Ludington officials knew that even if their spectacle was unsuccessful, it would make them feel better about themselves and draw positive attention from the mainstream media.
The event specifically targeted what the uninformed like to call assault weapons, semiautomatic rifles that are immensely popular with the sporting public. Those who voluntarily relinquished their firearms were rewarded with a $300 gift card.
The only problem was, exactly one person took the organization up on its offer. One.
Local media, specifically the Midland Daily News, fawned over the failed effort as a response to mass shootings. It termed the effect of last year’s Uvalde tragedy as a “call to action.”
A group of residents on Saturday organized the Starfish Buyback Program to be held at the Ludington Police Department. Undoubtedly there was much fanfare and anticipation over the chance to rid the streets of the menace of lawful firearms.
Only, something strange happened to the drive to clean up the town.
As the group’s Karen Reader reported afterwards, one resident showed up to voluntarily exchange their semiautomatic rifle for a gift card to an area “supercenter.”
Supporters and the local media were undeterred in their enthusiasm. After all, the program’s mission states that it “is based on the belief that no matter how small or futile this action may appear, any effort to save lives matters.”
If futility is acceptable, then this “buyback” program was a raging success. And as is typically the case with gun control advocates, feelings and intentions far outweigh actual facts.
For example, a recent study spotlighted the results of these buyback programs as being the exact opposite of what proponents intended them to be. In the period immediately following these programs aimed at voluntary confiscation, violent crime increased.
Researchers found that in the two months following a buyback program, surrounding areas saw “an increase in incidents of firearm-related crime. The 7.7% increase in gun crime…is relatively modest, suggesting at most, two additional gun crimes.”
Even more modest are the long-term effects. The study concluded that “with 95% confidence,” gun crimes declined by a miniscule 1.3% in the 12 months that followed and no more than 2.2% after that period.
In other words, a statistically insignificant impact. On the bright side, at least the Ludington buyback program was not funded through taxpayer dollars. Perhaps the organizers should consider sweetening the pot to lure more gun owners to turn over their weapons, though this would also likely be a waste of effort.
The paltry result demonstrated what any reasonable person could have predicted from the start. Second Amendment advocates and those determined to defend themselves are not so gullible as to be tempted to disarm themselves for trinkets and baubles.
After all, how much good will that supercenter gift card do a person when they are faced by a violent criminal threatening their family and home? How useful will that dismal reward be when they want to enjoy shooting sports with family and friends?
The clear answer is none. People are not fools, and a voluntary confiscation program is doomed to fail before it even starts. These efforts would be better directed at assisting crime victims or ensuring that police have the proper resources to rid the streets of violent criminals.
Perhaps a community program to pressure the judicial system to keep those who would do harm to innocent citizens behind bars and end the revolving door policies currently in place in many areas.
Now that would be progress.
