Connect with us

Breaking News

Spending Deal Would End Two-Decade Freeze on Gun Research



smoking gun | Spending Deal Would End Two-Decade Freeze on Gun Research | Featured
Image via Shutterstock
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan deal on a government.

spending bill would for the first time in two decades provide money for federal research on gun safety. A law adopted in the 1990’s has effectively blocked such research and prohibits federal agencies from engaging in advocacy on gun-related issues.

The spending bill, set for a  vote as soon as Tuesday, would provide $25 million for gun violence research, divided evenly between the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

If approved by the  and Senate and signed by President Donald Trump, the proposed funding would be a major legislative victory for Democrats,  supporters and researchers who have pushed in recent years to study gun violence in the same way scientists look at opioid overdoses and other  crises.

“Nearly seven years to the day after we lost 20 beautiful children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary” in Newtown, Connecticut, “we are finally making progress in Congress to reduce gun violence,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman of the labor and health subcommittee of the  Appropriations panel.

The new funding for NIH and CDC “will help us better understand the correlation between domestic violence and gun violence, how Americans can more safely store guns and how we can intervene to reduce suicide by firearms,” DeLauro said.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who represented Newtown in the  when the 2012 shootings occurred, said the agreement shows “the power of the gun violence prevention movement is now unmistakable.”

The agreement follows approval of language last year clarifying that the so-called Dickey Amendment does not prohibit federal spending on gun research, as had been widely argued by gun rights supporters. The 1996 law, named after former Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, has been the focus of a  fight for more than two decades, and the CDC largely abandoned gun research in the wake of its passage.

Dickey, who died in 2017, argued in the years before his death that research on gun violence was needed.

“The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence,” Dickey argued in a 2012 op-ed in The Washington Post. The article was co-authored by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, a former CDC official who clashed with Dickey over gun laws. The one-time  opponents later became close friends and allies.

 supporters hailed the agreement on gun-research funding as an important breakthrough.

The announcement “is a huge victory in our nation’s commitment to addressing and solving the gun violence epidemic,” said Christian Heyne, vice president of the Brady gun safety group.

“Students graduating from college this spring have never lived in a United States where the federal  studied this issue. That ends today,” Heyne said. The National Rifle Association pushed for the 1996 Dickey law but maintains it does not oppose gun research. Instead the group says it opposes research that is biased, flimsy or aimed at advocacy.

Continue Reading


  • Dan O says:

    Far be it for me to ever suggest that an HONEST study of an issue is not worth it. However, the key word there is “HONEST” and not politically or emotionally biased or motivated. I would like to think that the CDC would be just that, politically neutral and scientifically based but my current lack of faith in the honesty of Government and their administrative agencies prohibits me from believing that.
    I think for me, I will be looking for Professor John Lott’s review of the study and its methodologies. It would be great if the CDC worked closely with the CPRC in the conducting of this research. Doing so would (at least for me) significantly boost my faith in its contents (assuming that the CPRC reports that they support the findings.) . Do I think the progressive liberal “DEEP STATE” extends into the CDC and NIH? Yes, Yes I do. So, anything they report will be taken with a grain of salt until pier reviewed and endorsed by the CPRC.

    • GomeznSA says:

      Dan – I pretty much agree with your ‘wait and see’ commentary. I will also point out that the proponents of the study as described are going to use it as a vehicle to ‘prove’ that “gun violence” is a plague upon the land. The use of that bogus term is a clear indicator of what the end goal is – further restrictions of the RKBA. Period.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Will You Vote For President Trump
Everstryke Match Ad

Copyright © 2022 Breaking News Alerts. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.