There are nearly enough guns in America to arm every citizen.
The Pew Research Center estimates that there are about 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States.
With the nation's population around 328,000,000, that's nearly a gun for every American. The firearms, however, are owned by about a third of the country - roughly 42 percent of households report having one - according to Pew's latest study.
Gun-control advocates feel that shedding some of our nation's informal arsenal will lessen the likelihood of school shootings and chronic gun violence in American cities.
One proposed solution to get guns off the streets are buy-back programs similar to one that took place in Australia in the 1990s.
This issue recently arose in "Guns: An American Conversation," an initiative by Advance Local newsrooms from across the country in partnership with Spaceship Media. The project has brought together 150 engaged readers with a broad spectrum of opinions to talk about guns in an honest and civil way, including inside a closed Facebook group where participants post links to articles, ask questions and discuss issues.
Here is a look at the buy-back issue and how it has played out in "Guns: An American Conversation":
Guns sit on a table during a City of Miami gun buy-back event in Florida on March 17, 2018. The city bought over 100 guns, the most ever from one of its buy-back events. Up to $250 in gift cards was offered. It was the first in a series of buy-backs planned by Miami.
Today's topic: Would a gun buy-back work?
In April 1996, a 28-year-old man went on a shooting spree in Port Arthur, Tasmania, with a semi-automatic rifle that left 35 people dead and 23 wounded, the worst mass shooting in Australian history.
For the sake of comparison, the top five deadliest mass shootings in America are, according to numbers from the Washington Post:
- 58 killed in Las Vegas in 2017;
- 49 killed in Orlando at the Pulse night club in 2016;
- 32 killed at Virginia Tech in 2007;
- 27 killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012;
- and 26 killed at the Sutherland Springs church in 2017.
The Port Arthur shooting prompted extensive gun reform in Australia. The National Firearms Agreement banned automatic rifles, as well as certain self-loading rifles and shotguns. Citizens were required to take safety courses and show a "genuine reason" for owning a firearm, "which could not include self-defense," according to an executive summary of the act on file at the Library of Congress.
Australians surrendered 700,000 guns to the government in 1996-1997, according to the summary, or about one-fifth of all firearms in Australia at the time.
Firearm suicides and homicides have been trending significantly downward since the new gun laws, including more regulations enacted by Australian officials in 2002.
A 2010 study conducted by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University concluded that the buy-back led to a 65 percent drop in firearm suicides and a 59 percent drop in firearm homicides.
So should America take a similar path?
Following the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, a buy-back conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department yielded 2,000 firearms, including two non-functional rocket launchers, according to a report in the L.A. Times.
The department, which gave out grocery store gift cards in exchange for weapons, told the newspaper that 75 were "assault weapons," the report said. Officials reported collecting around 600 weapons in the Bay Area that same year in a similar buy-back, according to The Mercury News.
Experts maintain that gun buy-backs wouldn't have much of an impact in America.
According to the 2014 book "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know," by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss, buy-backs are not effective in combating gun violence. Cook and Goss say that without any significant ban outlawing certain types of firearms - which are protected by the Second Amendment -- many of the guns brought to these types of events are in shabby shape.
"Unsurprisingly people are inclined to turn in guns that are no longer useful - they have become redundant, given all the other guns owned by the individual," they write.
Inside the conversation
What people are saying inside the closed Facebook group for "Guns: An American Conversation":
Helene Cohen Bludman, of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, posted a link to a 2015 New York Times story entitled "How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings."
"I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions about Australia's buy-back program and how that put an end to mass shootings," she wrote.
Dan Zelenka, of Covington, Louisiana, estimated that America would have to confiscate about 100 million guns to reach a similar percentage as the Australians: "The 5th amendment would require compensation for these guns. For sake of simplicity, we can assume the value of each is $1,000. That is 100 billion dollars that would need to be paid out. And we would still have 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands. And then there is that pesky 2nd amendment issue."
Eric Truax, of Fremont, Michigan, wrote: "I have often wondered a couple of things about this. One is that it didn't seem to reduce the number of violent crimes. Two is that I have been unable to find any information related to the number of people that used to carry and now were victim to violent crimes and if having a weapon would have effected that. Three is the question of being an island make it easier to control the flow of illegal guns from other sources going to criminals with a disarmed society.
"This idea of eliminating school shootings is one of very few subjects that makes me consider surrendering my 2nd amendment rights. However I would only consider that if I was confident that nearly ALL guns were being removed from our society. As long as criminals have access to guns than I have a difficult time disarming myself."
Jon Godfrey, of Parish, New York, wrote: "That's a great question Helene Cohen Bludman. I would need to check some of the reported statistics. I have heard (unverified) that it took legal guns off the street but didn't impact illegal guns. My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) was it was mandated to eliminate semiautomatic firearms. In the US gun buy back programs run in the inner city do have some results, one illegal gun is a positive result, I think the buy back programs are ok to get illegal guns off the street. I am against any move to ban (as I believe Australia did) semiautomatic firearms. That would take away half the weapons in my possession and, in my opinion be a non-negotiable issue. What other areas do you think might go well to lower gun violence and be realistic to both sides of the position?"
Bludman's reply: "Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jon. I don't have the answers, but what are your thoughts on finding common ground? Can we agree on background checks? Waiting periods? I can agree that banning semiautomatics is unrealistic in our culture. I can respect your right to own guns even though for me I have no desire to own one. So tell me, what aspect of my position could you agree to and/or live with?"
What do you think?