Why People Own Guns byJ. Sherwood Williams an John H . McGrath, III
Aggressive attitudes rather than fear of neighborhood or victimization are the main correlates; guns symbolize “fundamental questions about the . . . social system.” The socialist promoters in Washington are going to try to take guns away from all Americans. Those who defend the private ownership of guns by law abiding citizens stand on the bedrock of the Constitution of the United States. . . The citizens have rights that come before the rights of government. Our rights come from Cod, and cannot be taken away by any human laws. ,
These excerpts are from Letters-to-the-Editor of a large southeastern metropolitan newspaper. They were chosen not because they are unusual but rather because they are typical of the issues associated with owning a gun, such as the right to bear arms and the supposed thwarting of socialistically-oriented government. And the United States is a gun-owning society. In fact, most recept estimates agree that there are over 90 million privately owned guns in the U.S. with approximately 24 million of these being small handguns (17). I t would appear that most social and behavioral scientists believe that the surface, political issue of g u n control is related to a myriad of other issues, such as aggressive attitudes a n d behavior, liberal-conservative ideology, class and class consciousness, the rising rate of violent crime, and so forth. Underlying the political issue of whether or not the government can achieve meaningful gun regulation is a fundamental social question-who owns guns and why. W e discern a t least six related issues: the changing way of life, fear for personal safety, t h e g u n as a symbol, t h e phenomenon of loss, trust versus mistrust, and violence in society ( 7 ) . J . Sherwood Williams anti John H. McGrath, 111 are at the Survey Research Center of Virginia Commonwealth University. A version of this paper was presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Toronto.
22
Why Prople Own Guns
T h e changing way of life, or stated differently the loss of our frontier or rural way of life, has led some to oppose change altogether. In effect, they are saying that the good old days were best-let us slow down life and try to maintain the status quo or let us go back to the way things were. Ownership of a gun, then, may be to some simply a symbolic representation of the “freedom” of a n earlier era. Guns also may simply represent a “coping mechanism” for fear; that is, one way to deal with fear is to arm yourself. Fear is suggested as a motivation in most discussions of who owns guns. Relevant to Freud’s comment that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, is a gun just a g u n or is it some symbolic instrument having to d o with machismo, manliness, strength, etc.? As often referred to on “shoot-em-up” shows on television, a gun can be seen as the “equalizer“ and is presented as giving extra strength or independence. Some neo-Freudians equate it with virility, potency, and the male sex organ (7). The concepts of loss a n d of trust versus mistrust are associated with the social-psychological phenomenon of system change, change in aspects of the self and change in one’s reference group. These ideas are an expansion of the concern with the changing way of life, for the issue is one of groups within the system not only opposing each other but also fearing each other. O n the surface, one might argue about one’s “constitutional right” to possess guns. But it may be that what one is saying is that he has gone as far as he will go in watching his group lose control, watching his values being challenged and ridiculed, and watching his way of life being defined as wrong.
Explanations for the “why” of gun ownership would not he complete without some discussion of the use of violence. Richard Hofstadter (13) suggests that there is a connection between the conservative forces in our society and violence. H e is able to document that much of the violence in our society has been used by one group, higher in status, to prevent another group from either achieving equality or bypassing its own position. It is Hofstadter’s contention that the ownership of guns as a political issue in America can be traced early in its history to the Whig party’s view that one way to avoid having a standing army was to arm the general population. A more psychologically oriented explanation for the use of violence is that it is an easily grasped alternative. Forster, in his monograph on violence in the fanatical left and right, stated that “violence has gone hand in glove with political or ideological extremism. It has been a necessary weapon for the farright crusaders and far-left revolutionaires. They reach for a swift, clear, decisive alternative” (11). Most writers on social conflict would agree that violence is only an issue when it is disturbing the lives of the majority. “ T h e new dangerous class is the old lonely crowd, contesting for power in a network of rapidly changing social expectations” (8). The high level of exposure to guns and violence through mass media should also be noted (15).Here guns are portrayed not only as legitimate tools for those who oppose the establishment but for the establishment as well.
23
Journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
In a directly relevant study of gun ownership Wright and Marston (23) used 1973 NORC data as we did, but focused on the structural characteristics of the gun owner Using region, city size, religion, education, occupation, and income, they were able to explain only 14.5 percent of the variation in gun ownership. They also found that fear and paranoia were in some way related to gun ownership, particularly in cities and suburbs. Another significant, though only tangentially related, study done by Feagin (9) dealt with home defense. Feagin used the 1958 National Opinion Research Corporation data to examine people’s attitudes toward defending their homes against crime and violence. His findings focused on the attitudes of citizens, both black and white, toward such things as gun ownership, police effectiveness, and the threat of violence in the society. Blacks, more than whites, preferred to defend their homes rather than leave it to the police, but over half of both groups felt they should personally defend their homes (65 percent to 52 percent). These data suggested that the younger blacks were more homedefense oriented than were older blacks, but there were many regional differences in the findings. Also, as the size of a city increased the proportion who were home-defense oriented” decreased. Socioeconomic status was found to be inversely related to the home defense orientation. The higher one’s status, as measured by education and occupation, the less likely one is to b e “homedefense oriented,” and, yet, the more likely one is to own guns. This supports the suggestion that many people who own guns claim they own them strictly for protection and demonstrates that people’s resistance to change may by symbolized by gun ownership “
This material leaves us feeling that there is much supposition concerning gun ownership in our society but very little measurement testing. We perceive the task in two stages. First, what available data might shed light in the relationship between gun ownership, violence, and fear? Second, after examining these data, what needs to be done? The existing data come mostly from national opinion polls and from government reports having to do with causes and prevention of violence. First we made an exploratory review of the questions used in the 1973 General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center (18) to look for items that could be correlated with gun ownership and could be related to the issues we have noted For instance, we felt that a victim of a crime would most likely lean toward the self-defense argument for gun ownership. Victimization has also been shown to relate to fear in the neighborhood (10). We also looked for items on individual proneness to violence as there are indicators that violence-prone persons are more offensively and more defensively oriented than non-violence-prone persons (19, 20). We expected the first type of person to be more likely to own the instruments (guns) to carry out such proclivities. In fact, Hackney (12) suggests that gun ownership is related to violence proneness, but it is not a cause of violence.
24
Why People Own Guns
W e were interested in finding measures of liberalism-conservatism as the literature strongly implies that the surface issue of gun control is related to these ideological stances. Also, it has been suggested that conservatives are generally more fearful and aggressive than are liberals, which ties in with other themes (1, 2 1. Concomitant to this issue, we were interested in measures of optimismpessimism for we discerned that much of the rhetoric went beyond conservative-liberal stances to envisage the salvation or damnation of the whole social system. We inferred the pessimist could either say “what’s the use” and not purchase weapons or take the opposite tact. There is some indication that the former is the more likely (2) in that pessimism tends to be associated with negative expectations of one’s self and life in general. The evidence, then, suggests that 1. Victims of crime will more likely own guns than will nonvictims. 2. Persons who express fear will be more likely to own guns than will persons who d o not. 3. Liberalism will be negatively related to gun ownership. 4. Violence proneness will be positively related to gun ownership. 5. Pessimists will be less likely to own guns than will nonpessimists. Published research is more specific on socio-demographic factors than on these five issues. Feagin (9)found that race, size of town, and class were related to the extent to which persons desired to be self-protective and own guns. The relationship among social classes, size of town, race, and age also has been demonstrated to b e important (5, 14). An anaylsis of people’s responses to a Gallup Poll indicated that political affiliation, educational background, and level of income did not significantly differentiate among persons for and against gun control. Sex, however, was a factor. Women were more likely to state a need for a gun control, while men seemed to perceive guns as having something to d o with personal protection or security rather than in response to some perceived threat ( 7 ) .
Data for analysis were taken from the General Social Survey of the National Data Program for Social Science gathered in 1973 b y the National Opinion Research Center. T h e sample was the “total non-institutionalized population of the continental United States, 18 years of age and older.” A multi-state area probability sample to the block level was used, resulting in a sample of 1504 persons. Interviews were conducted after 4:OO p . m . on weekdays or during weekends or holidays in order to reduce bias d u e to not-at-homes. A more detailed account of data collection procedures is found in the Codebook for the Spring 1973 Generul Social Survey ( 1 8 ) . W e chose six variables: Violence Proneness. This variable is, conceptually, very complex. Ultimately we elected to use items that indicated a repondent’s willingness to employ
25
journal of Communication, Autunin 1976
Table 1:
Measures of the scales employed
Item to scale score Significance correlations level Violence proneness scale a. Are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? b. In general, do you think the courts in this area deal too harshly or not harshly enough with criminals? C. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) had hit the man’s child after the child accidently damaged the stranger’s car? d. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) was beating up a woman and the man saw i t ? e. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) had broken into the man’s house?
.369
.001
,609
,001
,506
,001
.416
,001
.475
,001
,746
,001
.646
,001
.759
.001
.736
,001
.620
,001
,620
,001
,735
,001
,750
.001
.704
.001
Liberalism scale a. If a person wanted to make a speech in your city
against churchesand religion,should he be allowed to speak, or not? b. I f a person wanted to make a speech in your community favoring government ownership of all railroads and big industries, should he be allowed to speak, or not? C. Suppose an admitted Communist wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he be allowed to speak, or not? d. Suppose an admitted homosexual wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he be allowed to speak, or not? e. How strongly would you object i f a member of your family wanted to bring a Negro friend home for dinner? Pessimism scale a. Taken all together, how would you say things are these dayswould you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not so happy? b. Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly looking out for themselves? c. Do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair? d. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can‘t be too careful in dealing with people?
physical force or to punish individuals who were assumed to have been “guilty” of some kind of “offense.” The scale consists of five items (see Table 1 ) . Each item consists of a three-category response (yes, not sure, and no); t h e scale ranged from 5 to 15 Each item was correlated with the summated scale score (21). Scale score item correlations of less than .35 were deleted from the final scale. The mean of the final scale was 13.047 with a standard deviation of 2.452. A low-scale score on this measure may indicate a low degree of violence proneness.
26
Liberalism. This scale was constructed in the same manner as the violenceproneness scale (see Table 1). Five items dealing with toleration for allowing a “deviant” to speak in one’s community were selected. Four of the five items had two-response categories (yes, no) and the fifth (item e ) a three-response category (strongly, mildly, not at all), making a scale of 5 to 11. The mean of the final scale was 9.322 and the standard deviation was 1.782. T h e scale was constructed so that a low score on the scale should indicate a low degree of liberalism. Pessimism. Four items make up this scale The items deal with the respondents’ general outlook on life and their view of people in general (see Table 1). Three of the items had two-response categories and the fourth (item a ) had three-response categories (very happy, pretty happy, and not too happy), making a scale of 4 to 9. Low scores indicate that the respondents have a low degree of pessimism. The mean a n d standard deviation of the scale were 6.175 and 1.496, respectively. Fear it1 Neighborhood. This variable was measured by a single item from the NORC data source. The item simply asked if there were any areas within a mile of the respondent’s home where they would be afraid to walk alone at night. The response categories were simply “yes” and “no.” Forty-one percent of those answering this question responded in the affirmative and 59 percent answered in the negative. This was the only item in the data source that measured this attitude and indicates the need for better information in future studies. Victim Status. Victim status was determined by three questions that asked if the respondents had encountered any of the following situations: ( 1 ) had been threatened with a gun or shot at, (2) had their home broken into during the year before the interview, or (3) had something taken from them by force in the year before the interview. Respondents were coded as being a victim if they answered “yes” to one or more of these questions. LJsing this method, 23 percent of the sample claimed to have been victims. Gun Ownership. Gun ownership was determined by the single question, “Do you happen t o have in your home any guns or revolvers?’’ Fortv-seven percent of the sample answered that they had at least one gun in their home. Gun possession, then, is equated with ownership for this study
us
How do these variables assist in understanding gun ownership?
Our initial task is to determine which, if any, of the variables are associated with gun ownership (see Table 2). It is clear that there is not a statistically significant degree of association between victim status and gun ownership. In other words, knowing a person’s victim status will not help predict gun ownership. Even so, it should be noted that victims tend to own guns slightly more than d o nonvictims. There is a negative relationship between fear in the neighborhood and gun
27
Journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
Table 2: Zero-order and conditional correlations (gamma) between independent variables and gun ownership with social and demographic characteristics held constant
Victim status
Fear in neighborhood
Degree of liberalism
Violence proneness
Level of pessimism
Zero-order gamma
.I04
-.252*
-.242*
.197*
- .155*
Conditional gamma White Black Rural Urban Male Female Farm Town City Class low Class high Young Old
.142* -.I00 .I70 .I33 .041 .075 - .055 .193* .242 -.043 .333* .016 .180*
- .267* - .028 - .237* - .I28 -.318* -.065 -.345* -.250*
- .220*
.180* -.234* .I52 .231* .164* .156* .135 .229* .201* .069 .200* .242* .073
-.132* - ,094 .087 .182* - .I40 -.190* - .206* - .238* ,021 -.126 - .309* - .I49 - .172*
.OW - .397* - .221* -.121 - .351*
.OOO
- .086 - .016 - .297* -.I 69* -.302* -.180* - .074 -.322* -.237* - .342* -.188*
* Chi-square significant beyond the .05 level
ownership. Persons who tend to be fearful in their neighborhood d o not own guns to the same degree as do persons who do not have fear. Forty percent of those persons who reported fear in their neighborhood own guns as opposed to 53 percent of those gun owners who reported no fear. Our results indicate that as the degree of liberalism increases, gun ownership decreases. Fifty-six percent of those persons who scored low on the liberalism scale own guns as opposed to 43 percent of those scoring high on the liberalism scale. We can reduce our error in predicting gun ownership by nearly twenty percent if we know the direction of difference in pairs on the violence-proneness variable. This relationship is positive, indicating that as violence proneness increases so does the tendency to own guns. A negative relationship exists between pessimism and gun ownership. As pessimism increases gun ownership tends to decrease. Fifty-three percent of those who are low on pessimism own guns while 41 percent of those high on the measure own guns. The conditional relationships between gun ownership and the independent variables are also included in Table 2. In all situations whites are more likely to be gun owners than are blacks. When area of residence is held constant, we note that rural residents are more likely to own guns than are urban residents. However, persons who tend to be violence prone or pessimistic are more likely to own guns in urban areas than those who live in rural areas.
28
Why People Own Guns
Males generally demonstrate a higher relationship between gun ownership and the independent variables. The only substantial contradiction to this conclusion is in the negative relationship between gun ownership and pessimism, where women show a stronger relationship than d o men. When we examine the relationships between gun type and the five independent variables, we find no significant relationships with violence proneness, liberalism, or pessimism, Those people who owned pistols (as opposed to shot guns and rifles) were more likely to report fear in thei; neighborhoods (phi = .06, x2 = 4.68, p < .a), or that they had been victims (phi = .08, xZ = 7.68, p < .Ol). In general, of all persons who expressed fear in their neighborhoods, 38 percent own pistols, 31 percent shotguns, and 31 percent rifles. Thirty-two percent of the victims report owning pistols whereas 24 percent report owning each of other types of guns. In an effort to assess the simultaneous impact of all five independent variables on gun ownership, a new variable was computed using all independent variables. This new combined variable was correlated with gun ownership (16). The use of all the variables together reduces our error in predicting gun ownership by 31 percent when we know the direction of difference in pairs on the composite variable. This is an increase in the proportional reduction in error of nearly 6 percent over using only the fear variable, which was the best single variable predictor of gun ownership.
Three of our five propositions receive strong statistical support, one i s weakly supported and one suggests that a reversal is necessary. We found that victims do tend to own guns more than nonvictims, but the association is very weak It may be that guns are owned as a reaction to having been a victim and as a defense against future victimizations I t is also possible that the victims owned the guns before they were victimized. Our data do not allow us to determine which of the above is more correct. The negative relationship found between fear in one’s neighborhood and gun ownership was surprising, those expressing fear being less likely to own guns than those not expressing fear. One might speculate that fear and pessimism are related and the relationship reflects a “what’s the use” attitude. But the inter-correlations matrix indicated that this was not the case, with fear and pessimism having a weak and negative association (gamma = -.197). Another explanation is the possibility that fear is the dependent variable in this case. That is, when one owns a gun he may be less fearful than when he does not. Suffice it to say that people who fear to walk in their neighborhoods are not likely to own guns. A s violence proneness increases so does gun ownership. A major facet of criminological theory having to d o with violent behavior is the availability of instruments of violence (3, 4, 6). The association between pessimism and gun ownership may be related to the whole issue of man’s reaction to the society. The likelihood of gun ownership decreases as pessimism increases.
29
journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
We see gun ownership as expressive of pressures that involve fundamental questions about the thrust and direction of the social system. W e expect that knowing more about why people own guns will tell us more about the effect of modern society on the people who make up that society There may be some urgency in furthering this understanding if we understand what Chekov meant when he wrote, “If in the first act you hang a pistol on the wall, by the third act you must use it.”
REFERENCES 1. Adorno. T. W.. E. Frenkel-Brunswick, D. J Levinson and R. N. Sanford. The :\itthoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950. 2. Beck. A . T. and A . Weissman. “The hleasurement of Pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale.” Joztrnal of Consulting and Clinical Psycliology 42, December 1974. pp. 861-865. 3. Berkowitz. L. “Impulse. Aggression and the Gun.” Psychology Today 2, September 1968. pp. 18-22. 4. Berkowitz. I,. and A . Lepage. “Weapons as Aggression Eliciting Stimuli.”Jotrrnal of Personality and Social Ps~/cliology7. 1967. pp. 202-207. 5. Blumental. M. D., R. L. Kahn, F. M. Andrews, and K. B. Hrad.Jits/ifying Violence. Ann Arbor, hfich.: Llniversity of hlichigan, Institute of Social Research. 1972. 6. Coles. R. “American Amok: 1s the Cun-Ridden L.T.S.A. a Violent Nation?” N e w Republic 155, August 27, 1966. pp. 12-15. 7 . Daniels, D. N . , Ad, F. Giliila. a n d F. M. Ochberg (Eds.) 1’ioleric.c’ clnd f h c Sfriiggk .for Existence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. 8. Eynon. T. G. “The Phenomena of Violence: Concepts in Circular Theory.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society. 1969. 9. Feasin. J. R. “Home-Defense and the Police: Black and White Perspectives.” American Rehiioral Scientisf 13. M a y 1970. pp, 797-814. 10. Feyerhern. W. H. and hl. J . Hindelang. “On the Victimization of Juveniles: Some Preliminary Results.” ,/ournu/ of Rmearch in Crime and Delinqtreiicy 11. January 1974, pp. 40-50. 11. Forster, A “Violence on the Fanatical Left and Right.” Annals of /he Arnerican A c ~ d ~ t ?ofi y Political and Social Scimces 364. hlarch, 1966, pp. 141-148. 12. Hacknt,y, S. “Southern Violence.” Anierican Historical Reoieu 74, F ~ b r u a r y1969. pp. 906-925. 13. Hofstadter, R. and M. Wallace (Eds.)American Violence: .4 Docttmenfarq Hkforq. New York: Kncrpf, 1971. 14. Horn. J . “The Victims: Who They Are and Where Crime Happens.” I’syclrolog!/ Today 8, hlarch, 1975, pp, 15-16. 15. hlethvin. E. “Mass hlediu and Mass Violence.‘’ The N e w Leader, January 15, 1968. 16. Morris. R. N. “h,iultiple Correlation and Ordinally Scaled Data.” Social Forces 48. March 1970, pp. 299-311. 17. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. F i r m r r n s and Violence in Anzericaii Life. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Covernmcnt Printing Office. 1967. 18. NORC (National Opinion Research Center). National Data Program for flw Social Sciencw Codehook for the Spring 19i.3 General Social Sttroey Chicago: L’niversitv of Chicago. 1973. 19. Toch. Hans. V i o l m f Men. Chicago: Akline. 1969. 20. .foch. Hans. “The Social Psychology of Violence.” In E. 1. Megargee and J . E. Hokanson ( E d s . ) The D p i m i c s of .4ggression. Nrw York: Harper and Row. 1970. pp. 160-169. 21. Thomas. C. \V.. I,. D. Nelson. and J . S. Williams. “The Construction of Likert-type Attitude Scales.” Paper presrnted to the Rural Sociological Society, Montreal. Quehec. 1974. 22. Wilson. (;. D. The PsIyc/iolog!/of C h s e r z ~ u f i s nLondon: ~. Academic Press. 1973. 23. Wright. J. D. and L. 1,. Marstnn. “The Ownership of the hleans of Destruction: Weapons in the United States.” Social Problenin 23. October 1975, pp. 92-107.
30
Aggressive attitudes rather than fear of neighborhood or victimization are the main correlates; guns symbolize “fundamental questions about the . . . social system.” The socialist promoters in Washington are going to try to take guns away from all Americans. Those who defend the private ownership of guns by law abiding citizens stand on the bedrock of the Constitution of the United States. . . The citizens have rights that come before the rights of government. Our rights come from Cod, and cannot be taken away by any human laws. ,
These excerpts are from Letters-to-the-Editor of a large southeastern metropolitan newspaper. They were chosen not because they are unusual but rather because they are typical of the issues associated with owning a gun, such as the right to bear arms and the supposed thwarting of socialistically-oriented government. And the United States is a gun-owning society. In fact, most recept estimates agree that there are over 90 million privately owned guns in the U.S. with approximately 24 million of these being small handguns (17). I t would appear that most social and behavioral scientists believe that the surface, political issue of g u n control is related to a myriad of other issues, such as aggressive attitudes a n d behavior, liberal-conservative ideology, class and class consciousness, the rising rate of violent crime, and so forth. Underlying the political issue of whether or not the government can achieve meaningful gun regulation is a fundamental social question-who owns guns and why. W e discern a t least six related issues: the changing way of life, fear for personal safety, t h e g u n as a symbol, t h e phenomenon of loss, trust versus mistrust, and violence in society ( 7 ) . J . Sherwood Williams anti John H. McGrath, 111 are at the Survey Research Center of Virginia Commonwealth University. A version of this paper was presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Toronto.
22
Why Prople Own Guns
T h e changing way of life, or stated differently the loss of our frontier or rural way of life, has led some to oppose change altogether. In effect, they are saying that the good old days were best-let us slow down life and try to maintain the status quo or let us go back to the way things were. Ownership of a gun, then, may be to some simply a symbolic representation of the “freedom” of a n earlier era. Guns also may simply represent a “coping mechanism” for fear; that is, one way to deal with fear is to arm yourself. Fear is suggested as a motivation in most discussions of who owns guns. Relevant to Freud’s comment that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, is a gun just a g u n or is it some symbolic instrument having to d o with machismo, manliness, strength, etc.? As often referred to on “shoot-em-up” shows on television, a gun can be seen as the “equalizer“ and is presented as giving extra strength or independence. Some neo-Freudians equate it with virility, potency, and the male sex organ (7). The concepts of loss a n d of trust versus mistrust are associated with the social-psychological phenomenon of system change, change in aspects of the self and change in one’s reference group. These ideas are an expansion of the concern with the changing way of life, for the issue is one of groups within the system not only opposing each other but also fearing each other. O n the surface, one might argue about one’s “constitutional right” to possess guns. But it may be that what one is saying is that he has gone as far as he will go in watching his group lose control, watching his values being challenged and ridiculed, and watching his way of life being defined as wrong.
Explanations for the “why” of gun ownership would not he complete without some discussion of the use of violence. Richard Hofstadter (13) suggests that there is a connection between the conservative forces in our society and violence. H e is able to document that much of the violence in our society has been used by one group, higher in status, to prevent another group from either achieving equality or bypassing its own position. It is Hofstadter’s contention that the ownership of guns as a political issue in America can be traced early in its history to the Whig party’s view that one way to avoid having a standing army was to arm the general population. A more psychologically oriented explanation for the use of violence is that it is an easily grasped alternative. Forster, in his monograph on violence in the fanatical left and right, stated that “violence has gone hand in glove with political or ideological extremism. It has been a necessary weapon for the farright crusaders and far-left revolutionaires. They reach for a swift, clear, decisive alternative” (11). Most writers on social conflict would agree that violence is only an issue when it is disturbing the lives of the majority. “ T h e new dangerous class is the old lonely crowd, contesting for power in a network of rapidly changing social expectations” (8). The high level of exposure to guns and violence through mass media should also be noted (15).Here guns are portrayed not only as legitimate tools for those who oppose the establishment but for the establishment as well.
23
Journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
In a directly relevant study of gun ownership Wright and Marston (23) used 1973 NORC data as we did, but focused on the structural characteristics of the gun owner Using region, city size, religion, education, occupation, and income, they were able to explain only 14.5 percent of the variation in gun ownership. They also found that fear and paranoia were in some way related to gun ownership, particularly in cities and suburbs. Another significant, though only tangentially related, study done by Feagin (9) dealt with home defense. Feagin used the 1958 National Opinion Research Corporation data to examine people’s attitudes toward defending their homes against crime and violence. His findings focused on the attitudes of citizens, both black and white, toward such things as gun ownership, police effectiveness, and the threat of violence in the society. Blacks, more than whites, preferred to defend their homes rather than leave it to the police, but over half of both groups felt they should personally defend their homes (65 percent to 52 percent). These data suggested that the younger blacks were more homedefense oriented than were older blacks, but there were many regional differences in the findings. Also, as the size of a city increased the proportion who were home-defense oriented” decreased. Socioeconomic status was found to be inversely related to the home defense orientation. The higher one’s status, as measured by education and occupation, the less likely one is to b e “homedefense oriented,” and, yet, the more likely one is to own guns. This supports the suggestion that many people who own guns claim they own them strictly for protection and demonstrates that people’s resistance to change may by symbolized by gun ownership “
This material leaves us feeling that there is much supposition concerning gun ownership in our society but very little measurement testing. We perceive the task in two stages. First, what available data might shed light in the relationship between gun ownership, violence, and fear? Second, after examining these data, what needs to be done? The existing data come mostly from national opinion polls and from government reports having to do with causes and prevention of violence. First we made an exploratory review of the questions used in the 1973 General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center (18) to look for items that could be correlated with gun ownership and could be related to the issues we have noted For instance, we felt that a victim of a crime would most likely lean toward the self-defense argument for gun ownership. Victimization has also been shown to relate to fear in the neighborhood (10). We also looked for items on individual proneness to violence as there are indicators that violence-prone persons are more offensively and more defensively oriented than non-violence-prone persons (19, 20). We expected the first type of person to be more likely to own the instruments (guns) to carry out such proclivities. In fact, Hackney (12) suggests that gun ownership is related to violence proneness, but it is not a cause of violence.
24
Why People Own Guns
W e were interested in finding measures of liberalism-conservatism as the literature strongly implies that the surface issue of gun control is related to these ideological stances. Also, it has been suggested that conservatives are generally more fearful and aggressive than are liberals, which ties in with other themes (1, 2 1. Concomitant to this issue, we were interested in measures of optimismpessimism for we discerned that much of the rhetoric went beyond conservative-liberal stances to envisage the salvation or damnation of the whole social system. We inferred the pessimist could either say “what’s the use” and not purchase weapons or take the opposite tact. There is some indication that the former is the more likely (2) in that pessimism tends to be associated with negative expectations of one’s self and life in general. The evidence, then, suggests that 1. Victims of crime will more likely own guns than will nonvictims. 2. Persons who express fear will be more likely to own guns than will persons who d o not. 3. Liberalism will be negatively related to gun ownership. 4. Violence proneness will be positively related to gun ownership. 5. Pessimists will be less likely to own guns than will nonpessimists. Published research is more specific on socio-demographic factors than on these five issues. Feagin (9)found that race, size of town, and class were related to the extent to which persons desired to be self-protective and own guns. The relationship among social classes, size of town, race, and age also has been demonstrated to b e important (5, 14). An anaylsis of people’s responses to a Gallup Poll indicated that political affiliation, educational background, and level of income did not significantly differentiate among persons for and against gun control. Sex, however, was a factor. Women were more likely to state a need for a gun control, while men seemed to perceive guns as having something to d o with personal protection or security rather than in response to some perceived threat ( 7 ) .
Data for analysis were taken from the General Social Survey of the National Data Program for Social Science gathered in 1973 b y the National Opinion Research Center. T h e sample was the “total non-institutionalized population of the continental United States, 18 years of age and older.” A multi-state area probability sample to the block level was used, resulting in a sample of 1504 persons. Interviews were conducted after 4:OO p . m . on weekdays or during weekends or holidays in order to reduce bias d u e to not-at-homes. A more detailed account of data collection procedures is found in the Codebook for the Spring 1973 Generul Social Survey ( 1 8 ) . W e chose six variables: Violence Proneness. This variable is, conceptually, very complex. Ultimately we elected to use items that indicated a repondent’s willingness to employ
25
journal of Communication, Autunin 1976
Table 1:
Measures of the scales employed
Item to scale score Significance correlations level Violence proneness scale a. Are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? b. In general, do you think the courts in this area deal too harshly or not harshly enough with criminals? C. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) had hit the man’s child after the child accidently damaged the stranger’s car? d. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) was beating up a woman and the man saw i t ? e. Would you approve (of a man hitting a stranger if he) had broken into the man’s house?
.369
.001
,609
,001
,506
,001
.416
,001
.475
,001
,746
,001
.646
,001
.759
.001
.736
,001
.620
,001
,620
,001
,735
,001
,750
.001
.704
.001
Liberalism scale a. If a person wanted to make a speech in your city
against churchesand religion,should he be allowed to speak, or not? b. I f a person wanted to make a speech in your community favoring government ownership of all railroads and big industries, should he be allowed to speak, or not? C. Suppose an admitted Communist wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he be allowed to speak, or not? d. Suppose an admitted homosexual wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he be allowed to speak, or not? e. How strongly would you object i f a member of your family wanted to bring a Negro friend home for dinner? Pessimism scale a. Taken all together, how would you say things are these dayswould you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not so happy? b. Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly looking out for themselves? c. Do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair? d. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can‘t be too careful in dealing with people?
physical force or to punish individuals who were assumed to have been “guilty” of some kind of “offense.” The scale consists of five items (see Table 1 ) . Each item consists of a three-category response (yes, not sure, and no); t h e scale ranged from 5 to 15 Each item was correlated with the summated scale score (21). Scale score item correlations of less than .35 were deleted from the final scale. The mean of the final scale was 13.047 with a standard deviation of 2.452. A low-scale score on this measure may indicate a low degree of violence proneness.
26
Liberalism. This scale was constructed in the same manner as the violenceproneness scale (see Table 1). Five items dealing with toleration for allowing a “deviant” to speak in one’s community were selected. Four of the five items had two-response categories (yes, no) and the fifth (item e ) a three-response category (strongly, mildly, not at all), making a scale of 5 to 11. The mean of the final scale was 9.322 and the standard deviation was 1.782. T h e scale was constructed so that a low score on the scale should indicate a low degree of liberalism. Pessimism. Four items make up this scale The items deal with the respondents’ general outlook on life and their view of people in general (see Table 1). Three of the items had two-response categories and the fourth (item a ) had three-response categories (very happy, pretty happy, and not too happy), making a scale of 4 to 9. Low scores indicate that the respondents have a low degree of pessimism. The mean a n d standard deviation of the scale were 6.175 and 1.496, respectively. Fear it1 Neighborhood. This variable was measured by a single item from the NORC data source. The item simply asked if there were any areas within a mile of the respondent’s home where they would be afraid to walk alone at night. The response categories were simply “yes” and “no.” Forty-one percent of those answering this question responded in the affirmative and 59 percent answered in the negative. This was the only item in the data source that measured this attitude and indicates the need for better information in future studies. Victim Status. Victim status was determined by three questions that asked if the respondents had encountered any of the following situations: ( 1 ) had been threatened with a gun or shot at, (2) had their home broken into during the year before the interview, or (3) had something taken from them by force in the year before the interview. Respondents were coded as being a victim if they answered “yes” to one or more of these questions. LJsing this method, 23 percent of the sample claimed to have been victims. Gun Ownership. Gun ownership was determined by the single question, “Do you happen t o have in your home any guns or revolvers?’’ Fortv-seven percent of the sample answered that they had at least one gun in their home. Gun possession, then, is equated with ownership for this study
us
How do these variables assist in understanding gun ownership?
Our initial task is to determine which, if any, of the variables are associated with gun ownership (see Table 2). It is clear that there is not a statistically significant degree of association between victim status and gun ownership. In other words, knowing a person’s victim status will not help predict gun ownership. Even so, it should be noted that victims tend to own guns slightly more than d o nonvictims. There is a negative relationship between fear in the neighborhood and gun
27
Journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
Table 2: Zero-order and conditional correlations (gamma) between independent variables and gun ownership with social and demographic characteristics held constant
Victim status
Fear in neighborhood
Degree of liberalism
Violence proneness
Level of pessimism
Zero-order gamma
.I04
-.252*
-.242*
.197*
- .155*
Conditional gamma White Black Rural Urban Male Female Farm Town City Class low Class high Young Old
.142* -.I00 .I70 .I33 .041 .075 - .055 .193* .242 -.043 .333* .016 .180*
- .267* - .028 - .237* - .I28 -.318* -.065 -.345* -.250*
- .220*
.180* -.234* .I52 .231* .164* .156* .135 .229* .201* .069 .200* .242* .073
-.132* - ,094 .087 .182* - .I40 -.190* - .206* - .238* ,021 -.126 - .309* - .I49 - .172*
.OW - .397* - .221* -.121 - .351*
.OOO
- .086 - .016 - .297* -.I 69* -.302* -.180* - .074 -.322* -.237* - .342* -.188*
* Chi-square significant beyond the .05 level
ownership. Persons who tend to be fearful in their neighborhood d o not own guns to the same degree as do persons who do not have fear. Forty percent of those persons who reported fear in their neighborhood own guns as opposed to 53 percent of those gun owners who reported no fear. Our results indicate that as the degree of liberalism increases, gun ownership decreases. Fifty-six percent of those persons who scored low on the liberalism scale own guns as opposed to 43 percent of those scoring high on the liberalism scale. We can reduce our error in predicting gun ownership by nearly twenty percent if we know the direction of difference in pairs on the violence-proneness variable. This relationship is positive, indicating that as violence proneness increases so does the tendency to own guns. A negative relationship exists between pessimism and gun ownership. As pessimism increases gun ownership tends to decrease. Fifty-three percent of those who are low on pessimism own guns while 41 percent of those high on the measure own guns. The conditional relationships between gun ownership and the independent variables are also included in Table 2. In all situations whites are more likely to be gun owners than are blacks. When area of residence is held constant, we note that rural residents are more likely to own guns than are urban residents. However, persons who tend to be violence prone or pessimistic are more likely to own guns in urban areas than those who live in rural areas.
28
Why People Own Guns
Males generally demonstrate a higher relationship between gun ownership and the independent variables. The only substantial contradiction to this conclusion is in the negative relationship between gun ownership and pessimism, where women show a stronger relationship than d o men. When we examine the relationships between gun type and the five independent variables, we find no significant relationships with violence proneness, liberalism, or pessimism, Those people who owned pistols (as opposed to shot guns and rifles) were more likely to report fear in thei; neighborhoods (phi = .06, x2 = 4.68, p < .a), or that they had been victims (phi = .08, xZ = 7.68, p < .Ol). In general, of all persons who expressed fear in their neighborhoods, 38 percent own pistols, 31 percent shotguns, and 31 percent rifles. Thirty-two percent of the victims report owning pistols whereas 24 percent report owning each of other types of guns. In an effort to assess the simultaneous impact of all five independent variables on gun ownership, a new variable was computed using all independent variables. This new combined variable was correlated with gun ownership (16). The use of all the variables together reduces our error in predicting gun ownership by 31 percent when we know the direction of difference in pairs on the composite variable. This is an increase in the proportional reduction in error of nearly 6 percent over using only the fear variable, which was the best single variable predictor of gun ownership.
Three of our five propositions receive strong statistical support, one i s weakly supported and one suggests that a reversal is necessary. We found that victims do tend to own guns more than nonvictims, but the association is very weak It may be that guns are owned as a reaction to having been a victim and as a defense against future victimizations I t is also possible that the victims owned the guns before they were victimized. Our data do not allow us to determine which of the above is more correct. The negative relationship found between fear in one’s neighborhood and gun ownership was surprising, those expressing fear being less likely to own guns than those not expressing fear. One might speculate that fear and pessimism are related and the relationship reflects a “what’s the use” attitude. But the inter-correlations matrix indicated that this was not the case, with fear and pessimism having a weak and negative association (gamma = -.197). Another explanation is the possibility that fear is the dependent variable in this case. That is, when one owns a gun he may be less fearful than when he does not. Suffice it to say that people who fear to walk in their neighborhoods are not likely to own guns. A s violence proneness increases so does gun ownership. A major facet of criminological theory having to d o with violent behavior is the availability of instruments of violence (3, 4, 6). The association between pessimism and gun ownership may be related to the whole issue of man’s reaction to the society. The likelihood of gun ownership decreases as pessimism increases.
29
journal of Communication, Autumn 1976
We see gun ownership as expressive of pressures that involve fundamental questions about the thrust and direction of the social system. W e expect that knowing more about why people own guns will tell us more about the effect of modern society on the people who make up that society There may be some urgency in furthering this understanding if we understand what Chekov meant when he wrote, “If in the first act you hang a pistol on the wall, by the third act you must use it.”
REFERENCES 1. Adorno. T. W.. E. Frenkel-Brunswick, D. J Levinson and R. N. Sanford. The :\itthoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950. 2. Beck. A . T. and A . Weissman. “The hleasurement of Pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale.” Joztrnal of Consulting and Clinical Psycliology 42, December 1974. pp. 861-865. 3. Berkowitz. L. “Impulse. Aggression and the Gun.” Psychology Today 2, September 1968. pp. 18-22. 4. Berkowitz. I,. and A . Lepage. “Weapons as Aggression Eliciting Stimuli.”Jotrrnal of Personality and Social Ps~/cliology7. 1967. pp. 202-207. 5. Blumental. M. D., R. L. Kahn, F. M. Andrews, and K. B. Hrad.Jits/ifying Violence. Ann Arbor, hfich.: Llniversity of hlichigan, Institute of Social Research. 1972. 6. Coles. R. “American Amok: 1s the Cun-Ridden L.T.S.A. a Violent Nation?” N e w Republic 155, August 27, 1966. pp. 12-15. 7 . Daniels, D. N . , Ad, F. Giliila. a n d F. M. Ochberg (Eds.) 1’ioleric.c’ clnd f h c Sfriiggk .for Existence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. 8. Eynon. T. G. “The Phenomena of Violence: Concepts in Circular Theory.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society. 1969. 9. Feasin. J. R. “Home-Defense and the Police: Black and White Perspectives.” American Rehiioral Scientisf 13. M a y 1970. pp, 797-814. 10. Feyerhern. W. H. and hl. J . Hindelang. “On the Victimization of Juveniles: Some Preliminary Results.” ,/ournu/ of Rmearch in Crime and Delinqtreiicy 11. January 1974, pp. 40-50. 11. Forster, A “Violence on the Fanatical Left and Right.” Annals of /he Arnerican A c ~ d ~ t ?ofi y Political and Social Scimces 364. hlarch, 1966, pp. 141-148. 12. Hacknt,y, S. “Southern Violence.” Anierican Historical Reoieu 74, F ~ b r u a r y1969. pp. 906-925. 13. Hofstadter, R. and M. Wallace (Eds.)American Violence: .4 Docttmenfarq Hkforq. New York: Kncrpf, 1971. 14. Horn. J . “The Victims: Who They Are and Where Crime Happens.” I’syclrolog!/ Today 8, hlarch, 1975, pp, 15-16. 15. hlethvin. E. “Mass hlediu and Mass Violence.‘’ The N e w Leader, January 15, 1968. 16. Morris. R. N. “h,iultiple Correlation and Ordinally Scaled Data.” Social Forces 48. March 1970, pp. 299-311. 17. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. F i r m r r n s and Violence in Anzericaii Life. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Covernmcnt Printing Office. 1967. 18. NORC (National Opinion Research Center). National Data Program for flw Social Sciencw Codehook for the Spring 19i.3 General Social Sttroey Chicago: L’niversitv of Chicago. 1973. 19. Toch. Hans. V i o l m f Men. Chicago: Akline. 1969. 20. .foch. Hans. “The Social Psychology of Violence.” In E. 1. Megargee and J . E. Hokanson ( E d s . ) The D p i m i c s of .4ggression. Nrw York: Harper and Row. 1970. pp. 160-169. 21. Thomas. C. \V.. I,. D. Nelson. and J . S. Williams. “The Construction of Likert-type Attitude Scales.” Paper presrnted to the Rural Sociological Society, Montreal. Quehec. 1974. 22. Wilson. (;. D. The PsIyc/iolog!/of C h s e r z ~ u f i s nLondon: ~. Academic Press. 1973. 23. Wright. J. D. and L. 1,. Marstnn. “The Ownership of the hleans of Destruction: Weapons in the United States.” Social Problenin 23. October 1975, pp. 92-107.
30
