Gun-control advocates have long touted gun buyback programs as an effective way to reduce gun violence. But what if the data shows otherwise?
What if these programs don’t reduce crime, waste taxpayer dollars, and quietly push the message that gun ownership is a public menace?
Table of contents
Meet Rep. Wes Virdell
That’s the argument Texas Rep. Wes Virdell is making—and he’s backing it with legislation.
Virdell’s bill, HB 3053, would prohibit local governments from using tax dollars to fund gun buyback programs.
When asked what prompted the legislation, he was extremely candid.
“Watching cities host these events and knowing that gun buybacks don’t reduce crime or suicides motivated me to file the bill,” Virdell told GunsAmerica Digest in an exclusive interview.
He’s not wrong.
According to a 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research study, gun buybacks in the U.S. have had “little to no impact on gun crime or firearm-related violence.”
Another analysis published in Annals of Surgery found a minor potential benefit in suicide prevention among older white men but zero impact on gun violence overall.
Still, some defenders argue that every gun off the street is a win. Virdell’s response?
“Whoever makes that argument is a fool and didn’t bother to do their own research.”
A Failed Narrative
Beyond the data, Virdell believes gun buybacks promote a dangerous idea: that guns are inherently bad, and that government is the solution.
“It undermines the 2nd Amendment by creating a narrative that guns are bad and government will save us,” he said. “Any person who has even done a little historical research would know how moronic it is to believe government will save us.”
He’s not alone in that thinking. Critics of buybacks have pointed out that the firearms collected are typically low-quality, inoperable, or never used in crimes.
One 2002 study in Injury Prevention concluded that handguns turned in during Milwaukee’s buybacks were not the types commonly used in homicides or suicides.
In other words, these aren’t “crime guns”—they’re clutter guns.
Misleading Language
Even the term “buyback” is misleading. “The government can’t buy back something it never owned,” Virdell said.
It’s a phrase that suggests the state has rightful prior ownership and that civilians are simply borrowing their rights. That kind of linguistic sleight-of-hand should concern every gun owner.
Virdell’s bill doesn’t stop private citizens from selling firearms or dropping them off at a police station. It simply ends the use of public funds to incentivize a narrative of civilian disarmament.
“I am opposed to taxpayer money being spent on things that have proven to be ineffective,” he said.
Buyback Ban Headed to Governor’s Desk
After passing both chambers of the Texas Legislature, House Bill 3053 now sits on Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.
He has until June 22 to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will automatically become law and take effect Sept. 1.
While Abbott hasn’t issued a formal statement, his strong record of supporting pro-Second Amendment legislation has many observers expecting him to sign it.
If enacted, Texas would become the first state to formally ban local taxpayer-funded gun buyback programs.
A Broader Fight Ahead
As for the future? Expect more pushback against state-funded gun control programs.
“I guarantee it. If government is attempting to undermine or discredit firearms and firearm ownership, I will be there ready to stand in their way,” Virdell said.
Whether or not HB 3053 passes this session, Virdell’s blunt-force honesty is forcing a long-overdue conversation.
Are gun buybacks ineffective, symbolic theater designed to pacify voters while doing nothing for public safety? Or are they a noble, if modest, tool in a broader violence prevention strategy?
Available on GunsAmerica Now
The research leans one way. And the rhetoric from Rep. Virdell just might push it into law.
What say you? Is it time to ban gun buybacks?
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
The majority of the guns turned in during these ridiculous ‘no-questions-asked’ buyback were previously stolen, and a lot were previously used in crimes. Were any returned to the previous owners? Probably not.
It’s been proven, and explicitly stated in this article that what you said is false. These aren’t crime guns, they’re clutter guns. Did you even read the article?
Yes, I did. You keep believing that. Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one and most stink.
Man, that’s old.
Yeah, so am I. What’s your point?
False. But keep making up stuff.
Ok demoncrat… Suns going down, time to crawl out of your momma and daddy’s basement, put on your mask, go out and loot, pillage, and throw rocks at the cops. 🙄
Ok pedocrat.
Many years ago, the Indianapolis police were offering a Pacer ticket for a gun that was traded in. So a friend of mine traded in a Stevens 22/410 and got a game ticket for it. When they handed him the ticket, he saw that it was a really terrible seat.
He addressed this with one of the police, and they said that that’s all they had because they had such a good turnout. All the good seats were gone.
Later on the news, my friend found that there were actually very few people that turned in weapons. Three to be exact.
My friend got a hold of the police and called them out on their lie and got his 22/410 back.
Surprising. I figured it was gone for good.
So where is the Stevens 22/410 now? I bet if a fourth person turned in a firearm they would have got standing room.
Just looked up the Stevens 22/410, the ones I saw were sweet, high quality wood stocks. You should try and buy it of you friend.
I believe he still has it, I got to see it when I helped him move to North Carolina, and I don’t think he ever got rid of it.
It is not a wood stocked one, it has a plastic stock of some sort. And that is odd, because all the ones I saw in the listings are wood stocked ones.
The barrel selector was on the side of the receiver, not like the later ones that had the selector on the hammer itself.
hey if i want to get rid of an old crap gun, why not make a buck doing it. i have seen tax money used for worse things!
Yes. End gun buybacks. They do nothing to stop shootings from happening. It’s a stupid, feel good exercise. The only people who turn their guns in are people who would have never done anything evil with them in the first place. I don’t get how this is so hard to understand. The Colt SP1 (AR15) that was used in the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, had previously been turned in at a gun buyback. This alone should tell you the effectiveness of these events.
It’s truly not a buyback but a psychological twist being implanted in the public’s mind….like they did with Assault Rifle. However, using that phrase, let’s not stop the ‘buy backs’. Continue to use the money to buy unwanted weapons from people with no desire to have them and no sense to know how to get rid of them. Then, after the sale is over and all the paperwork is done, sell them to people that are legally qualified to have them. Thus….getting illegal guns off the street and making them available to law abiding citizens cheaper than the retailers. It’s not rocket surgery but seems to be a mental block to politicians.
I’m old enough to remember when a Glock was turned into Chicago Police Department for cash and then later turned up in a crime scene.
all that means….it was stolen again.
It means that an unidentified member of the CPD stole the Glock that was later recovered by another member of CPD. The CPD has/is very aggressive in disarming citizens very much like the “red squad” unit of that law enforcement agency but cannot adequately conduct oversight of its own members.
I bet some of those police have magnificent collections that they didn’t pay a dime for.
It’s about time some politician spoke up against this nonsense. Now we’ll wait for the anti-gunners to deny science and the facts and come up with some other crazy reason to justify gun seizures