Helen Farnham

4 May 2024

Gun control continues to be a major public safety crisis in America, with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recording more than 48,000 firearm-related deaths in 2022. Firearm injuries are one of the leading causes of premature death in the United States and the leading cause of death for children and teens specifically [1]. 

Despite the increased attention placed on this issue in the public consciousness over the past several years, there have been few effective policies enacted to curb the spread of violence. On the surface, this seems to result from the typical partisan argument over the right to own guns that almost invariably consumes the public debate over ways to curb gun violence. After every mass shooting or highly publicized death due to gun violence, this tense debate flares up yet again, then often seems to die down until the next tragedy occurs, without meaningful action taken. However, this partisan gridlock is neither the only nor even the main reason that more has not been done to alleviate this issue.

Rather than going through the same heated, often circular arguments, it may be beneficial to observe this argument differently—through the lens of both the policy decisions that have impacted the rate of firearm violence in the United States and evidence-based research. 

One of the major yet little-known reasons that so few substantial policies have been put in place to reduce gun violence is the massive lack of research towards understanding the causes and solutions to this epidemic. According to researchers at Yale, gun violence research has received the least money in federal funding out of all the other top leading causes of death, despite having steadily grown in the past few decades (2). The Dickey Amendment, which was created by National Rifle Association (NRA) representatives, has greatly restricted the government’s ability to use federal funding towards gun violence research [2].

Passed in 1996 after heavy lobbying from the National Rifle Association, this amendment prohibited the CDC from using any funds to promote gun control, which in turn successfully stifled the majority of the federal agencies’ efforts into researching solutions to gun violence [3]. The impact was staggering: in 2017, a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study, which is a peer reviewed, reputable journal, found that out of the leading causes of death in the United States, gun violence was subjected to the least research [4]. In 2011, this amendment was interpreted to extend to the National Institute of Health (NIH) as well, further reducing government agencies’ ability to combat the gun violence crisis [5]. 

In the roughly twenty years during which there was very little government research, there were some independent organizations that continued research efforts, such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Although independent research into firearm risks still occurred during this time, it was at a relatively small volume in comparison to the massive research capacity of other public safety crises, like car accidents and other top threats to the health of Americans.

However, more recent interpretations of the Dickey amendment have clarified that it does not prohibit research into firearm death prevention. In 2013, then President Barack Obama clarified that the amendment does not infringe on federal agencies’ ability to research the causes of firearm violence. However, even after this presidential memorandum, Congress continued to restrict the funds available to these agencies for several years [6]. It wasn’t until 2020 that Congress reappropriated funding towards this field, effectively bringing about a new wave of research into this issue. 

As a result, in the past few years, Congress has reappropriated funding to the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fill this research gap. According to Yale researchers, between 2020 and 2022, Congress appropriated $49 million to the CDC and $100.5 million to the NIH specifically for firearm death prevention research [7]. 

Already, new studies are providing important results. A 2020 study found that states with laws favoring gun ownership overall had a higher frequency of mass shootings, and that “a 10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a 35.1% higher rate of mass shooting incidents” [8]. Furthermore, states like California that have implemented more strict gun control legislation and taken actions like banning open carry were found to have a reduction in firearm-related fatalities and hospitalizations [9]. These results suggest that gun control restrictions are effective in curbing violence and could have a positive impact if implemented in more areas of the country. 

A 2016 study published in the journal The Lancet analyzed the impact of numerous different policies relating to firearm access and the prevention of gun violence. This cross-sectional study found that the legislation correlated to the largest reduction in firearm mortality included universal background checks, ammunition background checks, and a requirement of identification to purchase firearms [10] . While this may be surprising to some, the study also found that assault weapons bans and restrictions, “Stand Your Ground” policies, and caps on the number of firearms that can be purchased were associated with an increased risk of firearm-related deaths [11]. These results only provide potential correlation—which is not equivalent to causation—between different policies and firearm policies. Further research is surely necessary to confirm these potential associations, but these findings can still be a helpful guide in choosing which policies have the greatest potential for being effective, and which need further study to prove or disprove observations made. It is incredibly beneficial for policymakers and the American public to understand what policies are most successful in reducing rates of gun violence.  

Another study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine defined the root causes of gun violence through a simple equation: “access to firearms + violent or aggressive behavioral tendencies or risk factors + psychiatric disease or mental illness causing a defect of reason and impaired judgment = gun related injuries” [12]. This suggests that a variety of measures may be needed to effectively reduce firearm-related violence, including potentially adding more limits to firearm access and improving mental and psychiatric resources. Recognizing and thoroughly investigating each of these facets of risk factors for gun violence is incredibly important as policymakers seek to implement legislation that is effective at reducing firearm-related injuries and fatalities. 

These more recent studies have provided important data, both on who is most at risk of committing acts of violence using firearms, as well as what policies are most successful in reducing the rate of violence. However, continued research is crucial in continuing to combat this crisis. For example, many studies focus solely on firearm deaths, excluding many people who were wounded; injury prevention, as well as the prevention of deaths, is very important. Furthermore, continued research on whether increased access to mental health resources and support can help prevent people from committing violence (whether it be homicide, suicide, or accidental) with firearms will also be incredibly beneficial in addressing this crisis. 

Gun violence is a very real and dire crisis in America, but there is work being done to find solutions. Recent reallocations of government spending towards preventative research are opening up avenues for increased research efforts into the causes of gun violence and effective prevention methods, which in turn can provide policymakers with the evidence needed to implement further life-saving policies. It is essential that as the results of firearm violence studies continue to be published, policy-makers look beyond partisan culture wars in order to create and implement policies proven to be effective in curbing gun violence. 

---

Image via Pexels Free Photos.

Works Cited

[1] “Fast Facts: Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention | Violence Prevention.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 Sept. 2023, www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html.

[2] Poitras, Colin. “Lifting of Federal Funding Ban Tied to Increase in Gun Violence Research.” Yale School of Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, 7 Feb. 2024, ysph.yale.edu/news-article/lifting-of-federal-funding-ban-tied-to-increase-in-gun-violence-research/#:~:text=(d)%20In%202018%2C%20a,for%20firearm%20injury%20prevention%20research.

[3] Spolar, Christine. “Meet the Public Health Researchers Trying to Rein in America’s Gun Violence Crisis.” NPR, NPR, 6 Mar. 2024, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235409642/gun-violence-prevention-research-public-health.

[4] Stark, David E., and Nigam H. Shah. “Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death.” JAMA, vol. 317, no. 1, 3 Jan. 2017, pp. 84–85, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.16215.

[5] Betz, Marian E et al. “Frozen Funding on Firearm Research: “Doing Nothing Is No Longer an Acceptable Solution”.” The western journal of emergency medicine vol. 17,1 (2016): 91-3. doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.1.29767

[6] Sanchez, Carol, et al. “A Systematic Review of the Causes and Prevention Strategies in Reducing Gun Violence in the United States.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 38, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2169–2178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.06.062.

[7] Poitras, Colin. “Lifting of Federal Funding Ban Tied to Increase in Gun Violence Research.” Yale School of Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, 7 Feb. 2024, ysph.yale.edu/news-article/lifting-of-federal-funding-ban-tied-to-increase-in-gun-violence-research/#:~:text=(d)%20In%202018%2C%20a,for%20firearm%20injury%20prevention%20research.

[8] Sanchez, Carol, et al. “A Systematic Review of the Causes and Prevention Strategies in Reducing Gun Violence in the United States.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 38, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2169–2178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.06.062.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Kalesan, Bindu, et al. “Firearm Legislation and Firearm Mortality in the USA: A Cross-Sectional, State-Level Study.” The Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10030, 30 Apr. 2016, pp. 1847–1855, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01026-0.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Sanchez, Carol, et al. “A Systematic Review of the Causes and Prevention Strategies in Reducing Gun Violence in the United States.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 38, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2169–2178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.06.062.