After the Tucson shootings, says the New York Times, questions resurfaced such as are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference? These and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.
“We've been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, ex-chief of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research. NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones. “Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.” The amount of money available for studying the impact of firearms is a small fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.