Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn recently celebrated the results of her 13th gun buyback event, held in a parking lot in Torrance, California. Using $20,000 in taxpayer-funded gift cards, the event collected 256 firearms, some of which were reportedly rusty or inoperable. Hahn hailed the program as a significant step toward making communities safer.
“Today in closets and bedrooms across L.A. County, there are 2,000 fewer guns that can be found by a child, accidentally discharged, or stolen and used to kill in a crime. That makes all of the work we’ve done to bring these buybacks to our residents worth it,” Hahn said.
Despite such optimistic claims, there is little evidence to suggest that gun buyback programs (GBPs) reduce gun violence, suicides, or accidental shootings. Critics argue these events are more about optics than outcomes, costing taxpayers while offering negligible results.
Since early 2022, Hahn’s buyback initiatives have resulted in the collection of 2,052 firearms across 13 events. While this figure may sound impressive at first glance, it pales in comparison to the estimated 20 million privately owned firearms in California.
Given that 10% of California’s population resides in Los Angeles County, a reasonable estimate would place around two million privately owned guns in the county alone. By removing 2,052 firearms, the buyback programs have accounted for just 0.001% of the total guns in the region—a figure critics argue is statistically insignificant.
Several studies cast doubt on the effectiveness of gun buyback programs in reducing violence. A 2022 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found:
“Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, we find no evidence that GBPs reduce gun crime. Using data from the National Vital Statistics System, we also find no evidence that GBPs reduce suicides or homicides where a firearm was involved.”
Similarly, research conducted by RAND concluded that while gun buybacks are often marketed as tools to combat gun violence, they have had “limited success in targeting high-risk individuals and guns.”
Moreover, the NBER study identified an alarming trend: gun-related crime in neighborhoods hosting buyback events tends to increase in the two months following the program.
“Some criminals may be emboldened by the perception that victims will be less likely to defend themselves with deadly physical force,” the study noted.
Hahn remains steadfast in her support of these programs, emphasizing their role in providing a convenient way for residents to dispose of unwanted firearms.
“Time and time again, these buybacks have shown that many people have these dangerous weapons they no longer want in their homes but have never had an easy, convenient way to get rid of them,” Hahn stated. “They want to play a role in making their homes and communities safer.”
While Hahn’s intentions may resonate with some residents, others question whether her initiatives are an effective use of taxpayer dollars.
Critics argue that gun buybacks are more about creating the illusion of action rather than delivering tangible results. A 2013 study of gun buybacks in Buffalo, New York, noted that these programs often serve as a response to public pressure for visible action on crime.
“When serious crime problems occur, mayors and police chiefs are under pressure from their constituents to ‘do something dramatic and effective’ about the violence,” the study concluded.
This aligns with Hahn’s recent program, which garnered headlines and public attention. However, the financial cost—over $20,000 for 256 firearms—leaves many questioning the return on investment.
While the removal of 2,052 firearms may be seen as a symbolic victory, its impact on reducing gun violence in a region with millions of firearms remains negligible. Critics argue that funds spent on gun buybacks could be better utilized on initiatives with proven efficacy, such as community violence prevention programs, improved mental health services, and targeted law enforcement strategies.
“If the goal is to genuinely reduce gun violence, we need to focus on measures that address the root causes of crime rather than feel-good programs that make for good headlines,” said one policy analyst.
Hahn’s gun buyback programs have undoubtedly succeeded in generating public interest and removing some firearms from circulation. However, research consistently shows that such initiatives do little to curb gun violence or prevent crime.
As policymakers and residents continue to grapple with the challenges of gun violence, the question remains: Are these programs worth their cost, or are they merely symbolic gestures that fail to address the root causes of the issue?
