Opinion: US should research gun violence as a public health issue

America is stuck at a crossroads in its long, contentious relationship with firearms.

We have reached the point where we can continue down the same path of how guns are viewed and regulated at the national and at state levels — a path that includes occasional and incomprehensible mass shootings — or take another direction toward change.

The problem is we’re not sure what changes to make. As much as we talk about gun violence in this country, we don’t have enough information on how to prevent it.

Yes, we need to talk about it more. And yes, this is the time to talk about it.

The gun debate has roared back into the national consciousness in the wake of 17 murders at a high school in Parkland, Florida, by one deeply troubled young man. Teenagers who witnessed the tragedy are leading the call for immediate action to strengthen gun control.

At the same time, legislative efforts are underway in Colorado and elsewhere to loosen restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. There are renewed calls to stop designating schools as “gun-free zones.”

Before any of this happens, comprehensive scientific research into how to prevent injuries and death from guns must be conducted. Real studies are needed into the effectiveness of measures intended to reduce violence, such as waiting periods for gun purchases, mandatory weapon registration and allowing concealed carry without permits.

Such evidence and data are lacking. In 1996, Congress passed the so-called Dickey amendment that effectively shut down research into gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the Dickey amendment does not ban research on gun violence: It bans lobbying by the CDC and in turn other federal agencies for gun-control legislation. It was followed up by deep budget cuts in funding for research, no doubt fueled by concerns about what such research might find.

That needs to change at the national level. We can’t solve a problem if we don’t know its causes and study possible solutions.

There is a lot to study and talk about, including what roles mental health, the pervasiveness of violence in mass entertainment and the availability of guns and ammunition play into the frequency of mass shootings.

Gun violence needs to be treated like a public health issue. Horrific mass shootings are not the only symptom of this nexus of firearms and mental health crises such as suicide attempts and societal issues including domestic violence.

At the state level, we would support the establishment of a task force made up of experts in a variety of fields to look these issues and make recommendations to the Legislature and governor on how to reduce gun violence in Colorado.

The usual arguments from opposite sides of the gun debate sound empty after so many years of back-and-forth bickering.

Adding more guns to the mix — the idea that armed “good guys” can protect us from “bad guys” — falls apart when one envisions police arriving at the scene of a shootout and having to sort out who among the gun-bearers is “good” and who is “bad.”

Banning a particular weapon or a specific type of weapon — assault rifles, for example — immediately gets sticky over the definition of such weapons. At this point, with an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, it’s too late to make a difference in the number of firearms that are readily available to people in crisis by banning one type of gun.

Big problems require big discussions. It’s time to stop fighting and get talking. From there, we can find direction and take meaningful action.

This is the view of the Coloradoan editorial board, written this week by columnist Kevin Duggan. The board meets weekly to set the topic and direction of the Coloradoan's Sunday editorials. News reporters are not involved in the editorial board process.