The Centre for Disease Control reports that in 2019, 39,707 people died from firearm-related deaths. With a continued increase in gun violence year-over-year, many are calling for an increase in funding for gun violence research. Similar to other complex issues, adequate research funding for gun violence is imperative to get to the root of the problem and develop meaningful solutions – solutions that can save lives. 

Until the fiscal year of  2020, there was a two-decade-long freeze on federal funding for gun violence research. In 2019, the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence reported that the federal government spends $57 in research/gun death. In contrast, allocations for other causes of death were reported as $6,556 / death from lung disease, $2,996 / death from cancer, $1,740 / death from heart disease. In fact, at the time, researchers highlighted that funding to date was less than 2% of what should be allocated given the magnitude of consequences of gun violence. 

So, how did we get here? In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of the University of Tennessee published a study that detailed a correlation between keeping a gun at home and an “increased risk of homicide by an intimate acquaintance or family member” (American Psychological Association). The NRA subsequently lobbied to disband the paper’s funder, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 1996, Congres proceeded to pass an appropriations bill that would prohibit funds “made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [from being used] to advocate or promote gun control” (1996 Dickey Amendment). The legislation’s wording, widely described as confusing, led to a drastic reduction and practical freezing on gun violence research with decades of consequences.  

As of the fiscal year 2020, the CDC and NIH were allocated $25 million to firearms research. While this decision is certainly a step in the right direction, experts say more is needed to be done to make up for the lost time. The American Psychological Association highlights that funding is required to ensure that policymakers can be better equipped to implement prevention strategies and develop a “basic understanding of gun ownership and gun violence” to support harm reduction. Topics of concern include the psychology of gun ownership, dangerous gun-related behaviors, prevention approaches for vulnerable communities, accidental deaths by firearms, and more. Giffords underscores this message with an acknowledgment that the “CDC is by far best-equipped to tackle this issue…[and] could vastly increase what is known about gun violence support lifesaving policy reform.”

Interestingly, in the final years of his life, Jay Dickey, the congressman who advocated for the 1996 amendment, admitted that he regretted his prior advocacy and published this Washington Post op-ed in favor of investments in gun violence research. 

Recap:

• Following the Dickey Amendment of 1996, funding for gun violence research in the United States came to a near-complete halt  
• Experts report that for decades research allocations were 2% of what they should be given the magnitude of gun violence 
• While a recent allocation of $26 million to the CDC and NIH in fiscal year 2020 marks a sign in the right direction, further investments in gun violence prevention research are imperative to get to the root of the problem and develop meaningful solutions – solutions that can save lives.

Citations:

Dickey, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2012, July 27). We won’t know the cause of gun violence until we look for it. Retrieved May 03, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-wont-know-the-cause-of-gun-violence-until-we-look-for-it/… 

Giffords. (2020, September 28). Research funding. Retrieved May 03, 2021, from https://giffords.org/issues/research-funding/ 

Weir, K. (2021, April 1). A thaw in the freeze on federal funding for gun violence and injury prevention research. Retrieved May 03, 2021, from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/news-funding-gun-research