Living In Hindsight: The Effects of the Dickey Amendment on Practical Policing and School Shootings in the United States since 1997
Esbeidy Torres Ibarra
Lone Star College
Abstract
This study investigates the 1996 Dickey Amendment with an aim to evaluate its effects on law
enforcement’s access to evidence-based gun research alongside police efforts to predict and
prevent school shootings in the United States. A provision to the 1997 Appropriations Bill, the
Dickey Amendment restricts the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from
allocating funds to advocate or promote gun control. This research is based on a critical analysis
of criminology journals and privately supported research since 1998, focusing on contemporary
gun violence scholarship by Dewey Cornell, Peter Langman, and Adam Lankford. This study
examines the impact of the limitations imposed by Dickey on practical policing strategies, such
as school shooter profiles, school threat assessments, armed campus-based security, and campus
carry policies. Limited access to evidence-based research contributed to an overreliance on
profiling to identify and isolate threats, potentially criminalizing otherwise minor disciplinary
issues. Scholars argue that preventive strategies reduce the inherent inefficiency of predictive
methods, thus identifying and diffusing potential threats while mitigating racial and ethnic
disparities in discipline. The broad interpretations of the Dickey Amendment have discouraged
academic discussions with law enforcement regarding campus security matters. Further research
is necessary to supplement the conclusions of this timely discussion. For example, scholars can
expand on contemporary research on the social effects of appropriations-based limitations like
Dickey and Tiahrt Amendments and their impacts on evidence-based safety measures.
On May 24, 2022, nineteen students and two teachers lost their lives during the Robb
Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The shooting came almost ten years following a
startlingly similar tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. The shooting attracted nationwide
attention, with activists holding legislators and law enforcement accountable for the death of
innocents. In response to the political uproar, the Texas House of Representatives organized an
Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting. In their report to the 88th Texas
Legislature, the committee issued a series of conclusions regarding the tragic event. First, the
school used mobile rather than intercom lockdown alerts, and poor wi-fi connectivity robbed
teachers of a timely evacuation.(1) Second, the elementary had a history of safety non-compliance,
allowing the shooter to effortlessly enter from an unlocked door. (2) Concerning firearms, existing
regulations did not require the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
to notify local law enforcement of the attacker’s most recent purchases: two AR-15 style rifles,
60 magazines, and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
(3). Following the Robb Elementary shooting, many blame gun availability for the prevalence
of school shootings in the United States, but some redirected their frustration to law enforcement.
A lack of police presence on campus and unreliable leadership on behalf of Chief Pete
Arredondo contributed to the uproar in the Uvalde community, as some of the victims may have
survived had it not taken an additional seventy-three minutes for law enforcement to breach the
classrooms.(4) Chief Arredondo failed to assume command over the Border Patrol Tactical Unit
(BORTAC), so the team began acting independently of the local law enforcement on the scene.
In the end, the federal agency, which had access to the same information as Chief Arredondo,
managed to breach the classrooms and mitigate injuries. (5) As with every school shooting, the
tragedy at Robb Elementary sparked a new debate between those who are pro-gun control and
pro-Second Amendment. However, the incident also exemplifies the importance of evaluating
whether law enforcement agencies have the resources to predict and prevent mass shootings,
particularly in schools.Few scholars would deny the impact of gun violence on public health nor the
unprecedented prevalence of gun violence in the United States compared to other highly
industrialized countries. The United States is one of thirty-eight member countries in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental
organization composed of high-income economies committed to promoting democracy and
world trade. Despite their similarities in economic and technological advancement, the U.S. still
experiences firearm death rates ten times higher, firearm suicide rates eight times higher, and
firearm homicide rates twenty-five times higher than most countries in the OECD.(6) For context,
the United States faces an estimated 30,000 firearm violence deaths and over $45 billion in
medical damages every single year, with these estimates failing to account for the physical,
social, and emotional tolls invoked by these losses. (7) Although research suggests a positive
relationship between increased gun ownership and more firearm-related homicides and suicides,
school shootings are rare.(8) Likewise, mass shootings occur ten times more frequently outside
than inside schools. (9) School shootings may be a rare occurrence, but their prevalence in the
United States compared to the rest of the world is a case of American exceptionalism.(10)
Brooke Miller Gialopsos and her team developed a causal pie to illustrate the distinct
factors that may produce mass shootings. Although mass casualty events occur under unique
circumstances, the average mass shooter will have homicidal intent, experience a personal and
mental health crisis, be socially marginalized in some way, and have access to a gun. (11) A
combination of the causal pie and Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson’s Routine Activity
Theory (RAT) can help explain why school shootings have become a primarily American issue.
Mass shootings are more likely to occur when there are motivated offenders, suitable targets, and
the absence of guardians, handlers, and/or managers—parents, school administrators, and
teachers, respectively. (12) Even though all these factors are present around the world, super
controllers contribute to this idea of American exceptionalism. Super controllers are the elements
that directly impact controllers—guardians, handlers, managers—and indirectly influence
targets, offenders, and places. (13) The United States differs from European models in its emphasis
on exclusionary, zero tolerance policies, thus further isolating potential threats.(14) Likewise, an
oversaturation of firearms, limited access to affordable mental health services, and political
disagreements surrounding gun legislation further exasperate this issue of mass shootings,
particularly school shootings, in the United States.
(15) The 1999 Columbine High School Shooting resulted in what Stanley Cohen famously
called a “moral panic,” which is when “[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons
emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” (16) Although scholars
consider the 1966 University of Texas at Austin Tower Shooting to be the first modern school
shooting in the U.S., it did not garner as much media attention as Columbine. (17) The mass media
exposure surrounding the Columbine shooting placed the United States on edge concerning
safety in schools and gun control regardless of the actual frequency of these mass casualty
events. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Santa Fe, and Robb Elementary. (18) All
these names bring forth a flurry of sensationalized headlines to the American consciousness, with
each tragedy pushing Americans to demand the implementation of numerous safety measures in
schools across the country, such as increased surveillance, school resource officers (SROs),
stricter access control measures, and metal detectors.
(19) Several scholars have found social, economic, and political explanations for the
prevalence of school shootings in the United States. Likewise, the American Journal of Public
Health has drawn attention to the implications of limited evidence-based gun research on
American schools and their ability to prevent shootings. However, few have attempted to
understand the effects of such research on law enforcement despite their active engagement with
shooters and liability in the aftermath of these mass casualty events. As a result, this study
investigates the 1996 Dickey Amendment with an aim to evaluate its effects on law
enforcement’s access to evidence-based gun research alongside police efforts to predict and
prevent school shootings in the United States. This research is based on a critical analysis of
criminology journals and privately supported research since 1998, focusing on contemporary gun
violence scholarship by Dewey Cornell, Peter Langman, and Adam Lankford. This study
examines the impact of the limitations imposed by Dickey on practical policing strategies, such
as school shooter profiles, school threat assessments, armed campus-based security, and campus
carry policies. Based on this analysis, the current study challenges the practicality of the Dickey
Amendment since limited access to evidence-based research contributed to an overreliance on
profiling to identify and isolate threats, hindering law enforcement’s ability to combat mass
shootings at large. ​​​​​​​
Guns in the United States
Writing just two years after the Gun Control Act of 1968, American historian Richard
Hofstadter criticized the United States’ inability to regulate firearms despite its status as a
modern industrial urban nation and record firearm fatalities. The Act followed the assassinations
of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., thus imposing stricter gun
licensing and regulations, establishing new firearm offenses, and prohibiting the sale of firearms
and ammunition to felons. (20) Effective February 28, 1996, the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act established a temporary five business day waiting period for purchasing a firearm
until the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) in 1998. (21) The Brady Act followed the attempted
assassination of Ronald Reagan, which resulted in the death of White House Press Secretary
James Brady. The NRA opposed the temporary waiting period, arguing it burdened law
enforcement by requiring them to conduct these background checks without providing federal
funding. (22) Instead, the NRA favored utilizing instantaneous point-of-purchase background
checks at a national scale, as they had supported state-level initiatives implemented in Virginia,
Florida, Wisconsin, Delaware, and Illinois.
(23) In 1963 alone, the U.S. experienced 5,126 gun murders while England, Wales, and
Scotland saw only 27 combined.(24) Even domestically, states with the weakest gun laws
experience the highest homicide rates. Writing in the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas
Shooting, one scholar proclaimed that “[g]uns may be the vehicles used to carry out these acts,
but they are not the impetus. The impetus is cultural.” (25) Jumping to the present, some scholars
argue that increased gun ownership coincides with the rise in mass shootings, but the reverse
could also be true. Modern Americans are now more likely to purchase guns because of their fear
of mass shootings.(26) The prevalence of firearms in the United States set the stage for modern
discussions on American gun culture, with contemporary scholars using models such as RAT to
try and make sense of why mass shootings overwhelmingly occur in the United States.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
America's School Shooter Problem
Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor with a concentration on mass shootings,
builds on the work of Hofstadter to better understand the American mass shooter problem. Prior
research suggests that most American shooters purchased their firearms legally, with the U.S.
having among the highest firearm ownership rates in the world.(27) Utilizing data retrieved from
the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and FBI public records, Lankford determined
that only five out of one hundred seventy-one countries had mass shooter rates in the double
digits: United States (90), the Philippines (18), Russia (15), Yemen (11), and France (10).(28)
Second, Lankford found a statistically significant relationship between national firearm
ownership rates and number of public mass shooters per country and between homicide and
suicide rates.(29) The results from this study are concurrent with prior ratings, as the top five
countries in firearm ownership—namely, the United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and
Serbia—also ranked highly in public mass shooters per capita.(30) However, the United States is
undoubtedly the global leader in firearm ownership and public mass shootings.
An explanation for the high prevalence of mass shooters in the U.S. may be the value of
fame among younger generations. Mass shootings generate “digital waves,” with sensationalized
headlines and hashtags quickly finding their way through the internet, especially after the
glamorization of the Columbine shooters.(31) The internet, particularly social media, provides law
enforcement with an opportunity to understand potential threats, particularly those who share
their motivations for violence online. However, survey data suggests that Millennials and
Generation Z have an increased and unique desire for fame, attention, and celebrity status, with
the line between fame and infamy slowly fading.(32) Lankford further argued that fame-seeking
perpetrators—such as the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook shooters—average twice as many
victims as those with different motivations.(33) Empirical research suggests a positive relationship
between the number of victims and levels of media attention. One study determined that higher
victim kills equal more pictures and articles about the perpetrator, extended media attention, and
longer articles.(34) Further, perpetrators seeking fame may inspire a copycat effect, thus leading to
the occurrence of other mass casualty events.​​​​​​​​​ (35)
The 1996 Dickey Amendment
Guns are the most common weapon utilized during mass casualty events, thus making
them a target of policy actions as early as the twentieth century.(36) In 1993, the New England
Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article that attributed the presence of a firearm at
home to an increased risk of homicide.(37) Spearheaded by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.,
the publication utilized medical examinations, police reports, and interview data from three
counties to determine the association between a series of potential risk factors and the risk of
homicide in a home.(38) Despite the practicality of the research focus, the inadequate framing of
the results created questions regarding the validity of its claims. Kellermann associated illicit
drug use and a history of violence with an increased risk of homicide, claiming that owning a
gun for personal protection purposes is counterproductive since 49.8% of victims died from
gunshot wounds. (39) The study did not find evidence suggesting a protective value of firearm
ownership but fails to explain how it derived this conclusion. Further, the investigation
exclusively focused on homicides occurring within a victim’s home, so it does not account for
individuals killed by a nonresident intruder. (40) The research is also not nationally representative.
Kellermann selected the three counties since they were the most populous in their respective
states. However, the researchers did not defend establishing Tennessee, Washington, and Ohio as
the case studies.Given the gaps and oversimplification of the research, the NRA disagreed with the NEJM
publication and called for the defunding of the sponsoring organization, namely the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention.(41) As such,
Congressman Jay Dickey (R-AR) introduced a provision to the 1997 Appropriations Bill,
declaring that “[n]one of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (42)
When asked about the Amendment, Rep. Dickey stated it “display[ed] an emotional antigun
agenda” amounting to inappropriate “federally funded political advocacy.” (43) Congress redirected
$2.6 million in funding once allocated for studying gun violence and redirected it for the study of
traumatic brain injury.
(44) Even though the Dickey Amendment did not prevent the CDC from
researching guns, the organization decided to be overly cautious and seize all funding for firearm
violence research.(45)The Dickey Amendment is only one firearm-related appropriation rider. In 2003,
Congress introduced the Tiahrt Amendments to the appropriations bill for the ATF and the FBI.
The amendments prevent the National Trace Center for the ATF from disclosing firearm-related
records, multiple handgun sale reports, and firearm sale information to anyone except law
enforcement or for national security purposes.(46) However, the provision prohibits the ATF from
requiring gun dealers to forward gun inventories to law enforcement.(47) Further, the FBI must
destroy all records for approved firearm purchases within 24 hours.(48) Congress must include the
Dickey Amendment in annual appropriation bills, as it does not renew automatically. By contrast,
the Tiahrt Amendments are permanent restrictions on the ATF and FBI. The National Rifle
Association Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) works to strengthen the Second
Amendment, and they have continuously succeeded in protecting the Dickey and Tiahrt
Amendments.(49) The NRA-ILA has also successfully lobbied for the removal of “extreme gun
control measures”—such as ghost gun bans, red flag laws, and buyback proposals—funded by
American tax dollars.(50) ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Gun Research Trends in the Post-Dickey Era
Many scholars acknowledge the lack of evidence-based research, but only a few explore
the research trends in the post-Dickey era. Lung-Chang Chien and his team analyzed gun
research publication ratios in the social behavioral sciences, life sciences, and clinical sciences
from 1981 to 2018. (51) Interestingly, research in all three disciplines increased before 1998, except
for social behavioral sciences between 1981 and 1984. (52) However, all three fields saw a
significant decrease in research observed from 2002 to 2011. (53) The researchers determined that
decreases in available publications were consistent with federal funding restrictions following
the adoption and re-authorization of the 1996 Dickey Amendment and funding limitations to the
National Institute of Health (NIH) in 2011.(54) The delay in the publication decrease is likely a
result of the lag between when federal agencies award research funding and when research is
ultimately published. However, the data suggests a sharp increase in publications in all three
fields since 2012. John Lott, Jr. is an economist and gun rights advocate who acted as the former
president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and worked in the Office of Justice Programs
within the U.S. Department of Justice. In a Congressional hearing for the U.S. House of
Representatives, Lott stated that the Fund for a Safer Future—which calls for a reduction in gun
injuries and death—awarded more funding for firearm research than the National Institute of
Justice and the NIH combined. (55) As such, Lott challenged those who oppose the Dickey
Amendment, arguing that private sponsors allowed for the steady publication of gun research
despite the reduction in federal funding. (56) Regardless, NRA lobbying for the Dickey Amendment
led to a shift in existing research, as scholars receiving federal funds must focus their studies on
individual risk factors rather than the role of firearms.(57) ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Predictive vs. Preventative Strategies
School Resource Officers
One of the most prominent and widespread post-Columbine safety measures is School
Resource Officers (SROs). School police officers are sworn-in law enforcement officers and
patrol schools full-time. Although local law enforcement agencies employ SROs, there is a clear
distinction between these full-time officers and local peace officers who may work at a school on
a part-time basis. (58) Some officers will occasionally perform typical law enforcement duties at a
campus—patrolling, investigating complaints, minimizing disruptions—while SROs are
permanently stationed in schools, thus acting as mentors for students. (59) SROs have been in
schools since the mid-twentieth century but did not become prominent members of the safety
community until after the moral panic ensued by high-profile incidents such as the Columbine
shooting. (60) In fact, the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) claims that
school-based policing is the most rapid growing division within law enforcement.
(61) Despite their role in promoting safety in schools, SROs have faced backlash for making schools seem more
prisonlike, especially after the introduction of metal detectors, locked doors, and camera
surveillance. (62) Likewise, police presence on campuses raises concerns that officers may
criminalize behavior otherwise handled with school discipline. (63) Labeling students as criminal or
dangerous based on a rigid profile can also pose psychological and social consequences for
students. Limited access to evidence-based research contributed to an overreliance on profiling
to identify and isolate threats, potentially criminalizing otherwise minor disciplinary issues.
Dangers of the School Shooter Profile
In 2019, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) compiled a
report to gain a better understanding of school shooters in the United States. In this report, NTAC
determined that all attackers up until the time experienced social stressors (i.e., grievances
against peers, school staff, romantic partners, or other personal issues) and exhibited concerning
behaviors, with most verbalizing their violent intents. (64) However, the NTAC report demonstrates
the lack of a school shooter profile, as the perpetrators vary in age, race, gender, academic
performance, social proficiency, etc. Profiling is primarily inefficient since there are various
typologies of shooters.Peter Langman, a counseling psychologist widely regarded as an expert on school
shooters, argues there are three types of shooters: psychopathic, traumatized, and psychotic.
(65) Psychopathic shooters are typically narcissists and entitled, while psychotic shooters experience
various symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucinations, paranoia, and delusions. (66) Both
typologies usually come from stable, intact families. (67) However, traumatized shooters derive
from broken homes, with many being victims of physical and/or sexual abuse.(68) Ultimately, each
psychological typology accounts for various psychological disorders, proficiency in social
functioning, and personality types. Langman’s typologies also account for overlaps in behavior,
as they are not mutually exclusive.Outside of unfairly labeling students, school shooter profiles fail to account for the rarity
of these violent occurrences. Unfortunately, school shooters gain name recognition and notoriety
due to extensive news coverage. News clips of these infamous perpetrators push many
Americans toward making generalized perceptions of school shooters. However, there is no
empirical research supporting the validity of these profiles. Not only did the Dickey Amendment
restrict funding for gun research, but it also discouraged investigations into perpetrators of
violent crimes involving firearms.
School Threat Assessments
Despite the merit of predictive strategies, they are not effective at preventing school
shootings. As seen with the school shooter profile, cookie-cutter models are only good in
hindsight when attempting to understand the shootings after the fact. However, preventive
strategies allow school administration and law enforcement to adequately identify and diffuse
potential threats. Rather than generalizing threats, the State of Virginia has adopted the
“Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines” (CSTAG), which provides a
comprehensive and compassionate approach to potential threats. This five-step model consists of
evaluating the threat, attempting to resolve the hazard as transient, responding to a substantive
threat, conducting a safety evaluation for substantive threats, and implementing and monitoring a
safety plan.(69) Law enforcement already uses threat assessments, and the CSTAG applies this to
schools. Some of the benefits of these models include the mitigation of racial/ethnic disparities in
discipline, diminished school suspension, and prevention of completed acts of violence.(70)
However, future research is necessary to identify individual outcomes for threat assessment
cases, the quality of threat assessment practices, and compare the effectiveness of different
models.(71)
Guns and School Safety
Armed Teachers
The arming of teachers has sparked debate among politicians, students, and the public.
The Gun-Free Schools Act prevents individuals from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a
school, but a series of exemptions allow for states and school districts to determine whether to
arm their teachers. (72) The average active shooting lasts no more than 300 seconds, yet it takes
upward of 10 to 30 minutes for law enforcement to arrive in rural areas. (73) Hence, some argue
that armed teachers can help provide a speedy response to imminent threats while assisting
existing SROs. (74) The cost of hiring an SRO can range between $50,000 and $80,000 annually,
and arming teachers could provide a more cost-effective means of supplying armed
guardianship. (75) However, critics claim that guns in schools would make students feel unsafe,
increase the risk of accidental injury or death, and create confusion for SROs. (76) When
responding to an active shooting, law enforcement has little time to discern between allies and
foes, and armed teachers run the risk of becoming accidental casualties simply by possessing a
firearm. Teachers have less training than police officers, and some are skeptical of whether
teachers can effectively respond during an active shooting. (77) Several polls have gauged public
opinion on the arming of teachers. However, there is little to no empirical evidence to support
either side. Likewise, many of these studies fail to interview SROs despite their centrality to
student safety.
​
Campus Carry
On October 16, 1991, a man committed a murder-suicide at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Killen,
Texas, killing twenty-three patrons and wounding almost two dozen more. (78) At the time of the
shooting, it was illegal for Texans to carry a gun in public. However, some wondered if an armed
patron could have prevented the Luby’s massacre. One survivor, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, stated: “I
had good position with the table to prop my arm on, and he was standing up with his back turned
three-quarters in my direction. I reached back for my purse, and that’s when I realized I’d taken
the gun out and left it in the car.” (79) Determined to prevent another massacre, Governor George
W. Bush legalized concealed carry, with the law going into effect on January 1, 1996. (80)
Concealed carry protects Texans’ right to bear a firearm which is not visible to the public, thus
differing from open carry policies which allow individuals to carry a weapon in plain sight. Fifty
years after the UT Tower shooting, Texas expanded concealed carry to public university
campuses.The Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings motivated discussions
regarding campus carry. (81) As pointed out by Aaron Bartula and Kendra Bowens, several studies
have investigated how students, faculty, and staff react to campus carry at the university level,
but few have assessed how campus police officers perceive these policies. (82) Responding to the
Texas campus carry law and open carry bill, William McRaven, former Chancellor of the
University of Texas System and Navy admiral, expressed his concerns with the new policy, but
he was largely dismissed by the Texas Legislature. (83) McRaven received various calls from law
enforcement agencies and mental health professionals, and he argued that “[t]here is great
concern that the presence of handguns, even if limited to licensed individuals age 21 or older,
will lead to an increase in both accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds." (84) Having polled
several top Texas university police officers, Bartula and Bowens determined that 91.5% of
surveyed officers opposed open carry on campus, arguing that such policies increase fear of
crime and victimization among the university population. (85) A national study reinforced the
findings above, as 96% of sampled campus police chiefs believed that school administrators
should include police officers when establishing campus carry policies or bans. (86)
The Dickey Amendment may help explain the lack of empirical research regarding law
enforcement’s perception of arming teachers and campus carry laws. The researchers mentioned
above are among the few who have surveyed law enforcement officials regarding their views on
gun laws in the United States. However, their limited findings rely on surveys and polls rather
than empirical evidence. Further, restricted access to evidence-based research may foster
disapproval toward the Dickey Amendment within law enforcement agencies, particularly in
those overwhelmed by violent crimes involving firearms. ​​
​
Re-Evaluating the Dickey Amendment
Scholars, public health professionals, and politicians have called for the repeal of the
Dickey Amendment. Likewise, most publications relating to school shootings and gun violence
in the United States highlight the need for evidence-based research. Firearm polarization is likely
why the Dickey Amendment remains despite calls for change. Guns have been central to
American culture since before the birth of the country. As such, any policies and initiatives
involving guns are subject to public scrutiny and emotional debates. Mass shootings, particularly
those occurring in schools, often lead to divisive gun legislation rather than increased funding for
gun research. The media allows for the diffusion of the moral panic created by school shootings.
As such, Americans often believe these tragic events occur more frequently than is factual.
Only two years before his death, former Representative Jay Dickey spoke about funding
restrictions for gun violence. Rep. Dickey did not intend to cut off all research on guns, only the
collection of data to advocate for gun control. Considering recent sensationalized mass
shootings, the former Congressman reflected on his actions and the effects of the Dickey
Amendment: “I’ve been reminded of that through those things, yes. I’ve gone back through it in
my mind to say, what could we have done, and I know what we could’ve done. We could’ve kept
the fund alive and just restricted the expenditure of dollars.” (87) When comparing gun violence to
head-on collisions, Congressman Dickey argued that funding scientific research allowed for
increased safety measures to reduce automobilist accidents.
(88) Hence, funding evidence-based gun research has the potential to do something similar for the gun industry.
Although the Dickey Amendment remains, the 2020 Appropriations Bill allocated $25
million for the CDC and NIH—with each receiving $12.5 million—to fund gun violence
prevention. (89) The Biden-Harris Administration renewed these allocations since then, thus ending
the federal freeze in gun research. The forthcoming publications will become public in the
upcoming years. As stated by the American Journal of Public Health, repealing the Dickey
Amendment could help address polarization surrounding the firearms argument.
(90) More importantly, resorting funding to gun research can help law enforcement agencies become
efficient at identifying and combating violent threats. Increased collaboration between SROs and
school administrators to establish preventive rather than predictive practices can help reduce
wrongfully criminalizing student activity while restoring support for SROs. The Dickey
Amendment is not about gun rights but about funding essential research. Hence, supporting
evidence-based gun research provides a non-partisan, middle-of-the-road approach to America’s
school shooter problem, supplying facts regarding violence in schools and the best ways to
promote student safety.
Conclusion
Overall, the Dickey Amendment redefined the gun argument in the United States. Even
though it stemmed from a need to silence calls for gun control, the Dickey Amendment
unintentionally halted gun research beyond that funded by the CDC. Even though law
enforcement agencies are the first line of defense during school shootings, they are ill-equipped
for these rare yet significant circumstances. A lack of empirical research prevents law
enforcement agencies from identifying the effectiveness of predictive and preventive strategies.
Scholars and government agencies agree on the dangers of the school shooter profile, but they
fail to provide new methods for law enforcement to conduct their jobs. Likewise, few scholars
consider law enforcement when gauging public support for gun policies, which affect the ability
of police officers to promote public safety. Increasing polarization surrounding guns in America
has limited the number of civil discussions surrounding school shootings, as people often call for
changes to gun laws rather than increased funding for evidence-based research. Further research
is necessary to supplement the conclusions of this timely discussion. For example, scholars can
expand on contemporary research on the social effects of appropriations-based limitations like
Dickey and Tiahrt Amendments and their impacts on evidence-based safety measures.
Ultimately, an increase in evidence-based firearm research can help move the United States
toward the possibility of achieving bipartisan gun legislation.
Bibliography
Arrigo, Bruce A., and Austin Acheson. “Concealed carry band and the American college campus:
a law, social sciences, and policy perspective.” Contemporary Justice Review 19, no. 1
(2015): 120-141. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10282580.2015.1101688.
Bartula, Aaron, and Kendra Bowen. “University and College Officials’ Perceptions of Open
Carry on College Campus.” Justice Policy Journal 12, no. 2 (2015): 1-17.
“Brady Law.” U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (July 2021).
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law.
Burrows, Dustin, Joe Moody, and Eva Guzman. “Texas House of Representative Investigative
Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting.” 1-77.
Chien, Lung-Chang, Maxim Gakh, Courtney Coughenour, and Ro-Ting Lin. “Temporal trend of
research related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric
analysis.” Injury Epidemiology 7, no. 9 (2020): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-
0235-6.
Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London, UK: Routledge, 1972.
Cornell, Dewey G. “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy.” Criminology
& Public Policy 19, no. 1 (2020): 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12471.
“Federal Appropriations: Pro-Gun Language Restored.” NRA Institute for Legislative Action
(March 2022). https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220321/federal-appropriations-pro-gun-
language-restored.
Gardiner, Richard E., and Stephen P. Halbrook. “NRA and Law Enforcement Opposition to the
Brady Act: From Congress to the District Courts.” Journal of Civil Rights and Economic
Development 10, no. 1 (1994): 13-41.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol10/iss1/2/.
Gialopsos, Brooke Miller, Cheryl Lero Jonson, Melissa M. Moon, and William A. Stadler. “A
Case of American Exceptionalism: The Influence of Super Controllers in Mass School
Shootings.” In All-American Massacre: The Tragic Role of American Culture and Society
in Mass Shootings, edited by Eric Madfis and Adam Lankford, 239-252. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023.
​
Gius, Mark. Guns and Crime: The Data Don’t Lie. Boca Ratton, Florida: CRC Press, 2017.
“Gun Control Act of 1968.” U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(October 2022). https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act.
Hamilton, Reeve. “McRaven: Campus Carry Would Create ‘Less Safe’ Environment.” The Texas
Tribune (January 2015). https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/mcraven-campus-
carry-would-create-less-safe-enviro/.
Hofstadter, Richard. “America as a Gun Culture.” American Heritage 21, no. 6 (October 1970).
https://www.americanheritage.com/america-gun-culture.
Inskeep, Steve, and Jay Dickey. “Ex-Rep. Dickey Regrets Restrictive Law On Gun Violence
Research.” NPR. (October 2015). https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-
dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research
Jonson, Cheryl Lero. “Preventing School Shootings: The Effectiveness of Safety Measures.”
Victims & Offenders 12, no. 6 (2017): 956-973.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293.
Jonson, Cheryl Leto, Alexander L. Burton, Francis T. Cullen, Justin T. Pickett, and Velmer S.
Burton, Jr. “An Apple in One Hand, A Gun in the Other: Public Support for Arming our
Nation’s Schools.” Criminology & Public Policy 20, no. 2 (2020): 1-62.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347496128.
Kellermann, Arthur L., Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T.
Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant
Somes. “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The New England
Journal of Medicine 329, no. 15 (1993): 1084-91.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506.
Kerr, Selina E.M. Gun Violence Prevention: The Politics Behind Policy Responses to School
Shootings in the United States. Glasgow, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Langman, Peter. “Desperate Identities: A bio-psycho-social analysis of perpetrators of mass
violence.” Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 1 (2019): 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12468.
Lankford, Adam. “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171
Countries.” Violence and Victims 31, no. 2 (2016): 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-
6708.VV-D-15-00093.
Lankford, Adam, and James Silver. “Why Have Public Mass Shootings Become More Deadly?
Assessing How Perpetrators’ Motives and Methods Have Changed Over Time.”
Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 1 (2020): 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
9133.12472.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. The Myth of the
lack of Public Health Research on Firearms. 116th Cong., 2019.
Mathiason, Jessica Lee. “From the Assassinations of the 1960s to Stoneman Douglas: Guns,
Violence, and White Masculinity in Crisis.” Cultural Critique 103 (Spring 2019): 91-99.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.103.2019.0091
McCullar, Emily. “The Massacre That Turned Texas Into the Most Gun-Friendly State in
America.” Texas Monthly (December 2023). https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-
politics/lubys-shooting-texas-gun-laws/.
Metzl, Jonathan M. “Repeal the Dickey Amendment to Address Polarization Surrounding
Firearms in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 7 (2018):
864-865. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304461.
Ponder, JoAnne. “From the Tower shootings in 1966 to Campus Carry in 2016: Collective
trauma at the University of Texas at Austin.” International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies 15, no. 4 (2018): 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1558.
Reeping, Paul. “The Precarious relationship between Firearm Access and Mass Shootings in the
United States.” In All-American Massacre: The Tragic Role of American Culture and
Society in Mass Shootings, edited by Eric Madfis and Adam Lankford, 285-294. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023.
Roston, Allen. “The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A
Legal Dissection.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 7 (2018): 865-867.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304450.
Schwartz, Mainon A. “Firearm-Related Appropriations Riders.” Congressional Research Service
(November 2019): 1-3. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11371.
Silva, Jason R., “‘I’ll See You on National T.V.!’ America’s Fame-seeking Mass Shooters and
Their Global Influence.” In All-American Massacre: The Tragic Role of American
Culture and Society in Mass Shootings, edited by Eric Madfis and Adam Lankford, 149-
161. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023.
Theriot, Matthew T. “School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior.”
Journal of Criminal Justice 37 (2009): 280-287.
https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008.
U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. “Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S.
Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence.” U.S. Secret Service, Department of
Homeland Security (2019): 1-59.
Weir, Kirsten. “A thaw in the freeze on federal funding for gun violence and injury prevention
research.” American Psychological Association (April 2021).
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/news-funding-gun-research.
​
​
1 Dustin Burrows, Joe Moody, and Eva Guzman, “Texas House of Representative Investigative Committee
on the Robb Elementary Shooting,” 70.
2 Ibid., 71.
3 Ibid., 73.
4 Ibid., 74-76.
5 Ibid., 77.
6 Lung-Chang Chien, Maxim Gakh, Courtney Coughenour, and Ro-Ting Lin, “Temporal trend of research
related to gun violence from 1981 to 2018 in the United States: a bibliometric analysis,” Injury Epidemiology 7, no.
9 (2020): 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-0235-6.
7 Mark Guis, Guns and Crime: The Data Don't Lie (Boca Ratton, Florida: CRC Press, 2017), 69; Chien,
Gakh, Coughenour, and Lin, “Temporal trend of research,” 1.
8 Dewey G. Cornell, “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy,” Criminology & Public
Policy 19, no. 1 (2020): 6, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12471; Between 2011 and 2018, the United States
experienced 103 school shootings. There are approximately 130,000 schools in the U.S., with an average of thirteen
shootings occurring annually. Under this logic, Cornell argues that the average American school can expect a
shooting once every 10,000 years. The current study disagrees with the portrayal of this statistic, as it generalizes a
complex and unpredictable occurrence. However, school shootings are statistically rare, with an oversaturation of
sensationalized headlines in the media altering public perception of their prevalence.
9 Ibid.
10 Brooke Miller Gialopsos, Cheryl Lero Jonson, Melissa M. Moon, and William A. Stadler, “A Case of
American Exceptionalism: The Influence of Super Controllers in Mass School Shootings,” in All-American
Massacre: The Tragic Role of American Culture and Society in Mass Shootings, ed. Eric Madfis and Adam
Lankford (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023), 239.
11 Paul Reeping, “The Precarious relationship between Firearm Access and Mass Shootings in the United
States,” in All-American Massacre: The Tragic Role of American Culture and Society in Mass Shootings, ed. Eric
Madfis and Adam Lankford (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023), 285.
12 Gialopsos, Jonson, Moon, and Stadler, "A Case of American Exceptionalism," 240-241.
13 Ibid., 242.
14 Ibid., 244.
15 Ibid., 244.
16 Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics (London, UK: Routledge, 1972), 9.
17 JoAnne Ponder, “From the Tower shootings in 1966 to Campus Carry in 2016: Collective trauma at the
University of Texas at Austin,” International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 15, no. 4 (2018): 239,
https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1558.
18 Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, VA): The shooting took place on April 16, 2007, leaving 33 dead (including
the perpetrator) and 23 injured. Sandy Hook Elementary (Newtown, CT): The shooting took place on December 14,
2012, leaving 28 dead (including the perpetrator and his mom) and 2 injured. Stoneman Douglas High School
(Parkland, FL): The shooting took place on February 14, 2018, leaving 17 dead and 17 injured. Santa Fe High
School (Santa Fe, TX): The shooting took place on May 18, 2018, leaving 10 dead and 14 injured (including the
perpetrator). Robb Elementary (Uvalde, TX): The shooting took place on May 24, 2022, leaving 22 dead (including
the perpetrator) and 18 injured (including the perpetrator’s grandmother).
19 Cheryl Lero Jonson, “Preventing School Shootings: The Effectiveness of Safety Measures,” Victims &
Offenders 12, no. 6 (2017): 960, https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293.
20 “Gun Control Act of 1968,” U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (October 2022),
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act.
21 “Brady Law,” U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (July 2021),
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law.
22 Richard E. Gardiner and Stephen P. Halbrook, “NRA and Law Enforcement Opposition to the Brady Act:
From Congress to the District Courts,” Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 10, no. 1 (1994): 15, 17-
18, https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol10/iss1/2/.
23 Ibid., 14-15.
24 Richard Hofstadter, “America as a Gun Culture,” American Heritage 21, no. 6 (October 1970),
https://www.americanheritage.com/america-gun-culture.
25 Jessica Lee Mathiason, “From the Assassinations of the 1960s to Stoneman Douglas: Guns, Violence,
and White Masculinity in Crisis,” Cultural Critique 103 (Spring 2019): 92,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.103.2019.0091.
26 Reeping, "The Precarious relationship between Firearm Access and Mass Shootings in the U.S.," 288.
27 Adam Lankford, “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries,”
Violence and Victims 31, no. 2 (2016): 190, https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00093.
28 Ibid., 193.
29 Ibid., 194.
30 Ibid., 196.
31 Jason R. Silva, “‘I’ll See You on National T.V.!’ America’s Fame-seeking Mass Shooters and Their
Global Influence,” in All-American Massacre: The Tragic Role of American Culture and Society in Mass Shootings,
ed. Eric Madfis and Adam Lankford (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 2023), 153.
32 Adam Lankford and James Silver, “Why Have Public Mass Shootings Become More Deadly? Assessing
How Perpetrators’ Motives and Methods Have Changed Over Time,” Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 1 (2020):
41, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12472.
33 Ibid., 42.
34 Ibid., 44.
35 Silva, “I’ll See You on National T.V.!,” 154.
36 Selina E.M Kerr, Gun Violence Prevention: The Politics Behind Policy Responses to School Shootings in
the United States, (Glasgow, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 7.
37 Allen Roston, “The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal
Dissection,” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 7 (2018): 866, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304450.
38 Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay,
Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes, “Gun Ownership as a Risk
Factor for Homicide in the Home,” The New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 15 (1993): 1084-85,
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506; The study utilized homicide data from three counties within the
following date ranges: Shelby County, Tennessee (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992); King County, Washington
(August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992); and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (January 1, 1990-August 23, 1992). King County
was predominantly white with a higher living standard. Shelby and Cuyahoga County were largely African
American and had a higher poverty rate compared to King County.
39 Ibid., 1086-87.
40 Ibid., 1088.
41 Guis, Guns and Crime, 69.
42 Roston, “A Legal Dissection,” 866; Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208
(1996).
43 Mainon A. Schwartz, “Firearm-Related Appropriations Riders,” Congressional Research Service
(November 2019): 1, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11371.
44 Ibid.
45 Guis, Guns and Crime, 70.
46 Schwartz, “Firearm-Related Appropriations Riders,” 2.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 “Federal Appropriations: Pro-Gun Language Restored,” NRA Institute for Legislative Action (March
2022), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220321/federal-appropriations-pro-gun-language-restored.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., 6.
52 Chien, Gakh, Coughenour, and Lin, "Temporal trend of research," 2-3.
53 Ibid., 6.
54 Ibid., 7.
55 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, The Myth of the lack of Public Health Research on
Firearms, 116th Cong., 2019, 2.
56 Ibid., 3.
57 Cornell, “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy,” 12.
58 Matthew T. Theriot, “School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior,” Journal of
Criminal Justice 37 (2009): 281, https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., 280.
63 Cornell, “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy,” 5.
64 U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, “Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret
Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence,” U.S. Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security (2019): 16-17
65 Peter Langman, “Desperate Identities: A bio-psycho-social analysis of perpetrators of mass violence,”
Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 1 (2019): 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12468.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid., 3.
69 Cornell, “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy,” 18-21.
70 Ibid., 28.
71 Ibid., 27.
72 Cheryl Leto Jonson, Alexander L. Burton, Francis T. Cullen, Justin T. Pickett, and Velmer S. Burton, Jr,
“An Apple in One Hand, A Gun in the Other: Public Support for Arming our Nation’s Schools,” Criminology &
Public Policy 20, no. 2 (2020): 3, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347496128.
73 Ibid., 5.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid., 5-6.
76 Ibid., 6-8.
77 Ibid., 8.
78 Emily McCullar, “The Massacre That Turned Texas Into the Most Gun-Friendly State in America.” Texas
Monthly (December 2023), https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/lubys-shooting-texas-gun-laws/.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Aaron Bartula and Kendra Bowen, “University and College Officials’ Perceptions of Open Carry on
College Campus,” Justice Policy Journal 12, no. 2 (2015): 4.
82 Ibid., 7.
83 Ibid.
84 Reeve Hamilton, “McRaven: Campus Carry Would Create ‘Less Safe’ Environment.” The Texas Tribune
(January 2015), https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/mcraven-campus-carry-would-create-less-safe-enviro/.
85 Ibid., 11-12.
86 Bruce A. Arrigo and Austin Acheson, “Concealed carry band and the American college campus: a law,
social sciences, and policy perspective.” Contemporary Justice Review 19, no. 1 (2015): 125, https://doi.org/
10.1080/10282580.2015.1101688.
87 Steve Inskeep and Jay Dickey, “Ex-Rep. Dickey Regrets Restrictive Law on Gun Violence Research.”
NPR (October 2015), https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-
violence-research; The 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting (Roseburg, OR) took place on October 1, 2015,
only seven days before Rep. Dickey’s interview with NPR.
88 Ibid.
89 Kristen Weir, “A thaw in the freeze on federal funding for gun violence and injury prevention research.”
American Psychological Association (April 2021), https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/news-funding-gun-
research.
90 Jonathan M. Metzl, “Repeal the Dickey Amendment to Address Polarization Surrounding Firearms in the
United States.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 7 (2018): 864,