence may be mitigated by community-based efforts, such as gun buybacks or violence prevention programs. These programs come with caveats, notably community cultural relevance and proper support and funding from local leadership.Level of Evidence: Review, Decision, level III.

Have U.S. Gun Buyback Programs Misfired?

Have U.S. Gun Buyback Programs Misfired?

A Review of Gun Buybacks

This reviews the history of gun buybacks and the literature to determine their impact and efficacy, as well as highlighting salient critiques. Finally, we discuss potential avenues that would enhance our understanding of buybacks and methods to address gun violence. Gun buybacks have become more prominent since their inception in the 1970s and often come in response to a tragic local event. The largest scale buyback was in the mid-1990s in Australia, which collected over 650,000 guns. Buybacks are a cost-effective method of reducing the number of weapons in the general public. Gun buybacks are a cost-effective means to reduce the number of unwanted firearms in the general public and also provide a means for education regarding injury prevention. Buybacks in conjunction with other methods have been shown to be successful in reducing the number of firearms that could lead to injury and death.

Greater US Gun Ownership, Lethality and Murder Rates: Analysis and Policy Proposals

This paper examines the US gun-related murder (GM) rate and places it in an international context. The US GM rate is 27 times the average rate for 22 other developed countries (ODC). Its gun ownership rate is 5.4 times that of ODC and the murder rate per gun is 5 times that of ODC. Thus, as is done in the paper, an effective reduction of the US GM rate requires an analysis of both the high gun ownership rate and the high murder rate per gun. The paper examines about fifteen gun-related policy reforms – their impact, cost and structure for maximum benefit – and other policies affecting the GM rate. Among the latter is immigration policy and its impact on violent crime where the claims of the pro- and anti-immigration groups are examined. The paper also looks at the GM impact of programs that provide alternative life pursuits for young men at risk. It further presents a number of policy implications and some new proposals designed to reduce the GM rate. Four appendices provide i) results from two recent opinion polls on gun-policy reforms, ii) a detailed analysis of the relationship between gun ownership and the GM rate, iii) calculations of gun buyback costs, and iv) a correction of results in the literature on the Brady Bill's impact on gun ownership.

Reframing Gun Violence in South Africa from the Prism of Cultural Violence

This article examines gun violence in South Africa from different perspectives of violence looking at the works of several scholars including Galtung, Krug, Anthony Collins and the Australian gun buyback policy. It also examined the inter-relationships between gun violence and the non-criminal societal permissible violence forms. In doing these, the study deconstructed the concept of violence beyond the generally well documented and most recognised physical form of violence and went on to establish similarities and points of divergence between nonviolence and violence. The article deduced that violence is not strange to the human race but it is rather often advocated and that addressing it requires a holistic approach. This is because the type of violence which is abhorred is usually an extension of the societal permissible violence termed cultural violence. The article also made some recommendations about the need for nonviolent conflict engagement through the science of peace which shows there are always more effective alternatives to violence and advocates that peace education be included in South African schools to build the societal fabric of peace.

Goods for Guns (g4g) Is Good for the Community: A 2015 Update of a Community Gun Buyback

Goods for Guns (g4g) Is Good for the Community: A 2015 Update of a Community Gun Buyback

Suicide, guns, and buyback programs: An epidemiologic analysis of firearm-related deaths in Connecticut.

Gun buyback programs aim to remove unwanted firearms from the community with the goal of preventing firearm injury and death. Buyback programs are held in many communities, but evidence demonstrating their effectiveness is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare firearms collected at buyback events to crime guns and firearms used in homicides and suicides. Detailed firearm and case data were obtained from the Hartford Police Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner from January through December of 2015. Information was reviewed for guns collected at buyback events, crime guns confiscated by police, and for weapons associated with firearm fatalities. Detailed firearm data included type, manufacturer, model, and caliber (small, ≤ 0.32 caliber; medium, 0.357 caliber to 9 mm; large, ≥ 0.40 caliber). χ analyses were used for comparisons between groups. In 2015, 224 crime guns were seized by the Hartford Police, 169 guns were collected at four community buyback events, and there were 187 firearm-related deaths statewide (105 suicides, 81 homicides, 1 legal intervention). Comparisons between buyback, crime, and fatality-related firearms are shown in the table below. Medium caliber handguns account for the majority of crime guns and fatalities, and buyback programs collected smaller caliber handguns. The demographics of individuals who turn in guns at buyback events and commit suicide are similar: age (buyback, 63 ± 11; suicide, 52 ± 18; homicide, 34 ± 12 years), sex (buyback, 81%; suicide, 91%; homicide, 84% men), and race (buyback, 80%; suicide, 97%; homicide, 47% white). Handguns account for the majority of crime guns and firearm-related fatalities in Connecticut. Buyback programs are both an opportunity to remove unwanted handguns from the community and to remove firearms from the homes of individuals at increased risk of suicide. Epidemiologic/therapeutic study, level IV.

Are "goods for guns" good for the community? An update of a community gun buyback program.

Gun violence remains a leading cause of death in the United States. Community gun buyback programs provide an opportunity to dispose of extraneous firearms. The purpose of this study was to understand the demographics, motivation, child access to firearms, and household mental illness of buyback participants in hopes of improving the program's effectiveness. A 2015 Injury Free Coalition for Kids gun buyback program which collaborated with local police departments was studied. We administered a 23-item questionnaire survey to gun buyback participants assessing demographic characteristics, motivation for relinquishing firearms, child firearm accessibility, and mental illness/domestic violence history. A total of 186 individuals from Central/Western Massachusetts turned in 339 weapons. Participants received between US $25 and US $75 in gift cards dependent on what type of gun was turned in, with an average cost of $41/gun. A total of 109 (59%) participants completed the survey. Respondents were mostly white (99%), men (90%) and first-time participants in the program (85.2%). Among survey respondents, 54% turned in firearms "for safety reasons." Respondents reported no longer needing/wanting their weapons (47%) and approximately one in eight participants were concerned the firearm(s) were accessible to children. Most respondents (87%) felt the program encouraged neighborhood awareness of firearm safety. Three of every five participants reported that guns still remained in their homes; additionally, 21% where children could potentially access them and 14% with a history of mental illness/suicide/domestic violence in the home. Gun buybacks can provide a low-cost means of removing unwanted firearms from the community. Most participants felt their homes were safer after turning in the firearm(s). In homes still possessing guns, emphasis on secure gun storage should continue, increasing the safety of children and families. The results of this survey also provided new insights into the association between mental illness/suicide and gun ownership. Epidemiological, level III.

Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013.

Rapid-fire weapons are often used by perpetrators in mass shooting incidents. In 1996 Australia introduced major gun law reforms that included a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns and rifles and also initiated a program for buyback of firearms. To determine whether enactment of the 1996 gun laws and buyback program were followed by changes in the incidence of mass firearm homicides and total firearm deaths. Observational study using Australian government statistics on deaths caused by firearms (1979-2013) and news reports of mass shootings in Australia (1979-May 2016). Changes in intentional firearm death rates were analyzed with negative binomial regression, and data on firearm-related mass killings were compared. Implementation of major national gun law reforms. Changes in mass fatal shooting incidents (defined as ≥5 victims, not including the perpetrator) and in trends of rates of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and suicides, and total homicides and suicides per 100,000 population. From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred. There was also significant change in the preexisting downward trends for rates of total firearm deaths prior to vs after gun law reform. From 1979-1996, the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-3.9) per 100,000 population (average decline of 3% per year; annual trend, 0.970; 95% CI, 0.963-0.976), whereas from 1997-2013 (after gun law reforms), the mean rate of total firearm deaths was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4) per 100,000 population (average decline of 4.9% per year; annual trend, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.940-0.962), with a ratio of trends in annual death rates of 0.981 (95% CI, 0.968-0.993). There was a statistically significant acceleration in the preexisting downward trend for firearm suicide (ratio of trends, 0.981; 95% CI, 0.970-0.993), but this was not statistically significant for firearm homicide (ratio of trends, 0.975; 95% CI, 0.949-1.001). From 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths was 10.6 (95% CI, 10.0-11.2) per 100,000 population (average increase of 2.1% per year; annual trend, 1.021; 95% CI, 1.016-1.026), whereas from 1997-2013, the mean annual rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 11.3-12.3) per 100,000 (average decline of 1.4% per year; annual trend, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.980-0.993), with a ratio of trends of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.958-0.973). There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods for suicides or homicides. Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

Gun buyback programs: a venue to eliminate unwanted guns in the community.

The United States has a high rate of death due to firearms, and gun buyback programs may mitigate these high death rates. Understanding the demographics, motivation, and geographic region of participants may improve program efficacy. Three Injury Free Coalition for Kids gun buyback programs, in collaboration with the local police, were studied: Phoenix, Arizona; Worcester, Massachusetts; and New Haven, Connecticut. Participants were defined as those who relinquished a firearm. A self-administered, anonymous, paper survey elicited information from participants regarding demographic data, formal training on the use of the firearm, how the firearm was acquired, potential child access, knowledge of others injured by a firearm, whether the firearm was stored unlocked, factors motivating the surrender of the firearm, and other factors. Survey results were entered into a composite database and analyzed for differences in location, race, sex, and other factors. Participants (n = 301) were predominantly male (73.5%), white (80.9%), and older than 55 years (59.0%). They lived an average of 19.0 miles from the event by zip codes and had an average median household income of $65,731. More than half (54.5%) did not purchase the firearm, acquiring it through inheritance, gift, or random find. Most (74.8%) had previous firearms training and were relinquishing for safety reasons (68.3%). Those relinquishing firearms for safety reasons were less likely to have purchased the firearm (odds ratio [OR], 2.46, p <0.05), less likely to have any formal training (OR, 5.92; p < 0.01), and less likely to keep the firearm locked (OR, 3.50; p < 0.01). Women were less likely to have purchased the firearm (OR, 0.50; p < 0.05). Fifty-three percent of those turning in firearms reported having at least one more firearm at home; designated themselves to be white, compared with all other groups combined (OR, 2.55; p < 0.05); more likely to report locking the firearm (OR, 0.11; p < 0.001); more interested in receiving a gun lock (OR, 0.15; p < 0.001); and more likely to know others who also own firearms (OR, 0.17; p < 0.001). In at least one of the cities participating in this study, as many as 30 percent of the weapons used in gun-wielding criminal acts were burglarized from the home of legal gun owners that had failed to secure them properly. The gun buyback program is solely one prong of a multipronged approach in reducing firearm-based interpersonal violence. Additional research is necessary to determine effective methods to target individuals who would have the greatest impact on gun violence if they relinquished their weapons. Through the forging of relationships and enhancement of firearm knowledge among medical, law enforcement, judicial, and school communities, the prevention of intentional and unintentional firearm-related injuries will be able to be managed more effectively.

Improving the Potential Effectiveness of Gun Buyback Programs

Background Since the tragic mass shooting in Newtown CT, dozens of cities and towns throughout the U.S. have implemented gun buyback programs to remove guns from their communities. Gun buybacks involve a government or private group paying individuals to turn in guns they possess. Participants turning in guns are paid via cash disbursements, gift cards, or some other compensation. To encourage participation by criminals, these programs do not require participants to identify themselves and do not maintain any records of the individuals who turned in firearms. The recovered guns are then destroyed. For instance, at the end of July 2013, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and several local police departments oversaw the destruction of some 5495 firearms recovered from recent buybacks in several jurisdictions including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Inglewood, and Culver City. The participating agencies claimed record numbers of gun recoveries in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. Gun buybacks, amnesties, and exchange programs have wide appeal for communities affected by gun violence, for understandable reasons. The theoretic premise of gun buybacks is that these programs will reduce the number of firearms available to criminals, those with mental illnesses, and other high-risk individuals who may harm themselves or others with a gun. Moreover, these programs arguably empower participants and supporters to take an active role in the fight against gun violence and, as a result, believe that they are making a difference in their communities.

An Evaluation of a Multiyear Gun Buy-Back Programme: Re-Examining the Impact on Violent Crimes

The purpose of this study is to examine gun buy-backs as a policy response to gun-related crime. It improves upon past studies by examining a city that has used multiple gun buy-backs as a standard crime prevention approach, allowing the multiple intervention points to be assessed. Further, the study examined crime data over a longer period and included a comparison group of similar crime trends without a gun. Total crime, homicide, robbery and assault data spanning several years are subject to an interrupted time-series analysis. Non-gun crimes served as control variables. Examining the first two intervention dates indicated that the gun buy-back programme had no impact on reducing crimes. Specifically, the gun buy-back programme in the study location reduced gun homicide levels, but results failed to reach statistical significance. When the third intervention date was examined, the gun buy-back programme resulted in a significant decrease in gun robbery levels, controlling for non-gun robbery levels and unemployment rates. The results for gun robbery suggest that gun buy-back programmes may take years to affect crime numbers, although future research is warranted.

Goods for Guns—The Use of a Gun Buyback as an Injury Prevention/Community Education Tool

US children aged between 5 years and 14 years have a rate of gun-related homicide 17 times higher and a rate of gun-related suicide and unintentional firearm injury 10 times higher than other developed countries. Gun buyback programs have been criticized as ineffective interventions in decreasing violence. The Injury Free Coalition for Kids-Worcester (IFCK-W) Goods for Guns buyback is a multipronged approach to address these concerns and to reduce the number of firearms in the community. The IFCK-W buyback program is funded by corporate sponsors, grants, and individual donations. Citizens are instructed to transport guns, ammunition, and weapons safely to police headquarters on two Saturdays in December. Participants are guaranteed anonymity by the District Attorney's office and receive gift certificates for operable guns. Trained volunteers administer an anonymous survey to willing participants. Individuals who disclose having unsafely stored guns remaining at home receive educational counseling and trigger locks. Guns and ammunition are destroyed at a later time in a gun crushing ceremony. Since 2002, 1,861 guns (444 rifle/shotgun, 738 pistol/revolver, and 679 automatic/semiautomatic) have been collected at a cost of $99,250 (average, $53/gun). Seven hundred ten people have surrendered firearms, 534 surveys have been administered, and ≈ 75 trigger locks have been distributed per year. IFCK-W Goods for Guns is a relatively inexpensive injury prevention model program that removes unwanted firearms from homes, raises community awareness about gun safety, and provides high-risk individuals with trigger locks and educational counseling.

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth. Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

Do Gun Buy-backs Save Lives? Evidence from Time Series Variation

Three recent papers have examined the effect of a national tightening of firearm legislation and gun buy-back in Australia in 1996–1997 on firearm and non-firearm death rates. Despite analysing almost the same data, the three papers reach rather different conclusions. In this article, we highlight key methodological concerns with the papers. We also make some judgments as to the evidence on the effectiveness of the Australian legislation. Drawing strong conclusions from simple time series analysis is not warranted, but to the extent that this evidence points anywhere, it is towards the firearms buy-back reducing gun deaths.