Biden panel pushes for gun research funds
Published 10:10 pm, Monday, January 14, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Among the gun policy recommendations likely to be on President Barack Obama's desk is one that hardly seems controversial: government funding for research on gun policy effectiveness -- which provisions work and which ones don't.
But gun research became a contentious topic in the 1990s after the National Rifle Association lobbied successfully to strip the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of all funding for projects "used to advocate or promote gun control."
Now, in the wake of the Newtown school shootings, academic researchers and gun control advocates say they see fact-based research falling victim again to the NRA's prowess on Capitol Hill.
"It is so important that research be part of any package put forward (by the White House)," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention at the time Congress defunded gun research in 1996. "Knowing what works is so important, and we don't yet have the answers."
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence included restoration of research money on its list of recommendations to the White House task force on guns, headed by Vice President Joe Biden.
Biden himself last week signaled gun research is high on his priority list, saying it could lead to reduced gunfire deaths in much the same way that federally funded traffic-safety research led to a dramatic drop in highway deaths.
At present, the government is barred from gathering "information about what kind of weapons are used most to kill people. How many weapons used are trafficked weapons? Are weapons used in gang warfare in our major cities legally purchased or are they purchased through straw men?" Biden asked.
"We don't have that information. And the irony is, we are prohibited under laws and appropriations bills from acquiring it," he said.
The Biden panel's recommendations are under review by Obama, who said Monday he would put forward a plan later this week.
In addition to research, the plan is likely to include expanded background checks for all gun purchasers, limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and perhaps, what Obama termed a "meaningful" assault weapons ban.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will introduce such a ban whether the White House endorses it or not.
Government gun-related research in the 1990s fell into the NRA's cross hairs after a 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who kept guns in their homes were more than twice as likely to be homicide victims as those who didn't.
The 1993 study's finding was a direct shot at an important facet of the NRA's belief structure: Guns in homes aid in self-protection.
With the help of Republican lawmakers then in control of both House and Senate, the CDC's appropriations in 1996 were cut by $2.6 million, the amount the agency had spent on gun research the previous year. Congress stipulated no further government funds were to be expended on research aimed at fostering gun control.
Gun-rights advocates insist the bar is aimed only at research conducted to bolster conclusions that gun ownership is harmful.
"Nobody has ever said that research can't go forward," said David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Denver and an NRA member. "The CDC can publish research showing that junk food makes people fat, but they can't advocate for bans on junk food."
Kopel said he had no expectation that lifting the research ban now would produce anything but results favorable to gun control.
"Under the current administration, which has heavily politicized government research in other areas, there is absolutely no reason to believe that gun research would not be politicized," he said.
But Rosenberg said the NRA and its congressional allies have intentionally misrepresented the thrust of research for their own political ends.
"The CDC was conducting scientific research of the highest caliber, and I hoped that it might lead to changes in public attitudes," Rosenberg said. "A more respectful attitude that views guns as dangerous and potentially lethal weapons -- and not as cool, sexy, and macho glamour symbols -- would help to promote public safety."
Rosenberg compared the need for research on guns as a logical extension of past governmental research efforts such as the one on cancer.
"We wouldn't dream of stopping research on cancer, even with the advances of drugs (in fighting cancer)," he said. "People would be up in arms. So it's just as important for people to recognize that (guns are) a life-and-death area, and we need research just as badly."