« Tim Harford's chapter eight, a contribution from Sahar Akhtar | Main | Markets in everything »
Gun Buyback Misfires
Oakland's recent gun buyback was especially ridiculous. The police offered up to $250 for a gun "no questions asked, no ID required." The first people in line? Two gun dealers from Reno with 60 cheap handguns. Fortunately the buyback did manage to get some guns off the street, too bad they were turned in by a bunch of senior citizens from an assisted living facility. Whew, the streets are safe at last.
Even putting aside the obvious nonsense, gun buybacks simply don't work. In technical terms the supply of guns to Oakland is perfectly elastic so buybacks won't reduce the number of guns in Oakland. Here is an analogy from my op-ed in the Oakland Tribune.
Imagine that instead of guns, the Oakland police decided, for whatever strange reason, to buy back sneakers. The idea of a gun buyback is to reduce the supply of guns in Oakland. Do you think that a sneaker buyback program would reduce the number of people wearing sneakers in Oakland? Of course not.
All that would happen is that people would reach into the back of their closet and sell the police a bunch of old, tired, stinky sneakers.
Gun buybacks won't reduce the number of guns in Oakland. In fact, buybacks may increase the number of guns in Oakland.
Imagine that gun dealers offered a guarantee with every gun: Whenever this gun gets old and wears down, the dealer will buy back the gun for $250.
The dealer's guarantee makes guns more valuable, so people will buy more guns.
But the story is exactly the same when it's the police offering the guarantee. If buyers know that they can sell their old guns in a buyback, they are more likely to buy new guns. Thus the more common that gun buybacks become, the more likely they are to misfire....
The guns bought in this buyback are destined to be melted down to create a monument. It's a shame that this monument will be the only lasting effect of the buyback.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on February 25, 2008 at 07:45 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
The Gun Gods must be placated.
Posted by: M. Simon at Feb 25, 2008 8:15:31 AM
$250 huh? That's like a subsidy on the purchase of a new and better handgun. Good idea. Thanks, Oakland police.
Posted by: Pixelkiller at Feb 25, 2008 8:23:06 AM
Unclear that you have demonstrated that "Gun Buyback Misfires". IS there any evidence regarding this issue, other than Econ 101?
Posted by: es32 at Feb 25, 2008 8:27:12 AM
seriously; i could buy (and am looking at) cheap carry pistols that are around 250 new; 239 if you know where to look...used, I could get them for 189 or so. "yes, KelTec? I'd like to buy your whole stock of new p3at's...gonna go sell them to the cops in oakland."
Posted by: shawn at Feb 25, 2008 8:31:23 AM
I think you misunderstand here, supply is not always relevant. Suppose someone has a gun they 'forgot to return' to the army when they were discharged twenty years ago. They don't keep bullets anywhere near it, they don't even want it, but they're not quite sure how to get rid of it and don't have time to think about it. Someday it may be stolen or found by kids (who might conceivably do something bad with it despite the immediate unavailability of ammo). The buyback you describe doesn't sound cost effective, but the idea isn't silly.
Posted by: David Weisman at Feb 25, 2008 8:42:48 AM
I don't think this is targeted towards criminals and people that really want to have a gun. Rather, it would reduce the number of 'stray' guns - those that people own for no real reason, like the retirement home folks. If you raise the opportunity cost of keeping a gun from $0 to $250, many people would give it away. Otherwise, some of those guns may end up in the hands of kids, used at the wrong time by people with anger management issues, or get stolen.
Others could in fact get a free upgrade of their guns, but I don't think having a shinier pistol will affect the crime rate.
Posted by: Alek at Feb 25, 2008 8:48:29 AM
Do they use the word 'sneakers' in Oakland? I grew up around there, and we called them 'tennis shoes'. It wasn't till I moved to New Jersey that I ever heard the word 'sneakers'.
Posted by: James at Feb 25, 2008 8:59:26 AM
I have a WWII Jap carbine with a bubba-ed stock that bulges case heads. If I was in the Bay area it would have gone, without triggerguard, sling swivel or bolt, to the buy-back in a second. In fact, I'm thinking of taking it out to a friend there the next time I go. 250 is about 225.00 more than it's worth, and 150 more than I paid.
Posted by: Robert at Feb 25, 2008 9:03:45 AM
Dang, I (almost) wish they had that stupid program around here. Go to dealer, or gun show, and buy 10 or 20 or 50 derringers @ 125.00 each; 'sell' them to the idiot local gov't @ 250.00 each. The perfect "double your money" scheme.
Can anyone point to any flaws in my scheme? I'm actually thinking of trying it.
Anyone know of any gov't 'gun buyback' programs in the NE Ohio area?
Posted by: Les Nessman at Feb 25, 2008 9:16:22 AM
$250 is well more than halfway to a nice new Glock 19.
Posted by: Mike at Feb 25, 2008 9:17:47 AM
well, Les N. The flaw is that they use YOUR tax dollars to buy your gun
from you. Naturally the percentage of that $250 that you pay in is much smaller, so an individual still makes out quite well, but it's still a bad idea, when
they could use those funds for something better, like another flack
jacket, or gas for a patrol car.
Yeah, this might get unwanted guns off the street, as opposed to guns
criminals have, but they are advertizing that this will prevent crime.
To get unwanteds off the street, they could probably just have a program
that geve people a nice dinner for two, and get as many unwanted guns.
The people who don't want them, just want to get rid of them.
This is all to show that someone is doing something, even if
the results are not much in relaity.
Posted by: D at Feb 25, 2008 9:35:17 AM
After a few dealers got their money, the Oakland program put in a limit of 5 guns per person.
California car buyback: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/avrp/avrp.htm
Posted by: Don Marti at Feb 25, 2008 9:39:40 AM
Somewhere in the recesses of academia John Lott
must be shaking his head in disgust.
Posted by: a. controversy at Feb 25, 2008 9:49:02 AM
D-
I think most of the funds for gun buybacks comes from cash seized in narcotics raids. That may not be the case here, but I was under the impression that such is the case most of the time.
Posted by: Bill at Feb 25, 2008 10:14:30 AM
Require training, operating licenses, and gun owners liability insurance for all gun owners and all ammunition purchases. Insurance cost/availability will scale with location, type of gun, owner's criminal history, etc. May be unavailable or prohibitive in some situations. Really stiff penalties for operating, carrying, selling guns and ammunuition without insurance and license after phase in. Cash rewards [$1000] for turning in non-insured/registered gun-owners. Reliable tip is evidence for probable cause of police search of home. After invalid tip, no more rewards.
Posted by: Mesa at Feb 25, 2008 10:26:00 AM
All that would happen is that people would reach into the back of their closet and sell the police a bunch of old, tired, stinky sneakers.
See, here is the other consequence: the "old, tired, stinky" guns are both cheap and the ones least likely to have been properly maintained, and therefore most likely to fail. So, with this program, we can all rest assured that when someone pulls a gun out for whatever law-abiding purpose they intend, it is less likely to fail and accidentally harm the gun carrier.
Posted by: Brad L at Feb 25, 2008 10:43:57 AM
In addition to all else, what a great way to dispose of a crime gun!
Posted by: CP at Feb 25, 2008 10:57:43 AM
"Require training, operating licenses, and gun owners liability insurance for all gun owners and all ammunition purchases. Insurance cost/availability will scale with location, type of gun, owner's criminal history, etc. May be unavailable or prohibitive in some situations."
Yeah, let's make it too expensive for poor people to have guns. "Those people" have no business engaging in self defense, anyway.
Posted by: ToMcA at Feb 25, 2008 11:01:04 AM
Yes, Mesa, because the criminals who currently disobey laws prohibiting armed robbery and murder will be sure to follow your new laws. The gangstas will be sure to take out the appropriate insurance before scheduling a drive-by.
Were you born that stupid, or did you eat lead paint at a child? And to think you're able to vote...
Posted by: what at Feb 25, 2008 11:05:47 AM
Does this also raise the price of a handgun to a minimum of $250? Why should only the rich be able to protect themselves? This is, literally, class warfare.
Posted by: BlogReader at Feb 25, 2008 11:09:35 AM
Instead of complaining about gun buybacks, the NRA should call them "Gun Upgrades". Offer $100 toward the purchase of a new weapon suitable for a member of the militia with proof that you turned in a clunker. $350 buys you a decent 9mm or pump shotgun.
Posted by: TomHynes at Feb 25, 2008 11:13:18 AM
If it is truly no questions asked I would assume you do not have to show ID of any kind. So dosent that mean any one, from any state can turn in a gun?
Posted by: bill b at Feb 25, 2008 11:20:09 AM
[i]Reliable tip is evidence for probable cause of police search of home.[/i]
Me: Hey, I heard Mesa is a drug dealer and has guns and drugs and evidence of murders at his home.
Cops: Ok, sounds like probable cause to me, let's search this scumbag's home. Who needs the fourth amendment anyway?
Posted by: aguy at Feb 25, 2008 11:20:28 AM
Hey Mesa, your plan works for other Constitutional rights too:
"Require training, operating licenses, and religious liability insurance for all religion practicioners and all religious purchases. Insurance cost/availability will scale with location, type of religion, owner's religious history, etc. May be unavailable or prohibitive in some situations. Really stiff penalties for operating, preaching, selling religious goods without insurance and license after phase in. Cash rewards [$1000] for turning in non-insured/registered religious items. Reliable tip is evidence for probable cause of police search of home. After invalid tip, no more rewards."
Think about that or are you just using the parts of the Constitution you like?
Posted by: SB at Feb 25, 2008 11:27:12 AM
@James: Yeah, the kids call them sneakers or "kicks". There is a whole industry around having the coolest sneakers that coordinate with one's outfits. Check out:
http://www.dunkxchange.com
If the Oakland police showed up at one of these shows with a sneaker buy-back program, they'd have to offer more than $250.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Feb 25, 2008 11:27:31 AM
