SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A row of firearms at the Fort Worth Gun Show in 2014. A report by the RAND Corporation released on Friday found that stricter gun control laws would doubtlessly cut down on violence, and urged Congress to fund more research on gun violence. (Photo: Russ/Flickr/cc)
What Does Research That NRA Doesn't Want Funded Show? That Gun Restrictions Save Lives
A new non-partisan study offers some of the most complete analysis of gun policies in decades—but the effort was frequently hamstrung by the NRA's stifling of gun control research
Mar 02, 2018
The non-partisan RAND Corporation's sweeping new analysis on gun policy in the U.S. reveals that gun violence would be reduced with stricter laws restricting access to firearms--but also stresses that efforts to complete research on the issue have often been stymied by a lack of resources, due to a funding freeze that was pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) decades ago.
Despite the lack of research to draw from, RAND's findings did point to the conclusion that laws to prevent children from accessing firearms can decrease suicides and unintentional injuries or deaths and that universal background checks would lead to a drop in suicides and violent crimes. Concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws--both backed by the NRA--were also found to increase violent crimes.
However, the group's two-year effort to understand the precise impact gun control policies--and lack thereof--have had on the safety of American communities, was frequently frustrating, as researchers "consistently found inadequate evidence for the likely effects of different gun policies on a wide range of outcomes," according to the study, entitled "Gun Policy in America."
The RAND Corporation points to a 1996 measure passed by Congress, known as the Dickey Amendment, which slashed $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) budget shortly after the agency published a study on the risks associated with having a gun in the home.
The funding cut was equal to what the CDC had been spending on firearm injuries research, and was the result of demands by the NRA, which saw the agency's study as "anti-gun" policy advocacy.
"I think that had an effect not just on government research but on all research," Avery Gardiner, co-founder of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I think potentially a whole generation of public health research has been affected by the Dickey Amendment."
"To improve understanding of the real effects of gun policies, Congress should consider lifting current restrictions in appropriations legislation, and the administration should invest in firearm research portfolios," concluded the RAND Corporation.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The non-partisan RAND Corporation's sweeping new analysis on gun policy in the U.S. reveals that gun violence would be reduced with stricter laws restricting access to firearms--but also stresses that efforts to complete research on the issue have often been stymied by a lack of resources, due to a funding freeze that was pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) decades ago.
Despite the lack of research to draw from, RAND's findings did point to the conclusion that laws to prevent children from accessing firearms can decrease suicides and unintentional injuries or deaths and that universal background checks would lead to a drop in suicides and violent crimes. Concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws--both backed by the NRA--were also found to increase violent crimes.
However, the group's two-year effort to understand the precise impact gun control policies--and lack thereof--have had on the safety of American communities, was frequently frustrating, as researchers "consistently found inadequate evidence for the likely effects of different gun policies on a wide range of outcomes," according to the study, entitled "Gun Policy in America."
The RAND Corporation points to a 1996 measure passed by Congress, known as the Dickey Amendment, which slashed $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) budget shortly after the agency published a study on the risks associated with having a gun in the home.
The funding cut was equal to what the CDC had been spending on firearm injuries research, and was the result of demands by the NRA, which saw the agency's study as "anti-gun" policy advocacy.
"I think that had an effect not just on government research but on all research," Avery Gardiner, co-founder of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I think potentially a whole generation of public health research has been affected by the Dickey Amendment."
"To improve understanding of the real effects of gun policies, Congress should consider lifting current restrictions in appropriations legislation, and the administration should invest in firearm research portfolios," concluded the RAND Corporation.
The non-partisan RAND Corporation's sweeping new analysis on gun policy in the U.S. reveals that gun violence would be reduced with stricter laws restricting access to firearms--but also stresses that efforts to complete research on the issue have often been stymied by a lack of resources, due to a funding freeze that was pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) decades ago.
Despite the lack of research to draw from, RAND's findings did point to the conclusion that laws to prevent children from accessing firearms can decrease suicides and unintentional injuries or deaths and that universal background checks would lead to a drop in suicides and violent crimes. Concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws--both backed by the NRA--were also found to increase violent crimes.
However, the group's two-year effort to understand the precise impact gun control policies--and lack thereof--have had on the safety of American communities, was frequently frustrating, as researchers "consistently found inadequate evidence for the likely effects of different gun policies on a wide range of outcomes," according to the study, entitled "Gun Policy in America."
The RAND Corporation points to a 1996 measure passed by Congress, known as the Dickey Amendment, which slashed $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) budget shortly after the agency published a study on the risks associated with having a gun in the home.
The funding cut was equal to what the CDC had been spending on firearm injuries research, and was the result of demands by the NRA, which saw the agency's study as "anti-gun" policy advocacy.
"I think that had an effect not just on government research but on all research," Avery Gardiner, co-founder of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I think potentially a whole generation of public health research has been affected by the Dickey Amendment."
"To improve understanding of the real effects of gun policies, Congress should consider lifting current restrictions in appropriations legislation, and the administration should invest in firearm research portfolios," concluded the RAND Corporation.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.