Gun Violence Research - Where's the funding?

When something concerns our country, we research it. This is true with seemingly obvious public health risks like automobile deaths and flu infections, as well as those that are more subtle, such as the respiratory effects of living nearing gas extraction sites. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in particular has played in pivotal role in studying many of these issues, and their work has been used to drive effective policy solutions. However, an issue of significant public health concern that hasn’t been researched by the CDC in the last 22 years is gun violence.

The “Dickey Amendment”, named after former Arkansas congressman and strong NRA proponent Jay Dickey, was established in 1996 and prohibits the CDC from directing funding towards “advocating or promoting gun control.” While the amendment only explicitly bans CDC gun control advocacy, it has also had a chilling effect on basic gun violence research. Scientists, fearing that any research on gun violence would be mischaracterized as “gun control advocacy”, have largely steered away from the topic to avoid provoking devastating defunding campaigns from the gun lobby.
However, Republican leaders have recently agreed to include a provision in the upcoming government spending package clarifying that the CDC is permitted to research gun violence under the Dickey Amendment. The provision is an important first step in giving scientists the freedom to conduct firearm research, but alone it is not enough to reverse recent trends surrounding the subject.

The provision itself doesn’t appropriate any federal funding towards gun violence research. According to a former CDC employee, the agency can’t conduct research on gun violence unless Congress specifically authorizes funding for it. All projects have a budget line that needs to be approved by them before research activities can commence. In short, the ability to research a topic means little without the funding to so do.

In the past, Congress has directly appropriated funding towards researching many other major public health risks. For example, Congress previously provided millions of dollars in federal funding to agencies like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to research vehicle safety, leading to safer roads and the development of seatbelts.

Congress has had many opportunities to make similar progress in reducing gun-violence by including firearm research funding in its annual appropriations. But due to heavy NRA lobbying, they have repeatedly chosen not to support these projects. For example, Congress blocked Obama’s $10 million request for increased gun research shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting. Further, the CDC saw a 96% drop in funding for gun violence projects from 1996-2013, with other federal organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) displaying similar trends. As a result, gun violence is currently studied at just 1/60th of the rate it should be given its impact on national mortality rates. While the provision was encouraging, the same gun research funding issues that existed before it was passed still exist today, and we need to be pushing our lawmakers to change this.

The lack of firearm research has stifled progress on advancing gun violence policy. How can we have a productive discussion on the topic if we aren’t collecting the facts? Is preventing assault rifle sales more effective than more stringent background checks in reducing gun deaths, and if so, how does its effectiveness vary regionally? These are questions scientists are equipped to answer, but currently they have limited funding to do so.

As a consequence, conjecture and speculation often serve as placeholders for research data in gun control policy discussions. The House recently passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a measure that makes concealed carry permits issued in one state valid in all states. Rep. Richard Hudson (R - North Carolina), the bill’s author, justified the bill by saying it extended concealed carry permits with the same “consistency marriage and divorce licenses hold”. Similarly, Tim Schmidt, a lobbyist backing the bill, was quoted as saying, “I think the aim of this bill is to simply allow responsibly armed Americans to continue to defend their families.” Facts aren’t dominating these discussions, rhetoric is.

It’s easy to see why these type of arguments are persuasive - they’re often relatable. They appeal to emotions. Many pro-gun advocates genuinely feel unsafe in this country, and they believe gun ownership is the only way to protect their family. Conversely, many people have been moved by recent mass shootings to support any gun regulation policy, regardless of its efficacy. Instead of relying on emotions, scientific findings can be used to identify which proposed gun regulations are most effective as well as which current policies are worth preserving. Data isn’t partisan.

We cannot choose to stop funding a research topic because we are afraid of the truths it may uncover, especially not a topic related to tens of thousands of deaths each year in the US. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum do sincerely care about fixing America’s gun violence problem, but they need the facts and data to do so. As many have noted, “thoughts and prayers” aren’t enough, we also need research and data - and the effective policy changes that they drive.

In the wake of the Parkland massacre, campaigns are being launched across the nation to change gun regulation policy. Join the cause by contacting your state representatives and advocating for firearm research funding.