I say this because it's pretty clear that some people are still incapable of thinking past their 2012 talking points, such as this writer.

Recently, the Surgeon General published an advisory framing firearm violence as a public health crisis. If there is enough tragedy to develop an evidence base that informs life-saving policies, why can’t Congress adequately fund firearm research?

At the heart of this issue lies the Dickey Amendment, a 1996 budgetary provision that has severely limited the Department of Health’s ability to research gun violence and develop effective policy solutions for over two decades. In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a study that found having guns at home increased the risk of adverse outcomes like homicide. In response to unflattering press coverage, the National Rifle Association (NRA) attempted to completely dismantle the CDC’s Injury Center. Although their initial plan failed, the NRA successfully introduced restrictions on gun violence research through an appropriations bill introduced by Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Representative. The amendment prohibits the CDC from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”

...

Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, a professor of American Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, has witnessed the chilling effect of the Dickey Amendment firsthand.

“Public health nurses didn’t feel safe doing public health work in communities with high levels of divestment because people were shot so frequently,” recounted Webster. “It was hard to imagine how we could achieve reasonable public health and safety without addressing gun violence.” Despite never advocating for gun control, researchers found themselves walking on eggshells, afraid to jeopardize funding for entire centers focused on injury and violence prevention.

“They were trying to change behaviors and mediate conflicts nonviolently,” explained Webster. “The research didn’t focus on the role of guns, it asked if these programs were effective in reducing the number of people being shot.” Over the years, Webster’s attempts to discuss the role of guns have made CDC staffers uncomfortable. Nobody wants to jeopardize funding for an entire center focused on injury and violence.

Maybe because the issue wasn't guns in the first place, but people being shot?

See, Webster and the author are among the people who seem to think a couple of particular things. One is that if Congress isn't funding something, it's not being funded at all. That's false. Tons of gun research has been done over the decades since the Dickey Amendment passed, so even if it did what they said it did, it didn't stop the research.

Second, science isn't supposed to be advocacy. Webster is upset not because his research was limited but because he wasn't able to use this to push his own political position on guns. Guns, in and of themselves, aren't the problem. The problem is always with the people using the guns.

The author's premise is that the Dickey Amendment is why we have mass shootings, but it's all built upon this faulty idea that because Congress isn't throwing billions into research that will be manipulated into pushing gun control, we're powerless.

Why is there so little research looking at why mass shooters decide to kill people? There's a little, but why aren't we devoting more of our time and effort to looking there? Why aren't we studying why people become criminals or how to keep them out of gang culture? Where is the research looking at honor cultures like we find in inner cities and how to counter the idea that the only way to redeem one's honor in the face of an insult is to kill them?

The Dickey Amendment isn't stopping any of that, so it's time to stop the kvetching about it and move the hell on.