An Engineering Solution to Lethal Gun Violence and Firearm Accidents
The tragedies in 2012 in the United States, most recently the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked debate about whether society should make significant changes to avoid these kinds of events or whether these tragedies are just the price society must accept for certain types of liberties and freedoms of choice. The most often discussed proposals in the wake of these events have been either a comprehensive (although not total) firearm ban and buyback program like the one recently implemented in Australia, or the arming of many more school teachers, administrators, and the responsible adult public as a deterrent and mitigating environment. There are problems with both of these, not the least of which is a fairly evenly divided and value-driven fundamental disagreement in American society. An engineering approach, however, may be very different from either of these solutions. Engineers first seek to address problems without proposing some fundamental change in the motivations and expected actions of individual people. To give an example, engineers would address a dangerous traffic intersection by changing the sight lines, traffic light timing, and the layout of lane markings before advocating legislation to alter the speed limit, trusting drivers to get better with additional training, or changing the fines and other legal penalties for breaking the rules. Engineers have to expect that people will often fail to follow whatever rules there are, and they must expect people to make mistakes even though they are attempting to comply with whatever regulations they ought to follow. Still, there are technological solutions that can reduce the likelihood of human error, such as a metal press that requires two hands to activate thus preventing injury to the operator. This is where so many advances have been made in recent decades in reducing deaths from automobile crashes, aircraft crashes, and industrial accidents.
Problems with Fewer Guns
Firearm culture in the United States is entrenched due to unique historical reasons and there are strong economic interests in play, while the general public only faces a small risk of being a victim. The numbers of actual victims have been declining in the last decade and are nearing a new minimum in American history. This is significant progress and should be celebrated. These factors make the political justification for an Australian-style gun buyback program difficult to find. Baring a major cultural shift it is just not likely that the United States will take such a path in the next one to two decades.
However it also remains unacceptable that citizens of the United States face such high risks of violent crime and homicide compared to other culturally and economically similar nations. It is difficult to deny that the ready availability of guns in this country facilitates a substantial amount of this violent crime, while at the same time the high violent crime rate makes evident the risks of harm that motivate many to purchase firearms for protection.
Problems with More Guns
Arming school personnel as well as adults in nearly any other public gathering place that could potentially be a target is also unlikely to be an effective solution. We should not anticipate that large numbers of people, not already gun owners themselves, could be convinced to be adequately trained and carry weapons during their normal jobs. Further, even if sufficient numbers of people could be convinced and the rate of violent crime was reduced, it is unclear what the associated and offsetting increase in accidents would be from so many additional weapons. So generally, we should not assume that the uneasy and limited acceptance by American culture of firearms in public life will soon turn to an enthusiastic embrace in the foreseeable future, either.
Another Option
As an engineer, addressing this problem would mean accepting that one is not going to fundamentally change the culture or the instinctive emotional responses individuals in the society will have. Neither of the paths described above are likely to solve the issue by themselves, and either of these legislative strategies would both be neutered to the point of complete ineffectiveness by passing through the American policy making apparatus in any event.
So, what kind of technological solution could be implemented that respects both of these instinctive individual reactions to firearm deaths and yet could save thousands of lives at the same time? Any solution would have to reduce the potential to be victimized by a criminal with a deadly weapon, reduce the potential for deadly firearm accidents, give individuals a greater sense of personal control over their safety, and both protect police officers from harm and limit harm to those suspects the police are trying to apprehend.
What is needed, is an effective non-lethal weapon to be used by police and individuals who feel the need to protect themselves or their homes. Some people think we have this already with the prevalence of tasers, but tasers are extremely limited and oftentimes ineffectual or unexpectedly lethal. A truly effective non-lethal weapon would work from a moderate distance, reliably be aimed at a specific individual, and render them either unconscious or otherwise immobile for a few minutes with a 1 in a million chance of direct lethality. The specifics of the immobilizing event would have to come on over a second or two to reduce the chance of lethal head injuries from falls. The weapon would also be able to fire multiple shots without a lengthy recharge.
Investing in Solutions
It is a common belief that there isn't a technology achievable in the near term that can meet these objectives of safety, effectiveness, range, and specificity. However, this opinion fails to comprehend the vast difference in research and development effort directed at this problem as compared to that directed at basic firearms. Handheld firearms were widely deployed in the 1400s, and the first non-muzzle loading firearms (breech loading carbines and revolvers) became affordably prevalent around 1840. Modern firearms are the product of centuries of technology development, and likely trillions of dollars (in 2012 terms) of investments by governments and individuals around the world.
If we look at the research and development expenditures for traditional firearm manufacturers based on their annual reports to shareholders, we see values of $4.5 million for Smith and Wesson and $13.2 million for Remington (Freedom Group Holdings). These values have remained relatively constant over the past 3-5 years.
This amounts to a share of 1.1% and 2.4% respectively of those firms' total revenues. The overall size of the total non-military firearm market in the US was $8.8 billion in 2012. Assuming that other firms invest at a similar level, the overall market spends between $95 million and $210 million on research and development of consumer and law enforcement firearms every year.
If we consider $150 million to be a reasonable estimate for 2012's corporate R&D expenditures on firearms, then we can estimate nearly $1.5 billion being spent over the last decade (in 2012 dollars), or $15 billion over the last century (which is likely a drastic underestimate due to military research associated with World War II).
By contrast, the entire global market for military and non-military spending on non-lethal weapons was only $2.4 billion in 2012 versus $11.7 billion for all military and non-military firearms spending in the United States alone.
The military has been investing heavily recently in non-lethal weapons given the political benefits from being able to non-lethally disperse crowds. This funding has increased to present levels of around $130 million, which is still dwarfed by the current annual spending on traditional weapons, not to mention possibly exceeded by the private corporate funds applied to research and development of consumer grade firearms. If we want non-lethal weapons to be more capable and viable technologies, these levels of research and development will have to be vastly increased.
Traditional firearms, a technology that remains relatively unchanged from the early 1800's, are supported by over $100 million every year in new research and development. The amount of expenditure around the world between governments and private businesses and individuals since the 1800's is incalculable. For non-lethal weapons to have a hope of becoming effective and viable alternatives will require investment at least 10-20 times the current R&D spending on traditional firearms ($1 - $2 billion per year). This is about one tenth of what NASA receives each year, and is easily affordable considering the potential public benefits at stake.
The reason why effective non-lethal weapons do not already exist is not because of the difficulty or expense. It is because we have hardly begun to try.
Changing the Landscape
A successful non-lethal weapon should be able to do the following: specifically and reliably target an individual from 100 meters away, either render the target unconscious or otherwise stunned and unable to move for a period of several minutes. The weapon should be able to be fired 5-10 times before recharging or replacing any consumables. The risk of lethality from direct effects should be on the order of 1 in 1,000,000. The overall cost of an individual weapon should be less than $2,000.
Among the publicly available non-lethal weapons on the market today, these capabilities are all very far from being met. What non-lethal weapons do exist operate by some method or combination of methods based on electric shock, blinding light, physical impact, loud noise, microwaves that make skin feel as if it were burning, or chemical irritants. These all have serious drawbacks. Significant advancements are needed to approach the mythical Star Trek phaser set on 'stun'.
I believe it is also worth considering the impact that an effective and affordable non-lethal weapon would have on law enforcement, personal defense advocates, and society at large. Police could apprehend suspects without lethal force, even those taking hostages. Residents could defend their homes from intruders without having to worry about the personal psychological repercussions of killing another person. The lethal accidents caused by weapons kept in the home would be averted. Even military missions could result in all enemies being captured and interrogated for intelligence rather than the enemies being killed (quickening the end of conflicts and also reducing population animosity arising from collateral killings).
These changes would slowly change the expectations of the culture at large. As deaths from police actions, home defense, firearm accidents, gang violence, and even military actions become more rare, they will also become more morally unacceptable, encouraging further actions to increase safety including stronger criminal and civil penalties for those who cause deaths by whatever means.
Mitigating Unintended Consequences
But, we shouldn't stop there. We have to consider negative but unintended consequences of widespread non-lethal weapon availability. First, since the negative consequences will have been reduced, the resistance to using these weapons will be decreased. There will be many more shootings (albeit non-lethal shootings), including in domestic violence cases, and even in shots taken against police and other first responders. Second, some types of crimes may be made easier by the criminal use of non-lethal weapons including kidnapping and sexual assault. While legal deterrents against all of these things already exist; those deterrents may need to be adjusted in order to reflect the new reality. Penalties for lethal actions could be drastically increased to reflect the increasing moral unsupportability of killing, and penalties for the use of non-lethal means to abduct or otherwise illegally detain individuals should be increased sufficiently to deter or otherwise reduce the likelihood of these crimes. Our legal system will have to adjust to a new landscape.
Conclusions
This may not be the best of all possible solutions. And, individuals on both sides of this debate may honestly point out how such a solution as this does not comply with one or more fundamental principles they hold. However, this idea deserves a place at the table, and some real financial contributions from society, if nothing else than a way of keeping options and freedom of choice open for the future. Even if this technology cannot improve or transform our society in the very near term, the possible benefits are potentially profound and long-lasting.
