If I had a nickel for every time that someone who has absolutely no knowledge at all about guns either refers to himself as a gun ‘expert’ or writes a featured column in a major media outlet about guns even though everything he says is wrong, I really could spend all my time at my club’s golf course which, by the way, opened (yay!!!) today.
The latest so-called gun expert to rear his head is a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, Peter Nickeas, who just did a piece on gun buybacks in Chicago for CNN. The Windy City’s Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is trying to raise a million bucks to do two big buyback every year, but Nickeas knows that the buybacks won’t do very much to help reduce Chicago’s endless gun violence.
How does he know this? Because he’s read all the so-called studies about gun buybacks done by all the other so-called gun ‘experts’ and the studies all show that gun buybacks don’t work, or at least they don’t take guns away from people who shouldn’t have guns.
There’s only one little problem with this now-universal belief held by all the experts on how and why gun buybacks don’t work. Not one of these scholars understands how to judge the effectiveness of a gun buyback, so to make a judgement about the effectiveness of something when you don’t know how to define what you are trying to figure out, is an exercise in what Grandpa would call ‘bupkes,’ (read: nonsense) even if it gets you published in some academic journal and quoted on CNN.
The latest piece of scholarly nonsense which shows that gun buybacks don’t work was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) which is the research outfit required by Congress to determine when a recession starts and when it ends. So, when it comes to knowing how to use economic data, NBER knows what it’s doing, okay?
This paper is chock-full of data – graphs, charts, statistical formulations, the whole bit. Too bad the research team has absolutely no idea how the value of a gun buyback should be judged. For that matter, they don’t even seem to know how to define a gun buyback because the first buyback they mention was the gun buyback which occurred in Australia in 1996, a nationwide effort which they claim had ‘mixed’ results.
The Australian effort, however, shouldn’t be compared to any gun buyback that has ever occurred in the United States. In Australia, the government decided that certain kinds of guns that had been legally purchased could no longer be legally owned and had to be turned in – but here’s the kicker – with the owners given compensation at the fair-market price. In other words, the Australian buyback wasn’t a buyback as we use that word here; it was a forcible confiscation of legal property, which you can’t do in our system unless you pay the owners what that property is worth.
How do you compare that kind of an effort to community-based programs where nobody is required to turn in a gun and when they do show up and hand over a gun they don’t want or need, they are given a gift card that can be redeemed at a local store? You don’t make such a comparison if you know anything about guns.
The authors of the NBER paper then go on to use FBI crime data (NIBRS reports) to assess gun violence before and after339 gun buybacks in 277 cities between 1991 and 2015.
Looking at NIBRS numbers for a year prior to a year following each buyback, the overall results in gun violence was basically little or no change.
All this quantitative and statistical analysis really proves is that we are a country which is obsessed with numbers and if you don’t use statistics to make or prove an argument, nobody takes you seriously and you’ll wait until what Grandpa would call ‘shabbos noch schvi’ (read: Saturday after a religious holiday) to get published in an academic journal and list the article on your CV.
The value and importance of a gun buyback is simply this: It’s an opportunity to spread the word about gun violence and the risk of gun access in a city or a town. And believe it or not, there are lots of well-meaning people out there who don’t realize that the gun in their home represents any kind of risk.
The real value of a gun buyback can’t be quantified by the number of guns that are turned in or whether violent crimes crime goes up or down. Rather, it’s a question of changing community culture which is always a slow and difficult task.
Anyone who thinks that something as complicated and multi-faceted as violence committed with or without guns doesn’t know anything about violence and certainly doesn’t know anything about guns.
Apr 17, 2022 @ 14:01:21
“Do Gun Buybacks Work? They Sure Do.” When you define your goal.
As Mike points out “to make a judgement about the effectiveness of something when you don’t know how to define what you are trying to figure out,” Peter Nickeas has figured this out when he sayed “…the goal isn’t violent crime reduction” and that ‘gun buybacks’ just may not be about reducing violence with a gun or any other weapon. Nickeas points out that when the goal is community engagement or awareness, the program can have benefits.
Chicago Police Department also sees that it may not reduce violence and their goal just may be as Glen Brooks, director of CPD’s Office of Community Policing said, “It has an additive benefit that shouldn’t be discounted or looked down upon because an academic study says this won’t reduce crime by ‘x’ percentage points,” Brooks said. “But we know for an absolute fact that guns are used in suicides, in homicides, and of course shootings. Those things, taking that weapon out of a place it’s unwanted and unused, giving people a responsible method for disposing of it, have a benefit.”
When your goal is to get a community involved…maybe having a voluntary option of selling your gun to the government does work. But I know that a forcible confiscation of legal property (gun), even if you do pay the owners what that property (gun) is worth will never work in the U.S. There’s this damn thing called the Constitution.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 10:44:39
I’m not surprised that you can’t measure this. When you are taking a few hundred guns out of circulation in a nation of 300-400 million guns, you are talking about parts per million change and meanwhile, (tens of?) millions more guns are sold, some new, some recycled used ones. That’s trying to measure well inside the error envelope of any study. Not to mention, if these guns are sitting in closets or sock drawers rather than out on the street causing trouble, these ain’t the guns doing the shooting.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 11:40:22
Maybe it’s not about measuring, maybe, just maybe, it’s about feelings. You know…symbolism over substance.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 12:27:06
Hi Richard. Yes, to some degree these are political/symbolic events. Nothing wrong with that. As long as they are presented that way.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 13:48:36
Agree.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 13:48:37
“Maybe it’s not about measuring, maybe, just maybe, it’s about feelings. You know…symbolism over substance.”
A couple decades ago we had considerable success with shutting down gun buybacks in our region. I eventually realized the sponsors were giving up too easily. If we caused them a little gas, they would stop making the effort. From that I concluded gun buybacks were only virtue-signalling to a select, limited audience. In many ways pro-gun people were the only people who took buybacks seriously.
We shortly got tired and gave up the opposition, so of course they proliferated. After a couple decades I feel confident in saying, they have made no difference in anything. Not in crime, not in gun deaths, not in public opinion.
On the issue of public opinion, if polls are to be believed, there is not too much more to be accomplished. Allegedly the vast majority of people polled favor more gun control. But those people aren’t as motivated by their opinion, as the pro-gun people are motivated by theirs. What people sorta-kinda think means nothing in politics without motivation behind it.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 08:50:52
The last paragraph is quite confusing. I’m not sure what is being said.
The author does not disclose that he is affiliated with a foundation that sponsors and hold these gun ‘buybacks’.
Could it be that he’s got a financial interest in promoting these events?
Apr 18, 2022 @ 09:10:48
Exactly what financial interest would that be? Donating money to help defray the costs of the gift cards?
Apr 18, 2022 @ 09:30:39
Thought so too. Looks like a clause missing.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 09:30:10
Yep. Its the context. If one is holding voluntary buybacks expecting a decrease in crime, I want whatever it is you are smoking. The more plausible reason is to eliminate the gun in the closet or back of the sock drawer that the kid might find and play with, the one that might get stolen and end up on the street, the one that just sits there for the day someone might want to put out the lights with DIY brain surgery, etc.
The people who consider a gun just as essential as their cell phone or other work tools won’t want to trade in Mr. Glock for a gift card, so the armed robber or drug dealer ain’t gonna turn in no guns. Frankly, a lot of folks who buy a piece for self defense won’t either, as we see from some of the amicus briefs in the Bruen case. That’s why you don’t see a drop in crime–because voluntary buybacks are not putting a dent in serious criminal enterprises. Well, maybe a junkie who is so desperate he will trade a gun for a fix.
I helped NMTPGV with one buyback up in Los Alamos. Most of what got turned in was either junk or a few grades above junk, but one couple turned in a couple of very nice modern pistols to be destroyed; a few other guns were definitely stuff that could have been in a gun display case at Fred’s Guns and Tackle. The two really modern pieces were 9mm (might have been 40 cal?) high cap striker fired semiautos–the stuff Mike likes to rail against. They turned them in on general principles–that these were the devil’s tools. One old Chief Special style revolver that one of the cops wanted showed up (the police chief said “don’t you dare”). Lots of stuff that had obviously been sitting in that sock drawer too long. One idiot showed up and started to pull something out of a pocket suddenly and was advised to get his hand out of the pocket–empty. Was an old Saturday Night Special.
I got into a disagreement with the leaders of the GVP group when I advised on the local radio show that someone who thought they might be about to saw up a collector’s item might take it to a gun shop for an appraisal. For example, when my uncle died, my aunt had to deal with his stuff. That included a dusty and unkempt looking old rifle under a bed which turned out to be a pre-64 (serial number indicated it was made in 1948) Winchester Model 70 in 300 H&H Magnum that had been customized by Griffin and Howe; it turned out my uncle was a bit of a collector. Needless to say, it got a home, not a saw blade. Some of his stuff was really old Middle Eastern stuff that ended up in a museum. One of his sons got a nice over and under, and the rest went on consignment. All good outcomes.
Apr 18, 2022 @ 09:59:46
And of course the messaging that goes with these events, to wit, if you think Maslow’s Handgun will solve all of your problems, please speak to us. But what we really need in many communities is something analogous to the 100 Black Men chapters, folks who look, talk, and pass for the people who are getting crosswise with gunfire, rather than looking like self righteous liberals (that’s not neccesarily aimed at anyone here).
Apr 18, 2022 @ 16:20:01
So, being an Administrator with the John C. wood foundation is an unpaid position?
Not a problem with this unless you are trying to hide it. Why?
I seem to recall you announcing you were a proud member of Evolve Together sometime back.
Then you said you weren’t. Why?
Are you not the founder of the National Medical Council on Gun Violence?
For being a Gun Guy, you certainly seem to be a bit of an enigma.
Also, what’s up with multiple LinkedIn profiles?
Apr 19, 2022 @ 11:21:51
I see you’ve done quite a bit of research about me. I don’t answer personal questions. You want to discuss what I write i my blogs? Fine. I’m not going to indulge you in this nonsense and if you keep it up, I’ll ban you from this site.