And if pro-gun members of Congress continue to have their way, it will stay that way.
“Eighteen months and dozens of school shootings after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., public-health experts still lack basic information on the roots of gun violence and how best to prevent it.
In 1996, at the behest of the National Rifle Association, Congress effectively barred federally financed research on gun violence. After Newtown,President Obama called for an end to the ban and asked Congress to provide $10 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence. He also included the $10 million request in his recent budget proposal to Congress. In addition, Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation authorizing appropriators to provide funding.
Recently, however, Representative Jack Kingston, a Republican of Georgia and leader of the House subcommittee that sets the C.D.C. budget, toldProPublica that “the president’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the C.D.C. will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill.” Mr. Kingston does not have the last word; the full appropriations committee has yet to finalize the C.D.C. budget. But his stance does not bode well for gun-violence research or for science-based policy making more broadly.
The aim of such research is the same as research into any other health threat, like car crashes or smoking: to use scientific methods to chart the dimensions of a threat, identify remedies and address the problem collaboratively.
That is a different approach from one that views gun violence through the lens of law enforcement or mental health. And that is one reason the gun lobby and its toadies in Congress oppose it. It is potentially transformative, in the way that norms, behaviors and laws involving drunken driving and smoking have been transformed.
Questions that could usefully be examined were detailed in a report last year by experts convened by the federal Institute of Medicine at the request of the C.D.C. For example, the experts called for research comparing the probabilities of thwarting a crime with a gun with the probabilities of injuring a family member or committing suicide. Such data could upend the notion that guns are necessary for personal safety.
The report also suggested that research into mass shootings that actually occurred and those that were prevented could challenge that notion that mass shootings are inevitable in an open society. Other recommended research would examine how young people acquire and use guns, as well as the relative effectiveness of various gun-violence prevention strategies.
The price of ignorance on those and other questions is measured in tens of thousands of preventable deaths and avoidable injuries from guns, year in and year out. Compared with that, $10 million for the C.D.C. to study the problem and propose solutions would be a small price to pay. [NYT]
Twitter @sheriffali
You must be logged in to post a comment.