The theoretical effect of a GBP on firearm‐​related violence is unclear. GBPs may
reduce gun crime if criminals who would otherwise commit firearm‐​related crime
sell their firearms to local governments and eschew criminal activity. Moreover, GBPs
may also reduce gun crime if law‐​abiding individuals sell their firearms, reducing the
supply of guns available for theft by potential criminals. Finally, a reduction in the
supply of firearms could reduce firearm‐​related suicides if such acts are impulsive
and influenced by the ease of firearm access at a time of high emotion.

On the other hand, GBPs may fail for a number of reasons. First, if the price that
city governments are willing to pay gun owners is generally less than the value of
the firearm, a relatively small number of firearms may be collected. Second, if criminals
believe that law‐​abiding citizens (and potential victims) are relinquishing their firearms,
they may be more willing to commit gun crimes following a GBP. Moreover, if GBPs
induce owners to turn in older firearms that are not well‐​functioning and the income
gained from the sale of the firearm is used to purchase newer, more effective guns,
firearm‐​related violence could rise. Finally, repeated GBP programs may permanently
lower the cost of owning a firearm, also leading to an increase in newer firearm purchases.

While policymakers are fiercely debating whether to implement GBPs, little is known
about their effectiveness. Our research is the first to present credible causal estimates on
 the effects of GBPs in the United States. We highlight three key findings. First, using data
from the 1991–2015 National Incident‐​Based Reporting System, we found no evidence
that GBPs are effective at deterring gun crime in either the short‐​or long‐​run. The precision
of our estimates is such that we can rule out decreases in gun crime of 1.2 percent or more
in the 12 months following a GBP and 2.3 percent or more one year after a GBP and beyond.
Second, in the two months following a GBP, we detected a small increase in gun crimes with
no corresponding change in nongun crimes. This finding is consistent with a possible criminal
response to perceptions about the likelihood of self‐​defense among law‐​abiding gun owners.
Finally, turning to data from the National Vital Statistics System, we found no evidence that
GBPs affected firearm‐​related suicides or homicides.

We conclude that GBPs are an ineffective policy strategy to reduce gun violence, a finding
consistent with descriptive evidence that firearm sales prices are set too low by cities to appreciably
reduce the local supply of firearms, most GBP participants are drawn from populations with low
crime risk, and firearms sold in GBPs tend to be older and less well‐​functioning than the average
firearm.

I don't have a problem with voluntary gun buybacks as they serve a purpose.  It's usually for people that inherit guns or don't want them anymore.  If a person doesn't want the gun and doesn't know how to handle or store it safely, it may be better to get rid of it especially if they have kids.  There are problems with kids getting the guns and taking them to school or committing suicide with them.  Or there's people with unregistered guns that don't know what to do with it.

A case can be made that taxpayer money shouldn't be involved.

The legislature finds that Hawaii has seen a significant increase in incidents
of gun violence, a trend that until recently was primarily confined to the
continental United States.  Acts of gun violence are becoming a regular occurrence
in local communities.  The overwhelming success of a recent gun buyback event on
Oahu by the department of law enforcement illustrates the demand of the public to
get guns off of the State's streets, with a total of four hundred ninety-four firearms
being turned in, including sawed-off shotguns, a MAC‑10, an Uzi, pistols with silencers,
and multiple assault weapons, such as AK-47 and AR-15 type rifles.  The program
provides a service and avenue for the public to turn in unwanted firearms, limits the
number of firearms entering the black market, and reduces violent crimes, accidental
shootings, and the risk of a firearm being brought into a school.

Then they should start a recycling program.  Pretending the people turning in guns they inherited or don't want are not the people the buy-backs supposedly want to turn in their guns.

This is the rationale they put in the bill:
According to all studies, there is no evidence to support the black market, reduced violent crime, accidental shootings and guns in schools claims.

What does happen is guns that can't be legally transferred and/or no longer have any resale value are surrendered.  Also, as said, anyone with a gun who acquired it via inheritance surrender them probably because they had an emotional attachment keeping them from selling them on the private market or don't know the laws well enough to comfortably sell them. 

Simply listing the numbers and types of guns turned in is not evidence of effectiveness.  The objectives listed have nothing to do with numbers or types.  I would challenge them to show proof the previous buy-backs had any measurable impact on crime, violence, guns in schools or accidents.

Dad has a gun.  Dad turns in gun for gift card.  Dad uses that $100 he would have spent on food for a better, more modern gun. 

Kid still has potential access...

It's hard to quantify the effectiveness of a buy back since the amount of guns turned in is relatively minute.  But it's still a community service and people do want that service with the turnout from the last one.  I'm guessing they were grateful for the service and I'm not really concerned with what they do with their guns.  The other alternative is for people to turn them into the police, but many of them would be scared to do so and not get anything back for their gun.

If you want to help these people, put together a video, website, or flyer on how they can register and sell their guns.  It'll keep the guns from getting destroyed and have a new life while the owners get better value from them.

If I were running the program, I would have some knowledgeable volunteer community members inspect the guns before destruction.
The reason for that is to try to prevent some possibly valuable piece of historical significance from being destroyed.
It would be the same thing as having an archeological survey done before bringing in bulldozers to build another Walmart.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/1741983/remains-at-wal-mart-site-to-be-reburied/
This a common practice here.

If a piece were found to be particularly valuable, it could be sold to benefit the family that turned it in or the proceeds from the sale could be used to finance another turn-in event.
King Kalakaua's rifle was on display at the Bishop Museum.
Some historic guns are on display at Iolani Palace. Some are on display at the US Army Museum in Waikiki.
https://www.hawaiianairlines.com/hawaii-stories/hana-hou/articles/issue-26-6/the-guns-of-yesteryear

I don't see the harm in this "turn-in" program, except for the cost.
I would not call it a "buy-back" though. The term "Buy-Back" implies that the government or police sold it first.
That's just plain incorrect and it gives the wrong impression to the public.

The buy-backs, often funded by charity, give people an incentive to get rid of guns that
could result in accidents, suicides or crimes, and make sure they don’t end up back on
the streets.

But reporting by the New York Times’ Mike McIntire reveals that that’s not always what
happens. Instead, companies promising free gun destruction are using a legal loophole
to destroy only a small part of each gun and sell the other parts online, often resulting
in guns going right back into the community.

Done

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

I don't see the harm in this "turn-in" program, except for the cost.
I would not call it a "buy-back" though. The term "Buy-Back" implies that the government or police sold it first.
That's just plain incorrect and it gives the wrong impression to the public.

For anyone in support of gun buyback events, specifically for people with legitimate reasons to turn in firearms, consider that there is no need for a huge politicized event to get this done. Those people who need to turn in firearms for legitimate reasons should be able to do so at any time at HPD.

You have to put yourself in the minds of these people.  A lot of them know nothing about guns and/or firearms laws.  Many of them are probably afraid and don't know what to do with the gun.

A lot of people aren't going to HPD to turn them in.  Technically they could be arrested for turning in unregistered guns to HPD and they'd be afraid of that happening though we know HPD wouldn't do that.  I don't know if HPD will take a gun from an anonymous person with no questions asked.  These people need assurances that it will be anonymous with no questions asked and they will not be arrested or blamed.  Making it a big public event with a lot of people in a similar circumstance gives them assurances they will not be harmed