Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?

Presented in the Deviance and Control: Quantitative Studies session of the American Sociological Association 89th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 5 August 1994.

Three surveys of Concordia University undergraduate students are used to explore the motivations for supporting gun control. The first, a representative sample (n=900) taken in 1993 questioned students on gun control, sexual attitudes, attitudes towards homosexuals, drinking and drugs. It showed that students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns. The second study, a non representative (n=180) sentence completion survey revealed more complex patterns, and allowed the development of questions for the third study. The third study, a representative sample (n=780) taken in 1994 showed that men and women have different patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have "politically correct" attitudes. The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.

In public opinion surveys women are generally more favorable to gun control than men. Why is this so? More generally, why is anyone in favor of gun control? Is there a rational basis for gun control, or is it an emotional and symbolic issue in which gun control is a part of other symbolic conflicts, such as the relation between the sexes? While the public has been polled on gun control issues quite frequently, the analysis has rarely gone beyond descriptive cross tabulations leaving these more fundamental questions unexamined. Using the results of three studies carried out in a Canadian university some of these questions can be answered.

On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine, a rejected applicant, entered the Ecole Polytechnique (the engineering school of the University of Montreal), and, saying "you are all feminists," murdered 14 women, then committed suicide. He used a semi-automatic hunting rifle, with a 30 round magazine. This shooting gave added impetus to proposed gun control legislation (Lewis 1989). It also made gun control, and large capacity magazines a women's issue. As Mary Collins, federal women's minister at the time said:

"The events that took place in Montreal are reflective of the same kind of violence that destroys the lives of so many women in Canada every day, in their homes, on the street and at work." "She said the true number of female victims of violence may never be known, but cited statistics she said reveal a 'shocking picture' in Canada: Eighty percent of native women have been abused or assaulted. One in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lives, most by people they know. At least one woman in 10 is battered by her male partner." "Men often have a "feeling of omnipotence...that they have to control women and control can also be exercised through violence (Cox 1990)."

Heidi Rathjen, Executive Director of the Coalition for Gun control, told the Status of Women Committee,

"she believed Ecole Polytechnique was the target for the massacre because it is so progressive in its treatment of female students. 'The nature of this act was very similar to family violence,' Rathjen said. 'How is this murderer different from any husband who kills his wife rather than letting her leave and control her own life, or from a man who is unhappy and blames, denigrates and regards with contempt everything female around him?'" (Wills 1991)

Later, Collins, at the time Associate Minister of National Defense and Minister Responsible for Status of Women, testifying before another Parliamentary Committee, said,

"Any diminution of the regulations with respect to magazine capacity I think would certainly be a betrayal, particularly to those women [the 48 a year she said are killed with guns] and many of those who were involved at Ecole Polytechnique, who were so much involved with this issue. It would be a betrayal to the trust that I think we have to them (Collins 1992:45)."

Most of the points made by Collins and Rathjen have little to do with guns, but illustrate the way in which guns have become symbolic of violence against women. Magazine capacity may, or may not, have been important at Ecole Polytechnique, but plays little role in domestic homicides which are generally accomplished with one or two shots.

Canadian men are much more likely to own guns (82% of owners) than Canadian women (18%) (Reid 1991:6). Statistically, men are almost twice as likely to be murdered as women. In 1991, for example, "Consistent with other years, 64% of all victims of homicide were male and 36% were female. (Wright, Christine 1992:10)" The 1990 homicide rate was 4.0 per 100,000 for men, and 1.9 per 100,000 for women. Over the period 1981 to 1990 36%, of male homicides were committed with firearms, and 30% of female homicides. Thus the male firearms homicide rate is about 1.44 per 100,000, the female firearms homicide rate is about 0.57 per 100,000. Men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women in Canada (Trevethan 1992)

In her Doctoral thesis, Special Objects: A Study of the Meaning of Things, Martha Anne Oury found that men mentioned guns as liked objects in associations with people (p. 93). She found the following differences in patterns of liked objects between men and women: "Where she is more interested in stuffed animals, dolls, jewelry, clothes, personal printed material, souvenirs, and furniture, he is interested in guns and sports. (all differences p < .05) (p. 231).

Branscombe and Owen (1991) examined, in a small experiment with undergraduates and a larger replication in the community, the impact that gun ownership had on the social inferences that people made about women and men. They found that: "Female handgun owners were perceived as resembling stereotypic conceptions of males. Women with handguns were perceived as gaining stereotypically male physical attributes, stereotypically male positive traits, and stereotypically male low status roles (p. 1575)." "Handgun ownership often did not influence judgments of male targets at all; although when it did, it tended to less positive impressions (p. 1576)." "Both men and women are similarly viewed as less likable when they own a gun (p. 1584)."

Although political conservatism and liberalism have not been found to be related to attitudes on gun control, once gun ownership and hunting have been taken into account (Kleck 1991:373), I thought, at the beginning, given the nature of the recent debate, that perhaps sexual conservatism or liberalism might influence attitudes towards gun control.

Gun control is a "motherhood issue." Essentially everyone supports some form of gun control (Wright, Rossi and Daly, 1983:232). There may be a few anarchists and "mountain men" who would argue for no controls at all, but everyone else, gun owners included, wants to keep guns out of the hands of anarchists, criminals, unsupervised children and psychopaths. The issue is not terribly salient for most people, when they are asked in a poll whether guns should be more restricted most answer, essentially, "why not? (Wright, et. al.:232)" Most people know very little about existing firearms laws (Wright, et. al.:232), so when a poll asks, usually after a dramatic incident (Kukla, 1973:260; Kleck, 1991:368), if there should be more laws an overwhelming majority says yes. What the public is saying is that "something" should be done. What, exactly, should be done is open to argument. Given the lack of knowledge, and the high level of emotionalism involved, many symbolic issues become part of the discussion.

Proponents of more gun control tend to be moral entrepreneurs (Becker 1963) engaged in a symbolic crusade (Gusfield 1963). They see evil and want to pass laws to prohibit it. John Kaplan (1979, 6) noted that, "Many people simply believe that, regardless of any utilitarian calculus, it is wrong for people to behave in certain ways and that the law should reflect this." Pro control advocates cite horrific victimizations and studies on the danger of guns.

Opponents of additional gun control tend to have a fortress mentality, because they have something to lose. They cite civil and property rights, failures of similar controls, successful deterrence of aggressors, and studies showing that guns deter crime. The two extremes tend to operate in separate symbolic universes (Berger and Luckmann 1966), objectifying events within different structures of legitimation. Daniels wrote, "...even irrefutable data would likely not convince some people to change their positions (Daniels et. al. 1970:285)."

Since facts and their interpretations are disputed, the argument tends to become ad hominem rather quickly. The gun control argument has been characterized as a "stigma contest" (Kleck 1991:376). Kaplan noted, "... many people who do not own guns stigmatize gun owners as 'gun nuts'; they are red-necks, violent, anti-intellectual, racist, reactionary and dangerous.(1979:6)" Gun control advocates are characterized (Haluschak 1993:27) as, "know-it-alls,...'it's for your own good' social engineers, ... yammering, screeching, left-libber and politically correct doinks..." In spite of the intemperate language, the stereotypes that each side has of the other may contain elements of truth.

The only psychological research that has been done, a small study by Diener and Kerber (1979) found that gun owners did not exhibit atypical personality characteristics compared with non gun owners and national norms of the California Personality Inventory (p. 227). Given that between 23% and 31% of Canadian households have guns (Reid 1991; Mauser & Margolis 1992:193) one would have to have a very broad definition of psychological problems to assert that all gun owners are abnormal.

Canada already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The Criminal Code of Canada has required a police permit for a pistol outside of home or place of business since 1892 (4), a police permit to buy a handgun since 1913 (5), registration of all handguns wherever kept since 1934 (6), and a Central Registry under the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. since 1951 (7) (Friedland, 1984: 125-127).

Since 1978 anyone wishing to purchase a firearm of any type, or an air-gun capable of a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 meters (500 feet) per second, has had to first obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. With the changes adopted in 1992, this requires that the applicant complete a full-day safety course, fill out a detailed four page multi-copy application, answer 35 questions on criminal record, alcohol or drug abuse, whether they have been reported to the police or social services for violence or conflict in the home, whether there has been a divorce or separation, a failure in school, or a loss of a job or bankruptcy; supply two photographs; two witnesses' signatures (Quebec requires four additional references, from: spouse, employer, colleague and neighbor); and a certified check for $50.00. The police then proceed to do a criminal record check and carry out such interviews with referees and others as seem warranted. The processing time, while a minimum of 28 days is specified, seems to be around three months. In sum, it takes longer, and requires more training, paperwork and investigation, for a Canadian to buy a pellet gun than it does for an American to legally buy a machine gun.

There are four reasons in the law a Canadian may own a handgun: To protect life (rarely given), for a lawful occupation (e.g., security guard), for a collection (many requirements, must be stored in a safe, police may visit to inspect, etc.), and for target practice (8). In order to get a pistol for target practice the owner must have the Firearms Acquisition Certificate, join a pistol shooting club, take a pistol safety course, apply for a permit which allows them to carry their pistol from home to club, locked and unloaded, in a locked box. In Quebec, (other provinces may vary) the applicant for a carry (to club) permit must produce six letters of reference from their employer, spouse, two neighbors, someone who has known them for five years and the President or Secretary of a gun club, in addition to the six required for the original Firearms Acquisition Permit. The police then carry out a records check before issuing this carry (to club) permit. Every year those who have a permit for target practice have to reapply to the police to renew the carry (to club) permit. In addition, before picking up the gun from the store, they have to apply for registration of the gun, which involves other forms, a police records check, and a wait which seems to average between three and six months. When the Registration Certificate and the Carry (to club) permit have been received, they next apply for a Transport permit which allows them to take the gun, locked in a locked box, from the store to their home where it must be stored double locked or in a safe. Anyone in possession of a handgun illegally is subject to a maximum five year prison sentence. They have to have another permit from the police to take their gun to a gunsmith, or to a gun show to sell it. Figure 1 shows the necessary steps in a somewhat simplified form. In general, there is not enough violent crime or civil disorder in Canada for the ordinary citizen to go through all of this to purchase a handgun for protection, as is sometimes true in the U.S. (McDowall and Loftin, 1973; Smith and Uchida, 1988; Lizotte, Bordua and White 1981).

Most Canadians are unfamiliar with firearms laws, and many think you can walk into a store, buy a pistol and walk out.

Figure 1 It takes two full-day safety courses, three separate police investigations, numerous forms, twelve letters of reference, and about a year's wait to purchase a pistol for target shooting in Quebec, Canada.

Starting in 1993 regulations, which are part of the 1992 law, prohibit magazines for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that contain more than five cartridges, and pistol magazines that contain more than 10 cartridges; it applies retroactively to all existing centerfire guns (9). A survey of 15 gunsmiths in 5 Provinces across Canada, carried out in mid-September 1993 revealed that only registered owners, not a single criminal, had come in to have their magazines altered to comply with the law (10). This is not a surprise - it illustrates the maxim that laws only affect the law-abiding.

Figure 2 Homicides in Canada, 1961 to 1990, by method. Less than 1% are committed with legally registered handguns, 10% to 17% with illegal, unregistered, mostly smuggled, handguns.

Statistics Canada did a special tabulation for me of their Homicide database. In the thirty years between 1961 and 1990 there were 15,101 homicides in Canada, as Figure 2 shows. Of these 108, or 0.72%, fewer than four per year, were committed with registered handguns.

There are about five fatal accidents a year caused by both legal and illegal handguns (Three in 1990, Statistics Canada, Causes of Death, 1990:168, 4 in 1991), and about 43 suicides with both legal and illegal handguns. Five people a year are killed by lightning.

The R.C.M.P. reports that 1,054,625 restricted weapons (almost all handguns) were registered in Canada in 1991 (R.C.M.P., 1992). Annually, from 1983 to 1992, an average of 1,169 registered restricted weapons were listed as lost, missing or stolen, an annual average of 0.12% of the total, roughly 1 in 900 (R.C.M.P, 1983 to 1992) (11). Obviously, these do not all end up in criminal hands.

In Canada criminals do not apply for permits (Scarff, 1981, 86). The principal source of handguns used for criminal purposes in Canada are states in the U.S. that have few requirements. A recent study in Ontario, Project Gunrunner, found that 86% of handguns seized from criminals had been smuggled in from the United States and never registered in Canada (Dreschel). To a very large extent there are now two markets, the legal market and the illegal market, with little overlap. The illegal market is unlikely to be further reduced by more laws, as it is already operating outside the existing laws. In the black market, factors such as gang conflicts and protecting drug franchises are much more important than laws. Murray (1975) concluded that gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence. While this may, or may not be true, prohibiting guns that are already illegal is not likely to change the situation much. The Chair of the Legislation Committee of the Canadian Police Association testified before the Committee on Justice:

"If they (criminals) want a hot gun they will buy it. They don't have to go far to get it. They can go to Buffalo. They can go to New York. They can go to North Dakota, or wherever they have to go to get it. They will get it (Jessop, 1992:27)."

This is similar to Wright and Rossi's (1986:185) finding that only 16% of U.S. felons purchased their guns from stores, the rest were obtained on the black market or by theft. There may be, somewhere in Canada, a criminal who had no record, went through the application and investigation process, waited several months to pick up his gun, and then used his own gun in a crime, but he surely does not have much company.

Canadians are inundated with news of American firearms crimes. When asked, many assume that the same pattern exists in Canada. In fact, the American firearms homicide rate, 5 per 100,00 is 5 times the Canadian rate of 1 per 100,000, the American firearms robbery rate of around 80 per 100,000 is over three times the Canadian rate of 25 per 100,000, and the overall American homicide rate, around 10 per 100,000, is roughly four times the Canadian average of around 2.5 per 100,000 (Wolff, et. al., 1991). Not only the Canadian rates, but the actual numbers have been declining since 1975, (though there was an increase of firearms homicides in 1990 and 1991 and a slight decline in 1992 the rates are still not as high as in 1975).

Before jumping to the conclusion that Canada's strict gun control causes the difference in homicide rates consider that the U.S. non-firearms homicide rate, roughly 4 per 100,000, is about 2.4 times higher than the Canadian non-firearms homicide rate of about 1.7 per 100,000. Differences in gun control aside, the U.S. has population groups that have extremely high rates of homicide. Canada, aside from the aboriginal population (3% of the population, around 20% of the homicides), does not have this problem to anything like the same extent.

In spite of a rise in violent crime rates, the rates of firearms crime fell in Canada over the 15 year period from 1975 to 1989.

"Based on police-reported data, between 1975 and 1989, the violent crime rate increased by 59%, from 597 to 948 incidents per 100,000." "In the violent crimes homicide and robbery, firearms use declined. Between 1975 and 1989, the number of 'firearms homicides' declined 25%, from 292 to 218 incidents. Similarly, the number of 'firearms robberies' decreased 28%, from 8,962 to 6,441 incidents. (Wolff, et. al., 1991:1)"

One consequence of Canadian gun control law is a higher break and entry rate in Canada. "From 1982 to 1990, Canada's B&E rate has been higher than that of the U.S. with 1,426 B&Es per 100,000 population in 1990 (Fedorowycz 1992:4)." Canadian burglars, knowing householders are unarmed, are much more willing to break into occupied premises than U.S. burglars, with a corresponding increase in confrontations (Waller and Okihiro 1978:31)

Overall, the Canadian experience is quite different from the American experience, but few Canadians realize just how different it is. Handguns are used in the majority of American homicides, but in just over 10% of Canadian homicides. Asking students in class (and in the 1994 Survey) what percentage of homicides in Canada were committed with handguns results in estimates that average around 66%. Many Canadians thus appear to form their opinions on firearms control based on what is happening in the United States rather than what is happening in Canada.

Out of over 1,000 articles on firearms appearing in the Canadian print media between 1988 and 1993 listed in the Canadian Business and Public Affairs database, only one, in the mainstream press, an article on a champion female trap shooter, showed the use of guns in sport. (According to Kopel (1989) the U.S. media is not very different.) Given this pervasive media treatment of firearms and U.S. murders, along with ignorance about their own laws, it is not surprising that Canadians feel the need for "more" gun control.

On August 24, 1992, four professors at Concordia University, in Montreal, all male, were murdered by Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor, using three legally acquired handguns (none with large capacity magazines, two of which were registered to his wife) (12). The Rector of the University responded by launching a petition (13), placed under a poster which said, "please sign in memory of our late colleagues and of all victims of violence." (14)

"The undersigned call on the Parliament of Canada to enact immediately laws prohibiting anyone in Canadian territory from having in their possession any handgun, with the exception of members of the Canadian Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of their duties."

In March of 1994 this petition, with 200,000 (of the 500,000 originally intended) signatures was presented to Parliament by the Rector. (15)

The potential benefit of such a law, given the strict laws already in place, is the saving of some of the four lives a year lost to legal handguns, and some reduction in the five accidental deaths and 43 suicides per year. The potential cost in human life of disarming security guards and store owners is incalculable, but would probably more than offset the potential gains. Some might also be concerned about the seizure of approximately 500 million dollars worth of legally acquired property from people who have been certified at least three times to be law abiding. However, as Kaplan noted (p. 7), some people "conclude that the law should make a moral statement against the particular behavior, whatever the cost."

This paper is based on three studies. The first was a survey (The 1993 Concordia Student Survey) which questioned 900 students in February and March of 1993, the second a sentence completion study with 180 respondents carried out in November 1993, and the third (The 1994 Concordia Student Survey) which questioned 780 students in February and March of 1994.

Starting in 1985 the students in my research methods courses have carried out surveys of the undergraduate population at Concordia University as part of their course work.

Each year the students in the Research Design and Analysis course choose the topics they wish to research and develop the questions they wish to ask. In almost all cases these are questions that have been asked in other surveys of university students, at Concordia or elsewhere, so comparisons are possible. Generally five or six different topics are included in the questionnaire, each with five to ten questions. The 1987 survey was on social problems: alcohol, drugs, pornography, and homosexuality. The 1990 study was on student services: Health, Ombuds, Computer Services, Disabled Services, Legal Services, Mature Student Services, etc. The 1992 survey was on factors related to academic success. Two sections of the survey are relatively constant, the background questions (so year to year comparisons are possible) and questions on utilization of the university's computers. (16)

The 1993 survey contained sections on: computer usage; substance use (all from the 1987 survey); sex and AIDS; homosexuality (many from the 1987 survey); gun control; and the standard background questions, for a total of 66 questions. Comparison with the 1987 survey showed that the percentage smoking and drinking had not changed, the use of hashish or marijuana and cocaine had dropped slightly, and attitudes toward homosexuals have become significantly more positive.

The 1994 survey concentrated on questions of gun control, womens' issues, homosexuality and political correctness. Many of the questions for this survey were developed from responses to a smaller sentence completion study carried out in the Fall of 1993.

The sentence completion survey used a quota sample, intended to get a range of roughly representative opinions. Each student carried out six interviews and was asked to fill the following quotas: 3 interviews with men, 3 interviews with women; 2 interviews with Concordia students (not in the class) 1 from the Faculty of Arts & Science, 1 from one of the other faculties (Engineering, Commerce, Fine Arts); 4 interviews with non-students, 1 interview with someone who owns a gun, 1 interview with someone who grew up in a rural background. In addition I passed the form out in an Introductory Sociology course and received 60 replies. A total of 180 usable interviews resulted.

The questionnaire asked for open ended responses to the question "When I think about ______, I think..." The respondents were then asked to check whether, overall, they were favorable, neutral or unfavorable to the subject in question, and to answer some basic background questions. Fifteen topics were raised: Vegetarians, Meat-Eaters, Feminists, Racists, Native Canadians, Gay Men, Lesbians, Gun Clubs, Hunters, Pistols, Sexual Harassment, Cigarettes, Marijuana, Pornography and Anti-Abortionists. The verbatim responses were entered into a computer file, along with codes for favorability, sex, age, etc. The responses were then sorted by topic, sex of the respondent, and favorability to the topic. Two of the 15 questions will be noted here, the ones which asked about "Gun Clubs," and "Hunters." Given the sampling procedure, this data can only be used to give an insight into the range of opinions, not to represent the opinions of any known population.

In 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994 the samples have been representative of the undergraduate population of Concordia. (17) The number of students in the representative samples was: 722 in 1986; 550 in 1987; 754 in 1990; 715 in 1991; 900 in 1993; and 780 in 1994. The same sampling method was used for all the representative samples.

Students were sampled using an intrinsically stratified systematic cluster sample of classes, with the probability of final cluster selection proportional to the registration in the class. Specifically, a listing of all courses being given at Concordia, with their actual registration totals, was obtained from the Registrar. These lists were organized by Faculty and Department, which provided the intrinsic stratification, and were over 300 pages long. From a random starting page every tenth page was systematically selected. On each selected page a cumulative total of the actual number of students registered in full-year and second term courses (as the surveys were carried out in January and February) was calculated. A random number, from a table, was then used to select one of the courses. To select alternates, in case of refusal by the course instructor, the page was turned over and the same procedure followed with the courses listed on the back of the page.

The instructors of the selected courses, or alternates if necessary, were contacted and a date was set for questionnaire administration. Generally, to avoid disrupting classes, the questionnaire was administered in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the class so students could finish on their own time if necessary. In the 1993 sample the questionnaire was successfully administered in 32 of the 34 selected classes, in 1994, 42 of 44 (18). A very small number of students refused to fill out the questionnaire, the principal loss being students who did not attend class that day. The only significant bias introduced by not getting the replies of those who were not attending class is that failing students are somewhat under represented.

After a training session in the Research Design and Analysis class, teams of two students went to the selected classes, read the instructions aloud, and passed out the questionnaires. The sampled students were told that the questionnaires were confidential and anonymous, that only statistical results would be reported, that they were free to refuse to fill out the questionnaire, and that they could quit at any time. As they finished, the questionnaires were put in a large "Confidential" envelope. A student from the class was asked to volunteer to seal and sign the envelope, along with the Research Design students, and to accompany them to the security desk to put the envelope in the internal mail. The envelopes were returned to me. I opened the envelopes, edited the questionnaires to eliminate obviously falsified questionnaires, double answers, inappropriate responses to contingency questions, and to code missing responses as missing. The questionnaires were then numbered, gathered in packages of 40, each package given to two Research Design students who entered the data into a computer file and verified them. A random sample of 10% were then verified again by my Teaching Assistant. The entire data set was assembled and "possible code" and "contingency cleaning" was carried out.

If the Concordia Student Survey used simple random sampling it would be accurate within plus or minus 3.5%, 19 times out of 20. As it is a cluster sample, certain variables related to the clusters, none of which are used in this analysis, have a higher margin of error. These would include the students' majors, for example. If the sample happens to include a large advanced class in, say, computer engineering, and not include a class in civil engineering, civil engineering students will be under represented.

Because a number of questions have been asked in all the representative surveys it is possible to assess the reliability of this sampling method. For questions such as satisfaction with the university's computers; age; sex; sexual orientation; sexual harassment; marital status; language spoken at home; religion; ethnic background; race; socioeconomic status; and grades, that have been asked in at least five of the six representative surveys, the maximum spread in responses is 6%, and most of the samples are within 2 or 3% of one another on these questions. On the basis of these results I conclude that this sampling design produces reliable data.

This sample represents a single, unique, university. Concordia has Downtown and Suburban Campuses, a large percentage of mature students, a third of its students are in evening courses, a large percentage of the students are first generation Canadians, just 12% of the students are unilingual. These results cannot be generalized to a wider population.

Once the questionnaires have been entered, verified and cleaned, I produce a Code Book for the students with the percentage results for all questions, comparisons with questions asked in other surveys, the SPSS command file, and a factor analysis that includes all the questions in the questionnaire. The factor analysis is used simply as a first indicator of patterns of questions that are associated with one another. It is included to help students plan their analysis and to see if there are questions asked by other students that might be related to their topic. With this code book in hand, the students proceed to analyze the data, write a first draft and a final report on their topics. In the 1993 study this factor analysis gave the first hint that attitudes towards gun control might be influenced by attitudes towards other issues, specifically, in this case, homosexuality and pornography.

The three variables that emerged from cross tabular analysis of the 1993 study as being important for having pro gun control values, CRUSADE, were PROHO, having attitudes favorable toward homosexuals, CENSOR, restricting the sale of sexually explicit material, and EXPERGUN, in this case having no experience with guns at all, as the following graph and table show.

Percent of Respondents Who Have Pro Gun control Values (CRUSADE), by PROHO, by CENSOR, by EXPERGUN. 1993 Concordia Student Survey.
Experience With Guns EXPERGUN	Low PROHO		High PROHO
	Not CENSOR	CENSOR	Not CENSOR	CENSOR
None	41.9% (148)	55.4% (92)	57.3% (171)	72.7% (66)
Any	22.5% (151)	39.2% (74)	45.3% (161)	70.8% (48)

All of the differences, except in the last column, are significant (Chi Square p < .05).

Figure 3 The three major factors influencing attitudes toward gun control in the 1993 Concordia Student Survey.

A multiple regression analysis was carried out which resulted in the path diagram in Figure 4.

Figure 4 The major influences leading to Pro Gun Control Attitudes in the 1993 Concordia Student Survey.

The most important predictor of pro gun control attitudes was the student's positive attitude toward homosexuals; followed by having no experience with guns; followed by wanting to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials. Older students, and those from non-urban (mostly small town) backgrounds were slightly more pro control.

Pro homosexual attitudes (PROHO) were strongest amongst: the sexually liberal; women; those who had no religion; students in the humanities and social sciences; those who smoke marijuana or hashish; those who have dreamed of having sex with the same sex; those who have a homosexual orientation; and those who do not use cocaine (very few Concordia students do). People who scored high on the PROHO index favored gun control.

The desire to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials (CENSOR) was strongest amongst: the sexually conservative; older students; women; non-drinkers; those whose philosophy of sex emphasized marriage; and students in science programs. Students who favored censorship favored gun control.

Having experience with guns (EXPERGUN) was strongest amongst: males; those who drink; those from a non-urban (mostly rural) background; and those from a higher socioeconomic status background. Students who had any experience with guns did not have particularly pro gun control attitudes. Conversely, as shown in the path diagram, having no experience with guns (NOEXGUN) was highest among females; non-drinkers; those with an urban background; and those from a slightly lower than average socioeconomic background. Those with no experience with guns favored gun control strongly. (See Wright and Marston (1975:104) for a similar finding.)

Sexual conservatism or liberalism, though important, was not related directly to pro gun control attitudes, because sexual liberals were pro homosexual and sexual conservatives were pro censorship, canceling out a direct relationship.

It became obvious during this analysis that there were numerous other factors which should be examined. The strong influence of attitudes toward homosexuals was particularly suspect - could it be a proxy for other unasked questions?

In order to develop questions for the 1994 Concordia Student Survey the responses to the sentence completion study were examined, with a particular focus on those who had a negative attitude toward gun clubs, hunting and pistols. Here are some of those responses:

It is ridiculous, and provokes people to get aggressive. People who seek power/control. Unstable personalities. No guns whatsoever should be allowed anywhere. Of killing & death. Of aggression. Promoters of violence. That they should eliminate them. Boys trying to prove their value. Men (or women) may be brought up with violence, that violence solves problems. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Oh horrible. Irresponsible. Ridiculous. Of cannibalism, because guns are frightening and I simply do not like them. It's stupid and dummy they should all be closed down. I've never been to any of them but I think it's too dangerous and they are noisy. Dangerous, they should be eliminated. I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should not exist, only purpose is killing people and animals. I dislike them because they promote the use and distribution of firearms. I don't understand why they like to use guns. Of clubs where members are far too concerned with guns, no one should like guns so much. Of violence people getting hurt. Violent men with a violent pastime. Scary people doing scary stuff; guns scare me; I think they shouldn't have them. Men collected there to show off their strength and women who go along with it. Of heartless men and wonder about why they attend those clubs; I hate gun clubs. Fear, unacceptable activity. Men who have something to prove by acting "macho." They are dangerous to society and to themselves. Masochistic people who have to live their lives behind a gun in fear. Kinky, weird people. Ignorance, uneducated. Power through sick minds. Violence. There shouldn't be.

The average target shooter might be excused if he considered these responses not firmly grounded in reality. They appear to be examples of the "stigma contest." From these replies a question was developed which asked about "macho" behavior. "Men should be more sensitive, less 'macho,' in their relationships with women." (NOMACHO)

Grrr... I HATE hunting despicable. Not really concerned with wildlife. Devilish fiends hunting animals for fun! Sick games!! As long as they use every part of the animal, fine. Ignorant. Hunting for pleasure, one of the last barbarian practice of this selfcalled "modern society." Dumb dumb dumb. People with nothing better to do but to kill innocent animals for fun. Of gun clubs and testosterone. Killing helpless animals just for sport is stupid. They're a different breed. Idiots. Shoot at anything that moves. Shooting on private property. I think of businessmen hunting animals just for their skins and furs. People who have rights which Native Canadians should have. They are repulsive for the fact that they are killing innocent animals for sport. They have no control in their own lives and pick on poor defenceless animals. The hunter's mentality is sadistic. A sport that promotes cruelty to animals. We don't need the food so it's just a means of obtaining prestige. I don't think people should hunt animals unless they live in the woods. Of people who kill animals for the fun of it for the sake of killing. I'm not for hunters, I'd rather they shoot each other, unless it's for survival. It is against my religion to hunt. Cold hearted individuals. People can survive without killing nature's wildlife. Once animals are gone they can't be brought back. For native hunters it is OK; all other hunters do it for the thrill of killing which is bad & unnecessary. Inferiority complex in people. It makes me sick. Cruel, heartless men who kill for sport. People who have no respect for the environment and who shoot for the pleasure of shooting. Of men killing innocent animals, but I guess I'm no better since I eat them. Of people who are cruel to animals. People of low intelligence. Needless. Violence.

Based on the tone of these replies, which would stun most hunters, four questions were included, taken from a 1993 Los Angeles Times Poll (19). "Do you think laws protecting animals from inhumane treatment in our society go too far, don't go far enough, or are adequate now?" (HUMANE) "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 'Animals are just like humans in all important ways.'" (ANIMHUM) "Do you generally favor or oppose the wearing of clothes made of animal furs?" (NOFUR) "Do you generally favor or oppose the hunting of animals for sport?" (HUNTSPT). NOFUR and HUNTSPT were combined to create ANTIHUNT.

Other sentence completion replies led to the inclusion of questions on gender roles, environmental issues, free speech, abortion, native issues and so forth. For each of these questions the lead-in was, "Here are a number of statements which have been made in recent years. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each by circling the appropriate number. The response categories were Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. Some of these are:

"Women should be allowed an active combat role in the Canadian Armed Forces."(WMCOMBAT) "Men should be expected to protect the women in their lives from violence."(PROTECT) "Women were happier in the 1950s when they stayed home and took care of their families than they are now trying to balance career and family."(WOMEN50S) "It is primarily the man's obligation to provide for the family."(PROVIDE) "Over half of all Canadian women have been abused by men."(WMABUSED) "A woman who wants to have an abortion should have the right to one, no questions asked."(RT-ABORT)

"The sale and possession of all sexually explicit materials showing nude people should be prohibited in Canada."(NO-NUDE) (20) This is in addition to the question used in 1986, 1987, and 1993, "Do you think the sale of sexually explicit material in Montreal should be, More restricted, Kept the same, Not as restricted, Don't know" (CENSOR).

"A person who states that different races of humans have different levels of intelligence should be allowed to give a public lecture on this topic at Concordia."(TALKRACE) "A person representing Right to Life, which opposes the right to abortions, should be allowed to give a public lecture on this topic at Concordia."(TALKRTL) "A person who believes that the Holocaust never happened, that the Nazis didn't murder millions of Jews, should be allowed give a public lecture on this topic at Concordia."(TALKHOLO) These three were combined to create FREESPCH.

To assess the extent to which gun control has become a womens' issue, "Stricter gun control would greatly reduce the level of violence against women in Canada."(GUNVIOL)

Canada has not imposed the death penalty for over thirty years, and has not had it for almost twenty years. Still, according to polls, the majority of Canadians favor it. In order to see if attitudes toward the death penalty were related to attitudes toward gun control the following question was asked (from Vidmar 1973): "Which of the following four alternatives best describes your attitude toward the death penalty as a sentence for planned and deliberate (first degree) murder? I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, I am opposed to the death penalty except in a few cases where it may be appropriate, I am generally in favor of the death penalty except in a few cases where it may not be appropriate, I am strongly in favor of the death penalty as an appropriate measure."(DEATHPEN)

A further question, suggested by David Young, was, "If you, or your family, were threatened with death or serious injury by an aggressor and you had access to a firearm, would you use it to defend yourself, or not?"(YOUDEF) The response categories were, Definitely Yes, Probably Yes, Not Sure, Probably Not, Definitely Not.

As in 1993, several questions were combined to construct the dependent variable, pro gun control attitude. One item, asking about the killings at the Montreal universities was dropped, but the rest were the same as in the 1993 variable CRUSADE. These questions were: "Did you happen to sign the Concordia "Gun Control" petition?" "Here is a question about pistols and revolvers. Do you favor or oppose a law which would forbid the possession of these types of guns (handguns) except by the police and army? (or) except by the police, army and other authorized persons?" Two wordings were used to see if the petition signers knew what they were asking for - they didn't (Buckner 1994). "If there were more firearms laws, do you think the crime rate would decrease, increase, or stay the same as it is now?" "Some people say 'Gun control laws affect only lawabiding citizens, criminals will always be able to find firearms.' Do you agree or disagree?" "Recently, there have been a number of incidents involving firearms used by retail store owners. How often do you feel that incidents like these defending oneself with a firearm are justified?" "Do you believe that you, as a Canadian resident, have a right to own a gun, or not?" These questions were all taken from Mauser and Margolis (1992).

Respondents received a high score on pro gun control ideology if they said they signed the petition, thought handguns should be banned, thought the crime rate would decrease with more laws, said that criminals would obey laws, and said they did not have a right to own a gun. There are numerous contradictions: a majority of those who signed the petition asking for a new law thought only the law-abiding obeyed laws; a majority who thought Canadians had no right to a gun said that self-defense with a gun is - sometimes, usually or always - justified, and that they would - probably or definitely - defend themselves with a gun. These contradictions are to be expected, however, as they reflect the differences in the willingness to enforce controls on others, as opposed to ones self.

Figure 5 "Student have almost no knowledge of firearms law, the actual handgun murder rate, or firearms.

There is always the possibility that calls for gun control are based on rational, knowledgeable analysis. In order to test this hypothesis four knowledge questions were asked: "What percentage of the murders in Canada do you think are committed with handguns?" "Do you happen to know what the maximum penalty is in Canada for having a handgun that is not registered with the police?" "Do you happen to know the main difference between a rifle and a shotgun?" "Does the magazine of a gun have a trigger?"

Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty for an unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knew that handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessed that it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger.(Buckner 1984) As Figure 5 shows, knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do not appear to depend on knowledge or rationality.

Figure 6 The less knowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun control they are.

In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lower the support for gun control. An index was created giving one point for knowing the difference between a rifle and shotgun, one point for knowing a magazine does not have a trigger, one point for there being a gun in the student's home, one point for having ever shot a gun, and one point for owning a gun (3% of the total). Figure 6 shows the relationship between experience-knowledge and pro gun control attitudes for men, women and overall (too few women scored three or more items to percentage reliably).

ATTITUDES

Figure 7 "Do you generally favor or oppose the hunting of animals for sport?" and "Do you generally favor or oppose the wearing of clothes made of animal furs?"

Logically, if people disagree with hunting and the wearing of furs, purposes for which guns are legitimately used, they will support gun control. Figure 7 shows this relationship. People who are opposed to both sport hunting and the wearing of furs have a very high level of pro gun control sentiment, those who are not opposed (includes the "don't knows") have a much lower level.

Figure 8 "If you, or your family, were threatened with death or serious injury by an aggressor and you had access to a firearm, would you use it to defend yourself, or not?"

Students with a pacifist orientation who would not defend themselves or their family with a gun (Figure 8) perhaps look on gun control as a way of avoiding the situation. Also, they may not know how to use a gun. It should be noted that, overall 39.4% said they would definitely defend themselves, and 38% said they probably would. Just over 20% said they were not sure, or would not defend themselves. The important distinction seems to be between "probably" and "definitely," an indicator of the will to survive. 77% of the 22 gun owners in the sample said they would "definitely" defend themselves, compared to 38% of the non-gun owners.

Figure 9 "Men should be more sensitive, less 'macho,' in their relationships with women." Note that only one woman strongly disagreed with this statement, so she has not been percentaged.

A strong relationship exists between pro gun control attitudes and feeling that men should be more sensitive, less "macho," for men, practically none for women. (Figure 9) As we will see later this feeling is extremely important for women as well, but in the context of gun control reducing violence against women and the desire to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials. For mens' attitudes toward gun control, as we will see, the rejection of "macho" is a rejection of hunting, not necessarily an indication of heightened sensitivity to women.

Figure 10 "Stricter gun control would greatly reduce the level of violence against women in Canada."

In Figure 10 the students seem to be saying that guns are used by men, and violence against women is committed by men, so controlling guns would reduce violence against women. The fact that gun violence against women is exceptionally rare in Canada, and probably would not be significantly reduced by any conceivable law, is probably not known to the students who agreed with this statement. Agreeing with this statement is clearly symbolic, the expression of a wishful sentiment.

To clarify the relationship between variables a series of multiple regression analyses were performed. Many of the variables do not conform to the assumptions of interval level measurement used in regression analysis (Berk, 1983:511). Because some of the variables are ordinal the results must be interpreted with caution. At first, stepwise multiple regression, with listwise deletion (Berk, 1983:540) of cases with missing values, was used. The analyses were also run separately for men and women. For the following tables irrelevant variables were excluded and new, defined, regression analyses were run separately for men and women because they have distinctly different reasons for supporting gun control.

Figure 11 There are a large number of different factors which may cause a man to be supportive of gun control.

The attitudinal patterns which influence men to be pro gun control reflect a rejection of what are usually considered to be traditional male, or masculine, behavior and values.

The first is being opposed to hunting and the wearing of fur, certainly the oldest male occupation, and earliest form of dress. Factors which influence this attitude are a desire to see more extensive laws protecting animals from inhumane treatment, a rejection of "macho" behavior, taking classes on Concordia's downtown campus, and feeling comfortable with homosexuals as close personal friends.

The next is thinking that a homosexual would make as good a Prime Minister as a heterosexual (21). A generally pro homosexual and womens' rights orientation leads to this opinion. These men are comfortable with close homosexual friends, think homosexuals should be able to marry legally and adopt children, think more than half of the women in Canada have been abused, and think women are happier balancing careers and children now than they were staying at home in the 1950s. These men might be termed, "gender correct."

The next is thinking that more gun laws would greatly reduce violence against women. Factors which lead to this opinion include living in a home without guns, vastly over estimating the percentage of murders committed in Canada with handguns, having been raised in an urban environment and wanting to prohibit sexually explicit material which shows nude people.

The next factor which leads to a pro gun control response, for men, is having been subjected to force. (Since the age of 16 have you been subjected to any use of force such as being hit, slapped, kicked or grabbed to being beaten, knifed or shot?) Associated with this is a self definition of being a victim or survivor, relatively infrequent among men in the sample. What is interesting here is that, as we will see, having been subjected to force inclines women not to support gun control.

The last two items are negatively associated with a pro gun control attitude, so the signs of the factors leading to these opinions have to be reversed.

Having never shot a gun leads to a pro gun control attitude. This is associated with not owning a gun, not knowing that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger, not knowing the difference between a rifle and a shotgun, coming from a non-rural background, and thinking it is not the man's role to provide for his family.

Finally, those unwilling to defend themselves or their family with a gun have a pro gun control attitude. Factors associated with this attitude include living in a home in which no one owns a gun, opposing the death penalty for first degree murder, opposing the expression of unpopular opinions, attending classes on Concordia's downtown campus, and thinking women should be allowed a full combat role in Canada's armed forces.

Figure 12 There are a relatively narrow range of factors which incline women to favor gun control.

The factors which lead women to be pro gun control tend to center on controlling the behavior of men.

The first is thinking that more gun control would greatly reduce violence against women. This is associated with agreeing that "Men should be expected to protect the women in their lives from violence." They also feel that men should be more sensitive and less "macho" in their relationships with women. Those women who have been subjected to force (almost always by men) do not think that more gun laws will reduce violence against women.

As in the 1993 survey women who want to restrict (censor) the sale of sexually explicit material in Montreal are pro gun control. Associated with this is thinking men should be more sensitive, less "macho," and agreeing with the statement, "The sale and possession of all sexually explicit materials showing nude people should be prohibited in Canada." These women tend to be older than the average student.

Finally, saying they would not defend themselves or their family with a gun is associated with a pro gun control attitude. Leading to this refusal is a strong rejection of the death penalty for first degree murder, and being something of a non-drinking vegetarian. They disagree with the statement, "A woman who wants to have an abortion should have the right to one, no questions asked," and they think homosexuals should have the right to adopt children. This is the only one of the three factors which does not deal more or less directly with mens' behavior.

Students generally have nothing to lose by being in favor of gun control, few own guns (5% 1993, 3% 1994), over half (57% 1993, 61% 1994) have never shot a gun, probably very few have ever participated in any of the gun sports or gone hunting. They know little about guns. Guns exist only as symbols for many of them.

They do not know about the gun controls presently in place. They think that handguns are responsible for twice as many murders as the entire firearms total. They favor creating more laws but do not think they will be effective. Many do not think they have a right to own a gun, but would use one to defend themselves.

Analyzing the origin of a set of beliefs uncontaminated by knowledge or rationality is a frustrating enterprise, something like trying to figure out why people believe in flying saucers. Belief in gun control must provide some payoff to the believer, even if only a symbolic one.

The relationship between the sexes has been changing since the development of oral contraceptives in the early 1960s. The biological division of labor has become less important, social roles have become more fluid. Increasing urbanization, the decline of primary industries and the rise of service industries, have devalued the male roles of hunter, provider, protector and replaced them with more equalitarian expectations. In a sense, women constitute a status group on the rise, who would like, finally, to see their concerns recognized in law and society.

"Since governmental actions symbolize the position of groups in the status structure, seemingly ceremonial or ritual acts of government are often of great importance to many social groups. Issues which seem foolish or impractical items are often important for what they symbolize about the style or culture which is being recognized or derogated." (1963:11)

"Since drinking had been largely a male activity, the concern of the woman for Temperance was itself an act of controlling the relation between the sexes." (1963:89)

Guns are largely a male activity. Is concern for "gun control" an act of controlling the relation between the sexes?

Violence against women has become an increasing concern in Canadian society Guns symbolize violence, so gun control is, for many, a response to these concerns.

In the 1993 survey a lack of experience with guns, a desire to restrict pornography, and a favorable attitude toward homosexuals were associated with pro gun control attitudes. Additional questions asked in 1994 showed that other factors were also important, and the original relationships were specified.

Lack of experience with guns and being pro homosexual turned out to be only important for men. So few women in the sample have any personal experience with guns that it is not a major determinant of their attitudes overall (this was also true in 1993). Once women could express directly their desire for men to be more sensitive, less "macho," it became clear that being "pro homosexual" had simply been a proxy variable for women expressing this desire.

Both men and women think gun control will greatly reduce violence against women, but for very different reasons. Women see it as part of a set of desired roles for men in their relationship with women: men should protect women, but not be "macho" about it. Men think it because they overestimate the role of handguns in murder, want to be sensitive to womens' concerns by prohibiting sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and come from urban homes that do not contain guns.

Both men and women who would not defend themselves with a gun are in favor of gun control, but for somewhat different reasons. They both reject the death penalty for first degree murder, but for men this part of a set of "politically correct" responses which includes giving women a combat role in the army and opposition to talks on politically incorrect topics. These men may also reject self defense with a gun because there are no guns in their homes, and they may not have any idea of how to use a gun. For women rejection of the death penalty is more of a pro-life choice: they are opposed to easy abortions, think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, and are non-drinking vegetarians. Perhaps they would not defend themselves with a gun because of a fear of killing the aggressor.

Women who want to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials are pro gun control. This is associated with a desire to prohibit all sexually explicit depictions of nude people, and a desire for men to be more sensitive, less "macho."

Overall, the men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have "politically correct" attitudes. Overall, the women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality.

While this study has not explained all of the motivations for gun control (there is considerable unexplained variance in the regression equations) it does support the contention that gun control is, symbolically, male control. It would be interesting to see if the same factors operate in the general population.

1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

1983. "Applications of the General Linear Model to Survey Data." Chapter 13 in Handbook of Social Research. Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright and Andy B. Anderson (eds). San Diego, CA: Academic.

1993. "Top court issues gun-control warning; Canadians must be protected from rapid-fire weapons: judges." Montreal Gazette. 20 May 1993:B7.

1991. "Influence of Gun Ownership on Social Inferences About Women and Men." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21,19:1567-1589.

Collins, Hon. Mary. Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women.

1992. "Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General," House of Commons, 67:June 10.

1990. "Tough gun law needed to protect women: minister." Montreal Gazette. 5 December 1990, p. B1.

1992. Political Correctness and the media tide against the gun." The Montreal Downtowner. 14 October 1992:9.

1993. "Social Liberalism and Gun Control in Canada." Research Design and Analysis Term Paper, on file in author's office.

Daniels, David M., Edison J. Trickett, Mary M. Shapiro, Jared R. Tinklenberg, and Jay. M. Jackman.

1970. "The Gun Law Controversy." in Violence and the Struggle for Existence: Work of the Committee on Violence of the Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine. David N.Daniels, Marshall F. Gilula, and Frank M. Ochberg (eds.)Boston: Little,Brown.

1992. "Domestic Homicides Involving the Use of Firearms." Research And Development Directorate, Department of Justice Canada. WD1992-20e. March 1992.

1979. "Personality Characteristics of American Gun-Owners." Journal of Social Psychology. 107: pp. 227-238.

1994. "Yankee heat: Forget the idea that the bad guys steal registered guns to use in crime. The firepower of choice today is being smuggled from the States." Spectrum, The Spectator. 2 April 1994, P. A.9.

1992. "Break and Enter in Canada." Juristat: Service Bulletin. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 12:1. January.

1984. A Century of Criminal Justice: Perspectives on the Development of Canadian Law. Toronto: Carswell.

1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

1992 "Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General," House of Commons, 63:June 2.

1989. "Media Bias in Coverage of Gun Control: The Press Evaluates the Popular Culture." Pp. 165-184 in The Gun Culture and Its Enemies, edited by William R. Tonso. Bellevue, WA: Merril.

1989. "Lewis Promises to Renew Gun Control in Light of Shooting." Halifax Chronicle Herald. A4. December 8.

1981. "Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Not So Divergent Models." (Correction to "Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Divergent Models." ASR April 1980.) American Sociological Review, 46:499-503.

1992. "The Politics of Gun Control: Comparing Canadian and American Patterns," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10:189-209.

1983. "Collective Security and the Demand for Legal Handguns." American Journal of Sociology. 88:1146-61.

1975. "Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence." Social Problems, 23:81-93.

1989. "Patterns on a College Campus Over Thirteen Years," Adolescence, XXIV, 93:125-139.

1987. Special Objects: A Study of the Meaning of Things. Ph.D. Thesis, City University of New York.

1983 - 1992. Annual Firearms Report to the Solicitor General of Canada, R.C.M.P.

1991. Firearm Ownership in Canada. Research and Development Directorate, Policy, Programs and Research Sector, Department of Justice Canada. TR1991-8A, March.

1981. "Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation. First Progress Report. Research Division, Solicitor General Canada. js 22-56/1981E.

1988. "The Social Organization of Self-Help: A Study of Defensive Weapon Ownership." American Sociological Review 53:94-102.

1992. "Gender Differences Among Violent Crime Victims." Juristat: Service Bulletin. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 12:21. November.

1973. "Retributive and Utilitarian Motives and Other Correlates of Canadian Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty." Canadian Psychologist 15:4 October pp.344-345.

1993. "Sexual Behavior of American and Swedish Students." Preliminary data, in progress.

1993. "Attitudes Toward Gun Control: A Study of Concordia Students." Honours Thesis, Department of Sociology, Concordia University, Montreal. On file in author's office.

1991. "Guns are phallic symbol:female MPS. That's why it's hard to pass stricter arms-control laws, they say." Montreal Gazette. 27 March 1991, p. B 1.

1991. "Weapons and Violent Crime." Juristat: Service Bulletin, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 11:12. August.

1975. "The Ownership of the Means of Destruction: Weapons in the United States." Social problems, 23:93-107.

1986. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

1992. "Homicide in Canada 1991." Juristat: Service Bulletin. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 12:18. October.

1991. Reasonable and Necessary: Defensive Firearms Ownership and Use in Canada. RN, P.O. Box 312, Roxboro, Quebec H8Y 3K4.

1. Presented in the Deviance and Control: Quantitative Studies session of the American Sociological Association 89th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 5 August 1994.

2. I would like to thank and express my appreciation to the students of Research Design and Analysis whose work made this research possible, to the 1700 students of Concordia University who filled out the questionnaires, and to AnneMarie Wera who used the data from the 1993 study for her Honours Thesis. Comments on an earlier draft by Gary Mauser, Kurt Jonnasohn, Graeme Decarie, and AnneMarie Wera have led to considerable improvements.

3. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Ave. W., Montreal, P.Q. H3G 1M8.

11. These figures were inflated in 1992 by the theft of a shipment of guns from a distributor. (Montreal Gazette, 27 July 1993, p. B2).

12. Montreal Gazette. 27 Aug 1992:A1, A7. This is clearly an exception to the rule. Fabrikant doubled the legal handgun murder rate for Canada in 1992. How any law can stop an intelligent but deranged person without a criminal record, who is willing to take almost two years to acquire a handgun legally, is not clear.

13. Montreal Gazette. 23 September 1992:A3; Globe & Mail. 23 September 1992:A4; Montreal Gazette. Editorial, "Concordia is right: no handguns." Some have questioned the motivation of the petition. Crocker (1992:9) wrote, "With such intense media coverage and Mr. Kenniff's sudden public stand on the issue of gun control the focus is sure to be directed away from the burgeoning troubles he faces within his troubled faculties... ." Some members of the University Senate and Board of Governors, "... suggested repeatedly that Concordia's first priority after the Aug. 24 shootings should be opening the lines of communication, not only to help the community come to terms with the tragedy, but also to clear the air of suspicion and frustration which is evident at many levels in the University (Concordia's Thursday Report. 29 October 92:8)."

14. Although there is a strong correlation between favoring the prohibition of handguns and signing the petition which asks for the prohibition of handguns many people signed it to express their outrage at the shootings. One staff member, who was personally involved in bringing the shooting to an end, said to me that he did not agree with the petition, but signed it in order to "do something." In fact, the signers of the petition would have been just as willing to ask for the present law as for what they did ask for (Buckner 1994).

15. If, indeed, the Gun Control Petition was intended to divert attention from academic mismanagement it did not work. The Rector, and his assistant who coordinated the petition, have been fired.

16. In return for asking these latter questions the Computer Department prints the questionnaires for the class.

17. In 1985 and 1992 only students in Sociology or Sociology and Anthropology courses were sampled, to aid in Departmental planning or evaluation.

18. The outdoors temperature during the period of questionnaire administration in February 1994 was around minus 30 centigrade which reduced class attendance somewhat. We sampled additional classes using the same method to get a reasonable number of cases.

19. Los Angles Times Poll, U.S. nationwide, 47 December 1993, telephone, n=1,612 adults.

20. This question turned out to be of limited utility because Fine Arts students, who are generally most politically correct and agree with restricting the sale (CENSOR) of sexually explicit material, do not wish to have images of nudes prohibited.

21. Canada has probably had homosexual Prime Ministers, who have probably done as well as the heterosexual ones, but recognition of this is not part of "official" history.