Delaware has the nation’s lowest gun ownership rate - 5.2% - while Alaska is at the top with a rate of 61.7%, according to a nationally representative survey of 4,000 U.S. is also concentrated, with 3% of Americans owning half of all guns in the country, according to a 2015 survey from researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Canada’s rate is about 35 while Mexico sits at about 13 per 100 civilians. Yemen has the second-highest rate of firearm ownership, with about 53 firearms for every 100 civilians. There are about 121 firearms for every 100 U.S. accounts for nearly 46% of all civilian-held firearms in the world, according to the Small Arms Survey, a research project from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. The general idea behind gun buyback policies is that gun violence can be lessened by reducing the number of guns in civilian hands. In absolute and relative numbers, Americans lead the world in firearm ownership. The core question that academic research seeks to answer is whether such programs reduce gun violence. There’s a lot to unpack when it comes to gun buybacks. For example, they don’t account for labor costs for law enforcement and other government personnel. These estimates don’t represent comprehensive economic analyses. Another recent estimate, from the Institute of Labor Economics, puts the cost of a national buyback program aimed at the types of handguns most often used in violent crime at $7.6 billion. There are no government estimates on what a national gun buyback program might cost, but an analysis from The Trace, a national news outlet that covers guns, estimates the total direct cost for a rifle buyback program would range from nearly $1 billion to $87 billion. Deval Patrick* hasn’t staked out a clear position on gun buyback programs. The law would also give state and local governments access to federal funds to hold firearm buybacks. Booker, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren have co-sponsored either Senate or House versions of the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, which would outlaw semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges - except for semiautomatic assault weapons lawfully owned before the ban. When presidential candidates favor mandatory buybacks, they usually mean that if elected they would push for legislation requiring Americans with high-capacity assault weapons to trade them to a government entity.Ĭandidates in favor of buybacks either have policy statements on their websites or have clearly expressed support for voluntary or mandatory buybacks to national news outlets. They can influence public perception of how authorities are dealing with gun violence and serve as opportunities to educate communities about gun violence reduction strategies, according to academic researchers. But research shows buybacks can help if they’re part of a broader effort to reduce gun violence. On their own, buybacks might not be effective if the goal is to use them to directly reduce violent crime. Recent research frames gun buybacks in a more favorable light. Guns can usually be exchanged “no questions asked.” In other words, people who turn over their firearms are not typically subject to background checks or criminal inquiries and, in some cases, do not have to provide identifying information.Įarly research on gun buybacks, mostly from the 1990s, largely finds these programs ineffective at curbing gun violence.
Voluntary gun buyback programs allow gun owners to trade their firearms to government entities - usually law enforcement - for vouchers that can be redeemed for cash or other items of value, such as tickets to professional sporting events. Michael Bennet*, Michael Bloomberg*, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg*, John Delaney*, Tulsi Gabbard*, Amy Klobuchar*, Bernie Sanders*, Tom Steyer*, Elizabeth Warren*, Andrew Yang* Candidates favoring mandatory buybacksĬory Booker*, Marianne Williamson* What the research says Here we look at what the research says about how effective gun buyback programs are at reducing gun violence. We’re focusing on proposals that have a reasonable chance of becoming policy, and for us that means at least 3 of the 5 top-polling candidates say they intend to tackle the issue. We want to encourage deep coverage of these proposals - and do our part to help deter horse race journalism, which research suggests can lead to inaccurate reporting and an uninformed electorate. In the lead-up to the 2020 elections, the Journalist’s Resource team is combing through the Democratic presidential candidates’ platforms and reporting what the research says about their policy proposals.