text:
Do gun buyback programs reduce gun violence?
Submitted by: XJackson 78
We don't have sufficient data on the studies below to give you a short answer.
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. For medical questions, don't rely on the information here. Consult a medical professional.
examining this question
that may examine this question
YES ANSWERS
NO DATA ON ANSWER
Chart summary of 11 studies examining this question
Showing up to 10 at a time
Choose view Answers Highly Regarded Sources Literature Reviews
View details about this chart
Hide details about this chart
All answers are assigned by State of K users. The label Couldn't Identify means that State of K was not able to determine whether a study answers the question "yes" or "no". This could be due to several factors. One possibility is 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 often happens 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). Yet another possibility is that a study found there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the question. Finally, the full text or abstract of a study may not have been written clearly or was inaccessible. This would make it difficult to determine how a study answered a question.
All labels of Literature Reviews and source quality are assigned by State of K. For academic journals, the label "Q[NUMBER]" is an indication of the quality of the publication. The "NUMBER" refer to the best quartile in which the journal appeared among all the subjects in which the journal was ranked by Scimago Institutions Rankings. For example, if a journal was ranked in the third quartile (Q3) in infectious diseases, but in the second quartile in Ebola studies (Q2), you would see "Q2". The best quartile is "Q1". Publications other than academic journals may be labeled as "Highly Regarded Sources". Government sources receive this label as do NGOs ranked by the TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports. The information contained in a source that is labeled "highly regarded" or "Q1" is not necessarily more accurate than information contained in a source without that label, but these are rough guides to source quality.
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:
A systematic review of quantitative evidence about the impacts of Australian legislative reform on firearm homicide
The Australian Gun Buyback
Additional Recommended Studies Not in this List (yet)
There are additional studies that may also examine this question.
Are presidential democracies more prone to becoming dictatorships than parliamentary democracies?
24 studies
Submitted by: SMendoza 75
Do assault weapons bans reduce mass shootings?
Submitted by: LCheng 132
Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce firearm homicides?
Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce firearm suicides?
Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce mass shootings?
Do background checks for firearm purchases reduce total suicides?
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
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."
Philip Alpers
2016 in JAMA
High quality source
Couldn't Identify
"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."
Samara McPhedron
2016 in Aggression and Violent Behavior
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."
James J. Sobol
Dae-Young Kim
Scott W. Phillips
2013 in International Journal of Police Science & Management
"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."
David Hemenway
2011 by Harvard Injury Control Research Center
NGO FUNDING
This organization does not disclose its donors
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)"
SANDY SUARDI
WANG-SHENG LEE
2010 in Contemporary Economic Policy
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."
Christine Neill
2010 in American Law and Economics Review
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."
A study responded to this study
2007 in SSRN Electronic Journal
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"
S. McPhedran
J. Baker
2006 in British Journal of Criminology
Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns
You can view the abstract at:
http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reuter/files/gun%20chapter.pdf
Jenny Mouzos
Peter Reuter
2003 by Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence
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."
E M Kuhn
2002 in Injury Prevention
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."
C M Callahan
Koepsell TD
Rivara FP
1994 in Public Health Reports
ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO CONSIDER ADDING TO LIST
Total additional studies: 29
State of K's algorithms generated the list of studies below based on the studies that were added to the above list. Some of these studies may also examine: "Do gun buyback programs reduce gun violence?" If a study examines this question, add it to the list by pressing the button.
Only add studies that examine the same question. Do not add studies that are merely on the same topic.
Counting Guns: What Social Science Historians Know and Could Learn about Gun Ownership, Gun Culture, and Gun Violence in the United States
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1215/01455532-26-4-699
G. Wood
2002 in Social Science History
Health problems and male firearm suicide.
"Drawing on constructs of masculinity as it relates to both gun ownership and men's health, we use a rich data set, the New Jersey Violent Death Reporting System as well as hospital discharge data, to analyze 3,413 completed male suicides between the years of 2003 and 2009. We test the hypotheses that the use of firearms is more common when physical health problems are cited as suicide circumstances, and that suicide decedents who use firearms have poorer physical health than those who used other methods. Results show that firearms are disproportionately used in male suicides when physical health is listed as a circumstance. Additionally, among suicide decedents with a hospitalization during the 3 years prior to death, those who used firearms were in poorer health than those who used other methods. These findings have implications for prevention efforts, because restricting access to lethal means is an important aspect of suicide prevention."
Bretta Jacquemin
Katherine Hempstead
Richard David-Rus
2013 in Suicide & life-threatening behavior
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
"Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.
Objective: To determine whether Australia's 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre-post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.
Setting: Australia, 1979-2003.
Main Outcome Measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
M Jones
K Agho
P Alpers
S Chapman
Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths
"Background: A variety of claims about possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness burden, and the risk of firearm-related deaths have been put forward. However, systematic data on this issue among various countries remain scant. Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion "guns make a nation safer" has any merits.
Methods: Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation and was obtained from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends. Age-standardized disability-adjusted life-year rates due to major depressive disorder per 100,000 inhabitants with data obtained from the World Health Organization database were used as a putative indicator for mental illness burden in a given country.
Results: Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only.
Conclusion: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.
Franz H. Messerli
Sripal Bangalore
2013 in The American Journal of Medicine
Reducing firearm violence: a research agenda.
"In the United States, firearms are involved in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries each year. The magnitude of this problem prompted the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to issue a report in 2004 detailing the strengths and limitations of existing research on the relationship between firearms and violence. In response, a multidisciplinary group of experts in the field of firearms and violence formed the National Research Collaborative on Firearm Violence. The Collaborative met for 2 days in June 2005 to (1) critically review the main findings of the NAS report and (2) define a research agenda that could fill research and data gaps and inform policy that reduces gun-related crime, deaths and injuries. This article summarizes the Collaborative's conclusions and identifies priorities for research and funding."
Robert Spitzer
Jon Vernick
Jean Lemaire
Kristen Beam
Christopher S Koper et al
2007 in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?
You can view the abstract at: http://books.google.com/books?id=V0zEkQEACAAJ&dq=gun%2Bbuyback%2Bprogram&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&cd=18&source=gbs_api
http://books.google.com/books?id=V0zEkQEACAAJ&dq=gun%2Bbuyback%2Bprogram&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&cd=18&source=gbs_api
Suicide, guns, and buyback programs: an epidemiologic analysis of firearm-related deaths in Connecticut
"Gun buyback programs aim to remove unwanted firearms from the community with the goal of preventing firearm injury and death. Buyback programs are held in many communities, but evidence demonstrating their effectiveness is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare firearms collected at buyback events to crime guns and firearms used in homicides and suicides. Detailed firearm and case data was obtained from the Hartford Police Department and the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System from January through December of 2015. Information was reviewed for guns collected at buyback events, crime guns confiscated by police, and for weapons associated with firearm fatalities. Detailed firearm data included type, manufacturer, model, and caliber (SMALL ≤ .32 caliber, MEDIUM = .357 caliber to 9 millimeter, LARGE ≥ .40 caliber). Chi-square analyses were used for comparisons between groups. In 2015, 224 crime guns were seized by the Hartford Police, 169 guns were collected at four community buyback events, and there were 187 firearm-related deaths statewide (105 suicides, 81 homicides, 1 legal intervention). Comparisons between buyback, crime and fatality-related firearms are shown in the table below. Medium caliber handguns account for the majority of crime guns and fatalities, and buyback programs collected smaller caliber handguns. The demographics of individuals who turn in guns at buyback events and commit suicide are similar: age (buyback=63±11, suicide=52±18, homicide=34±12 years), sex (buyback=81%, suicide=91%, homicide=84% male), and race (buyback=80%, suicide=97%, homicide=47% white). Handguns account for the majority of crime guns and firearm-related fatalities in Connecticut. Buyback programs are both an opportunity to remove unwanted handguns from the community, and to remove firearms from the homes of individuals at increased risk of suicide. Epidemiologic study, level III"
David Shapiro
James C. Rovella
Rob Berntsson
Heather Clinton
Laura Baumann et al
in Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
"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 of
specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."
C. Neill
A. Leigh
Suicide, guns, and buyback programs
"Gun buyback programs aim to remove unwanted firearms from the community with the goal of preventing firearm injury and death. Buyback programs are held in many communities, but evidence demonstrating their effectiveness is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare firearms collected at buyback events to crime guns and firearms used in homicides and suicides.
Detailed firearm and case data was obtained from the Hartford Police Department and the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System from January through December of 2015. Information was reviewed for guns collected at buyback events, crime guns confiscated by police, and for weapons associated with firearm fatalities. Detailed firearm data included type, manufacturer, model, and caliber (SMALL ≤ .32 caliber, MEDIUM = .357 caliber to 9 millimeter, LARGE ≥ .40 caliber). Chi-square analyses were used for comparisons between groups. In 2015, 224 crime guns were seized by the Hartford Police, 169 guns were collected at four community buyback events, and there were 187 firearm-related deaths statewide (105 suicides, 81 homicides, 1 legal intervention).
Comparisons between buyback, crime and fatality-related firearms are shown in the table below. Medium caliber handguns account for the majority of crime guns and fatalities, and buyback programs collected smaller caliber handguns. The demographics of individuals who turn in guns at buyback events and commit suicide are similar: age (buyback=63±11, suicide=52±18, homicide=34±12 years), sex (buyback=81%, suicide=91%, homicide=84% male), and race (buyback=80%, suicide=97%, homicide=47% white).
Handguns account for the majority of crime guns and firearm-related fatalities in Connecticut. Buyback programs are both an opportunity to remove unwanted handguns from the community, and to remove firearms from the homes of individuals at increased risk of suicide. Epidemiologic study, level III"
Susan S. Williams
2017 in Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Suicide, guns, and buyback programs: An epidemiologic analysis of firearm-related deaths in Connecticut.
"Background: Gun buyback programs aim to remove unwanted firearms from the community with the goal of preventing firearm injury and death. Buyback programs are held in many communities, but evidence demonstrating their effectiveness is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare firearms collected at buyback events to crime guns and firearms used in homicides and suicides.
Methods: Detailed firearm and case data were obtained from the Hartford Police Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner from January through December of 2015. Information was reviewed for guns collected at buyback events, crime guns confiscated by police, and for weapons associated with firearm fatalities. Detailed firearm data included type, manufacturer, model, and caliber (small, ≤ 0.32 caliber; medium, 0.357 caliber to 9 mm; large, ≥ 0.40 caliber). χ analyses were used for comparisons between groups.
Results: In 2015, 224 crime guns were seized by the Hartford Police, 169 guns were collected at four community buyback events, and there were 187 firearm-related deaths statewide (105 suicides, 81 homicides, 1 legal intervention). Comparisons between buyback, crime, and fatality-related firearms are shown in the table below. Medium caliber handguns account for the majority of crime guns and fatalities, and buyback programs collected smaller caliber handguns. The demographics of individuals who turn in guns at buyback events and commit suicide are similar: age (buyback, 63 ± 11; suicide, 52 ± 18; homicide, 34 ± 12 years), sex (buyback, 81%; suicide, 91%; homicide, 84% men), and race (buyback, 80%; suicide, 97%; homicide, 47% white).
Conclusion: Handguns account for the majority of crime guns and firearm-related fatalities in Connecticut. Buyback programs are both an opportunity to remove unwanted handguns from the community and to remove firearms from the homes of individuals at increased risk of suicide.
Level Of Evidence: Epidemiologic/therapeutic study, level IV.
Kevin Borrup
Shefali Thaker
2017 in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
From gunstore to smoking gun: tracking guns that kill children in North Carolina.
"Purpose: This study reviews the epidemiology of pediatric firearm deaths in North Carolina and estimates the time from the retail sale of guns to their involvement in pediatric firearm deaths.
Methods: The authors reviewed autopsy reports for all children 0 to 14 years of age that died of firearm-related injuries in North Carolina from January 1999 through December 2002. Data obtained included demographic information, firearm type, and manner of death. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which traced guns involved in crimes and determined the time elapsed from purchase to their involvement in a crime (ie, time-to-crime were also reviewed).
Results: During the study period, 40 children died of firearm injuries. Mean age was 7.6 years. Handguns were responsible for the majority of deaths (59%) followed by shotguns (27%), rifles (10%), and undetermined cause (10%). Most deaths were homicides (67%) followed by unintentional death (18%), suicide (13%), and undetermined cause (2%). Most crime guns (76%) were purchased legally, and many (40%) had a time-to-crime of less than 3 years.
Conclusions: Legally purchased firearms pose a significant threat to children in North Carolina. A more restrictive approach to the sale of handguns is a logical approach to reducing pediatric firearm-related deaths in the United States.
Brendan T Campbell
J Duncan Phillips
Daniel von Allmen
Deborah L Radisch
2004 in Journal of Pediatric Surgery
Alcohol misuse, firearm violence perpetration, and public policy in the United States
The California Wellness Foundation
"Objective: Firearm violence is a significant public health problem in the United States, and alcohol is frequently involved. This article reviews existing research on the relationships between alcohol misuse; ownership, access to, and use of firearms; and the commission of firearm violence, and discusses the policy implications of these findings.
Method: Narrative review augmented by new tabulations of publicly-available data.
Results: Acute and chronic alcohol misuse is positively associated with firearm ownership, risk behaviors involving firearms, and risk for perpetrating both interpersonal and self-directed firearm violence. In an average month, an estimated 8.9 to 11.7 million firearm owners binge drink. For men, deaths from alcohol-related firearm violence equal those from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. Enforceable policies restricting access to firearms for persons who misuse alcohol are uncommon. Policies that restrict access on the basis of other risk factors have been shown to reduce risk for subsequent violence.
Conclusion: The evidence suggests that restricting access to firearms for persons with a documented history of alcohol misuse would be an effective violence prevention measure. Restrictions should rely on unambiguous definitions of alcohol misuse to facilitate enforcement and should be rigorously evaluated.
Garen J. Wintemute
2015 in Preventive Medicine
Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 States, 2013
"Problem/Condition: In 2013, more than 57,000 persons died in the United States as a result of violence-related injuries. This report summarizes data from CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) regarding violent deaths from 17 U.S. states for 2013. Results are reported by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, marital status, location of injury, method of injury, circumstances of injury, and other selected characteristics.
Reporting Period Covered: 2013.
Description Of System: NVDRS collects data from participating states regarding violent deaths obtained from death certificates, coroner/medical examiner reports, law enforcement reports, and secondary sources (e.g., child fatality review team data, supplemental homicide reports, hospital data, and crime laboratory data). This report includes data from 17 states that collected statewide data for 2013 (Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin). NVDRS collates documents for each death and links deaths that are related (e.g., multiple homicides, a homicide followed by a suicide, or multiple suicides) from a single incident.
Results: For 2013, a total of 18,765 fatal incidents involving 19,251 deaths were captured by NVDRS in the 17 states included in this report. The majority (66.2%) of deaths were suicides, followed by homicides (23.2%), deaths of undetermined intent (8.8%), deaths involving legal intervention (1.2%) (i.e., deaths caused by law enforcement and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force, excluding legal executions), and unintentional firearm deaths (<1%). (The term legal intervention is a classification incorporated into the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] and does not denote the lawfulness or legality of the circumstances surrounding a death caused by law enforcement.) Suicides occurred at higher rates among males, non-Hispanic whites, American Indian/Alaska Natives, persons aged 45-64 years, and males aged ≥75 years. Suicides were preceded primarily by a mental health, intimate partner, or physical health problem or a crisis during the previous or upcoming 2 weeks. Homicide rates were higher among males and persons aged 15-44 years; rates were highest among non-Hispanic black males. Homicides primarily were precipitated by arguments and interpersonal conflicts, occurrence in conjunction with another crime, or were related to intimate partner violence (particularly for females). A known relationship between a homicide victim and a suspected perpetrator was most likely either that of an acquaintance or friend or an intimate partner. Legal intervention death rates were highest among males and persons aged 20-24 years and 30-34 years; rates were highest among non-Hispanic black males. Precipitating factors for the majority of legal intervention deaths were another crime, a mental health problem, or a recent crisis. Deaths of undetermined intent occurred at the highest rates among males and persons aged <1 year and 45-54 years. Substance abuse and mental or physical health problems were the most common circumstances preceding deaths of undetermined intent. Unintentional firearm death rates were higher among males, non-Hispanic whites, and persons aged persons aged 15-19 and 55-64 years; these deaths were most often precipitated by a person unintentionally pulling the trigger while playing with a firearm or while hunting.
Interpretation: This report provides a detailed summary of data from NVDRS for 2013. The results indicate that violent deaths resulting from self-inflicted or interpersonal violence disproportionately affected persons aged <65 years, males, and certain minority populations. For homicides and suicides, intimate partner problems, interpersonal conflicts, mental health problems, and recent crises were primary precipitating factors.
Public Health Action: NVDRS data are used to monitor the occurrence of violence-related fatal injuries and assist public health authorities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies to reduce and prevent violent deaths. For example, Utah Violent Death Reporting System (VDRS) data were used to develop policies that support children of intimate partner homicide victims, Colorado VDRS data to develop a web-based suicide prevention program targeting middle-aged men, and Rhode Island VDRS data to help guide suicide prevention efforts at workplaces. The continued development and expansion of NVDRS to include all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia are essential to public health efforts to reduce the impact of violence.
Bridget H. Lyons
Carter J. Betz
Katherine A. Fowler
Janet M. Blair
Shane P.D. Jack
2016 in MMWR. Surveillance Summaries
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings.
Main Outcome Measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100,000 population.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Objective: To determine whether Australia's 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.
Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
Surveillance for Violent Deaths - National Violent Death Reporting System, 27 States, 2015.
"Problem/Condition: In 2015, approximately 62,000 persons died in the United States as a result of violence-related injuries. This report summarizes data from CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) regarding violent deaths from 27 U.S. states for 2015. Results are reported by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, location of injury, method of injury, circumstances of injury, and other selected characteristics.
Reporting Period: 2015.
Description Of System: NVDRS collects data regarding violent deaths obtained from death certificates, coroner/medical examiner reports, law enforcement reports, and secondary sources (e.g., child fatality review team data, supplemental homicide reports, hospital data, and crime laboratory data). This report includes data from 27 states that collected statewide data for 2015 (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin). NVDRS collates documents for each death and links deaths that are related (e.g., multiple homicides, a homicide followed by a suicide, or multiple suicides) into a single incident.
Results: For 2015, NVDRS captured 30,628 fatal incidents involving 31,415 deaths in the 27 states included in this report. The majority (65.1%) of deaths were suicides, followed by homicides (23.5%), deaths of undetermined intent (9.5%), legal intervention deaths (1.3%) (i.e., deaths caused by law enforcement and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force, excluding legal executions), and unintentional firearm deaths (<1.0%). (The term "legal intervention" is a classification incorporated into the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] and does not denote the lawfulness or legality of the circumstances surrounding a death caused by law enforcement.) Demographic patterns varied by manner of death. Suicide rates were highest among males, non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic whites, adults aged 45-54 years, and men aged ≥75 years. The most common method of injury was a firearm. Suicides often were preceded by a mental health, intimate partner, substance abuse, or physical health problem, or a crisis during the previous or upcoming 2 weeks. Homicide rates were higher among males and persons aged <1 year and 20-34 years. Among males, non-Hispanic blacks accounted for the majority of homicides and had the highest rate of any racial/ethnic group. Homicides primarily involved a firearm, were precipitated by arguments and interpersonal conflicts, were related to intimate partner violence (particularly for females), or occurred in conjunction with another crime. When the relationship between a homicide victim and a suspected perpetrator was known, an acquaintance/friend or an intimate partner frequently was involved. Legal intervention death rates were highest among males and persons aged 20-54 years; rates among non-Hispanic black males were approximately double the rates of those among non-Hispanic white males. Precipitating circumstances for legal intervention deaths most frequently were an alleged criminal activity in progress, the victim reportedly using a weapon in the incident, a mental health or substance abuse problem (other than alcohol abuse), an argument or conflict, or a recent crisis (during the previous or upcoming 2 weeks). Unintentional firearm deaths were more frequent among males, non-Hispanic whites, and persons aged 10-24 years; these deaths most often occurred while the shooter was playing with a firearm and most often were precipitated by a person unintentionally pulling the trigger or mistakenly thinking the firearm was unloaded. Deaths of undetermined intent were more frequent among males, particularly non-Hispanic black and American Indian/Alaska Native males, and persons aged 30-54 years. Substance abuse, mental health problems, physical health problems, and a recent crisis were the most common circumstances preceding deaths of undetermined intent. In 2015, approximately 3,000 current or former military personnel died by suicide. The majority of these decedents were male, non-Hispanic white, and aged 45-74 years. Most suicides among military personnel involved a firearm and were precipitated by mental health, physical health, and intimate partner problems, as well as a recent crisis.
Interpretation: This report provides a detailed summary of data from NVDRS for 2015. The results indicate that deaths resulting from self-inflicted or interpersonal violence most frequently affect males and certain age groups and minority populations. Mental health problems, intimate partner problems, interpersonal conflicts, and general life stressors were primary precipitating events for multiple types of violent deaths, including suicides among current or former military personnel.
Public Health Action: NVDRS data are used to monitor the occurrence of violence-related fatal injuries and assist public health authorities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies to reduce and prevent violent deaths. For example, Virginia VDRS data are used to help identify suicide risk factors among active duty service members, Oregon VDRS suicide data are used to coordinate information and activities across community agencies that support veterans and active duty service members, and Arizona VDRS data are used to develop recommendations for primary care providers who deliver care to veterans. The continued development and expansion of NVDRS to include all 50 states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia are essential to public health efforts to reduce deaths due to violence.
Kameron J Sheats
Allison M Ertl
Janet M Blair
Bridget H Lyons
Emiko Petrosky
Shane P D Jack et al
2018 in Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002)
Gun Buybacks and Firm Behavior: Do Buyback Programs Really Reduce the Number of Guns?
"We suppose that guns or firearms are subject to an anticipated future buyback program undertaken by the government. A simple linear demand durable-goods monopoly model is then analyzed where the durable-good manufactured is a firearm that lasts for two-periods. The model is calibrated so that buyers are indifferent between selling (participating in the buyback program) or holding the gun in the future period. This allows us to focus solely on the firm''s behavior. We find, among other things, that if the firm can credibly commit to its current buyers the anticipated buyback has no impact on the future stock of guns. In this case, the firm simply increases its production of new firearms after the buyback, and offsets all the units collected and destroyed by the government. However, in contrast, we show that if the seller cannot commit to these buyers, the future stock is indeed reduced (but by only one-half of the buyback program level). Thus, any anticipated (repeated) buyback's impact on future stock levels of firearms depends critically on the commit ability of the durable-goods manufacturer, independent of the buyers' reselling and arbitrage activities. Moreover, regardless of commitment ability, the model suggests the imperfectly competitive firms may, at least partially, counteract the buyback program, making any governmental buyback less effective at reducing future firearm stocks than expected."
Gregory E. Goering
in Review of Economics and Finance
And the survey said. evaluating rationale for participation in gun buybacks as a tool to encourage higher yields
"Background Gun buyback programs represent one arm of a multipronged approach to raise awareness and education about gun safety. Methods The city of Worcester, MA has conducted an annual gun buyback at the Police Department Headquarters since 2002. We analyzed survey responses from a voluntary, 18-question, face-to-face structured interview from December 2009 to June 2015 using descriptive statistics to determine participant demographics and motivations for participation. Results A total of 943 guns were collected, and 273 individuals completed surveys. The majority of participants were white males older than 55 years (42.4%). Participants represented 61 zip codes across Worcester County, with 68% having prior gun safety training and 61% with weapons remaining in the home (27% of which children could potentially access). The top reasons for turning in guns were "no longer needed" (48%) and "fear of children accessing the gun" (14%). About 1 in 3 respondents knew someone injured/killed by gun violence. Almost all (96%) respondents claimed the program raised community awareness of firearm risk. Conclusion The Worcester Goods for Guns Buyback has collected more than 900 guns between 2009 and 2015. The buyback removes unwanted guns from homes and raises community awareness about firearm safety."
Mariann Manno
Pradeep Nazarey
Jeremy Aidlen
Rachelle N. Damle
Jonathan Green
Rebecca E. Kasper et al
in Journal of Pediatric Surgery
Improving the potential effectiveness of gun buyback programs
"Gun buybacks, amnesties and exchange programs have wide appeal for communities affected by gun violence, for understandable reasons. The theoretic premise of gun buybacks is that these programs will reduce the number of firearms available to criminals, those with mental illnesses, and other high-risk individuals who may harm themselves or others with a gun. Moreover, these programs arguably empower participants and supporters to take an active role in the fight against gun violence and, as a result, believe that they are making a difference in their communities. [Copyright American Journal of Preventive Medicine; published by Elsevier Inc.]"
Anthony A. Braga
in American Journal of Preventive Medicine
"Gun buybacks, amnesties and exchange programs have wide appeal for communities affected by gun violence, for understandable reasons. The theoretic premise of gun buybacks is that these programs will reduce the number of firearms available to criminals, those with mental illnesses, and other high-risk individuals who may harm themselves or others with a gun. Moreover, these programs arguably empower participants and supporters to take an active role in the fight against gun violence and, as a result, believe that they are making a difference in their communities.
[Copyright American Journal of Preventive Medicine; published by Elsevier Inc.]"
2013 in American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Will gun buyback programs increase the quantity of guns?
"Gun buyback programs have become widespread in the United States. This paper offers a model of gun demand in which people make decisions about gun ownership as they would any other durable consumer good. Two insights are generated. First, if the buyback program is unanticipated and never-to-be-repeated, then the buyback program will reduce gun holdings only temporarily, by affecting the timing of consumption. Second, a repeated buyback program, formally analyzed as a permanent buyback program, will actually raise gun holdings, since it permanently lowers ownership costs. Current, repeated buybacks will therefore have the opposite effect of what buyback proponents intend.JEL classification: H30; L68 © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc."
Wallace P. Mullin
in International Review of Law and Economics
Are "goods for guns" good for the community? An update of a community gun buyback program.
"Background: Gun violence remains a leading cause of death in the United States. Community gun buyback programs provide an opportunity to dispose of extraneous firearms. The purpose of this study was to understand the demographics, motivation, child access to firearms, and household mental illness of buyback participants in hopes of improving the program's effectiveness.
Methods: A 2015 Injury Free Coalition for Kids gun buyback program which collaborated with local police departments was studied. We administered a 23-item questionnaire survey to gun buyback participants assessing demographic characteristics, motivation for relinquishing firearms, child firearm accessibility, and mental illness/domestic violence history.
Results: A total of 186 individuals from Central/Western Massachusetts turned in 339 weapons. Participants received between US $25 and US $75 in gift cards dependent on what type of gun was turned in, with an average cost of $41/gun. A total of 109 (59%) participants completed the survey. Respondents were mostly white (99%), men (90%) and first-time participants in the program (85.2%). Among survey respondents, 54% turned in firearms "for safety reasons." Respondents reported no longer needing/wanting their weapons (47%) and approximately one in eight participants were concerned the firearm(s) were accessible to children. Most respondents (87%) felt the program encouraged neighborhood awareness of firearm safety. Three of every five participants reported that guns still remained in their homes; additionally, 21% where children could potentially access them and 14% with a history of mental illness/suicide/domestic violence in the home.
Conclusion: Gun buybacks can provide a low-cost means of removing unwanted firearms from the community. Most participants felt their homes were safer after turning in the firearm(s). In homes still possessing guns, emphasis on secure gun storage should continue, increasing the safety of children and families. The results of this survey also provided new insights into the association between mental illness/suicide and gun ownership.
Level Of Evidence: Epidemiological, level III.
Rebecca E Kasper
Pina Violano
Jeremy T Aidlen
Rachelle N Damle et al
Are "goods for guns" good for the community? An update of a community gun buyback program
"BACKGROUND Gun violence remains a leading cause of death in the United States. Community gun buyback programs provide an opportunity to dispose of extraneous firearms. The purpose of this study was to understand the demographics, motivation, child access to firearms, and household mental illness of buyback participants in hopes of improving the program's effectiveness.
METHODS A 2015 Injury Free Coalition for Kids gun buyback program which collaborated with local police departments was studied. We administered a 23-item questionnaire survey to gun buyback participants assessing demographic characteristics, motivation for relinquishing firearms, child firearm accessibility, and mental illness/domestic violence history.
RESULTS A total of 186 individuals from Central/Western Massachusetts turned in 339 weapons. Participants received between US $25 and US $75 in gift cards dependent on what type of gun was turned in, with an average cost of $41/gun. A total of 109 (59%) participants completed the survey. Respondents were mostly white (99%), men (90%) and first-time participants in the program (85.2%). Among survey respondents, 54% turned in firearms "for safety reasons." Respondents reported no longer needing/wanting their weapons (47%) and approximately one in eight participants were concerned the firearm(s) were accessible to children. Most respondents (87%) felt the program encouraged neighborhood awareness of firearm safety. Three of every five participants reported that guns still remained in their homes; additionally, 21% where children could potentially access them and 14% with a history of mental illness/suicide/domestic violence in the home.
CONCLUSION Gun buybacks can provide a low-cost means of removing unwanted firearms from the community. Most participants felt their homes were safer after turning in the firearm(s). In homes still possessing guns, emphasis on secure gun storage should continue, increasing the safety of children and families. The results of this survey also provided new insights into the association between mental illness/suicide and gun ownership. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiological, level III."
Pradeep P. Nazarey
Rebecca E. Kasper
Jonathan Green et al
And the survey said.... evaluating rationale for participation in gun buybacks as a tool to encourage higher yields
"Background Gun buyback programs represent one arm of a multipronged approach to raise awareness and education about gun safety. Methods The city of Worcester, MA has conducted an annual gun buyback at the Police Department Headquarters since 2002. We analyzed survey responses from a voluntary, 18-question, face-to-face structured interview from December 2009 to June 2015 using descriptive statistics to determine participant demographics and motivations for participation.
Results A total of 943 guns were collected, and 273 individuals completed surveys. The majority of participants were white males older than 55 years (42.4%). Participants represented 61 zip codes across Worcester County, with 68% having prior gun safety training and 61% with weapons remaining in the home (27% of which children could potentially access). The top reasons for turning in guns were "no longer needed" (48%) and "fear of children accessing the gun" (14%).
About 1 in 3 respondents knew someone injured/killed by gun violence. Almost all (96%) respondents claimed the program raised community awareness of firearm risk. Conclusion The Worcester Goods for Guns Buyback has collected more than 900 guns between 2009 and 2015.
The buyback removes unwanted guns from homes and raises community awareness about firearm safety."
Are "goods for guns" good for the community? An update of a community gun buyback program
METHODS A 2015 Injury Free Coalition for Kids gun buyback program which collaborated with local police departments was studied. We administered a 23-item questionnaire survey to gun buyback participants assessing demographic characteristics, motivation for relinquishing firearms, child firearm accessibility, and mental illness/domestic violence history. RESULTS A total of 186 individuals from Central/Western Massachusetts turned in 339 weapons.
Participants received between US $25 and US $75 in gift cards dependent on what type of gun was turned in, with an average cost of $41/gun. A total of 109 (59%) participants completed the survey. Respondents were mostly white (99%), men (90%) and first-time participants in the program (85.2%). Among survey respondents, 54% turned in firearms "for safety reasons." Respondents reported no longer needing/wanting their weapons (47%) and approximately one in eight participants were concerned the firearm(s) were accessible to children. Most respondents (87%) felt the program encouraged neighborhood awareness of firearm safety. Three of every five participants reported that guns still remained in their homes; additionally, 21% where children could potentially access them and 14% with a history of mental illness/suicide/domestic violence in the home.
CONCLUSION Gun buybacks can provide a low-cost means of removing unwanted firearms from the community. Most participants felt their homes were safer after turning in the firearm(s). In homes still possessing guns, emphasis on secure gun storage should continue, increasing the safety of children and families.
The results of this survey also provided new insights into the association between mental illness/suicide and gun ownership. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiological, level III."
Goods for Guns--the use of a gun buyback as an injury prevention/community education tool.
"Background: US children aged between 5 years and 14 years have a rate of gun-related homicide 17 times higher and a rate of gun-related suicide and unintentional firearm injury 10 times higher than other developed countries. Gun buyback programs have been criticized as ineffective interventions in decreasing violence. The Injury Free Coalition for Kids-Worcester (IFCK-W) Goods for Guns buyback is a multipronged approach to address these concerns and to reduce the number of firearms in the community.
Methods: The IFCK-W buyback program is funded by corporate sponsors, grants, and individual donations. Citizens are instructed to transport guns, ammunition, and weapons safely to police headquarters on two Saturdays in December. Participants are guaranteed anonymity by the District Attorney's office and receive gift certificates for operable guns. Trained volunteers administer an anonymous survey to willing participants. Individuals who disclose having unsafely stored guns remaining at home receive educational counseling and trigger locks. Guns and ammunition are destroyed at a later time in a gun crushing ceremony.
Results: Since 2002, 1,861 guns (444 rifle/shotgun, 738 pistol/revolver, and 679 automatic/semiautomatic) have been collected at a cost of $99,250 (average, $53/gun). Seven hundred ten people have surrendered firearms, 534 surveys have been administered, and ≈ 75 trigger locks have been distributed per year.
Conclusions: IFCK-W Goods for Guns is a relatively inexpensive injury prevention model program that removes unwanted firearms from homes, raises community awareness about gun safety, and provides high-risk individuals with trigger locks and educational counseling.
Anthony DeRoss
Elizabeth Renaud
Louise Maranda
Allison Rook
Margaret McGuire et al
https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31823a4d75
"Gun buyback programs have become widespread in the United States. This paper offers a model of gun demand in which people make decisions about gun ownership as they would any other durable consumer good. Two insights are generated.
First, if the buyback program is unanticipated and never-to-be-repeated, then the buyback program will reduce gun holdings only temporarily, by affecting the timing of consumption. Second, a repeated buyback program, formally analyzed as a permanent buyback program, will actually raise gun holdings, since it permanently lowers ownership costs. Current, repeated buybacks will therefore have the opposite effect of what buyback proponents intend.JEL classification: H30; L68 © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc."
2001 in International Review of Law and Economics
Goods for guns-the use of a gun buyback as an injury prevention/community education tool
"BACKGROUND: US children aged between 5 years and 14 years have a rate of gun-related homicide 17 times higher and a rate of gun-related suicide and unintentional firearm injury 10 times higher than other developed countries. Gun buyback programs have been criticized as ineffective interventions in decreasing violence. The Injury Free Coalition for Kids-Worcester (IFCK-W) Goods for Guns buyback is a multipronged approach to address these concerns and to reduce the number of firearms in the community.\n\nMETHODS: The IFCK-W buyback program is funded by corporate sponsors, grants, and individual donations. Citizens are instructed to transport guns, ammunition, and weapons safely to police headquarters on two Saturdays in December. Participants are guaranteed anonymity by the District Attorney's office and receive gift certificates for operable guns. Trained volunteers administer an anonymous survey to willing participants. Individuals who disclose having unsafely stored guns remaining at home receive educational counseling and trigger locks. Guns and ammunition are destroyed at a later time in a gun crushing ceremony.\n\nRESULTS: Since 2002, 1,861 guns (444 rifle/shotgun, 738 pistol/revolver, and 679 automatic/semiautomatic) have been collected at a cost of $99,250 (average, $53/gun). Seven hundred ten people have surrendered firearms, 534 surveys have been administered, and ≈ 75 trigger locks have been distributed per year.\n\nCONCLUSIONS: IFCK-W Goods for Guns is a relatively inexpensive injury prevention model program that removes unwanted firearms from homes, raises community awareness about gun safety, and provides high-risk individuals with trigger locks and educational counseling."
in Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Goods for Guns—The Use of a Gun Buyback as an Injury Prevention/Community Education Tool
CONCLUSIONS: IFCK-W Goods for Guns is a relatively inexpensive injury prevention model program that removes unwanted firearms from homes, raises community awareness about gun safety, and provides high-risk individuals with trigger locks and educational counseling."
2011 in THE JOURNAL OF TRAUMA: INJURY, INFECTION, AND CRITICAL CARE


text:
Editor's Picks Executive Profiles Article Topics
Monitor 2021 Women's List: Janelle Gorski
by Monitor Staff Nov/Dec 2021
Janelle Gorski,
Portfolio and Asset Manager ,
Midland Equipment Finance
Janelle Gorski started her career in equipment finance in 2015 with Heartland Business Credit (HBC) where she oversaw the collections, customer service and end-of-lease departments. She also backed up roles in documentation, funding and credit. In January 2018, HBC was dissolved and Midland Equipment Finance (MEF) was formed. A lot was asked of Gorski during the transition since she worked across almost every channel. She was promoted to portfolio and asset manager and formed the company's new portfolio management department and created new roles that reported to her.
VISION FOR THE FUTURE:
"The ability to remain malleable in equipment finance is key. Our business is constantly changing, and our portfolio is growing. We do not know what may be around the corner. The ability to change on the fly and adapt to the new digital age will continue to be my focus. We owe it to our business, employees and our customers."
Gorski continues to make the business better, accepting additional projects and providing help where she can. Since the formation of MEF, one of her goals has been to bring external audit findings requiring immediate attention to a "green" status. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, she shifted her role to help with the influx of modifications received from customers. The MEF management team and Gorski designed a process to quickly review, price, update and QC more than 2,000 modifications to customers. She personally priced and completed quality control on a large portion of the modifications. Gorski also developed a case management process which allows her team to organize and quickly answer submitted inquiries. She also has worked on additional projects, including switching to vendors that are more suited to handle the bank's objective to digitally transform its business.
Gorski enjoys sharing her knowledge and has become a key member of the MEF team. She serves as a member of the ROCI (Risk Ownership Community of Interest) committee, leading MEF in risk related tasks for Midland States Bank, MEF's parent company, including vendor management, business continuity planning, procedure writing, control management and assessment and event reporting. In 2020, Gorski was recommended to be a mentor by Fred Van Etten, president of MEF, for associates attending a talent enrichment course with the bank and was asked back to mentor in 2021.
"Janelle has tremendous insight and strong instincts. She can be presented with a situation or problem and immediately begins to work towards a solution," Dan Thompson, senior vice president of credit at MEF, says. "This was most evident during the pandemic, when MEF needed a workflow to process the payment deferrals. She has since taken the knowledge gained during 2020 and created multiple efficiencies for MEF in areas of portfolio management and risk. In addition to this, she is a great team member who works well with all functional areas. She inspires confidence."
2021 Women's List
monitor women's list
Women in equipment finance
Recent Opinion
Applying Acquisition Experience for Success: First Financial Equipment Leasing Expands into Canada
Ian Koplin, Editor, Monitor
Monitor recently caught up with Tom Slevin, founder and CEO, and Brian Dundon, SVP corporate development at First Financial Equipment Leasing ahead of their company's acquisition of NorFund, an independent leasing company specializing in capital equipment, solar and alternative energy and vendor finance programs.
View All Opinions
Capital Equipment Financing: The Middle Market's Unmet Need
Kevin Ronan, Senior Vice President, Capital Equipment Finance, CIT
Kevin Ronan, senior vice president of capital equipment finance for CIT, breaks down the what and why of capital equipment financing and what to expect in the next few years.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


All items in the catalogue are shown Excluding VAT.
We use 2 delivery methods, named courier and the manufactures selected courier. Orders placed before 13:30pm will be dispatched the same day on next day orders, subject to stock availability. If your order is after 13.30pm then it will despatched the next working day (Monday to Friday). Stock items at our suppliers will be despatch the same working day after your order or the next working day dependant on their couriers. Standard delivery is 3 to 3 working days.
Delivery times are subject to change if the item is out of stock with our supplier. Weekend or orders placed on a Bank holiday will be despatched on the next working day.
During Christmas and New Year our warehouse will be closed. Orders over this period will be despatched on the first working day after New Year.
International shipping will take the appropriate time specified by named courier + 1 days handling from ourselves.
If you need to return an item, it's our aim to make the process as simple as possible. By following the guidance below you can help us to help you when a product has been ordered incorrectly, or is faulty.
" A minimum re-stocking charge will be applied to cover costs incurred at Centrifugal Pump Services discretion. This will be advised before a return is accepted. This cost will reflect the time to process the order, administration and restocking.
and goods made to specific specification. We can often resolve minor problems over the telephone and our engineers are happy to offer free advice.
If the product is within the manufacturer's warranty period and the fault was caused by faulty manufacture or components, it will be repaired or replaced free of charge.