SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THE RHETORIC OF GUN CONTROL

A CASE STUDY IN GUN CONTROL AND THE ARGUMENTS FROM

SOCIAL SCIENCE

by

RANDAL CURTIS SMITH

A SENIOR THESIS

in

GENERAL STUDIES

Submitted to the General Studies Council in the College of Arts and Sciences

at Texas Tech University in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

BACHELOR OF GENERAL STUDIES

Approved

PROFESSOR BRIAN MCGEE Department of Communications Studies

Chairperson of Thesis Committee

PROFESSOR (bJINDY STOMBLER Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work

Accepted

PROFESSOR MICHAEL SCHOENECKE Director of General Studies

May 2000

M

^ ̂ ' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T3

^ . _ I would first like to extend a huge thank you to Brian

McGee for serving as the chairperson on the thesis committee.

His willingness to work around my schedule as well as his

patience have been nothing short of phenomenal. Brian has had

a significant impact upon my academic career and is one of the

most insightful instructors I have ever been around. The

skills imparted by Brian will no doubt be utilized for the

remainder of my studies. That said, it should be noted that

Brian is not only an incredible instructor, he is also an

incredible person.

I also wish to thank Mindy Stombler, whose willingness to

work with me on this project with such short notice was above

and beyond the call of duty. I owe you a tremendous debt of

gratitude. To my parents, no amount of thanks would suffice.

And Melissa, may we look back on this someday and smile. You

are the biggest blessing in my life and a constant reminder of

what the truly important things in life are.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

TT^LE OF CONTENTS iii

CHAPTER

I . INTRODUCTION 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

Gun Control and the Constitution 6

Social-Scientific Research 11

III. ANALYSIS OF DATA 17

IV. CONCLUS ION 2 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY 27

111

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Violence has long been a characteristic of American

society. Recently, however, violence seems to have reached

new levels in our nation, particularly among youth.

Whether the cause be the media, video games, poor

parenting, or any of the numerous other scapegoats offered

as an explanation for this violence is unclear. One clear

side effect of the violence, however, is that guns seem to

have become synonymous with violence. Public controversy

and debate over firearms and their control, or lack

thereof, has skyrocketed. Evening newscasts across the

nation often begin with the most recent school shooting,

workplace rampage, or the even more common "near misses."

Politicians on all levels are voicing their opinions

clearly, as are the various organizations which have formed

on both sides of the issue.

The issue of gun control is emotionally charged. The

events involving the death of children by gunfire that

usually precede discussion on the issue are tragic to a

degree that will pull on the heartstrings of everyone.

This level of emotion is perhaps the foremost reason for

such hot debate. Orchestrators on both sides of the issue

often play to this emotion in their public arguments.

Statistics are offered up by both sides in order to affirm

their claim. The majority of the claims stem come from

social-scientific research. Most of the time these claims

seem to be contradictory to each other. This can be a very

confusing arena without a proper understanding of what

exactly is being discussed.

In this discussion, I plan to take an in depth look at

how gun control opponents make use of arguments from social

science in their discourse. The primary sources (or data)

for this case study will be various articles from The

American Rifleman, a publication of the National Rifle

Association (NRA). The NRA is possibly the single largest

gun control opponent in the world, and The American

Rifleman is the NRA's primary public link. While other

pro- and anti- gun control publications exist, this

magazine will allow for the selection of a good sample,

based on its massive circulation and extensive references

to social-scientific research. Because of its prominence,

avid gun control advocates and opponents alike monitor The

American Rifleman.

In order to properly assess and analyze the use of

social-scientific arguments from opponents of gun control.

it is necessary to explore what current academic literature

has to offer on gun control as well as social sciences and

their use in public discourse. First, however, I feel it

pertinent to discuss the backgrounds of both the gun

control debate and the development of current social

scientific methods, as well as the definitions of some of

the terms to be discussed.

The debate on gun control can trace its roots back

over two hundred years ago, when the Founding Fathers inked

the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Almost without exception debates on the topic will at the

very least involve the Second Amendment and its meaning, if

not center around it entirely. The tempo and urgency of

the debate over gun control has changed over time, often

peaking in the wake of high profile shootings such as the

1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Sen.

Robert Kennedy which thrust gun control into the center

ring of public debate (Bijlefeld xxxii). The 1990's,

however, seemed to have ushered in an entirely different

level of awareness concerning gun control. With this rise

in awareness, due at least in some part to the mass media,

the debate heated up as well. Beginning with the Gun Free

School Zones Act of 1990, followed by the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act in 1993, and closing with more than

half a dozen school shootings in the late 1990's, the final

decade of the twentieth century effectively placed the

issue of gun control at the forefront of our nation's

agenda.

What exactly are the social sciences? Kristine Hansen

defines the social sciences as "fields of learning and

research that concern themselves with human behavior, human

relationships, and the social, cultural, economic, and

political institutions that human beings have created" (8).

Taking into account the vast area which this definition

encompasses, it is easy to note the applicability to the

gun control debate. All social sciences share one common

characteristic: They all attempt to understand people as

individuals and social beings, using empirical methods, in

order that they might lead in the direction of solutions to

societal ills (Hansen 9). It logically follows, then, that

if guns are argued to be a social problem, all sides in the

gun control debate will make extensive use of social-

scientific research to support their stance. For this

reason it is crucial to understand the arguments made from

social science if we are to separate good from bad

arguments in this debate. In order to accomplish this, it

is necessary to comprehend the methods, findings, and

limitations of studies done to obtain the data. It is also

important to examine the results of such studies in their

entirety and to determine that they are reported accurately

to the public, to the extent that the complete reporting of

study results is possible.

The significance of the issue discussed should not be

underestimated. An aware and educated public is necessary

to the proper functioning of a nation such as ours.

Especially critical is the ability to discern accurately

information one is presented with. Social-scientific

research and data is utilized in many discussions and

arguments, not solely the gun control debate. Whether in

presenting one's own argument or interpreting that of an

adversary, understanding the evidence presented, including

the limitations of the study it originated from, is

paramount.

Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to analyze an issue such as the one I have

proposed, it is helpful to examine and summarize some of

the past research relevant to the topic. This examination

will consist of three sections: a review of literature

pertaining to gun control and the constitution, a review

addressing current research on the social science of gun

control, and a review concerning arguments from social

science.

GUN CONTROL AND THE CONSTITUTION

Much of the uncertainty surrounding the issue of gun

control is centered in the inability of the two sides to

agree on a common interpretation of the Second Amendment.

On September 9, 1789, the United States Senate passed what

we now know as the second amendment. It reads as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This final version, which had been previously proposed by

Congress to the states for ratification, was the result of

revisions made to several previous drafts.

While many works have been published regarding gun

control and the gun control debate. The Gun Control Debate:

A Documentary History, edited by Marjolijn Bijlefeld,

provides an excellent sample to examine. Its chronological

approach makes it clear that the gun control debate is

rooted in the wording of the Second Amendment, a meaning

that has been hotly contested through the years. The book

essentially outlines the debate over gun control from the

initial debate over the Second Amendment to the present

day. While the focus in primarily on the U. S.

Constitution, various state constitutional clauses are also

addressed. Perhaps the most pertinent information for the

purposes of this project are the documents addressing the

NRA. While the NRA is staunch in the defense of their own

research methods, they are equally as fervent in their

attempts to discredit their opponents. Document 138, a

press release of June 11, 1996, from the NRA, confronts

research conducted and published in the Journal of the

American Medical Association, and is an excellent example

of such defense. In committing the "methodological sin,"

by "getting the math wrong," the release concludes that

"when it comes to doctors, you can't trust them with their

math any more than you can read their handwriting" (138).

Such jabs have become common place in the debate over gun

control.

The Politics of Gun Control, by Robert J. Spitzer, is

also helpful in understanding the current status of the gun

control debate. Spitzer asserts in general that, although

a great deal has been written on the subject, "no

comprehensive political and policy analysis on gun control

exists, even though the gun control debate is precisely a

political dispute over the proper scope and consequences of

government policy" (xii). Again a significant portion of

the text is devoted to the NRA, due to the fact that it has

been the dominant player in gun politics. The policy­

making roles of Congress are addressed, and their lack of

involvement is noted. In abstaining from the gun control

forum. Congress has failed to be of any help in accurately

defining the Second Amendment.

As far as the gun control debate is concerned.

Congress is not the only major player from the government

who seems to have been noticeably absent from most of the

proceedings. Many scholars have noticed the refusal by the

Supreme Court to address the issue as well. Even with all

of the increased media attention and publicity surrounding

the issue today, our Nation's highest court has not

addressed the Second Amendment since 1939 in United States

V. Miller. Sanford Levinson, professor of law at the

University of Texas Law School, submitted an article

addressing this issue at the 1998 Brigham Young Law Review

Symposium. In the article, Levinson remarks "the Supreme

Court has almost shamelessly [and shamefully] refused to

discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment" (127). He

states that this silence is aggravating to both sides of

the issue and concludes with the notion that if such issues

are to make it to the Supreme Court, they will most likely

have to be forced upon the Court by virtue of lower

district court rulings (135).

Another interesting and informative work is The Gun

Control Movement by Gregg Lee Carter. For a significant

portion of his book. Carter outlines the various agendas of

the NRA, as well as that of Handgun Control, Inc., a major

player on the other side of the debate. His analysis of

American attitudes about the gun control debate is helpful

as well. In another reference to the degree to which the

NRA does not support public opinion polls. Carter cites

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, a

researcher and scholar whom the NRA has long appreciated.

Kleck says the following of public opinion polls:

The survey-based support for gun control may be less substantial than it appears . . . Sometimes, a survey "opinion" is little more than a response

9

given on the spur-of-the-moment to a stranger who calls unannounced at the respondent's door or on the telephone, and asks a question about a topic to which the R[espondent] has given little thought. [In short,] . . . the appearance of support for [gun control] can be created by the simple fact that most people will provide an opinion if asked, regardless of whether or not they had a well-formed, stable, or strongly held opinion on the issue before they were interviewed.

While Carter does not appear to completely agree with this

assertion, it is nevertheless indicative of the NRA's

reasoning behind their stance toward such studies and the

use of some types of social science in the gun control

debate.

Kleck, who is widely considered to be one of the

prominent scholars researching gun control and its issues,

has published numerous books and articles of his own. A

recent example is Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their

Control. Of interest to this thesis from Kleck's work in

particular are his studies concerning the social-scientific

research presented in the gun control debate. According to

Kleck, reviews and summaries of social-scientific research

literature on the gun control issue as well as violence are

"so persistently misleading that it is important that

readers be armed with the intellectual tools for

recognizing some of the ways in which the evidence can be

10

misrepresented" (31), so that the readers may be aware of

exactly what is being presented to them. While it would be

impossible to determine why these misrepresentations occur,

Kleck believes that is of little importance, because the

effect on the reader is nevertheless the same. The

majority of his analysis focuses on the inability to

distinguish a technically sound study from one which is

poorly constructed. One of the biggest culprits of

misrepresentations can be researchers selectively reporting

their own findings. Also, falsely citing prior research

can create misunderstanding as well. While some have

questioned Kleck's allegiance to the NRA because of his

often gun-favorable findings, others consider him to be

neutral. In the April 8, 1998, edition of the Fulton

County Daily Report, Kenneth Jost, a staff writer for

Congressional Quarterly and author of The Supreme Court

Yearbook, discusses Kleck's work. Jost contends "Targeting

Guns is an academic's work: carefully documented and fairly

presented, with no anecdotes and minimal rhetoric."

SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Along with a firm understanding of the gun control

debate and the use of social scientific research therein,

11

it is also necessary to note current research on how

arguments from the social sciences are presented. The

social sciences as a whole play such a significant role in

our society's functioning today that much has been written

about the topic. It is helpful to possess at the very

least a broad understanding of how social-scientific

research is conducted, interpreted, and communicated.

Kristine Hansen's A Rhetoric for the Social Sciences:

A Guide to Academic and Professional Communication provides

an excellent overview of many topics relevant to my thesis.

Regarding what is often the first step in social-scientific

research, observation, Hansen states that some portion of

reality must be focused on and separated from other

surrounding phenomena that is related. This alone,

however, is not enough to constitute an investigation.

Hansen says it is impossible to understand the meaning of a

phenomenon by simply looking at it, "like reading the label

on a can." The phenomenon has to be interpreted, and each

observer's interpretation is socially conditioned, or

biased, based upon his or her own background, education,

and social conditioning. This would seem to allow for a

rather wide array of interpretations of a single

phenomenon, even among social scientists.

12

One of the most vital components to any social science

research is its method. Methodology is generally divided

into two separate categories: quantitative and qualitative

(Hansen 45). While quantitative data can be expressed

numerically, qualitative research data requires an

explanation described by their qualities and

characteristics. Quantitative methods, which include

experiments as well as surveys, have several advantages.

The possibility of a large sample size, the ability to be

generalized, and high degree of control are a few of the

advantages. The limitations of quantitative methods can

include loss of particularity and possibly very high costs

(Hansen 47). Qualitative methods, including interviews,

observations, and documents, have the advantage of a rich

data sample, particularity and depth, and a large scope of

interpretation. Low generalizability, overwhelming data,

and time consumption can be drawbacks to qualitative

methods (Hansen 47). As one might imagine, many studies

combine the two methods in an attempt to maximize benefits

and minimize limitations.

Social Scientists Meet the Media, edited by Cheryl

Haslem and Alan Bryman, discusses in depth an issue central

to this project. How the public is presented with social-

13

scientific research and its results play a crucial role in

how the data is perceived. While Haslem and Bryman assert

that the dissemination of research findings is a role

belonging to the social scientist, they also make it clear

that the scientist usually has little or no control over

how the data is reported in the media. This has long been

a complaint of social scientists. When the research and

data finally make their way through the media to policy

makers and the public, they may have become distorted for

several reasons:

1. Time constraints under which many journalists work.

2. Pressure on reporters to produce entertaining copy.

3. Absence of communication networks to inform journalists

about the range of ongoing research in the social

sciences.

4. Inability or unwillingness of social scientists to make

their research findings comprehensible to the media or

indeed to anyone else.

5. Inability of the media to distinguish between good and

bad research, a difficulty exacerbated by the tendency

of social scientists to disagree among themselves.

6. The barriers of technical language or "jargon."

7. The fact that the subject matter of the social sciences

14

includes concepts with which the media practitioner and

the public have had experience, and about which they

consider themselves "experts" (Haslem and Bryman 4)

With these factors in mind, it is easy to understand the

argument of some scientists that what we are presented with

is not always exactly what we were intended to be presented

with. This distortion has a tendency to be exploited more

often when the issue at hand is one of a controversial

nature, as well as when massive amount of information

circulates regarding a particular issue.

Another helpful source in understanding how social

science is conveyed in the media, or at least how it should

be conveyed is Communicating Social Science Research to

Policymakers by Roger J. Vaughan and Terry F. Buss.

Vaughan and Buss state that the number one rule in

reporting research findings is to know the limits of social

science. Two of these limitations have particular

applicability to this project. To begin with, the authors

state that human behavior on the whole is far too complex

to accurately model and thus data will often prove less

reliable than desired. The second, and perhaps more

pertinent, is that there are absolutely no sanctions or

penalties for professors or researchers for establishing

15

and publishing theories or analyses that prove to be

completely wrong or harmful (3). Again, in an issue such

as gun control that is emotionally (not to mention

economically) charged to a great extent, such a climate is

ripe for "bending the truth," and blatant misinterpretation

of the facts. Not to be cynical, the possibility of

unintentional distortions should also be noted.

All of the aforementioned research would seem to

indicate a few basic principles for the project at hand.

To begin with, the gun control debate is nothing new to the

United States. While is has been prominent in the media,

legislative and judicial happenings have been sparse.

Secondly, both sides of the debate rely heavily upon

social-scientific research to help make their claims and

assertions in the media. Finally, the limitations of

social-scientific research are such that responsible and

accurate methodology as well as reporting of findings is

needed in order to be wholly truthful. While it is the

responsibility of all media outlets to be accurate and

truthful, highly controversial and emotional issues such as

gun control nevertheless often lead to the dissemination of

only incomplete findings and partial truths.

16

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS

The primary sources for this project consist of

seventeen individual articles taken from The American

Rifleman from March, 1993 through September, 1998. All of

the articles rely heavily upon social-scientific research

and data to make their argument against gun control. While

some articles include data apparently favorable to the NRA

and its cause, many simply attack the data used by its

opponents. As is to be expected in media addressing such

controversial issues, the language used and the context in

which the data is provided are often very strong. The NRA

has obviously taken a tough stance on the gun control issue

and The American Rifleman is its primary forum for

expressing the views of the organization.

All seventeen articles reviewed contain social-

scientific data supporting the anti-gun control cause, and

several trends surfaced. For example, nearly all of the

articles, with one notable exception, provide the source or

sources from which they claim to have obtained the data.

This documentation is either cited in the text itself or is

contained in footnotes at the end of the article. The

exception, however, was a significant one. In the March,

17

1993, issue, Mark H. Overstreet wrote an article entitled

"Rationing Rights." In the article Overstreet describes

and attacks a piece of legislature endorsed by Virginia

Governor Doug Wilder. Overstreet's argument is in no small

part based upon data concerning South Carolina. The

Virginia law was modeled after similar laws in South

Carolina. The following is an excerpt from the article:

Since the South Carolina law was enacted, violent crime has increased 113%. Today, the state ranks worst among the fifty states in aggravated assault rates, and well above national rates for murder and rape. South Carolina's total violent crime rate ranks fifth worst in the United States. Virginia, on the other hand, without gun rationing, ranks well below national rates in all specific violent crime categories, and thirty-fifth in violent crime overall.

The article goes on to cite several other statistics and

rankings, but at no point offers the source or methodology

used to obtain any of the data presented. There is no way

of knowing if the crime statistics are those of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, or if they were compiled by the

NRA or an independent source. Many different studies are

available concerning such data, and many have varying

definitions of key terms, such as "violent crime."

One source the articles continually refer to is the

United States Department of Justice. In a debate where

statistics tend to be the prevalent type of evidence,

18

credibility is at a premium. Most readers, no matter which

side of the debate they are on, tend to show faith in data

and statistics compiled by the Department of Justice and

the FBI. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

(BATE), as well as many state-funded studies, is also used

whenever possible. To the average citizen, these sources

are seen as extremely credible and thus present some of the

strongest arguments available from social-scientific

research.

Outside of the data and research conducted by the

government and its agencies, the NRA is narrow in its scope

of citing individuals. Over the five-and-a-half year span

I studied, a select few names are used over and again.

Perhaps the most prominent is Florida State University

criminologist Gary Kleck. Kleck's studies regularly appear

in articles and are usually well documented.

One such example appeared in the April, 1995, issue in

an article by Marion P. Hammer titled "Florida... Proving

Right To Carry Laws Work!" Hammer states that gun control

opponents claim Florida's violent crime rate had risen

since the enacting of the state's Right To Carry law. He

then refers to Kleck's 1991 study. Point Blank: Guns and

Violence in America, and cites Kleck as proclaiming

19

"Florida changed its methods of compiling crime statistics

in 1988, making it impossible to analyze statewide crime

trends after the gun law's effective date" (74). The

citation is fully and properly documented at the end of the

article. Upon reviewing the original study, it is clear

that Hammer accurately presented the results of Kleck's

social-scientific research. Marc Gertz, a colleague of

Kleck, has also been cited sparingly. The only other

individuals mentioned on a regular basis for research

purposes are John R. Lott and David Lester. This lack of

breadth in researchers can become monotonous to the readers

and can create some questionable credibility.

Other than citing social-scientific research to

bolster their stance in the gun control debate, the NRA and

The American Rifleman also actively discredit the

presentations of findings and research by their opponents.

During the time span studied, the one author who tended to

take part in this practice the most was Tanya K. Metaska.

For example, in her October 1997, article Firearm Traces:

The Anti-Gunner's Big Lie, Metaska addresses BATE firearm

traces:

What the anti-gunners wanted the public to swallow then, and want the public to swallow today, is that firearm traces, looked at collectively, identify the kinds of guns that are most often used to commit violent crimes. To that end, they've been trying to

20

convince the public that each and every trace is a scientific crime-solving procedure that enables the police to determine if a gun was used to commit a violent crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The BATE doesn't "trace guns to crimes" or "at crime scenes."

From 1993 to 1998 Metaska was a regular contributor to the

publication, and hers was usually the "Special Report."

More often than not, Metaska's articles and attacks have

been aimed at the Clinton administration. She claims that

the president and certain members of congress often scrap

good studies conducted by the FBI and BATF, but more

importantly, that they misinterpret vital statistics from

the few studies they accept. While this may be an indirect

and roundabout way of using arguments from social science,

it is nonetheless one of the effective tactics employed in

the articles.

Aside from articles and "Special Reports," The

American Rifleman publishes little other material

concerning the gun control debate. In fact, the majority

of the text deals with the shooting sports. Gun reviews

and instructional literature are the most common pieces.

One addition worth noting, however, is a card inserted in

the April, 1997, issue entitled "NRA Firearms Fact Card

1997." This card could be considered to encapsulate

21

everything the NRA believes that social science has to say

concerning the gun control debate. It is small enough to

fit in a pocket and contains a vast array of information in

extremely small print. The card begins with the Second

Amendment and then makes brief mention to the framer's

intent and then discusses some relevant Supreme Court

decisions. Following the introduction, the data is

abundant. Lott and Kleck are cited extensively, as are the

FBI, BATF, and the Department of Justice. All of the

sources are documented thoroughly.

22

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

After comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the

articles form The .American Rifleman, it can be concluded

that during the time period studied, the publication and

the NRA not only relied extensively on social science

research and data, but that they were also responsible in

presenting the data to the public. With the exception of

the Overstreet article, every source was cited. While the

sources were often repetitive, using the studies of

government agencies provided a sense of credibility not

afforded to many other sources. As is the case with most

government documents, the findings of many of the studies

cited would be far too lengthy to report in their entirety,

but the NRA does a good job of presenting pertinent facts

from the studies relevant to the gun control debate.

The importance of the assumption of governmental

credibility by the reader is compounded further when the

publication attacks the credibility of the opponent's

sources. Taking into account that only one side of the

issue is presented, and presented rather aggressively in

The American Rifleman, the use of social-scientific

evidence creates a very strong argument for the NRA.

23

Any study of an issue as wide-ranging as the rhetoric

concerning gun control will inevitably be faced with

limitations of some sort. One such limitation of this

study is the confinement to print. Every year the NRA

distributes to its members and to the public numerous

videos addressing the gun control debate. The primary goal

of the videos is to provide an increasing amount of

evidence to combat gun control. Analysis of these tapes

would surely provide a more comprehensive look at how

opponents of gun control make use of evidence from social

science. Another factor which was not observed in the

study was that of personal contact with legislators.

Lobbyists are at the forefront of the gun control debate

and present their arguments to lawmakers on a daily basis.

To assess how these lobbyist present social-scientific data

to the men and women of Congress would also aid in fully

analyzing how opponents of gun control utilize social

science. Granted, this type of study would be extremely

difficult to undertake, but it would further understanding

of the topic. Finally, the study was limited to only one

opponent of gun control. The NRA, albeit the largest

opponent, is not the only opponent of gun control.

Numerous hunting clubs, shooting clubs, and many of the gun

24

manufacturers themselves also oppose gun control. These

groups have various publications and material that could be

analyzed as well. Also, a full understanding of the use of

social-scientific evidence in the gun control debate will

require studies of the use of such evidence by those

favoring gun control.

In future research, several steps could be taken to

further probe the role that social science plays in the gun

control issue. As in any debate of this nature, the gun

control debate hinges largely on public perception of the

issue. A study conducted to describe how citizens perceive

the data they are presented with would be very helpful.

Analysis of material from Handgun Control, Inc., or other

gun control proponents as auditors perceive that data would

help to round out the study as well. As it stands today,

however, social science plays an enormous role in the

arguments presented by opponents of gun control. The NRA,

through its magazine publication The American Rifleman,

relies heavily upon data from the social sciences to

further its stance against gun control. In doing so, it is

the finding of this study that, although often emotionally

and aggressively presented, the data is most always

presented accurately and fairly, with all sources

25

documented.

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, James J. "Stripping Away Your Second Amendment Rights." The American Rifleman June 1993: 40-41.

Bijlefeld, Marjolijn. The Gun Control Debate: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1997.

Brown, Richard H. Writing the Social Text: Poetics and Politics in Social Science Discourse. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1992.

Carter, Gregg L. The Gun Control Movement. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1997.

Cramer, Clayton E. "California's Waiting Period Law; Just How Well Has It Worked?" The American Rifleman April 1993: 18-21.

Hammer, Marion P. "Florida . . . Proving Right To Carry Laws Work!" The American Rifleman April 1995:43, 74-76.

Hansen, Kristine. A Rhetoric for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Academic and Professional Communication. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Haslem, Cheryl, and Alan Bryman. Social Scientist Meet The Media. London: Routledge, 1994.

Hemenway, David. "Policy and Perspective: Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explaination Of Extreme Overestimates." Northwestern School of Law Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Summer 1997): 1430.

Jost, Kenneth. "Gun Control- Hit or Myth?; 'Targeting Guns' is well-documented and fairly presented." Fulton County Daily Report, April 8, 1998.

Kleck, Gary. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Guyter, 1986.

27

Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997.

Levinson, Sanford. "Is the Second Amendment Finally Becoming Recognized as Part of the Constitution?" Brigham Young University Law Review (1998): 127.

Lott, John R., Jr. "More Guns, Less Violent Crime." The American Rifleman Jan. 1997: 26.

McKenzie, George, Jackie Powell, and Robin Usher. Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on Methodology and Practice. London: Falmer Press, 1997.

Metaska, Tanya K. "Armed Citizens and Crime Control." The American Rifleman April 1997: 26-27.

Metaska, Tanya K. "Attacking Gangs, Not Civil Rights." The American Rifleman Nov./Dec. 1997: 42-43.

Metaska, Tanya K. "Clinton Cover-Up Could Risk Lawmen's Lives." The American Rifleman July 1997: 2 6-27.

Metaska, Tanya K. "The Clinton War on Guns: Part One." The American Rifleman March 1996: 44-45.

Metaska, Tanya K. "The Clinton War on Guns: Part Two." The American Rifleman April 1996: 38-39.

Metaska, Tanya K. "The Clinton War on Guns: Part Three." The American Rifleman May 1996: 32-33.

Metaska, Tanya K. "The Clinton War on Guns: Part Four." The American Rifleman June 1996: 40-41.

Metaska, Tanya K. "The Clinton War on Guns: Part Five." The American Rifleman Aug. 1996: 38-39.

Metaska, Tanya K. "Firearm Traces: The Anti-Gunner's Big Lie." The American Rifleman Oct. 1997: 46-47.

Metaska, Tanya K. "Home Safety by Government Mandate." The American Rifleman Sep. 1998: 42-43.

28

Metaska, Tanya K. "No Hunting, No Self-Defense, No Safe Storage." The American Rifleman May 1997: 38-39.

Overstreet, Mark H. "Rationing Rights." The American Rifleman March 1993: 46-47.

Spitzer, Robert J. The Politics of Gun Control, SecondEdition. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1998.

Swasey, Elizabeth J. "The Real Cause of Violent Crime." The American Rifleman Aug. 1994: 40-41.

United States. The Bill of Rights. 1789.

Vaughan, Roger J., and Terry F. Buss. Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.

Weiss, Carol H., and Eleanor Singer. Reporting of Social Science in the National Media. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988.

29