Increasingly weapons are being identified world-wide as a source of the rising prevalence of crime.6 In response to this, governments and communities are creating policies which are directed at both legal and illegal weapons possession. Recent examples are the inclusion of firearms as a prime issue in South Africa's National Crime Prevention Strategy, and the expansion of a United States federal government initiative to trace the sale of illegal firearms to young people.

Action is also being taken by the public either to supplement government action or to supplant what is seen as either inaction or ineffective action. The use of VWCPs is one way in which local communities can be involved in developing and implementing a programme to address weapons availability, and work in tandem with local authorities.

There is considerable debate surrounding whether these programmes should be used as a method of disarmament or gun control and how effective they are. This section will discuss in greater detail the motivations for conducting VWCPs, the debate surrounding them, their efficacy in reducing the number of weapons in circulation and, in conclusion - in the absence of their reducing the number of available weapons - the other common objectives, namely the development of norms against the use of guns and the publicising of the connection between guns and violence.

The Debate

Little research has been done on VWCPs as a means of reducing firearms. The United States has been most active in this area but, even there, due to the fact that such programmes are organised in an ad hoc manner and are usually conducted under amnesty, there is little material available for research or evaluation. Yet, even though there is no empirical evidence that these programmes work to reduce weapons, they continue to be an extremely popular choice with policy makers.

Often the impetus for undertaking these programmes is some event that acts as a catalyst - a local murder or suicide or a general increase in crime that is identified by the public as weapons-related and which reaches intolerable levels. Thus the stated objective of the programmes is often to lower the number of weapons available for crime and violence. Other objectives are commonly:

to publicise the connection between weapons and violence;


and to develop norms against the use of weapons for violent means.7

Another popular slogan is 'One Gun, One Life',8 which allows for the immediate success of a collection programme, as the first weapon turned-in achieves the programme organisers' goal!

In the United States, opponents and detractors often point out that there is no evidence that these programmes do reduce gun violence. They also argue that the programmes are a waste of money and resources that could be used for other purposes or for programmes which are shown to be more likely to reduce the number of guns and associated violence, for example, search and seizure operations by local law enforcement. Often opponents of weapons collection programmes are not the anti-gun control lobby, the National Rifle Association, for example, but researchers and others involved in the pro-gun control debate who feel that these types of programmes detract from their work to change or enforce legislation and lobby for stricter firearm controls.9

Even among supporters of such interventions in the United States, there is the realisation that, due to a variety of factors, it is almost impossible to determine whether or not VWCPs are effective in reducing gun-related violence or crime. A study was conducted which evaluated two programmes in St Louis, Missouri, in the United States to determine whether or not gun violence declined in the period following the weapons collection programmes. The evaluation of the programmes indicated that "neither program had an appreciable impact on the frequency of gun assaults and homicides committed in St Louis".10

The success of VWCPs often depends not only on their planning and implementation, but also, perhaps more importantly, on the current conditions, social, political and even economic, when the programme is initiated. For example, a lack of trust among potential participants towards the organisers can jeopordise the programme before it begins, especially in the case of government-run programmes.

The Popularity of VWCPs

Generally, there is little belief that VWCPs can, in themselves, reduce the number of weapons in circulation or prevent crime, or even crimes committed with firearms. However, they continue to be popular and are being used with increasing frequency. What are some of the reasons for the continued popularity of VWCPs in the face of apparent contradictions about their effectiveness in achieving their stated objectives? There are several possible answers. First, voluntary weapons collection programmes conducted by communities can be an important way of building community cohesiveness and improving relations between the people and local law enforcement officers. Second, these programmes focus attention on the issue of guns and gun-related violence and can possibly lead to a change in attitudes and behaviour. Third, these programmes serve as what have been termed 'soft social controls' that incorporate conflict resolution and violence prevention programmes at one end of the spectrum, and education about gun ownership and use at the other.11 As a social control, VWCPs may draw enough notice to a gun-related situation to focus attention on other types of controls that may be able to reduce gun violence.12

Additionally, VWCPs are outside the framework of most criminal justice systems and the way in which these systems address the misuse of firearms. They are "preventive rather than reactive; they attempt to alter the means and circumstances that facilitate violence rather than deter violent conduct; and they focus on problems, such as access to guns or youth violence, rather than individuals".13 Increasingly, as courts and prisons are collapsing under the weight of case backlogs and overcrowding, alternative approaches to addressing issues become necessary. The shift taking place in the United States and elsewhere to begin to address gun violence as a public health issue and, as such, as one that can be reduced through intervention and prevention rather than through criminal justice approaches, is gaining popularity. VWCPs are one way in which communities can become involved.

VWCPs also allow for community participation and action at the local level, giving organisers and participants a feeling that they are doing something to address an issue affecting their community. As noted in one study of a gun buy-back, the police consider programmes such as buy-backs and exchanges as an opportunity to interact with communities in which "every weapon turned in is a conversation".14 VWCPs are also seen as a means of "lowering voluntarily the prevalence of handguns within a community".15

Advantages and Drawbacks

However much the publicity and support that they generate, VWCPs have both advantages and drawbacks, which often depend on which side of the gun-control/crime prevention debate one stands.

Some claim that VWCPs are a means of promoting gun control,16 others that VWCPs reduce the number of available weapons. In the instance of Australia this is arguably the case, as the firearms that have been bought back are now banned under new legislation.17 A study in Sacramento, California also found that 41 per cent of participants no longer had firearms in their homes following participation in an exchange programme.18 However, an evaluation of the gun buy-back in St Louis found that many people participating in the buy-back programme were planning to replace the weapons they had turned in.19

Some argue that the strength of a VWCP, especially as a community initiative to reduce weapons availability or gun violence, lies in its apparent weakness. That is, it is politically appealing and popular because it is the 'weakest' intervention for addressing either of the issues. The argument is that there is little to dislike about VWCPs, because they are politically 'safe'. For example they are not an overt attempt at gun control, nor do they require the commitment of significant manpower or money.20 VWCPs have also been characterised as 'feel good' measures21 that have positive benefits for supporters, organisers and sponsors, but no demonstrable effect on their target (gun violence or weapons reduction). Additionally, as they are often one-off or limited interventions, any impact they may have is not likely to be maintained over the long-term.

It has been argued, further, that VWCPs that use amnesties (which most do in order to encourage participation) thwart the criminal justice system and prevent criminals from being tried for crimes committed with weapons that were turned in. While there is validity in this point, the fact remains that the number of criminals who use VWCPs to dump hot weapons is arguably low. A survey of weapons collected in San Diego, California and Seattle, Washington programmes which were subsequently traced using serial numbers, found that the percentage of stolen weapons turned in was between 0,5 and 1,8 per cent, suggesting that a very small percentage of the total weapons turned in was stolen, and a smaller, or perhaps non-existent, number had been used in crime.22

Additionally, in those programmes in which demographic information was collected, most participants in United States VWCPs tended to be typical gun owners rather than offenders or at-risk youth. Often in those cases studied, weapons were turned in by middle-age men and women who either had more firearms at home or planned to replace the turned-in firearm with a new one.23 Due to a lack of demographic information it is impossible to know if this is the case in other countries, although anecdotal evidence suggests that many of the participants in the recent VWCP in El Salvador, or at least those who agreed to be interviewed, were adults, both male and female.

One frustration for organisers of VWCPs and those called upon to evaluate or research them is that, by their very nature, the effects that these programmes have on communities are often not able to be measured. Efforts to link the collection of firearms to reductions in gun violence have not yielded statistically significant outcomes in programmes which have attempted this type of evaluation. More than the collection of limited demographic information and participants' support for the programme is thwarted by policies of amnesty or 'no questions asked', both of which are important in attracting participation in the programmes themselves.

The use of cash as an incentive for VWCPs has been controversial among organisers and has sometimes had undesirable results. In setting a price for weapons being turned in, organisers generally establish an amount below the current black market price and below the current book price for similar weapons. If prices offered are higher, gun markets are being created in which people use the opportunity to purchase less expensive weapons that they then turn in for more money, using that money to purchase further weapons for turning in. In the United States there have also been instances of firearms dealers using VWCPs with cash incentives as an opportunity to get rid of old or low quality stocks. While there are ways of combating these abuses, including limiting the number of weapons that may be turned in by each individual, many organisers have chosen not to use cash or vouchers but to use in-kind incentives instead. The notable exceptions are VWCPs conducted by governments or peacekeeping forces which have traditionally used cash or vouchers redeemable for cash.

A final criticism of VWCPs, especially those organised by communities with access to public funds, is that the money could be better spent in improving detection methods, hiring more law enforcement personnel or improving enforcement facilities. What this point tends to overlook, however, is that often the public funds used for VWCPs are minimal and are from funds, for example asset forfeiture funds, that are not necessarily available for other purposes.

Efficacy of VWCPS in Reducing the Availability of Weapons

Firearm-related violence is becoming increasingly recognised as a social problem, one which is exacerbated by the possession and use of firearms. While VWCPs attempt to address this issue by collecting legal and illegal weapons, their success in achieving a reduction in firearm-related violence is limited by the usual participants in the VWCPs and limitations inherent in the process. The evaluation of VWCPs is complicated and often inconclusive in determining whether or not they have succeeded in reducing weapons possession or gun-related crime and violence.

Issues which affect the efficacy of VWCPs as a means of reducing the number of weapons in circulation and/or the number of acts of violence committed with firearms are, amongst others, the following.

First, VWCPs generally aim to collect guns currently owned by people, i.e. the existing stock of used guns. As such, VWCPs, especially in the context of limited community-based programmes, cannot begin to address the myriad of supply-side issues which must also be considered to effectively reduce the number of available guns.

Secondly, at least as evaluated in the United States, VWCPs rarely attract the type of individual most likely to use a firearm to commit a crime. The profile of the average offender points to the young male who, when using a firearm to commit a crime, frequently uses a stolen weapon.24 It may be that in other situations outside the United States, especially in former conflict areas, where VWCPs are conducted as part of post-conflict peace building or during disarmament campaigns, the profile of the participant more closely resembles that of the 'typical' offender, but this is difficult to determine as demographic information is generally not collected during these types of programmes.

Thirdly, the age and type of weapons typically turned in during a VWCP are older weapons and generally not the semi-automatic rifles or handguns currently favoured for the perpetration of crime.25 The exception to this is the case of Australia, where the weapons collection programme was targeted specifically at semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

A fourth element which can affect the efficacy of VWCPs in reducing the number of available weapons is the process of substitution, during which a cheaper firearm is turned in and the money received used to purchase a more expensive, larger calibre weapon that is of better quality and therefore more likely to fire accurately and to be lethal.26

The efficacy of VWCPs will be debated as long as adequate means of evaluating them continue to prove difficult. The formulation of the programmes themselves complicates this task, as the use of amnesties and anonymity make it difficult to trace turned-in weapons to determine whether or not they have been used in crimes and, therefore, whether or not the 'at-risk' population for committing crimes with firearms is responding to the programmes.

In some evaluations, patterns of crime and violence have been analysed to determine whether rates of crime declined at the time of the programmes more than would have been expected from other factors (seasonal fluctuations and policy interventions are two other possible causes for decreases in committed crimes). However, the results of those evaluations have been inconclusive and have failed to determine if decreases in crime levels were attributable to the impact of the programme.27

There is one tangible way in which some of these programmes have contributed to reducing the availability of firearms: the destruction of weapons turned in. In some programmes, though not all, the collected weapons are either crushed or melted down. This at least ensures that those weapons will not be available for further use.

Additional Factors for the Popularity of VWCPs

If the effectiveness of VWCPs as a means of voluntary disarmament is under debate, what are some additional factors which might contribute to the continued popularity of these programmes?

Foremost is perhaps education, which increases the awareness of the public to the issue of gun violence. This is a key to the public health approach to the problem, which identifies education as the first step in prevention, for without education there can be no action. These types of programmes often include medical practitioners among their organisers and try to increase awareness around the dangers of unsafe gun use, storage and ownership. They also try to highlight the costs of gun-related violence both to the victims and to the public at large. These costs include, for instance, long-term care for people paralysed from spinal cord injuries and who are thus unable to work.

The second is that VWCPs serve as a means of allowing people to safely dispose of unwanted firearms, often with the chance of getting something in exchange. Currently, in Mozambique, citizens are leaving weapons along the side of the road to be destroyed by mine clearance teams working in the area. If the weapons are turned in to the police they are not destroyed and often reappear in the surrounding neighbourhoods.28 In other cases, for people who no longer want a firearm in their home and are ignorant as to how to dispose of it, VWCPs offer an opportunity for the firearm to be safely disabled and destroyed. VWCPs can also serve as a means of educating people about the safe disposal of a firearm, the risks incurred in keeping a weapon at home, especially if the firearm is not stored safely or there are young children around, and the use of weapons in crime, violence, suicides and accidents.

As noted by one author, there are very few effective ways to address gun violence, especially such as can be undertaken by communities. Thus, VWCPs offer a way in which communities can be involved in finding solutions to the problem.29 They can also be used to initiate dialogue between community groups and local government.

VWCPs and other violence prevention initiatives can also allow for norms to develop against the use of firearms and can work towards changing attitudes about firearm possession and use. Other perceived benefits of VWCPs, including building community cohesiveness and focusing attention on the issue, may be quite substantial. If the objective of the programme is to educate or increase awareness, the effectiveness of the programme should be judged by these criteria, including the satisfaction of the organisers with the results, and whether or not the programme prompted additional awareness of, or action on, the problem.