The Gun Buyback May Not Come Back
An article from the Post-Dispatch tells us that, despite a request from the police chief to repeat last year’s gun buyback, the Board of Police Commissioners failed to approve funding for the program. The matter failed on a 2-2 tie vote, with the mayor — who would’ve voted for it — absent, because of a prior engagement.
Free-market advocates want to reduce violent crime as much as any other group, perhaps more so. If gun buybacks* reduce crime, I’m officially gung-ho: Let’s do it.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no evidence that gun buybacks actually reduce crime in the slightest measurable way. Here are some links. From the first link:
[A]cademic researchers – often divided by passionate differences over gun control – are in rare agreement in their conclusions.
[...] University of Pennsylvania professor Lawrence Sherman, who headed a wide-ranging assessment of crime prevention programs, called gun buy-backs “the program that is best known to be ineffective” in reducing firearms violence.
From the fourth link:
“The typical person who hands in a gun is not a criminal,” [research director at the Independent Institute, Alex] Tabarrok says. “If they want to reduce crime, they ought to put more police on the streets, something we know works.”
Show-Me Daily has covered this before — mostly last year, when this unfortunate idea took hold of our police. I don’t particularly blame them; if it were my job to deal face-to-face with criminals every day, I’d want to do whatever I could to reduce the chance that they’d wave a gun my way. Unfortunately, gun buybacks simply are not a useful way to accomplish this, and they may have the opposite of their intended result.
For a tangentially related post to which the Peltzman Effect also applies, read this (if you haven’t already).
*The word “buyback” in this case is a particularly euphemistic misnomer, in my opinion. It subtly reinforces the idea that the police are the source of all guns/protection, thus undermining the notion that individuals have the right/responsibility to defend themselves. This is in no way aimed at the StL PD, who I’m sure did not invent or popularize this term, I mean only to call attention to the subtle psychological damage this term may be inflicting.





“The department had been planning to pay $50 for revolvers and shotguns and $100 for “assault-style” weapons.”
so in other words, unless you stole the gun, theres no possible way this is breakeven money for you.
however there is a longshot arbitrage opportunity here, if mosin nagants can somehow be classified as “assault-style”, you can pick them up for ~$80. I wonder what slpd would think if you rolled up w a pickup bed overflowing w WWI rifles.
Comment by vroman — November 24, 2008 @ 9:55 a.m.
There is absolutely a way to get more than breakeven money for your guns thanks to the buyback. Let’s say you bought a Walmartk shotgun a decade or so back for $100, which is the low end of the price range. Now let’s say you went hunting a lot, shot skeet a lot, and didn’t clean or maintain the gun quite as much or as well as you should have – good enough for it to be safe and workable, but not enough to be in good condition. Well, over time, that gun is going to be worth less than $50. But even though the market says it may be worth $30, now you can get %50 for it.
And your last comments are funny and true. Studies have shown that a significant number of guns gotten in buybacks are extremely old or broken.
Comment by David Stokes — November 24, 2008 @ 10:52 a.m.
They’re only buying them back so they can insert those super technology chips that make it so crinimals can’t use guns.
Comment by Sarah Anne — November 25, 2008 @ 1:30 p.m.
Anyone with a strong opinion on this program interested in spouting off Thursday Morning on Fox 2 News in the Morning for about 2 min. Give Producer Angel James a Call today at 314-644-7541
Comment by Pertzborn Fox 2 — December 3, 2008 @ 2:43 p.m.