"Guns 4 Ukraine" Buyback Program in Miami

Miami has announced an event for tomorrow:

The City of Miami has set up a voluntary gun buyback program to assist in providing safety and defense equipment to Ukraine.

Your donations will be used to assist the Ukraine support efforts. Receive a gift card starting at $50 for an old, unused, or found weapons, no questions asked. Do your part to make our streets safer. Visa Gift Cards will be exchanged for the weapons in the following amounts:

• $50 Handgun
• $150 Shotgun / Rifle
• $250 High-powered assault rifle

But, as AmmoLand (Lee Williams) reports, it's complicated; he asked the Miami Police Department whether it has a firearms export license, which is apparently required for this sort of project, and was told "no," with the following explanation:

However, at the June 9, 2021 Commission Meeting, the City of Miami adopted Resolution R-22-0219 directing the City Manager to "take any and all action to work with federal authorities to ship any functional weapon received through the City's Gun Buyback program to Ukraine for use in the conflict against the Russian invasion." The directive to take "any and all action to work with federal authorities" may include, but is not limited to, the procurement of an export license in accordance to the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) including conformity to the requirements of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR); any guidance from the Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls regarding AECA export controls and licensing for articles enumerated on the U.S. Munitions List; any relevant portions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); and/or compliance with the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security export controls for items listed in the Commerce Control List (including firearms) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations; and/or compliance with the National Firearms Act including any application to obtain a permit for permanent exportation of firearms; any necessary clearances from ATF prior to export; or compliance with any one-time licensing exception the City may be eligible to obtain as provided in the provisions of ITAR. The actual avenue for the City to lawfully export anything is speculative at this time because the City cannot predict the amount or types of firearms that will be donated at buyback event.

Now perhaps the plan was just to get people to turn in guns, whether or not the guns will actually make it to Ukraine (especially in any timely way). But, as CNN (Peter Nickeas) notes, "experts say there's no evidence the programs reduce violence"; for instance, a  2021 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, "Have U.S. Gun Buyback Programs Misfired?," by Toshio Ferrazares, Joseph J. Sabia, and D. Mark Anderson, concluded:

We conclude that GBPs are an ineffective policy strategy to reduce gun violence, a finding consistent with descriptive evidence that (i) firearm sales prices are set too low by cities to appreciably reduce the local supply of firearms (Reuter and Mouzos 2004), (ii) most GBP participants are drawn from populations with low crime risk (Planty and Truman 2013; Violano et al. 2014; Romero et al. 1998), and (iii) firearms sold in GBPs tend to be older and less well-functioning than the average firearm (Kuhn et al. 2002; Levitt 2004).

(See also this item from the Foundation for Economic Education.) And I particularly note item (iii); I'm not sure that the Ukrainians would be that helped by eventually getting a bunch of guns that Americans were willing to sell for $50-250, even if the shipment is limited to those that the Miami PD decides are "functional."

Comments

[Archibald Tuttle]

"$250 High-powered assault rifle"

I thought all assault rifles had about the same power. What does
high-power mean? Does an AR15 qualify? Does an AK47 qualify?

[Michael P]

An AR-15 does not have select fire capability, so it's not an assault rifle at all. I'm not sure what would otherwise make an assault rifle "high powered" versus not.

[DaivdBehar]

If I offer a cancer cure that does not work, or more shares than 100%, or any product I do not send to the purchaser, won't the FTC investigate and come after me?

The FTC should go after the City of Miami for spending tax dollars on a program that will not deliver anything to Ukraine, but claims to, on a program that will not reduce violence, but claims to.

https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/

[Kazinski]

An AR-15 is not a high powered rifle, just to Illustrate there are some states where AR-15s are perfectly legal to own, but a .223 is considered too small of a caliber to humanely hunt deer, and it requires a larger caliber. Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Washington and West Virginia are examples of states that don't allow hunting with a standard .223 AR-15.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter Kazinski, of course, considers himself well informed about guns. But his advice here is unreliable.

Indeed, the .223 may not be humane for hunting deer, and it is in some states restricted for deer hunting, as he says. That does not make it humane for hunting humans.

Nor does it make it trivially powerful. A .44 magnum revolver is often cited as an awesomely powerful weapon, so much so that few shooters feel competent to master it. As ballistic charts show, by the standard measure of firearms power—foot-pounds of bullet energy measured at the muzzle—the typical .223 fired from an AR-style rifle delivers notably more power than the formidable .44 magnum pistol.

The AR-style rifle also tames intimidating recoil, making the more-powerful .223 trivially easy to shoot at a high rate of fire. In effect the AR-style .223 rifle puts both more power, and faster fire, within the capacity of almost any shooter. It has delivered to almost any would-be murderer what amounts to a deadlier weapon than the notorious .44 magnum pistol—while making mass assassination much easier for most shooters to accomplish.

[MaverickNH]

An apt recitation of gun control advocates’ criticism of firearms that can be used with accuracy and precision. Proper civilian firearms should be unwieldy and difficult to hit the target with, making them safer for self-defense use. LOL! Try again!

[Michael P]

Also, lefties like him believe it is appropriate to compare apples to oranges in order to lie about how difficult a popular weapon is to use.

[Clayton Cramer]

Yes the Cal. A-G presented a similar argument that AR-15s are dangerously accurate. As the judge hearing the case pointed this makes them exceptionally well-suited to lawful self-defense and a shooter is responsible for every shot he fires. At one time the gun banners decried the AK-47 for not being very accurate. What do you want? Accurate guns or guns that might not hit the criminal attacking you. Maybe you should focus on the murderer not the weapon. About 1/4 of mass murders 2006-2017 did not involve a gun at all. Gasoline makes a fine mass murder weapon but this is not about public safety at all. It is a culture war by the elites against the masses.

[DonP]

"What do you want? Accurate guns or guns that might not hit the criminal attacking you?"

Awww, that's an easy one, they want no guns for mere citizens, for their own good of course. Our self proclaimed "Betters" prefer that the peasants are not armed. Stunningly, some weasels here are still trotting out the trite and debunked "43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than a criminal" Horse Hockey.

As soon as they can get those evil looking "assault weapons", aka "Weapons of war" banned, they'll move on to banning those "Deadly scoped sniper rifles" aka Winchester and Marlin Deer Rifles and their 30-30 soft point bullets.

[Bob from Ohio]

The City of Miami must secretly support Russia, any weapons sent will be a net loss to Ukraine.

Better to send the budgeted amount in cash to Ukraine

[jorgyusa]

$50 for a pistol? Good ones are worth well over $500
$250 for an assault rifle? Ones the public owns that are worthy for battle like an M16 costs over $30,000
They will only get junk guns not capable of use in any combat situation. Are they also going to send ammo? The guns will be no more than boat anchors if they have no ammo for them.

It is also my understanding that Florida has state laws that make acquiring guns from the public and sending them over seas also illegal. Not just federal law.

[bernard11]

Actually, I agree with this completely.

Imagine the Ukrainians trying to sort through a boatload of old guns, trying to decide which are even remotely useful, and figuring out what to do with the rest.

[Rossami]

That was my thought as well. Better to send the cash and let them buy standardized weapons from a reputable wholesaler.

(That, by the way, is the rebuttal to jorgyusa. The outrageous price paid by a US personal buyer has little to no correlation to the price that gets paid by a government.)

[David Nieporent]

That was my thought as well. Better to send the cash and let them buy standardized weapons from a reputable wholesaler.

This is true for virtually all charity, by the way. I mean, not buying weapons; sending cash rather than goods.

I have friends who work for refugee relief organizations; they say well-meaning people always want to give them stuff. They'll typically take it because it's unpalatable to spurn people who want to help — but it's if not counterproductive at best of marginal usefulness. Even if the goods are things they want, which they often don't, the overhead costs make it barely worth it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some especially hopeless gun nuts apparently can't abide any thought of fewer guns in America under any circumstances.

The backlash against right-wing gun absolutism from the American mainstream seems destined to be severe, in part because clingers will strive to hold that dike until it is swamped by progress.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really are a lost cause.
Most buyback programs bring in worthless guns no righteous criminal would use.
Also, many of the programs have no questions asked provision preventing testing to see if they are linked to a crime.

Finally, thanks for flagging my earlier response to one of your stupid posts. Very thin skinned you dohtard.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I did not intend to flag your post or any other. If I flagged your post, it was a mistake, one made more likely by the shitty design of this website.

I hope the predictable, sensible backlash against gun nuttery does not overrun a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "reasonable" and why limited to "the home"?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I intend the common legal definition of reasonable.

Limited to in the home because I believe the Constitution (although not necessarily the Second Amendment, consequent to the gymnastics required to find a broad individual right in that provision) entitles an American to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense but not to carry that firearm to courtrooms, bars, Little League ballfields, restaurants, school board meetings, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are really good at obfuscation.
Please explain how the "legal definition of reasonable" applies to the definition of what you consider to be a "reasonable firearm".

The Second Amendment right mentions nothing about the "home" as a limit to "keep and bear arms".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

(1) The firearm must be reasonable.

(2) The Second Amendment does not mention courtrooms (including with respect to the defendant), crowded bars, parent-teacher conferences, the Oval Office, prisons, or mental health treatment facilities (just as the First Amendment does not mention child pornography, threats, defamation, amplified speech in a residential neighborhood at 4:15 a.m., or false statements concerning securities or infant formula). How silly, deranged, or stupid an absolutist is one prepared to be?

(The Volokh Conspiracy has changed my perspective concerning the silly, deranged, stupid part.)

[Clayton Cramer]

This is why the bipartisan deal announced last week had no gun bans

[Clayton Cramer]

Reasonable? Do you mean inaccurate as the Cal. A-G argues is the preferred firearm.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Rev. Where is there any evidence you attended law school? What law school did you ever attend? Are you a licensed lawyer?

[MaverickNH]

“Gun Buybacks” are actually counterproductive to the end of reducing violent crime and suicide. The guns “bought back” are seldom guns of the sort used by criminals, bought back from those who are not criminals themselves, and who very often have other guns in their homes. The worst part about Gun Buybacks is that they displace efforts to address violent crime and suicide by giving political and community participants a boxcheck for having “done something.”

[DonP]

"Gun Buybacks" are also a great way to get rid of guns used in crimes. The "No Questions Asked", no serial numbers tracked, angle is an engraved invitation to gangs to dump hot weapons, knowing they'll never be traced and the debit card they get will buy a few beers or ammo for the gangs next drive by.

[Clayton Cramer]

This is why the bipartisan deal announced last week had no gun bans

[AmosArch]

just 250 for an actual assault rifle? Thats almost theft given how rare and expensive actual assault rifles are. The city must get all its knowledge about guns from movies where automatic weapons can be bought at the corner liquor store instead of real life where they're tens of thousands of dollars and locked behind onerous requirements almost nobody bothers with.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In New York, the Dinkins Administration did buyback programs in the early 1990's and violent crime fell. It's hard to show cause and effect but that is what in fact happened and it was done at the urging of the NYPD.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The number of pirates decreased remarkably during the 1800s as railroads increased. It's hard to show cause and effect but that is what in fact happened.

[Sarcastr0]

He *said* It's hard to show cause and effect, but you just wanted to pretend that means the opposite of what it says so you could post this old and tepid rejoinder?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He *said* correlation implies causation but "that's really hard to prove", so he just left it hanging there as if he had actually said something insightful.

I responded with something equally insightful.

You did not.

[Sarcastr0]

He *said* correlation implies causation

Not in the comment I read.

[Michael P]

That is in fact what happened.

[Scribe]

I had no idea it was the railroads' fault puffy pirate shirts and eyepatches went out of style.

[not me]

I'll have a go. At least as far as the USA is concerned. As trade moved from coastal shipping along the eastern seaboard and through the Gulf of Mexico to overland by rail, anyone who wanted to steal such cargo had to get off their pirate ship, go ashore, and become a train robber.

For transatlantic routes such as Mexico or Venezuela to Spain, the drop in piracy is unrelated to the railroad expansion, and more directly correlates to the breakup of the Spanish Empire. But it might be possible to explain how the development of railroads in Great Britain and France led to the decline of Spain, hence the collapse of their empire ...

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

*whoooosh*

[not me]

Oh, I get the sarcasm. I just choose to address the point because piracy and trains are related in a way that gun buybacks and violence are not.

[not me]

In fact, here's the cause and effect relationship for the gun buyback program:

Violent crime dropped in the mid 1990's in New York causing people and politicians and the police to be less concerned with gun buybacks, so the gun buyback program ended.

[Kazinski]

Yeah but their is a clear correlation between the increase in railroads and the increase in train robbery.

So there is that.

[Clayton Cramer]

I am currently creating a database of all mass murders in America starting in 1657. Until the 1920s axes, hatchets and illuminating gas were more common than guns. Why? Almost everyone used wood stoves so everyone had a hatchet or ax in the house. One cult, the Church of the Sacrifice murdered entire families usually with their own ax.

Most mass murders are done with handguns because they are commonly owned and easy to conceal. Ban one category of weapon and another will replace it. Mass murderers are not seduced by the gun. Mass murder desires makes them look for a weapon like the Happyland Social Club mass murder of 87 people with $1 of gasoline and a match.

[DaivdBehar]

Makes sense, and not a coincidence. People crossed the continent by rail. Did the number of train robbers increase?

Crime updated. The failed lawyer profession did not. Irrelevant?

Today the lawyer prosecutes 10% of common law crime and none of the 100 million internet crimes a year. Crime updated the failed lawyer profession has not.

[Clayton Cramer]

Yet Australia still has mass murders by arson, hammer, and motor vehicles.

[Clayton Cramer]

The number of duels fell as well. Obviously caused by railroads. I am guessing sword murders fell also. I can also say with some certainty that illuminating gas and dynamite mass murders increased while trains increased

[AmosArch]

As gay rights activism intensified environmental damage and climate change also increased. It's hard to show cause and effect but that is what in fact happened

[Rossami]

Violent crime also fell in the same period across jurisdictions that did not conduct buyback programs. The reason it's hard to show cause and effect in this case is because there was no statistically measurable effect.

[Scribe]

Went to a gun show last weekend in a town where the local PD and gun controllers were having a "buyback", sorta. They had a blacksmith on hand to beat up the guns into other stuff.

Out front of the gun show, a big banner "turn in your guns here ... for cash!"

A couple years ago, driving though Philly, a big billboard and radio ads for a licensed dealer who offered to come to your home to pick up that gun you don't want around any more. Did a nice business - bought it all, including the junkers that wouldn't work anyway.

A couple years ago people we buying old junk guns and turning them in for hte gift cards, at a profit. I recall from the coverage the one person turned in an old nonfunctional gun and anounced she was going to use the proceeds to buy a new, functional one.

The sad part, from a gun owner's perspective, is that too often at these turn-ins legitimate collectors pieces or antiques of some value get turned in by people who don't know what they have, and great grandpa's shotgun that would be worth $1000 or $2000 winds up getting crushed. And sometimes the cops abstract the good stuff for themselves, because it is too good to destroy. A friend got a very nice deer rifle that way a couple decades ago. A cop buddy took it out the back door.

[Mr. Bumble]

A friend got a very nice deer rifle that way a couple decades ago. A cop buddy took it out the back door.

I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

[DonP]

About 10 years ago the Illinois State Rifle Assn. collected a bunch of rusted, inoperable old rifles, shotguns, handguns, even a few BB Guns and brought them to several "No Questions Asked" gun buy backs in Chicago. In return they got about $600+ in Debit Cards.

They used the debit cards to buy new Ruger .22s for their juniors training program and, of course, Publicly thanked Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the police and local gun grabber Father Pfleger, for the new rifles.

That was the end of Debit card buy backs. Now it's usually gift cards for local grocery stores.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"experts say there's no evidence the programs reduce violence"

Because at the prices they are offering the guns turned in will fall into 1 of 3 categories.

1. Old obsolete guns that aren't worth anything as collectors items.
2. Guns in terrible shape and no longer functional and thus are worthless.
3. Crime guns that the criminals are trying to dump in a way that can't be traced back to them.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

This sounds like a good way to vanish a gun “with some bodies on it.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Precisely. They are criminals but they aren't all stupid.

[StellaLink_the dog]

'This sounds like a good way to vanish a gun “with some bodies on it.”'

How hard is it to "vanish" a gun without a buyback program?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Without a buyback program, it costs money to vanish a gun. With a buyback program you get paid for vanishing a gun.

[Clayton Cramer]

Throw it in the river and the rifling remains when someone fishes it out. Throw it in a dumpster and the Secret Service retrieves it for you

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just surprised to find out that the city of Miami had been selling guns in the first place.

I mean, the must have been, to be able to buy anything "back".

[Doug Huffman]

“Oh wat a tangle’d web we weave when [ ] we practice to deceive.”

[MaverickNH]

If those 5 million new gun owners that purchased guns via background checks during the last few years actually did lead to the 30% increase in homicides, then buying back only 5 million guns in the US should we store the situation. The existing 400,000,000+ guns in the US apparently were of lesser concern, but the most bang for the buck can be gotten from buying back just 2% of the US gunstock. Right - ‘cause it’s the guns, not the criminals?

[Voize of Reazon]

It isn't surprising that small local programs don't work, for the reasons given and because illegal guns move easily between cities and states so any local shortage won't last long. The Australian program that at least some people think was a success was run on a national basis, removed at least 20% of privately held guns from circulation, and was accompanied by tighter restrictions on the kinds of weapons that can be privately owned.
This is actually bad news for gun opponents and gun advocates alike, because it suggests that modest, limited actions won't have any effect and relief will come only with a dramatic change in the gun landscape. That there are so many obstacles to that kind of change in the US means the situation will have to get worse, maybe much worse, before there is a consensus to act.

[Clayton Cramer]

Yet Australia still has mass murders by arson, hammer, and motor vehicles.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure that we have more than local programs against cocaine and meth, and they don't seem to much work, either.

Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that virtually all gun crimes are committed by career criminals, who shockingly seem to lack any commitment to obeying laws. And that guns are very nearly the ideal black market product: Compact, long lasting, and high value.

The idea that you can keep criminals from getting them is pretty silly. It's doubly silly in a country where gun ownership is a civil right, and a large fraction of the population regard gun laws as utterly illegitimate, and will not cooperate in their enforcement.

[Voize of Reazon]

That is what this study supports. Laws that don't broadly reduce the supply of guns will be ineffective. Only a wholesale reduction in the supply, perhaps from 1.2 guns per capita to 0.5, can hope to significantly reduce gun violence.

Since that isn't achievable given the current legal and political climate, solving gun violence will require a more drastic change. Maybe it will entail a constitutional amendment, or maybe just overruling Heller, but today it is only possible to nibble around the edges.

Since public sentiment for gun control increases after high-profile mass shootings then decreases over time, perhaps as the frequency of these events increases the point will be reached where there is enough support to act. In that scenario the problem will get worse before it gets better. The other possible outcome, which you may prefer, is that the public becomes ever increasingly numb and it never gets better.

[Carl_N_Brown]

As the sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban approached in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Research Council did reviews of academical articles of the sort that would pass the door of the Amercian Society of Criminology as working papers for serious discussion and/or be published in peer-reviewed journals under JEL subject classification K42 - impact of law on illegal behavior.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004)
Gun Buy-Backs

Gun Buy-Backs

Gun buy-back programs involve a government or private group paying individuals to turn in guns they possess. The programs do not require the participants to identify themselves, in order to encourage participation by offenders or those with weapons used in crimes. The guns are then destroyed. The theoretical premise for gun buy-back programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.

The theory on which gun buy-back programs is based is flawed in three respects.

First, the guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities. Typically, the guns turned in tend to be of two types: (1) old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buy-back programs or (2) guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (e.g., those who have inherited guns). The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes. In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.

Second, because replacement guns are relatively easily obtained, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in.

Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. In 1999, approximately 6,500 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 70 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buy-back program yields less than 1,000 guns. Even ignoring the first two points made above (the guns turned in are unlikely to be used by criminals and may be replaced by purchases of new guns), one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program. The program might be cost-effective if those were the correct parameters, but the small scale makes it highly unlikely that its effects would be detected.

In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buy-backs, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).

NB: In 2016 the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year was 1 in 18,000.