Here, Responsible Weaponry refers to weapons, including assault guns, which are modified so they can only fire non-lethal ammunition. This approach bridges the partisan aisle, opening a market of perhaps 500 billion dollars (stated in terms of total market cap over 5-10 years, as per Dataquest Research/Gartner metrics). Responsible Riflery makes it easier for everyone to pursue happiness AND own a gun AND even loosen restrictions on 'responsible assault guns.'
There's not Need for Anger, There's no Need for Hate
Responsible Weaponry appeals to Democrats because many want to protect themselves, but they don't want to kill; and meanwhile, the gun lobby will see its revenues soar in a safer way. With greater profusion of less deadly weapons, the ratio of lethal devices would be reduced.
What is Yofiel doing? This is just my private website. Currently I am working with my family to ask State Governors, local officials, NRA/Sandy Hook etc if I can sponsor assault gun buyback at market value, rather than scrap value as normally done in police buyback (typ. $50). When the #neveragain children are older, they are some of the people who will want to buy the modified guns, to get deadly weaponry off the street.
Design Method We are evaluating various alternatives for converting lethal weapons into safe devices. For example, welded 'muzzle brakes' can easily halve the velocity that a bullet leaves the barrel. The breech and cartridge chamber can be keyed to fire only 'non-lethal rounds,' such as rubber bullets. Manufacturers might also choose to retool their assembly lines for non-lethal production, which they certainly would find preferable to line discontinuation.
Result and Market Growth Let's say assault-gun muzzle velocity is reduced from 250mph to 90mph. That's about the speed of a pro-baseball pitch. It's enough to bruise and knock someone over, rather than kill. At slower velocities the bullet arc is wider, so it's a practice challenge on shooting ranges.
Owners of safe guns might have alot of fun, and it might become a trend, which would make the current market-cap estimate of $500B far too conservative. After modification by professional gunsmiths, outlets could promote the 'responsible assault guns' at various premium values. Dick's Sporting Goods might be especially interested, as it has voluntarily discontinued lethal assault guns.
Protecting 2nd Amendment Rights - Republicans demand 2nd Amendment rights, but Democrats often believe that the 2nd Amendment is wrong. In fact, when people are shot to death, it infringes on their 2nd-Amendment rights. Thus gun control actually supports the 2nd Amendment. Both parties could accept this and unify, but aren't ready to do so. Until then, there's no need for constitutional challenge. There's no need for new bans or restrictions. A simple change in market dynamics would save lives without the need for lawsuits.
On August 8, 2017, I wrote to a State Supreme Court judge, and Seattle newspapers, on the NRA's case against Seattle's gun-violence tax. I outlined that shooting people to death infringes on their 2nd amendment rights, but a localized tax might place an unfair 'geolocation burden,' that is, gun tax at salespoint might not be considered Constitutional unless it is national (due to regional and Internet sales). The following day, Justice Debra L Stephens ruled against NRA, stating the city's higher gun-violence cost justified a local tax. In terms of amount, the Seattle gun-violence tax was only $50, far less than the$240/gun estimated in 2015. The Supreme Court ruling could set a precedent for a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment at the federal level. The extent of the ruling need not be unbenevolent. For example, a tax credit could return increasing amounts of a national gun-violence tax, as the cost decreases. Since the court decision, gun shops moved out Seattle, and income from the gun-violence tax has been low. Of course, that could be a good thing, or it could really mean a national gun violence tax would be necessary.
Market Analysis - On Facebook forums, currently, the tirade of insults from gun fanatics is being slowly replaced with suggestions and additions. In the past, parents of #neveragain children have also called me an evil gun profiteer. After I fleshed out this idea in full here, the tide started to turn. So when people are ready to 'grow up' like the neveragain# children themselves, this site is ready with public-domain statistical and potential market analysis. I started with gathering what data I could, but almost all of it was from the left, so I was repeatedly accused of being biased. Therefore I drew my own graphs from ~3000 FBI and CDC database points. While both sides now accuse data falsification, there is no other data source with equivalent depth of source data, so there is no 3rd party corroboration either way. As an analyst, I cannot take sides with either party's views either, as the other side accuses me of being biased, and the level of accusation increases dramatically if any fiscal contributions are involved. So I have to withdraw from political debate. But when the opposing parties are ready to put aside their differences sufficiently to consider a viable path forward into the future,my last PDF analysis is being updated with a great deal more information, and more accurate projections of market size are also possible.
For example, this year it's been proposed to provide more CDC data on 'violent gun injuries' (which outnumber all other forms of firearm casualty combined, and are only known to be increasing at a greater rate than firearm homicides are falling). Obtaining this data would also clarify the extent to which 'more guns, less crime' is true. Some say the NRA won't approve it for legacy reasons. But as I see it now, the gun industry wins either way, however the results transpire. Maybe I'm wrong about that, that's something to ask the NRA. Whatever that case, I hope to update the spreadsheets then.
In February 2018, a wise#neveragain child asked me, "With so many guns around, how do we learn who's the good guy with the gun, and who's the bad guy with the gun?" In brief, that's a majorly serious problem! A Yofiel study in 2015 found half of 350 Tea Party members ready to shoot children for stealing apples off an apple tree. Who is good and who is bad? I wrote this to send John Oliver on the topic, and you can see his video on NRA TV below.
Natural law provides very clear answers on the gun rights versus gun control debate. But natural law, as it is invoked in USA's declaration of independence, requires accepting the existence of God, so natural law cannot be taught in American public schools. As a result, 99.9% of Americans on both 'sides' of the gun debate have opinions of the derived constitution that are very flawed. Here is a primer on natural law, and how it applies to gun liberties.
New findings are presented showing that a gun in the home increases risks of residents being shot to death by 3~4 orders of magnitude more than it is likely to stop a crime. Also, during attempts of self defense, 2 out of 3 firearm fatalities are accidental killings of family or friends, rather than of criminal aggressors. Additional data on domestic violence is presented.
Sometime close to May 7, 2017, half a million Americans will have been shot to death since 9/11, and there’s no sign of the death rate abating. So it’s a fine time to consider who exactly is dead, who will die next, and what would really make a difference. Does the NRA solution work? Are fatalities falling? Who is killing whom? How well does self defense work? Can gun control reduce fatalities and suicide? Do more guns mean less crime? How many illegal guns are there? How much do taxpayers pay for gun violence? What new solutions could reduce the casualties?
This article describes an ideal methodology to end conflict on gun control, reduce taxes, and save lives. It includes a full description of the methodology, cost data, responses to 1300 objections gathered over the span of a year, and analysis of the results.