SOCIAL SCIENCE A SENIOR THESIS the Requirements for the ...
Transcript of SOCIAL SCIENCE A SENIOR THESIS the Requirements for the ...
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
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