Gun control groups seem to have plenty of money, at least so far as advocacy goes. They've got deep pockets and have outspent gun rights groups in several recent elections. Of course, their politicians aren't bought and paid for. No sir, they're just as pure as the driven snow. It's the other side that's bought and paid for, donchaknow?
But for research, there's an issue. Their pockets aren't quite deep enough to pay for all the "gun research" they want, which means things like federal grants. That presents a problem.
As most of us are aware, DOGE has been on a bit of a rampage--and I mean that in the best way possible, because I've been absolutely giddy to watch it, myself. Among the many casualties has been grants for so-called gun research, but more accurately called "anti-gun research."
And now, the anti-gun crowd is freaking out.
Gun-control advocates have long relied on federal funding to push studies that frame firearms as a “public-health crisis” rather than part of a constitutional right. In the absence of a steady government cash flow, many gun-control groups fear that their ability to influence public opinion and policy will weaken.
So-called gun-policy researcher Garen Wintemute expressed concern that young scholars without federal funding might have difficulty building careers in the field. At a recent gathering of like-minded “gun-research” academics, he acknowledged that funding cuts could hinder their ability to continue producing research that bolsters gun-control arguments. This reaction underscores this movement’s reliance on government assistance to sustain its efforts.
The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety also conveyed alarm about the potential loss of research funding. Their official statement argues that federal research on violence with guns has been stifled for decades due to political opposition. They claim that this research is essential to developing policies that could save lives, but critics argue that such research has all been used to justify sweeping gun-control measures that infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
...
Ultimately, the panic among gun-control advocates over the loss of federal funding reveals a fundamental truth: their movement has been propped up by government dollars rather than genuine public demand. If their research were truly objective and compelling, it would find independent financial support rather than relying on taxpayer subsidies. The Biden administration’s use of federal funds to advance a political agenda was always controversial, and its reversal under Trump is a welcome shift toward respecting constitutional rights.
The above-linked post also delves into the CDC response to the Dickey Amendment, which is something I've talked about previously. The amendment didn't explicitly prohibit funding for gun research, only gun control advocacy. The fact that it seemingly halted funding for the research was really a result of the CDC knowing damn good and well what was going on.
Gun research is never gun research. It's all about advancing gun control and it's almost never about the behaviors behind the actions. It's performed by people with an axe to grind.
Now, with the Trump administration in place, that gravy train has pulled into the station for the last time in a while, if not for good. That's got them freaking out because they need that money. The US government has deeper pockets than anyone else, which means it can fund more of this "research" than anyone else.
Without that money, gun control groups are going to have to scramble to find "research" that supports their efforts. Of course, we've seen the problems with this so-called research, such as cherry-picking data, faulty methodology, and a general desire to bend over backwards to get the results they want.
Personally, I'm enjoying watching them squirm.
Let's hope Congress steps up to make sure it's perpetual.
