Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Research gun violence
Every mass shooting, most recently the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, brings a familiar and usually fruitless call and response. Gun control advocates urge tighter laws; gun rights advocates argue that those measures are too harsh or won’t work.
What’s missing from this debate is persuasive studies that provide strong evidence of strategies proven to reduce gun violence, and of those shown to have little or no effect. Why the dearth of compelling data? One reason is that a 1996 congressional amendment barred the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from spending to “advocate or promote gun control.” The amendment, sponsored by the late GOP Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, for two decades has been credited — and blamed — for tamping down government-funded gun research. That could change. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar recently promised the CDC will resume research to find ways to curb gun violence. “We’re in the science business and the evidence-generating business,” Azar says. Bravo.
We hope Azar follows through on this promise, and quickly. The federal government isn’t the only source of possible gun research funding, but it could be the most influential and independent.
As with any scientific research, there will be intense debate. Good. Let rival gun control and gun rights advocates debate the paths research should follow, argue the merits of studies, and poke holes in conclusions. That’s how science works.
Such research isn’t a threat to the Second Amendment. Information is information. New laws should be grounded in research — not baseless conjecture, fear or ignorance.