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.'

1. 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.

- Ernest Meyer, March 23, 2018.