Opinion guest column

A bipartisan solution to gun violence — better bullets

Emerging technologies could save lives and transform the debate over gun control

Set phasers to stun — technology like Star Trek’s phasers lies under the radar and behind red tape, but it has the potential to solve a problem that has afflicted America for decades: gun violence. Unfortunately, solutions to gun violence discussed in mainstream politics have only brought limited effectiveness and intense partisan gridlock. Fortunately, other solutions have tremendous potential, and they are politically feasible.

While the focus thus far has largely been on limiting guns themselves with more screening and red tape, banning certain makes, etc., a critical element has been ignored — the bullets themselves. A pro-market approach to enabling bullets that are less lethal but that have more stopping power can reduce gun violence while pleasing gun owners, safety advocates, and even the NRA to boot.

It’s worse to think we’ve made progress when we haven’t than it is to do nothing at all. Assault rifles only account for 2-8 percent of gun deaths; how much can a ban of new ones achieve? Will opposing factions ever stop fighting and disabling new restrictions? Can we ever reach the low homicide rates of other first world countries in a nation where guns outnumber people? How much progress can we claim when suicides — the majority of gun deaths — would have failed in over 70 percent of cases if other methods were used?

The outlook may look bleak, but not if we refocus our methods. While we have a 200-year supply of guns in this country, we have a 3-year supply of bullets. Here, it is important to recognize the difference between lethality and stopping power: stopping power is neurological while lethality is physical. This means that by legalizing and encouraging bullet markets to pursue non-lethal technologies, we can vastly reduce gun deaths.

How do these traits differ? Lethality, or killing ability, is largely related to internal organ damage and bleeding, while stopping power is based on shock. Getting shot will ground an attacker not because it will kill them (we live for minutes even when our heart stops), but because it hurts. The pain doesn’t have to be in internal organs. Unfortunately virtually every option on the market relies solely on causing shock and pain through deep penetration. In contrast, many other technologies such as electric shock, safe chemicals like salts, or surface-damaging bullets, have superior stopping power but are less lethal. Design matters too. High-fragmentation technology like hollow point bullets can have incredible stopping power at low depth of penetration, but are very lethal at full depth. In addition, an overlooked niche includes less lethal bullets such as those made of low-density material for target shooting.

So what can be done? A whole lot. Low-lethality bullets can immediately gain exemptions from bullet taxes, waiting times, and other restrictions. Laws must be revised to make exceptions for and legalize high stopping power technologies such as safe salts for low-lethality bullets. Subsidies and funding can be considered for producing, creating awareness for, and marketing safe technologies. Scientific metrics for rating bullet lethality must be developed, possibly by the defense department. Research funding for low lethality bullets must be pursued. At this point NRA members should be drooling dollar signs, and that’s perfectly fine if it saves lives.

Others can help too. Advocacy groups can provide for bullet exchange programs and create marketing campaigns. Companies can start producing bullets for this underserved market. Local governments can spearhead modifying regulations and creating incentives. Perhaps most crucially, the consumer can vote with their wallet by buying bullet types that keep their families safer.

The potential impact is huge. Only 4 percent of murders are premeditated, so modifying the tools affects almost all cases. Fear of painful failed suicides can discourage using guns or encourage abstaining, potentially reducing two thirds or more of lost vulnerable and usually young minds. And unlike the controversial debates happening right now, both parties can sign on.

However, conflict in politics is inevitable. Some may push for heavy use of restrictions on bullets rather than pro-market approaches. Some may fight certain high stopping power technologies since they’re painful. Some may fight any change whatsoever, even if it means fewer choices for self-defense. But ultimately, there is plenty of middle ground.

Americans demand a comprehensive solution to the problem of gun violence. We want to retain our second amendment rights and the ability to defend ourselves without suffering the lethal consequences of firearms. New bullet technologies offer a way to achieve this goal, but the silence regarding their use has been deafening. It’s time to be loud.

David Warsinger is a graduate student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

4 Comments
1
Semper Why about 4 years ago

I'm all for new technologies in bullet design. But good luck getting politicians to move away from gun control and towards legalizing new and exciting round choices.

Politicians are not trying to solve the problem of violence with firearms.

2
Anonymous about 4 years ago

Three problems.

1) You're apparently unaware that research in this area has been underway for decades. Google Martin Fackler. He is a US Army surgeon and ballistics experimenter who has published an enormous number of informative articles in this area, starting sometime in the 60s or 70s. Searching for his articles will lead you to further articles, videos, etc.

2) You can't separate "stopping power" from lethality. People are stopped through either CNS disruption or through blood loss. Both of these phenomena are fatal in proportion to the speed with which they stop an attacker.

There is already an enormous body of research done on shallow wounding projectiles- they simply don't work. This is why people don't use birdshot or fragile varmint bullets for shooting human-sized animals, either for hunting or self defense purposes.

The hydrostatic shock theory of stopping power was discredited during the 80s. A number of experiments have shown that (besides the liver) human organs are nearly impervious to hydrostatic shock.

3) Guns aren't even the problem. Most gun fatalities (about 2/3rd) are suicides. Most non-suicide gun injuries (the majority of wounds are handgun inflicted) are non-fatal if the wounded individual receives prompt medical care.

The vast majority of shooting victims not only survive, but are ambulatory before receiving treatment. If you want to make guns less lethal, get people to the hospital faster after they get shot.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vwXwPtP-KDNk

3
Kristophr about 4 years ago

So exactly how will you get criminals to use these bullets? And if they can only steal your "safe" bullets, how will you prevent them from replacing the projectiles with lead from fishing sinkers?

So honest folks get nerf bullets, but criminals get to use lead, since they don't care about obeying your new ammo law?

This is not a "bipartisan" solution. This is just another Democratic Party inspired attempt at victim disarmament.

4
Anonymous about 4 years ago

3: And that's just another Republican Party fantasy story about roving bands of criminals looking for unarmed civilians to shoot.

You also seem to fundamentally misunderstand the point of the article--the idea is to make bullets that are just as good at subduing people while being less likely to kill them. Not "nerf bullets".