An article in the Yale Daily News described the supposed threat to efforts to reduce gun violence, especially in communities most affected by the problem.

Federal funding for research into gun-related crimes was originally cut off in 1997 after the Dickey Amendment was passed. The measure prohibited the government from funding research aimed at promoting more restrictions on firearms. The restriction expired in 2019, which allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to resume the funding, albeit under tighter constraints.

“You could still talk about it, you could use their money, as long as the research didn’t call for gun control or gun reform,” said Dr. Linda Degutis, a public health lecturer at Yale.

Dr. Guangyu Tong claimed that “Traditionally, firearm research has relied on the expertise and funding within injury epidemiology to assess trends, identify high-risk groups, and develop preventative measures.”

The article explained that the CDC decided against funding gun reform research “due to fear of retaliation from Congress.”

The House Appropriations Subcommittee’s recent budget proposal is set to do away with federal funding for research that labels gun violence as a public health issue. Researchers argue that such a move would hamper efforts to reduce gun-related injuries.

Cutting this funding could prevent the CDC to weigh in on gun-related violence. “The CDC wouldn’t be able to comment on gun injury prevention, as it wouldn’t be considered a public health problem,” said Daniele Poole, director of research at the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab.

She argued that without this funding, the agency would not be able to make recommendations to states on how to address gun violence and they “would have to find money to fund their research on their own.”

Naturally, those concerned about the cutting of funding engaged in the usual fearmongering. One of the supposed experts claimed “the rates of firearm injuries are just going to stay stagnant and maybe even increase, and we’re not going to make the great gains that we saw with motor vehicle crashes and reducing injuries and deaths from motor vehicle crashes.”

Here’s the thing: If the funding were truly going toward understanding the root causes that lead to increased gun violence, it would not be a problem. After all, if the government’s role is to protect our rights, then understanding the best ways to protect citizens from violent criminals would be a no-brainer. There have been several initiatives aimed at forming strategies intended to stop violent criminals from victimizing law-abiding folks.

However, supporting this type of funding would require more trust in government that many Americans, including myself, are willing to give. The state has shown that it is untrustworthy when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment rights – along with the others outlined in the Bill of Rights.

This funding would almost certainly go toward pushing gun control, which is a no-go for folks like me. The United States already has oodles of anti-gunner organizations doing this type of research aimed at persuading the public to give up their right to keep and bear arms – we don’t need the state adding to the problem.

The same holds true for the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the agency created by the Biden-Harris ostensibly to seek out ways to deal with gun violence. Again, we already know why the administration formed this agency – to push gun control. This White House has been one of the most hostile to gun rights in recent memory, and it is far from ironic that Vice President Kamala Harris is the one heading it up.

In the end, reducing gun violence means allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves without onerous restrictions making it harder for people to obtain and carry firearms. It also requires actual research into the root causes that lead to violent crime, an issue Democrats continually claim they care about even though they do very little to address the problem.