Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets

[GMDino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

Quote: Looking back, nearly 20 years later, Jay Dickey is apologetic.

He is gone from Congress, giving him space to reflect on his namesake amendment that, to this day, continues to define the rigid politics of gun policy. When he helped pass a restriction of federal funding for gun violence research in 1996, the goal wasn't to be so suffocating, he insisted. But the measure was just that, dampening federal research for years and discouraging researchers from entering the field.

Now, as mass shootings pile up, including last week's killing of nine at a community college in Oregon, Dickey admitted to carrying a sense of responsibility for progress not made.

"I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets."

The politics of gun control were as divisive in the 1990s as they are today. Republicans had won big in the '94 elections by campaigning against President Bill Clinton's gun control legislation. And in the spring of 1996, the National Rifle Association and its allies set their sights on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding increasingly assertive studies on firearms ownership and the effects on public health. The gun rights advocates claimed the research veered toward advocacy and covered such logical ground as to be effectively useless.

At first, the House tried to close down the CDC's entire, $46 million National Center for Injury Prevention. When that failed, Dickey stepped in with an alternative: strip $2.6 million that the agency had spent on gun studies that year. The money would eventually be re-appropriated for studies unrelated to guns. But the far more damaging inclusion was language that stated, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Dickey proclaimed victory -- an end, he said at the time, to the CDC's attempts "to raise emotional sympathy" around gun violence. But the agency spent the subsequent years petrified of doing any research on gun violence, making the costs of the amendment cleareeven to Dickey himself.

He said the law was over-interpreted. Now, he looks at simple advances in highway safety -- safety barriers, for example -- and wonders what could have been done for guns.

"If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment," Dickey said. "We could have used that all these years to develop the equivalent of that little small fence."

Among the proposals that gun control advocates push in the wake of high-profile instances of gun violence, reopening federal funding for research would appear to be the least objectionable. It doesn't target a specific firearm, restrict ammunition, or enhance oversight of gun sales. It simply allows taxpayer money for scientific studies. Indeed, since the Oregon shooting, such ideological opposites as Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson have respectively said they would and could support it.

But gun rights groups have long warned that a research funding reversal would be a gateway to government advocacy of gun control and, generally, a waste of money, since there is non-government research available. In 2011, congressional Republicans further restricted funding by applying the Dickey amendment to the National Institutes of Health. And in the aftermath of the Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre in the spring, they quietly upheld the CDC language on the grounds that "a gun is not a disease."

“The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” declared House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The collateral damage of this stalemate has been felt both at the university level and, a step removed, in the statehouses where gun policy is made.

"If there is no research, it is harder to make suggestions for policy reform," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. "And if you have a vested interest in stopping policy reform, what better way to do it than to choke off the research? It was brilliant and it worked. And my question is how many people died as a result?”

Wintemute actually counts himself fortunate among gun violence researchers. He was overseeing several CDC-funded projects when the Dickey amendment passed in '96. The law brought an end to his CDC grants. He scrambled for private funding and eventually completed his study on predictors of criminal behavior among people who purchase firearms legally. Years later, he received funding from the National Institute of Justice -- which was unaffected by the amendment -- though he spent his own money on research "just to keep the lights on and employed," he said.

In recent years, the climate has grown brighter. After the 2012 shooting deaths of 20 first grade students and six staff members at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama instructed federal agencies to interpret the Dickey amendment literally -- as a restriction on funds for advocacy, not on funds for research.

President Obama speaks after Congress failed to move gun control measures following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Obama speaks after Congress failed to move gun control measures following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
The CDC has hesitated in acting on that directive, both because of its limited resources and, gun control advocates suspect, a fear of political backlash. Indeed, The New York Times reported that as a courtesy, the center flags for the NRA any study that has anything to do with firearms.

The NIH, however, appears to be less intimidated. Wintemute received a two-year grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in 2013, worth $700,000, to study alcohol abuse as a risk factor among people who legally purchase firearms. He now is conducting a 100,000-person study in California.

"Compared to five years ago, the funding picture for a few of us who have done this work for a long time is rosy," Wintemute said. "Compared to what it requires, it is still bleak. We have lost 20 years of concentrated effort."

Others have found the field fairly difficult to traverse. Dr. Douglas Wiebe, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, worked on a 2009 study on the link between gun possession and gun assault that is believed to have sparked Congress' interest in applying the Dickey amendment to the NIH. He called the restriction of funds "not fatal" to his field, "but very close to it." Investigators, he explained, are being forced toward less-politically contentious studies, which makes it close to impossible to conduct sound epidemiological research.

"That’s a real problem because it is violent death that really needs more research in the field," Wiebe explained. "Lives are being lost."

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, also refocused his financing after the CDC ban, salvaging his research in the process. But the dry funding climate has had a "dampening effect" on young scientists, he said.

"They look at the landscape of funding and ask, 'Would you enter into that field?'" Hargarten said.

The issue, however, isn't just the specific restriction on CDC funding, but a larger movement to remove science from gun policy, according to Akiva Liberman a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Under law, for example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is prohibited from keeping a registry of gun transactions and from distributing much of its trace data. These measures not only hamper efforts to combat gun violence, argued Liberman. They make it hard to understand it. The biggest losers are potential victims; the second-biggest are policy makers.

"I think it is hard to figure out what is sensible policy," said Lieberman. "To the extent we don’t build up the ability to research things at more geographically fine levels, we lose the ability to research a lot of the relevant policy options."

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has blocked attempts to allow the CDC to fund research into gun violence on grounds that guns aren't germs.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has blocked attempts to allow the CDC to fund research into gun violence on grounds that guns aren't germs.
Gun groups have been unmoved by these arguments. They cast efforts to retain data or spend taxpayer money on research as poorly disguised, back-door attempts at instituting or facilitating gun control.

The NRA did not return a request for comment for this article. But it has in the past defended the restriction on CDC funding and lobbied for additional bans. During the passage of Obama's Affordable Care Act, for example, the group successfully persuaded Congress to include a provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data on patients' gun use. Even pro-gun control Democrats didn't stand in the way.

More than anything else, that illustrates how the current system of laws and restrictions came to be. Put simply: The gun lobby has more lawmakers willing to do its bidding than the other side of the debate.


After the Dickey amendment passed in '96, the Knight Ridder media chain did an analysis of the vote. It discovered that three-quarters of those who backed the measure had received a collective $1.6 million from the NRA that calendar year. Only six of the 158 members who opposed the measure had received support from the gun lobby.

Dickey was the NRA's so-called point man on the Hill during his service from 1993 to 2000. He had to leave Congress before changing his stance on CDC funding, which he first did in a 2012 Washington Post op-ed. He urged his former colleagues to evolve before losing the power to legislate.

"I’d tell them there is research and then there is research," Dickey said. "And I would point to this little [highway barricade] fence and say that research has done some good."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Most people aren't even aware Congress defunded gun violence research. 

[Vas Deferens]

Sounds like legislation passed against hemp / marijuana studies many more years ago.  Complete lack of research in those fields have massively stunted medical and industrial progress.  

[*PhilHos*]

Of course we didn't money to research gun violence. We needed that money to study the consistency and speed at which both ketchup and catsup flow out of a glass bottle.

[Belsnickel]

Research is bad, mmkay? If the science is not supporting your side then you don't want it to be happening. Just the theme of politics. We can't let our politicians think they should be swayed by things like peer reviewed research. They must remain obstinate and unwavering from their positions.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 07:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Research is bad, mmkay? If the science is not supporting your side then you don't want it to be happening. Just the theme of politics. We can't let our politicians think they should be swayed by things like peer reviewed research. They must remain obstinate and unwavering from their positions.

Problem is it isnt even THEIR positions.  Its the positions dictated to them by lobbyist.  

Now THAT is private money at work.

[Blutarsky]

(10-06-2015, 07:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of course we didn't money to research gun violence. We needed that money to study the consistency and speed at which both ketchup and catsup flow out of a glass bottle.

I imagine the findings from either study would prove meaningless.

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2015, 08:26 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: I imagine the findings from either study would prove meaningless.

Not surprising.  Most of your arguments are based on things you imagine instead of research.

[*bfine32*]

Does that link say Huffington Post?

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that link say Huffington Post?

Yes it does.

Does that mean he never made these comments?

Guess some people can not handle the truth.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does.

Does that mean he never made these comments?

Guess some people can not handle the truth.

Perhaps and there's a good chance simple comments can be spun to supported a biased arguement. I just wanted to know if I wanted to waste my time reading it or not. I have decided against it and will not reference Huffington post in an attempt to gain the "truth".

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 11:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps and there's a good chance simple comments can be spun to supported a biased arguement. I just wanted to know if I wanted to waste my time reading it or not. I have decided against it and will not reference Huffington post in an attempt to gain the "truth".

Nothing sadder than people who refuse to even look at the other side of a discussion.  Pretty easy to convince yourself that you are always right when you only listen to people on your own side.

Classic example of living in an echo chamber.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2015, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing sadder than people who refuse to even look at the other side of a discussion.  Pretty easy to convince yourself that you are always right when you only listen to people on your own side.

Classic example of living in an echo chamber.

Oh, I listen to both sides. I also don't read the National Enquirer to do my UFO research.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Just wondering, what would this study accomplish if it was funded?

What I'm asking is, how would the findings of the research fix the problem?

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2015, 11:51 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Just wondering, what would this study accomplish if it was funded?

What I'm asking is, how would the findings of the research fix the problem?

I think that's going to be the rub here. It's a chicken and egg scenario. We don't know how or what it could have fixed without it being done, but people want to know what it could have done before they will see a need for reinstating it.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-07-2015, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that's going to be the rub here. It's a chicken and egg scenario. We don't know how or what it could have fixed without it being done, but people want to know what it could have done before they will see a need for reinstating it.

I can understand that. 

Maybe if independent researchers would start their research on their own dime then if it's promising then ask for government funding.

I don't know how this stuff works, just wondering.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2015, 12:04 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I can understand that. 

Maybe if independent researchers would start their research on their own dime then if it's promising then ask for government funding.

I don't know how this stuff works, just wondering.

Non-governmental funding for research like this comes from two primary sources, non-profit organizations and the industry about which the research is being done. Most non-profit organizations don't have the funds required to perform any substantial research on these sorts of things and so the resources aren't available. If the industry about which the research is being done is concerned that the findings may not be positive to them, they either won't fund the research or they will have it done quietly and hide the results. If the findings do benefit them, then there is the question of bias.

This is why the idea of government funded research is so important, because (in theory) the bias does not exist as it does with corporate funded research and there are more funds available than most non-profits can generate.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 12:04 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I can understand that. 

Maybe if independent researchers would start their research on their own dime then if it's promising then ask for government funding.

I don't know how this stuff works, just wondering.

The government funds research that helps promote the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens.  No one complains about the government funding research on other health and/or safety issues.  Don't know why they treat guns differently.

The exact same thing happened with the auto industry.  For years the auto industry said that they had no responsibility for safety because their cars were 100% safe and the only problem was poor drivers.  "Cars don't kill people.  Drivers kill people".  But finally the government got involved and millions of lives and billions of dollars have been saved by things like seat belts and safety glass.  The auto industry fought against both of those safety requirements.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The government funds research that helps promote the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens.  No one complains about the government funding research on other health and/or safety issues.  Don't know why they treat guns differently.

The exact same thing happened with the auto industry.  For years the auto industry said that they had no responsibility for safety because their cars were 100% safe and the only problem was poor drivers.  "Cars don't kill people.  Drivers kill people".  But finally the government got involved and millions of lives and billions of dollars have been saved by things like seat belts and safety glass.  The auto industry fought against both of those safety requirements.  

The problem I see with using the auto industry as a comparison is that those safety measures are intended primarily for the user of the vehicle to be protected. While there are things that happen that cause the accidental death of the handler of the firearm, or someone adjacent to them, the media whips up the gun control frenzy when someone kills someone else intentionally.

Seat belts, safety glass, airbags, these things don't stop someone with the intention to injure. They won't stop someone from taking their car and mowing down pedestrians on Main Street when they snap. This creates a disconnect and people aren't as likely to see a need when it is compared in that way.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2015, 01:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem I see with using the auto industry as a comparison is that those safety measures are intended primarily for the user of the vehicle to be protected. While there are things that happen that cause the accidental death of the handler of the firearm, or someone adjacent to them, the media whips up the gun control frenzy when someone kills someone else intentionally.

Seat belts, safety glass, airbags, these things don't stop someone with the intention to injure. They won't stop someone from taking their car and mowing down pedestrians on Main Street when they snap. This creates a disconnect and people aren't as likely to see a need when it is compared in that way.

I see your point.  To carry it a step farther the issues of "mass shootings" are completely different from "gun violence", and anytime somone suggest a step to help control "gun viloence" some will dismiss it just because it will not stop "mass shootings".

The huge number of gun deaths and injuries due to accidents should be enough to justify the research.