Want to see a unicorn? ... or at least evidence than an academic article actually captured the attention of politicians? Here's the story in three quick parts: 1. With grad student Marc Huffer, I published a quantitative study showing that Philadelphia's gun buyback programs had no effect on gun crime and calls for service around the buyback sites. https://lnkd.in/eQKSD6pu 2. Knowing that nobody reads academic research, we followed up with an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, explaining the study, and suggesting the city examine other options, such as the 1990s consent-to-search program in St. Louis, studied by Scott Decker and colleagues. https://bit.ly/3AYvpyB 3. A month later, Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution requiring the administration to "further examine the "consent-to-search" program in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, as an alternative to gun buy backs" https://bit.ly/4idb8G7 This was about a year ago, but was reminded of it when asked about policy influence by a grad student. This was a rare 😊 moment.
Did you happen to get any answers as to why gun buy-back programs remain popular despite their ineffectiveness? Also, I might have speculated an increase in gun-related thefts leading up to the buy-back events. But I guess that is just the cop in me... 😉
How does anyone think that a $50 gift card to ShopRite would entice someone on the street to hand in a firearm in return for the loss of gravitas that possession of said weapon gives them.
I’m not convinced.
Gin buy-backs, midnight basketball, etc etc.
Gun buy-backs are virtue signaling. We end up buying back relics and firearms that qualified dealers could not sell. I never saw a Glock, Sig, Colt or any other typical crime gun show up at these. It was all a bunch of old firearms and a huge cost (staff time included) to handle the program, disposal, and reporting requirements. Like so many inefficient things in government, this was a good idea and after a few years should have been ended because it just doesn't work.
Jerry Ratcliffe. It is curious what and how (if at all) research impacts public policy. That’s what you should study next my friend! Build a roadmap to enhance research impact — something that goes beyond what has now become our typical translational work. Systematically study the mechanisms that best impact various audiences. Bottle it and sell it! We should not be relying on unicorns anymore!
Point 2. An often overlooked part of disseminating knowledge by academics. More papers/ articles aimed at decision makers rather (or as well as) than other academics has a much better chance of being read, and having impact.
This is such a powerful example of academic research translating into real-world policy impact—truly inspiring! Kudos to you and Marc Huffer for not only conducting meaningful research but also taking the extra step to communicate it effectively through the op-ed. It's rare to see this kind of influence in action, and it highlights the importance of bridging the gap between academia and policymakers. Congratulations on creating a ripple effect for change.
Military Professional
5dWhy shouldn’t the Government “buy back” firearms? Firearms owners paid good money to purchase their firearm (in good faith), and it is the Government that decided to make a particular firearm illegal and must be handed in to them. The Government, on a whim, decides to make a particular firearm illegal and must be surrendered meaning it is the firearm owner who is out of pocket because of someone else’s decision. And of course, only law abiding citizens will comply…criminals won’t, because by their very nature they disobey laws. Imagine the uproar if the Government suddenly, and often without consultation, made a particular marque of automobile illegal, and said “no buyback”. So, bottom line, if the Government want to make something illegal, doesn’t matter what it is, they must compensate the owner of the item for taking it off them.