Do gun buyback programs reduce gun violence?

Submitted by: XJackson 78

There is no consensus in the literature on this question.
This short answer was generated by aggregating the answers that each of the 11 studies below gave to the question (as indicated by State of K members) and adjusting for source quality and other factors. If key studies are missing or the answers attributed to individual studies are incorrect, the above answer could be wrong.
0
YES ANSWERS
4
NO ANSWERS
4
MIXED RESULTS ANSWERS
2
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ANSWERS
1
NO DATA ON ANSWER


Chart summary of 11 studies examining this question
Showing up to 10 at a time

All answers are assigned by State of K users. The label Mixed means that a study found some evidence to indicate that the answer to the question is "yes" and some evidence to indicate that the answer is "no". This label is often applied when a study uses two or more proxies to study the same phenomenon (i.e. firearm sales figures and self-reported firearm ownership rates as proxies for the prevalence of firearms) and the proxies yield different results when looking for correlations with another phenomenon (i.e. firearm-related deaths). Alternatively, the label may be applied if the phenomenon under study (i.e. whether breast milk improves cognitive function) is true for one group, but not another (i.e. true for girls, but not for boys). The label Insuff. Evidence means that a study found there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the question. The label No Data means that State of K wasn't able to identify the study's response to the question based on the information that was available. This label is often applied when the person creating the list does not have access to the full text and the answer isn't clear from the abstract.

All labels of Literature Reviews and Highly Regarded Source are assigned by State of K. The label Highly Regarded Source, as applied to journals, is a label assigned to the top 20 journals (as measured by the h-index) in various subcategories as classified and reported by Google Scholar. As applied to NGOs, the label is assigned to US NGOs ranked by the TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports. The information contained in a source that is labelled "highly regarded" is not necessarily more accurate than information contained in a source without that label.

Literature Reviews
Although we recommend you consider all of the studies below, we believe the following studies are literature reviews, which survey and evaluate many studies on this question:

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Who sells guns in gun buyback programs?
7 studies
Submitted by: BNixon 20

Does the prevalence of firearms increase gun-related police deaths?
5 studies
Submitted by: DEvans 8

Are presidential democracies more prone to becoming dictatorships than parliamentary democracies?
24 studies
Submitted by: SMendoza 75

Do assault weapons bans reduce mass shootings?
2 studies
Submitted by: LCheng 132

Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce firearm homicides?
7 studies
Submitted by: LCheng 132

Add question
What additional question do you want someone who searches for "do gun buyback programs reduce gun violence" to consider?

SUMMARIES OF STUDIES
Total studies in list: 11
Sorted by publication year
1
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013
"Importance 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. Objective 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. Design 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. Exposures Implementation of major national gun law reforms. Main Outcomes and Measures 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. Results 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. Conclusions and Relevance 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."
HIGHLY REGARDED SOURCE
AUTHORS
Michael Jones
Philip Alpers
Simon Chapman
PUBLISHED
2016 in JAMA
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Insufficient Evidence
Insufficient Evidence
2
A systematic review of quantitative evidence about the impacts of Australian legislative reform on firearm homicide
"Developing legislative interventions to address firearm misuse is an issue of considerable public policy interest across many countries. However, systematic reviews of evidence about the efficacy of legislative change in reducing lethal firearm violence have only considered research examining the United States of America, a country that is unique among developed nations in its approach to firearm ownership. To inform international policy development, there is a need to consider other countries' experiences with gun law amendments. The current study used systematic literature search methods to identify evaluation-focused studies examining the impacts of legislative reform on firearm homicide in Australia, a country that made significant changes to its gun laws in the mid-1990s. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. These examined various different time periods, and used a range of different statistical analysis methods. No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of the legislative changes on firearm homicide rates. The strengths and limitations of each study are discussed. Findings from this review provide insights into strategies and policies that may, and may not, be effective for reducing lethal firearm violence."
LITERATURE REVIEW
HIGHLY REGARDED SOURCE
AUTHOR
Samara McPhedron
PUBLISHED
2016 in Aggression and Violent Behavior
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
No
No
3
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."
AUTHORS
James J. Sobol
Dae-Young Kim
Scott W. Phillips
PUBLISHED
2013 in International Journal of Police Science & Management
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Mixed Results
Mixed Results
4
The Australian Gun Buyback
"It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.These factors did not apply to the Australian buyback, which was large, compulsory, and the guns on this island nation could not easily be replaced. For example, compared to the buyback of 650,000 firearms, annual imports after the law averaged only 30,000 per year, with many of these bought by law enforcement agencies.For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.From the perspective of 1996, it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect of the law. Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA—the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide."
LITERATURE REVIEW
AUTHOR
David Hemenway
PUBLISHED
2011 by Harvard Injury Control Research Center (NGO)
NGO FUNDING
This organization does not disclose its donors
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Mixed Results
Mixed Results
5
The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths
"The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. (JEL C22, K19)"
AUTHORS
SANDY SUARDI
WANG-SHENG LEE
PUBLISHED
2010 in Contemporary Economic Policy
Q2
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
No
No
6
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 ofspecification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."
AUTHORS
Christine Neill
Andrew Leigh
PUBLISHED
2010 in American Law and Economics Review
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Mixed Results
Mixed Results
7
Weak Tests and Strong Conclusions: A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback
"Using time series analysis on data from 1979-2004, Baker and McPhedran (2006) argue that the stricter gun laws introduced in the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) post-1996 did not affect firearm homicide rates, and may not have had an impact on the rate of gun suicide or accidental death by shooting. We revisit their analysis, and find that their results are not robust to: (a) using a longer time series; or (b) using the log of the rate rather than the level (to take account of the fact that the rate cannot fall below zero). We also show that claims that the authors had allowed both for method substitution and for underlying trends in suicide or homicide rates are misleading. The high variability in the data and the fragility of the results with respect to different specifications suggest that time series analysis cannot conclusively answer the question of whether the NFA led to lower gun deaths. 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 buyback reducing gun deaths."
AUTHORS
Andrew Leigh
Christine Neill
PUBLISHED
2007 in SSRN Electronic Journal
SUSPECT SOURCE
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Insufficient Evidence
Insufficient Evidence
8
Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?
"Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables eval- uation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influ- enced observed changes. The findings have profound implications for future firearm legislation policy direction. Introduction"
AUTHORS
S. McPhedran
J. Baker
PUBLISHED
2006 in British Journal of Criminology
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Mixed Results
Mixed Results
9
AUTHORS
Jenny Mouzos
Peter Reuter
PUBLISHED
2003 by Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Book)
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
No
No
10
Missing the target: a comparison of buyback and fatality related guns
"Objectives: To determine whether the firearms recovered in buyback programs in a large urban community are the types most closely associated with firearm fatalities in the same geographic area.Methods: The type, caliber, and manufacturer of 941 handguns recovered in Milwaukee County 1994–96 buyback programs were compared with 369 homicide related and 125 suicide related handguns used in Milwaukee during 1994–97.Results: Buyback handguns differed substantially from those used in homicide and suicide. One third of buyback handguns were semiautomatic pistols versus two thirds of homicide related handguns (p<0.001) and 40% of suicide related handguns (p=NS). Over 75% of buyback handguns were small caliber compared with 24% of homicide and 32% of suicide handguns (p<0.001). The top two manufacturers of buyback handguns represented 30% of these guns but only 5% of fatality related handguns (p<0.001). Companies currently out of business manufactured 15% of buyback handguns versus 7% of fatality related handguns (p<0.001).Conclusions: Handguns recovered in buyback programs are not the types most commonly linked to firearm homicides and suicides. Although buyback programs may increase awareness of firearm violence, limited resources for firearm injury prevention may be better spent in other ways."
AUTHOR
E M Kuhn
PUBLISHED
2002 in Injury Prevention
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
No
No
11
Money for guns: evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program
"Community involvement in local firearms policy is advocated to be an important component of efforts to curtail violence. This report describes the first evaluation of one such effort, a gun buy-back program conducted in Seattle, WA, during the fall of 1992. The evaluation included (a) surveys of 500 participants and a description of the firearms exchanged; (b) monitoring police reports, trauma center admissions, and medical examiners' data to assess short-term effects on the frequency of firearm-related events; and (c) an assessment of community beliefs by random-digit dialing telephone interviews of 1,000 residents. Of the 1,172 firearms relinquished, 95 percent were handguns, 83 percent were operational, and 67 percent were owned for more than 5 years. Twenty-five percent were exchanged by women. The mean age of participants in the exchange program was 51 years. Females and persons in older age groups were more likely than males (83 percent versus 70 percent, P < 0.01) and minors (88 percent versus 55 percent, P < 0.05) to select safe disposal as motivation to participate. Comparing firearm-related events per month before and after the program, crimes and deaths increased, and injuries decreased, but the changes were not statistically significant. Telephone interviews revealed broad support for publicly funded gun buy-back programs even among households (61 percent) with firearms. Gun buy-back programs are a broadly supported means to decrease voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community, but their effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown."
AUTHORS
C M Callahan
Koepsell TD
Rivara FP
PUBLISHED
1994 in Public Health Reports
Q1
SUBMITTED BY
JAloni 105
Couldn't Identify
Couldn't Identify







ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO CONSIDER ADDING TO LIST
State of K periodically recommends additional studies to add to this list, both newly published and newly discovered. There are none for now, but check back another time.


QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Who sells guns in gun buyback programs?
7 studies
Submitted by: BNixon 20

Does the prevalence of firearms increase gun-related police deaths?
5 studies
Submitted by: DEvans 8

Are presidential democracies more prone to becoming dictatorships than parliamentary democracies?
24 studies
Submitted by: SMendoza 75

Do assault weapons bans reduce mass shootings?
2 studies
Submitted by: LCheng 132

Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce firearm homicides?
7 studies
Submitted by: LCheng 132

Add question
What additional question do you want someone who searches for "do gun buyback programs reduce gun violence" to consider?