Oakland Gun Buy-Backs to prevent 1000 Future Murders?

The concept of “gun buy-backs” as a methodology for reducing firearms availability and violence could only come from the minds of people who really can’t see the forest through the trees. Consider the recent buy-back in Oakland, California that offered $250 for any working firearm, no questions asked. With a budget of $80,000 allocated, that money was handed over to gleeful sellers in minutes leaving hundreds of armed citizens (or were they criminals) lined up on a public street waiting to sell their guns. According to USA Today, Oakland police chief Wayne Tucker made the decision to continue to “purchase” the firearms and issued IOUs totaling some $170,000. It’s not clear where the additional $170,000 spent will come from. Despite the fact that Oakland, like most of California is broke, Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata called the program “cathartic” reinforcing the contention that in liberal ideology results matter less than the “feel good” factor. Couple that with a complete distain for the Second Amendment and you have nearly the perfect “happy, happy, joy, joy” program.Sure, it looks great on paper but don’t expect any real results.

The fact is enterprising firearms dealers, collectors and enthusiasts took advantage of Oakland’s naïve initiative and unloaded thousands of dollars worth of cheap, junk guns, many worth less than the $250.00 the city was shelling out.

So after more than doubling their purchase budget can Oakland and the proponents of the gun buy-back program quantify any reduction in crime based on the program? No. They purchased over 1000 guns but have no idea how many were turned in by criminals. They don’t know how many of these guns were really a threat to society nor do they know how many had been used in a criminal act.

It begs the question, how can a municipality like Oakland look it’s taxpayers in the eye and say that 250,000 of the communities tax dollars were spent wisely buying junk guns from old ladies and gun dealers from Reno? With the current economic situation, is a touchy-feely publicity stunt really the best way to “invest” in the community? Oakland, like most communities who fall for the gun buy-back ploy, failed to even ask where they guns came from. An editorial in the Oakland Tribute referred to the program as a “good idea gone awry” remarking that the event turned into a glorified gun show. When asked by the media why the program wasn’t specifically targeting residents of Oakland, Senator Perata stated that wasn’t important. His message was that one less gun meant one less homicide. Well there you go. Perata and his ilk try to imply that every firearm purchased was destined to be used in a murderous act. It’s this type of intentionally misleading and irresponsible statement that led to a 2004 report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The report concluded that the empirical evidence demonstrated that gun buy-back programs are ineffective in reducing crime.

The evidence demonstrates that gun buy-back programs are more about fluff and photo-opportunities than real results. Researchers and even law enforcement agencies argue that criminals don’t participate in these feel-good programs. One has to wonder, with Oakland paying $250 per gun, does the program itself encourage increased burglary or home invasions with the specific objective of stealing guns to sell to the local government?