Twenty years ago, one of us was director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, supporting research to build an evidence base to advance the science of gun-violence prevention.
The other was a Republican representative from Arkansas determined to dismantle that effort because conservatives had concluded that it was aimed at gun control and not gun violence.
Ultimately, the House voted to insert language into the CDC’s appropriations bill that succeeded in prompting the CDC to bring gun-violence research to a halt.
The law stated that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
Never miss a local story.
One of us subsequently was fired because of his commitment to gun-violence prevention research.
The other saw the CDC’s abandonment of its commitment to this research as a successful effort to protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
When we met at a congressional appropriations hearing in 1996, we fiercely opposed each other’s positions.
But over years of communicating, we came to see that, while we had differences, we also shared values.
We both belong to the National Rifle Association, and we both believe in the Second Amendment.
We have also come to see that gun-violence research can be created, organized and conducted with two objectives: first, to preserve the rights of law-abiding citizens and legal gun owners and, second, to make our homes and communities safer.
Well-structured research can be conducted to develop technologies and identify ways to achieve both objectives. We can get there only through research.
Our nation does not have to choose between reducing gun-violence injuries and safeguarding gun ownership.
Indeed, scientific research helped reduce the motor vehicle death rate in the United States and save hundreds of thousands of lives — all without getting rid of cars.
For example, research led to the development of simple four-foot barricades dividing oncoming traffic that are preventing injuries and saving many lives.
We can do the same with respect to firearm-related deaths, reducing their numbers while preserving the rights of gun owners.
If we are to be successful, those of us on opposite sides of this issue will have to do a better job of respecting, understanding and working with each other.
In the area of firearms injuries, collaboration has a special meaning.
It will require real partnership on the design of the research we do because while we often hear about “common-sense gun laws,” common sense is not enough to both keep us safe and to protect the Second Amendment.
There is urgency to our task. Both of us now believe strongly that federal funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased.
But the language accompanying this appropriation should mirror the language already in the law: “No funds shall be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
This prohibition can help to reassure supporters of the Second Amendment that the CDC will use the money for important research and not for gun-control advocacy.
However, it is also important for all to understand that this wording does not constitute an outright ban on federal gun-violence prevention research.
It is crucial that the appropriation contain enough money to let science thrive and help us determine what works.
Both sides, gun rights advocates and gun-control advocates, need to give quite a bit to get to the heart of this problem.
If we yield to fatalism and say nothing will work, we will continue to watch the problem of gun violence grow and grow.
We can’t afford to not even try. We have too much riding on this — all of us do.
Jay Dickey, a Republican, represented Arkansas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2000. Mark Rosenberg, president and chief executive of the Task Force for Global Health, was director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1994 to 1999.