In 1993 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that gun control was near pointless. Even a strict and comprehensive ban on the sale of new guns would do nothing to diminish the existing supply, which he estimated would last 200 years. “These mostly simple machines last forever,” Mr. Moynihan said.

His suggested solution—exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets—never took off. The problem he identified, of course, remains. Not only do guns last forever, but they’re as common as the common cold. As of 2009, there were an estimated 300 million nonmilitary firearms in the United States. A stunning 47 percent of Americans told Gallup in 2011 that they had at least one gun at home. Anyone who wants the federal government to do more to stop gun violence must reckon with these statistics.



When Australia overhauled its gun laws in 1996 (after 28-year-old Martin Bryant killed 35 people in eight minutes with two semi-automatic rifles), it handled the Moynihan problem with a compulsory buyback scheme. The government bought, and the police destroyed, more than 650,000 newly prohibited firearms.

Some on the political left have raised the possibility of adopting a similar strategy here in the United States. On Twitter this Saturday Ed Schultz, the MSNBC host, asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle?” and added “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.” That’s unrealistic. Perhaps most Americans would agree to hand over their guns, but many would not. How would the federal government treat scofflaws, or active resistance? The same legislative body that refuses to renew a weak assault weapons ban will not sanction the use of police power to seize privately owned guns.

That said, voluntary buyback programs aren’t beyond the realm of possibility. Oakland, San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles, Detroit and New York have all held buyback events. Under a buyback program in Brooklyn, participants are paid $200 for a functioning weapon. (At a church on Saturday in the borough’s Brownsville neighborhood, police accepted 134 working guns, including 21 semi-automatic pistols.)

The federal government could, theoretically, follow suit. A generous buyback program that paid market value, or more, would not magically bring the civilian stockpile down to zero. But it might very well reduce that stockpile significantly. If implemented in tandem with new point-of-sale laws, it would represent a step toward the “meaningful action” that President Obama called for after the Newtown shooting.