Gun buyback for safety doubted

There is little evidence that the Government’s gun buyback scheme would avoid future gun-related death and injury, the Treasury has advised.

But Police Association president Chris Cahill says it is common sense that fewer dangerous firearms would lead to less gun-related harm, as it has in Australia.

The advice from Treasury, released on the Treasury website, came on March 20, five days after the Christchurch terrorist attack.

It was also one day before Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Police Minister Stuart Nash announced that most military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles would be outlawed and a buyback scheme developed.

Treasury supported the option of a buyback scheme in a report to Finance Minister Grant Robertson on March 20, but its next preferred option was to have an amnesty for people to hand in prohibited firearms.

Among the pros listed, the report says: “Lack of evidence that gun buyback will avoid future gun-related death and injury, so this option may achieve some of the benefits without associated costs.”

The only con is: “Likely to result in less firearms being handed back, however, it is difficult to quantify the difference.”

Ardern and Nash have continually pointed to safety as the main reason for the buyback and amnesty.

The firearms community has said the amnesty and buyback are targeting lawabiding people and will not prevent another March 15-type attack.

At the Police Association annual conference in Wellington on Tuesday, Nash again talked up how the buyback scheme was making a difference. So far about 30,000 prohibited weapons have been handed to police, and $56 million paid out.

“That’s 30,000 weapons designed to kill people — not deer or goats or possums or rabbits.”

Cahill backed up Nash when asked about the Treasury advice. “A percentage of those 30,000 firearms would have ended up getting stolen and in the hands of criminals. [Avoiding that] does make it safer. It’s just common sense.”