This past June, just after the Pulse Nightclub shooting, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., filibustered the old-fashioned way, speaking for 15 hours on the floor of the Senate in an attempt to force the issue of gun control to a vote. He got his wish, but two bills sponsored by Democrats were voted down, as well as two bills sponsored by Republicans.

The Democrats said the Republican bills were ineffectual but were accused of simply posturing and playing politics: setting up the Republicans so they can be accused of inaction in the next election. I don’t know who is right on this, but I was struck by the comments of several Republican senators on CNN:

Marco Rubio, R-Fla.: “There is no evidence that more gun control would prevent shootings.”

Mike Lee, R-Utah: There is an “absence of certain proof as to the efficacy of gun laws in the past.”

John McCain, R-Ariz., questioned if increased gun control would be the answer “that would have to be proved.”

You get the idea? These guys all want more information before they can make an intelligent decision. Seems reasonable. OK, so what is stopping them from getting more information? The answer to that is the Dickey Amendment of 1996.

The Dickey Amendment, which originated in the House, stated that “none of the funds available for injury prevention and control at the Center for Disease Control may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In 1995, the CDC spent $2.5 million on firearms research. Congress specifically redirected that amount to traumatic brain injury research to make the point clear: They wanted $0 spent on firearms research.

The Dickey Amendment didn’t just stop “anti-gun advocacy research” by the CDC; it stopped all firearm-related research.

So here is where we are: GOP senators would like more information but the CDC is prohibited by Congress from doing any research that might provide this additional information. Interesting.

Former Congressman Jay Dickey, R-Ariz., introduced the amendment as a result of National Rifle Association lobbying in response to a 1993 study funded by the CDC by Arthur Kellerman that found that guns in the home were associated with increased risk of homicide in the home.

In a July 27, 2012, op-ed published in the Washington Post (just after the Aurora, Colorado, shooting), Jay Dickey joined with Mark L. Rosenberg (former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) in saying that the CDC should be able to do research on gun violence. And he has since (Huffington Post, Oct. 6, 2015) said that he regrets his role in stopping the CDC from doing research on this subject: “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time.”

The American Psychological Association, Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all called for the repeal of this amendment.

The Huffington Post (Dec. 7, 2015) reported that the American Medical Association labeled our nation’s chronic gun violence to be a “public health crisis.”

Coincidently, also this past June, Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to a mental health bill in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would have authorized the CDC to offer grants for gun research. This proposal never made it out of committee.

At this point, I wondered what our Rep. Elise Stefanik thought about the idea of repealing the Dickey Amendment so we might be able to get the additional information our senators were asking for. I know she isn’t on the Energy Committee, but I called her office and talked to her representative, who said that since there was no bill up before the full House, she had no opinion on the subject. I pressed, “But what if she had the chance to vote for repeal? How would she vote?” After all, I pointed out, we are not talking about more gun control; we are talking about getting more information. Again, the same answer.

Finally, I went on the congresswoman’s website and filled out a form with this question. I specifically asked for a response, but none has been forthcoming.

I am trying to reach for some middle ground here. In this article I am not advocating for more gun control but for more research, so that the public can form opinions and our legislatures make decisions based on reliable data.

When we talk about gun deaths, some of my friends are quick to point out that about half of all gun deaths in this country are suicide, and they write these deaths off “because if they didn’t have a gun, they would simply take their life another way.” I wonder how they know this? Where is the research to back this up? I think that without the ready access to guns, we would have fewer suicides; they disagree. Can’t both sides agree that more research would provide a more definitive answer to this question? (OK, I admit it; I am far from being a science denier! I think that the best response to questions like this – and to suspect research, for that matter – is more research, or as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying, “In God we trust; all others bring data.”)

I think that asking for an opinion on the repeal of the Dickey Amendment is a legitimate question to ask my congresswoman and one that should warrant a pretty simple “yes” or “no” response, followed by a rationale for her answer. But our congresswoman has no opinion on this subject.

Ms. Stefanik is up for re-election this fall, and her Democratic opponent will by Mike Derrick. If you get the chance, could you ask them both this question? If either of them answers with what I would call a “non-answer,” could you or the next questioner follow up and push for a solid answer: yes or no and why (with the why being clear and supported by a convincing rationale)?

We seem to have a problem, and many of us are looking for answers. Surely more research would be the proper way to approach this.

—

Dave Staszak lives in Saranac Lake.