APPENDIX A – HOW SAMPLES WERE CREATED AND CODED
Litigation Sampling
In “Lexis-Nexis Academic,” in the “General News” and “Major Papers” libraries, enter in the first
search-term box the expression (gun or arm or weapon or firearm or handgun) w/1 (maker or
manufacturer or industry) and click “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box to the right;
use an “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, into which insert the expression lawsuit
or litig! or sue! or suit and leave “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” as above.
Have Lexis-Nexis Academic sort the hits by “relevance” within each of ten periods and select as
many hits from the top of the resulting list as the period’s share of total hits 1971 -2005.
Out of the 501 articles thus selected, we eliminated 31 from non-U. S. papers, which left 470
articles for the U. S. Litigation Sub-sample.
Non-Litigation Sampling
In “Lexis-Nexis Academic,” in the ”General News” and ”Major Papers” libraries, enter in the first
search-term box the expression (gun or arm or weapon or firearm or handgun) w/1 (maker or
manufacturer or industry) and click “Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” in the box to the right;
use an “AND” to connect to the second search-term box, into which insert the expression (gun or
arm or weapon or firearm or handgun) w/1 (control or regulation or law! or legislation) and leave
“Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms” as above; use an “AND NOT” to connect to the third
search-term box, litigation or suits or lawsuits in “Full Text”.
Have “LexisNexis Academic” sort the hits by “relevance” within each period and select the
appropriate number of articles to sum to 350. Excluding 48 articles from non-domestic newspapers,
303 domestic NON-litigation articles remained.
I.
GUN CONTROL CODING INSTRUCTIONS
General Instructions:
1) Write your name at the top of the article.
2) Read the article all the way through.
3) Read the article again, this time legibly coding REFERENCES to the major obesity
ACTORS in the right-hand margin. As you do this, draw a horizontal dividing line across the
margin for each paragraph, indicating which codes pertain to which paragraph.
4) Read the article a third time, this time legibly coding the interpretive FRAMES in the left-hand
margin. As you do so, also draw a line across the left margin for each paragraph, separating
codes for that paragraph from the rest of the article.
5) With a highlighter, mark the first mention of each specific lawsuit.
6) If the article draws a connection between gun control and the campaign against tobacco,
write “TOB: Yes” at the top of the article. Otherwise, write “TOB: No”.
7) Decide which one of the article categories best fits the article, and write its name at the top
of the article.
Note: The marked up article will be the only record of your work, and it is therefore imperative
that you do not lose or misplace marked-up articles once you have coded them. We must preserve your
marked-up articles. When you have finished coding a batch of articles, bring them to the LSJ advising
office and leave them with Mark W. We will then enter the data into a computer directly from the
margins of your marked up articles. For that reason, it’s important that you write legibly, so that we can
properly interpret your work.
Detailed Instructions:
1) Write your name at the top of the article. You do not need to write your full name, but you do
need to write it legibly. No autographs, please. Just write your name so we can read it.
2) Begin by reading the article all the way through, without coding. You should try to get a
sense for where the article is going. Sometimes the context of a term or reference will change its
meaning; this is your opportunity to read for context and meaning, without worrying about coding.
3) Now, read the article again. This time, you will be looking for references to the major
actors frequently mentioned in gun coverage. You should note each distinct reference to an actor.
There may be more than one in a sentence. When you find a reference, take the following steps.
i.
In the Right-hand margin, write the abbreviation for that actor (listed below). For a
gun manufacturer/retailer, write C (for “corporation”). For a Senator, Representative or the
President, write G (for “government”), and so on.
ii.
Decide whether or not the reference makes a positive or negative judgment or
attribution about that actor. If no attribution is made, if it is simply a “neutral” reference
to an actor (i.e. “Roehm is one of the major manufacturers of inexpensive handguns sold in
the country.”), then write a Checkmark after the actor abbreviation. For Roehm, you would
write: C√ and you would then move on to the next reference in the text.
iii.
If a positive or negative attribution or judgment is made, code the following
characteristics.
a. Polarity. Indicate whether the judgment is positive or negative by writing +
(for positive) or – (for negative) next to the actor abbreviation. The common
negatives will refer to negligence, irresponsibility, greed, callousness, public indifference, or stupidity. The positives will refer to responsible action, productivity
and justifiable profit, contributions to safety or justice, and “common sense.”
b. Power. Once you have determined that a positive or negative attribution has
been made, you must also determine the “power” of that attribution. For an indirect,
implicit, or mild reference, write the number 1 by the actor abbreviation. For a direct, explicit,
or strong reference, write the number 2. A “soft hearted liberal” or some one who is “antirights” is a -2; someone who is “affiliated with too many liberal causes” or “affiliated
with too many conservative causes” is a -1. A corporation that “is indifferent to the
deaths it causes” or “hides behind the Second Amendment” or is “only committed
to profits” is a -2; a corporation that “makes millions of dollars in profits and jobs”
is a -1. A corporation that “works hard to educate the public” or ”works for
enforcement of gun registration” laws is a +2; while a manufacturer that “is
longstanding” and “concerned about issues of weapons abuse” is a +1.
iv.
Once you have coded all the references to major actors in a given paragraph, draw a
dividing line in the right margin between this section of your coding and the rest of your
work. Coding for each paragraph should be separated from the rest of your work by these
dividing lines.
The following is a list of major actors to look for, a brief description of how some of those actors
might be described, and the abbreviation you should use in your coding.
Code
CS
Actor
Consumers
Description
Gun owners/buyers. Can be good and bad people, those who use
guns to kill, those who use guns responsibly, collectors, or those who
urge more regulation/bans. Can be pro or anti guns. Indeed, we are
interested in how the general public is portrayed on the gun issue. Are
people rational, informed, responsible or otherwise?
V
Victims
Persons and/or their families or other people harmed by guns or by
the absence or shortage of guns.
C
Corporations
Makers and sellers of firearms. Look for allegations of negligence,
irresponsible distribution, and/or greed (profit-driven) as negatives and
for positive remarks suggesting they bear no responsibility for the
carelessness of others, fulfill protection and security needs, create jobs
or otherwise help the economy, and/or only respond to market.
VA
Victims’
Lawyer-spokespeople for individual victims and/or their families.
Attorneys
Look for negative references to greed, opportunism, or zealotry,
and/or positive references to “tireless fighters for safety,” common
sense, or the public interest.
CA
Corporations’ Lawyer-spokespeople for firearm manufacturers and sellers.
Attorneys
Look for negative references to greed, opportunism, reckless disregard
for health or honesty. Positive references might refer to them as
knowledgeable authorities or advocates of “common sense” or agents
of moderation and protection for rights.
E
Experts
Authorities identified as scholars, scientists, social scientists, legal
experts, or researchers. Positives will cite experts as informed, fair,
insightful, and/or concerned for honesty or health. Negatives will
state that experts tend to be self-interested, deluded, hired guns,
and/or political.
PIG
Public
Critics of the status quo and gun manufacturers/retailers. These may
Interest
include the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to
Groups
Stop Gun Violence. Positives will cite groups, advocates, or leaders as
informed, fair, insightful. Negatives will state that groups, advocates,
or leaders tend to be greedy, deluded, and/or ideological or political.
CIG
Corporate
Defending status quo and/or gun manufacturers/retailers. Gun lobby,
Interest
gun rights organizations. These groups may include organizations like
Groups
the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and industry
trade associations. Same types of attributes as Public Interest Groups.
S
Sporting and
Hunting
Generally invoke Second Amendment and defend access to guns for
recreation by good, responsible people. Positives will cite groups’
efforts to educate and train people on safe/responsible gun use, for
Groups/Reps example. Negatives will accuse groups of being political and/or
ideological.
J
Judges
Who may issue rulings in gun lawsuits. Positives will reference a wise
or reasonable judge. Negatives will refer to “activist” or “out of
control” judges, or judges with questionable mental acumen.
G
Government
Individual government actors, politicians, or government agencies.
Positives will refer to government’s “common sense” and well-timed
approach to gun policy. Negatives may decry the lack of action by
government, or accuse politicians of working for special interests.
4) Read the article again. This time, you will be looking for interpretive frames. These
“general interpretive frames” are themes that inform the article storylines. Read the article, and
mark these frames in the left-hand margin. Mark each reference to a frame, but no more than one
reference per sentence. If more than one reference to a frame appears in a single sentence, code either as
“SR” (Shared Responsibility, below) if appropriate or code the first-mentioned frame. Note that
these references are not evaluated directly for positive or negative implications, although they often
connote values. These refer to the thematic ways issues are defined. If five references in three
sentences refer to blaming gun owners for being careless, mark down IR three times in the margin.
The following is a list of interpretive frames to look for, a brief description of the frame, and the
abbreviation you should use in your coding.
Code
IR
Frame
Description
Individual/User
Gun owners are responsible for safe gun handling and proper use;
Responsibility
individual negligence and carelessness are to blame for accidents;
criminals to blame for violent actions; “guns don’t shoot people,
people shoot people”
CR
Corporate
Firearm manufacturers and retailers are responsible for ensuring the
Responsibility
safety, accuracy, reliability of their products; for controlling the
distribution of firearms; for making/selling products suitable only
for “legitimate” purposes.
GR
Government
May appear in multiple forms. Government has a duty to protect
Responsibility
citizens from crime and gun violence. Or government has a duty to
protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Or simply that
government has a duty to do something about guns.
CD
SR
Corporate Dupli-
Firearm manufacturers/retailers knowingly engage in lax or
city/Disclosure
negligent sales practices.
Shared
Shared responsibility mixed in one claim – manufacturer/retailer
Responsibility
responsible for safety and distribution, gun owner responsible for
safe handling and proper use, both at once. This frame emphasizes
both Individual Responsibility and Corporate Responsibility.
AF
Attorney’s Fees
Includes the belief that the real problems come from lawyers or/and
money. This frame puts the focus on attorneys rather than gun
PC
and Motives
manufacturers and retailers.
Public Costs
Public costs of gun violence, treating gunshot victims . . . “nation
riddled by gun violence”
RE
Racial causes or
Indirect or direct efforts to distinguish responsible users of guns
implications of
(white) from unsafe users (minority, inner city, crimogenic). Will
harm by guns
often go with the IR frame at top.
5) As you code, highlight the first mention of each specific lawsuit you find by marking it with
a highlighter. You do not need to highlight the same case over and over in a single article. Simply
mark the first reference to each individual case, so that all cases in a given article are each highlighted
once.
6) If the article makes a connection between gun control and the public health campaign
against tobacco, or makes other analogies to tobacco, write “TOB: Yes” at the top of the article.
Otherwise, write “TOB: No”.
7) Finally, determine which one of the following article categories best describes the
majority of the article, and write its name at the top of the article.

Editorial: Official opinion of newspaper, as documented on editorial page.

Thematic: About gun lawsuits, or gun control, gun violence, or firearms in general; the
“big picture.”

Episodic: Specific incidents or sets of incidents within a larger context; stories about
individuals

Other: Columnists, letters to the editor, opinion pieces by other writers that do not reflect
the official opinion of the newspaper.
APPENDIX B -- FREQUENCIES
Non-Litigation
Litigation
Litigation & Non-
Sample
Sample
Articles Coded
270
437
707
Frames Coded
520
1,723
2,243*
Actors Coded
10,916
21,461
32,378
Litigation Sample
* Coders found 129 Articles without discernible frames.
Frames
Actors
Episodic Articles
1,395
62.2%
21,836
67.4%
Thematic Articles
352
15.7%
5,725
17.7%
Editorial Articles
349
15.6%
3,354
10.4%
Other Articles
147
6.6%
1,453
4.5%
100.1%
32,378
100%
Totals 2,243
Frames
Litigation
Actors
Non-Litigation
Litigation
Non-Litigation
Episodic Articles
1,172
68.0%
223
42.9%
15,844
73.8%
5,991
54.9%
Thematic Articles
301
17.5%
51
9.8%
3,641
17.0%
2,084
19.1%
Editorial Articles
206
12.0%
143
27.5%
1,705
7.9%
1,651
15.1%
44
2.6%
103
19.8%
273
1.3%
1,190
10.9%
Totals 1,723 100.0%
520
100.0%
Other Articles
21,461 100.0%
Count
10,916 100.0%
Of All
Frames
Cumulative
Percentage
Corporate Responsibility
683
30.5%
30.5%
Corporate Duplicity or Disclosure
495
22.1%
52.5%
Individual/User Responsibility
345
15.4%
67.9%
Public Costs
334
14.9%
82.8%
Government Responsibility
264
11.8%
94.6%
Attorneys’ Fees / Motives
79
3.5%
98.1%
Shared Responsibilities (mix of individual and
37
1.6%
99.7%
corporate responsibility)
Minority Causes / Implications (distinctions
6
0.3%
2243*
100.1%
100%
based on race, ethnicity, or other demographics)
Totals
* Of 707 articles [437 in the Litigation-Heavy Sample, 270 in the Litigation-Light
Sample], 129 [34 in the Litigation-Heavy Sample and 95 in the Litigation-Light
Sample] featured no frames that coders could detect.
APPENDIX C
Count
Row %
Strength & Direction
Neutral
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
9,840
170
681
151
25
90.5%
1.6%
6.3%
1%
0.2%
32.6%
46.8%
46.4%
47.6%
59%
9,871
68
293
42
3
96.0%
0.7%
2.9%
0.4%
0.0%
32.7%
18.7%
20.1%
13.2%
7.1%
2,477
82
294
64
5
84.8%
2.8%
10.1%
2.2%
0.2%
8.2%
22.6%
20.1%
20.2%
11.9%
1,814
17
79
14
2
94.2%
0.9%
4.1%
0.7%
0.2%
6.0%
4.7%
5.4%
4.4%
4.8%
Column %
Corporations
Government
Gun Owners,
Buyers, Sellers
Corporate Interest
Groups
Gun Victims
Public Interest
Groups
Judges
Sporting/Hunting
Groups
Experts
Victims’/Plaintiffs’
Attorneys
1,844
0
13
23
1
98.0%
0.7%
1.2%
0.1%
6.1%
0.9%
7.3%
2.4%
1,665
14
44
9
4
95.9%
0.8%
2.5%
0.5%
0.2%
5.5%
3.9%
3.0%
2.8%
9.5%
654
0
11
4
0
97.8%
1.6%
0.6%
2.2%
0.7%
1.3%
609
1
1
8
1
98.2%
0.2%
0.2%
1%
0.2%
2.0%
0.2%
0.1%
2.5%
2.4%
515
1
0
0
0
99.8%
0.2%
1.7%
0.2%
450
9
39
2
1
89.8%
1.8%
7.8%
0.4%
0.2%
Corporations’
Attorneys
Totals
1.5%
2.5%
2.7%
0.6%
2.4%
435
1
5
0
0
98.8%
0.2%
1.1%
1.4%
0.2%
0.3%
30,175
363
1460
317
42
93.3%
1.1%
4.5%
1%
0.1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Major Newspapers in Lexis Nexis
Lexis Nexis “Major Papers”
Count of
Percent
Cumulative
Frames
of Frames
Percent
New York Times
467
19.7
19.7
Washington Post
308
13.0
32.7
Boston Globe
218
9.2
41.9
Atlanta Journal and Constitution
204
8.6
50.5
San Francisco Chronicle
142
6.0
56.5
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
142
6.0
62.4
Chicago Sun-Times
113
4.8
67.2
[New Orleans] Times-Picayune
90
3.8
71.0
USA Today
73
3.1
74.1
Houston Chronicle
72
3.0
77.1
Cleveland Plain Dealer
69
2.9
80.0
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
51
2.2
82.2
Columbus Dispatch
41
1.7
83.9
San Diego Union-Tribune
41
1.7
85.6
[Boston] Christian Science Monitor
37
1.6
87.2
Buffalo News
33
1.4
88.6
Tampa Tribune
33
1.4
90.0
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
32
1.3
91.3
Denver Post
31
1.3
92.6
Seattle Times
31
1.3
93.9
St. Petersburg Times
26
1.1
95.0
[New York] Daily News
24
1.0
96.0
[Minneapolis] Star Tribune
21
0.9
96.9
Boston Herald
18
0.8
97.7
[Denver] Rocky Mountain News
16
0.7
98.4
[Portland] Oregonian
14
0.6
98.9
Sacramento Bee
9
0.4
99.3
Omaha World Herald
6
0.3
99.6
Los Angeles Times
5
0.2
99.8
San Antonio Express-News
3
0.1
99.9
Journal of Commerce
2
0.1
100.0
2372
100
100
Totals
APPENDIX D