Macias

Stephanie Macias

Kate Flom

WRD 104-231

25 February 2013

A Conversation Regarding Gun Control

Due to the most recent public shootings, gun control has resurfaced as a leading

controversial debate among American government and society. Similar to any other

debate, there are those supporting, those contemplating, and those opposed to enforcing

stricter gun control. Within those categories of people, there are a variety of discourse

communities with similar and/or differing perspectives on the matter of gun control. For

instance, a discourse may consist of people who consider gun control through a social,

psychological, and an economic lens. In order to reduce gun violence in the United

States, gun regulations must be enforced. In the conversation surrounding gun control,

these three scholarly sources effectively research the public’s attitudes, conclude those

attitudes affect their views on the issue of gun control and in essence suggest gun laws

are needed.

To look more closely at what and how the public’s attitudes affect their feelings

towards policy issues, I will compare the works of these scholars. Katarzyna Celinska, a

scholar at John Jay College of Criminal Justice within the University of New York,

focuses most of her time on researching violence prevention and other issues in criminal

justice. Celinska’s, “Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun

Ownership and Attitudes Toward Gun Control,” proposes a social view on gun control.

In her research, she addresses the claim that the majority of Americans lead an

1

Macias

individualistic lifestyle and applies it to the issue of gun control. Robin M. Wolpert is a

lawyer who attended Colby College and Cornell University Law. James G. Gimpel is a

professor at the University of Maryland, received his Ph.D from the University of

Chicago, and whose research mainly consists of public opinion and political behavior.

Wolpert and Gimpel’s, “Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Public Attitudes Toward

Gun Control,” offers a psychological point of view on the issue of gun control. They

research whether self-interest is a contributing factor to someone’s views on gun control

and if so by how much. Philip J. Cook is now a public policy professor at Duke

University. His research includes but is not limited to criminal justice, weapons and

violent crime and he previously wrote Gun Violence: The Real Costs. James A. Leitzel is

the director of public policy studies at the University of Chicago. Cook and Leitzel’s,

“Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy”: An Economic Analysis of the Attack on Gun Control,”

discusses gun control through an economic standpoint. They look into whether gun

regulations benefit our economy or not.

Taking a social perspective on the issue of gun control, in her article Celinska In

order to determine whether most Americans having individualistic ideologies is a valid

claim, Celinska “uses a unidimensional index of individualism and collectivism” and

applies it to the issues of gun control and ownership (235). Her findings suggest that

society’s attitudes are mainly due to either their individualistic or collectivist ideologies.

In relation to the issue of gun control, she found that “Holding individualistic values is a

consistent strong predictor of opposing gun control measures in all attitudinal models”

(p.244). Similarly, Wolpert and Gimpel’s argue self-interest is a key factor in someone’s

feelings towards gun control. Wolpert and Gimpel also argue the banning of handguns

2

Macias

usually increases self-interest effects than the banning of assault weapons or waiting

periods on buying firearms. Wolpert and Gimpel make these arguments due to their

supporting research results. While Celinska’s and Wolperts and Gimpel’s studies look

more into a person’s own thought process during their deliberation of gun control, Cook

and Leitzel take an economic perspective on the issue. They look at how numbers come

into play with society’s take on gun control and whether gun regulations benefit our

economy or not. More specifically Cook and Leitzel analyze and critique Albert O.

Hirschman’s The Rhetoric of Reaction Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Unlike Hirschman’s

argument, Cook and Leitzel suggest “But the case for unregulated gun market does not

stand up well to economic logic” (117). Focusing on the public’s attitudes and traits and

how they determine their feelings towards gun control, Celinska and Wolpert and Gimpel

examine similar information regarding gun control and share similar views. On the other

hand, Cook and Leitzel focus on the grand scheme of things in which they determine if

gun regulations are economically beneficial for all of society.

Many oppose gun control due to their attitudes and lifestyles. More specifically,

many argue against gun regulations and bans because they have individualistic ideologies

and look out for their self-interests. This is most evident when Celinska claims, “…those

who oppose gun control tend to hold individualistic views and by opposing any

limitations on gun ownership, they seek to protect their own self-interest, that of their

families, and the interests of those with whom they closely affiliate, associate, identify

with” (233). Here Celinska, emphasizes the effects of individualistic qualities on policy

issues such as gun control and also incorporates Wolpert and Gimpel’s argument by

mentioning how self-interest is a key factor in opposing gun control. Despite arguing that

3

Macias

self-interests immensely influence opposition towards gun control, through their research

Wolpert and Gimpel find that even more so than gun control, banning guns sparks more

self-interest reactions in the public (255). While Celinska and Wolpert and Gimpel all

focus on how the public’s attitudes influence their opinions on policy issues, Cook and

Leitzel address the public’s attitudes in a different way. Throughout their article, they

describe the economic reasoning for why people support or oppose gun regulations. Like

the other scholars, Leitzel is addressing the public’s attitudes but he focuses on their

economic stance while Celinska and Wolpert and Gimpel focus on the public’s personal

ideologies and qualities.

Another key factor to consider while determining someone’s reasoning for

supporting or opposing gun control is whom you are obtaining your information from or

how you are obtaining your information. Since both Celinska and Wolpert and Gimpel

conduct studies in their articles, they describe their sources in detail. For example, this

can be seen under the article’s sections labeled as “data” and “sample” Celinska describes

the groups of people she is studying. She obtained her information from the 1972-1998

General Social Survey (GSS) of groups of households. Within that survey, Celinska

looked at two different samples. One sample consisted of 7,714 individuals from 1984-

1998. She then looked at a subsample of 1,191 individuals from the 1984 survey in order

to get an accurate representation of the preliminary index of individualism and

collectivism (235-237). Similarly, Wolpert and Gimpel describe their sources as

including, “…demographic factors such as region of residence, urban-rural residence,

religion, income, age, gender, and race in our models…” (244). Not only do Wolpert and

Gimpel provide detailed descriptions of the groups of individuals they study, but also

4

Macias

they go into detail about what the three policies they question their sample on and how

those elicit different responses. While, Celinska and Wolpert and Gimpel thoroughly

discuss their samples of people they analyzed, Cook and Leitzel do not do so. Due to

their different objectives, Cook and Leitzel discuss the actual gun laws, gun markets, and

gun regulations that we are facing today (92-94). In this aspect Wolpert and Gimpel and

Cook and Leitzel analyze some of the same information.

Before reading the work of these scholars, I had already believed that people’s

attitudes had a strong influence on how they viewed policy issues. From exposure to

other sources and personal beliefs, I had come to the conclusion that people’s personal

interests and agendas definitely affected their views on gun control. Nonetheless, I was

surprised to see that Cook and Leitzel determined economic attitudes also affect people’s

views on policy issues such as gun control. Overall, I agree with all three sources because

they all argue that people’s attitudes affect how they view gun control, which I had

believed beforehand.

5

Macias

Works Cited

Celinska, Katarzyna. "Individualism And Collectivism In America: The Case Of Gun

Ownership And Attitudes Toward Gun Control." Sociological Perspectives 50.2

(2007): 229-247. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.

Cook, Philip J., and James A. Leitzel. "`Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy': An Economic

Analysis Of The Attack On Gun Control." Law & Contemporary Problems 59.1

(1996): 91-118. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.

Wolpert, Robin M., and James G. Gimpel. "Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, And Public

Attitudes Toward Gun Control." Political Behavior 20.3 (1998): 241-262.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.

6