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.
1 1

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
1 1 1

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 socialscientific 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 policymaking 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 socialscientific 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