4 ms·

I understand that you want to help people and save lives, but the reality of the fact is that your target market is going to universally hate your idea and the

by phaus 14y ago

I understand that you want to help people and save lives, but the reality of the fact is that your target market is going to universally hate your idea and the rationale behind it.

senthilnayagam 14y ago
my belief stems from this link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1227-gun-buyback-20121227,0,7293938.story http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1227-gun-buyback-201... even a couple of percentage adoption can be a big step
- mgarfias 14y ago
  No, it'd actually be a hindrance (assuming the GPS-alert-school thing is implemented). It would give a false sense of security while doing next to nothing.
- phaus 14y ago
  Gun buybacks are mostly for publicity. A good amount of the guns are stolen specifically to turn them in for cash. The people who organize these things make it sound like they are there to accept the surrender of a large, violent gang. Also, when a real gang member does sell a gun, chances are he still has at least one at home(like he's gonna change his entire lifestyle for 50 bucks.) Think about it, most guns cost way more than the 50 bucks they were offering for handguns in that article and ar15s average about 1k. Guns maintain resale value in a way that makes apple products look like disposable pens, so why would anyone who didn't steal their gun sell it to these people at a huge loss?
  - learc83 14y ago
    The aforementioned LA gun buyback also bought 2 completely useless, already fired, single use rocket launchers and paraded them around the press as if they'd accomplished something. The vast majority of guns turned in are old .22s and shotguns, very few "assault weapons" or even handguns for that matter.
  - senthilnayagam 14y ago
    I am going to compare car safety with gun safety, in last 50 years lot of effort has been to put safer cars on road. but people need to drive it safe as well, so one of the earliest of them was Seat Belt usage, it started in early 60's but based on its effectiveness for the cost added to the system, it became a law in most US states in 80s and 90s, but what is importance is compliance to it, which is 70-90% thats what is more interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_Un... my reference to LA article was incentive was not good enough for all people to give away their guns, so lets agree those fact and start making progress in keeping guns safer at home.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  They got about 2,000 "guns" (I use the quotes because many of the items were non-functional and in some cases not even guns to begin with). Los Angeles has a population of 3.8 million. There's somewhere in the range of one gun per capita in the United States. That's not a "couple of percentage [points]". Not even close.

by phaus 14y ago

I understand that you want to help people and save lives, but the reality of the fact is that your target market is going to universally hate your idea and the rationale behind it.

senthilnayagam 14y ago

my belief stems from this link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1227-gun-buyback-20121227,0,7293938.story http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1227-gun-buyback-201... even a couple of percentage adoption can be a big step

mgarfias 14y ago
No, it'd actually be a hindrance (assuming the GPS-alert-school thing is implemented). It would give a false sense of security while doing next to nothing.
phaus 14y ago
Gun buybacks are mostly for publicity. A good amount of the guns are stolen specifically to turn them in for cash. The people who organize these things make it sound like they are there to accept the surrender of a large, violent gang. Also, when a real gang member does sell a gun, chances are he still has at least one at home(like he's gonna change his entire lifestyle for 50 bucks.) Think about it, most guns cost way more than the 50 bucks they were offering for handguns in that article and ar15s average about 1k. Guns maintain resale value in a way that makes apple products look like disposable pens, so why would anyone who didn't steal their gun sell it to these people at a huge loss?
- learc83 14y ago
  The aforementioned LA gun buyback also bought 2 completely useless, already fired, single use rocket launchers and paraded them around the press as if they'd accomplished something. The vast majority of guns turned in are old .22s and shotguns, very few "assault weapons" or even handguns for that matter.
- senthilnayagam 14y ago
  I am going to compare car safety with gun safety, in last 50 years lot of effort has been to put safer cars on road. but people need to drive it safe as well, so one of the earliest of them was Seat Belt usage, it started in early 60's but based on its effectiveness for the cost added to the system, it became a law in most US states in 80s and 90s, but what is importance is compliance to it, which is 70-90% thats what is more interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_Un... my reference to LA article was incentive was not good enough for all people to give away their guns, so lets agree those fact and start making progress in keeping guns safer at home.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
They got about 2,000 "guns" (I use the quotes because many of the items were non-functional and in some cases not even guns to begin with). Los Angeles has a population of 3.8 million. There's somewhere in the range of one gun per capita in the United States. That's not a "couple of percentage [points]". Not even close.