June 1996 Column: Summing Up



My mail one recent day included a package from Roy Traband of 

Oklahoma, a gentlemen who has, for years, been providing us with 

interesting, somewhat out of the way, clippings. This time, it was a sheaf 

of pages from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (Northwest 

University, School of Law), Vol. 86, No. 1.

If you find yourself in a position to review a copy, I highly recommend it. 

It contains Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz' latest research on civilian armed 

resistance to crime. 

It also has a curious and brave "tribute" by the anti-gun researcher Marvin 

Wolfgang to Kleck and Gertz, which reiterates Wolfgang's personal belief 

that, "I hate guns—ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people." But, 

Wolfgang continues, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and 

Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost 

clear-cut case of methodologically sound research supporting something I 

have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense 

against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook 

[two well known, scholarly anti-gunners] can help me find fault with the 

Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for 

the care and caution expressed in this article and this research."

In any world, but perhaps most particularly in Academia, this is quite a 

bombshell, much more than a fatalistic cry of "Uncle." To be sure, 

Wolfgang expresses the hope that someone else will take up the gauntlet 

and find genuine fault with the work of Kleck and Gertz, and expresses 

admiration for other, anti-gun works in the Journal, but his praise  of the 

scholarship of those on the other side, even after admitting he tried to find 

fault with it, is amazing, and probably unprecedented.

It should be noted that the academic research, together with other 

scholarly works, on gun ownership in the last 10 years, has largely come 

out on our side, perhaps beginning with Sanford Levin's, "The 

Embarrassing Second Amendment,"a fact that has largely been overlooked 

by the general media. While this has not yet translated itself into a better 

understanding or glasnost between gunowners and the general media, it 

does allow our side to refer the media to avowed anti-gunners who are 

honestly uncomfortable with their own point of view. And, the reach of 

these smaller, scholarly journals should not be discounted. The media has 

always had a "pack" mentality, something which even the most casual 

media observer notices, when all, or most, of the media outlets carry 

similar stories at the same time. It's my view that this is laziness and not 

conspiracy.

As proof of my theory of laziness, I refer you to another article in The 

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Written by Tom W. Smith and 

Robert J. Smith, it is titled, "Changes in Firearms Ownership Among 

Women, 1980-1994." In the Cliff Note-y way these articles have of 

presenting their conclusion in the first few paragraphs, and then going on 

to "prove" them, the authors state, "The Article concludes that pro-gun 

groups and the media have exaggerated the rate of gun ownership among 

women." Those who read beyond the introduction would reach a slightly 

different conclusion, to wit: the media has exaggerate the rate of gun 

ownership among women, but there are a lot of women gunowners.

The Messers. Smith present, in their footnotes, ample evidence that this 

perception is the case. To support their contention that "this standard story 

[that there is an increase in gun ownership among women] has been 

repeated dozens of times," footnote 3 lists more than 50 articles and 

stories appearing in a span of publications ranging from women's 

magazines. daily newspapers, gun magazines, trade publications of the 

publishing industry and law review articles.

The claims of greater ownership among women are, the authors say, 

"bolstered by supporting assertions that: (1) more NRA members are 

women; (2) more women are taking training courses; (3) the success of the 

magazine Women and Guns indicates greater female interest in guns; (4) 

retail sales to women are up; and (5) gun permits to women have 

increased."

With the exception of number (3) all of these facts are fully supportable by 

both statistical and overwhelming anecdotal evidence. To support number 

(4) for example, call the first ten gun stores listed in your phone book and 

ask them if they have more women customers than they did in 1979—I 

would be very surprised if you found even one who claimed to have fewer. 

Similarly, a call to a random number of people who make their living in 

gun training would undoubtedly receive an affirmation that there are a lot 

more women taking classes in firearms than there were 15 years ago. 

(Unscientifically, I would say that this is for two reasons: there are more 

women taking classes and the fact that training has evolved in the last 10 

years so that there is both a greater pool of professional trainers easily 

accessible to a greater number of people and a higher acceptance of the 

notion that this is, more often than not, a subject for which professional 

(as opposed to casual) training is desirable, in much the same way that 

more people take their driving instruction from professionals than they 

used to. I see no reason to dispute the National Rifle Association's claim 

that they have more women members than they used to—it would be just 

plain dumb of them to assert something that wasn't supportable, especially 

when providing that information to a hostile press.

The success of this magazine (and for future scholarly reference we use an 

ampersand not the word "and" in the title), does not, and has never been 

claimed to, reflect a greater female interest in guns, an assertion I would 

have made to either Mr. Smith, had he bothered to call. It was created in 

1989 to reflect a greater openness about gun ownership among women 

and to service existing women gunowners. There has never been, not 

could there ever be, a magazine that would last beyond its initial issue, for 

a readership that didn't exist. A magazine is a terrible vehicle for 

proselytizing. It would go belly-up in weeks without anyone to read it. A 

really good title for such a publication might be "Trees Falling in Remote 

Woods Quarterly." When I talk to reporters (or scholars) who bother to 

contact me, I also tie the success  not to the increase in numbers of women 

gunowners, but to the increase in the number of women gunowners who 

are sufficiently interested in that avocation to want to read about it 

regularly. People, for example, who eat entirely in restaurants, will never 

be subscribers to Gourmet; everybody eats, but not everybody cooks, and 

everybody who cooks doesn't know what a Porcini mushroom is, or even 

cares. One shouldn't need degrees from the University of Chicago, 

Pennsylvania State University or Indiana School of Law to grasp the 

difference. 

The meat of the article, however, is that the numbers of women gunowners 

are murky, but probably less than the most inflated claim made by the 

most careless journalist. On the face of it, I don't have any problem with 

that, although I wish that the authors had said it, rather than blame, in 

large measure, pro-gun groups for the sloppiness of reporters. 

I can attest that every time a reporter calls me to ask the magic question, 

"How many?" I answer, "I don't know—and no one does." I tell them that 

they can get a pretty fair estimate (as opposed to a hard, scientically 

demonstable number) from a variety of sources: some local government 

agencies that deal with, for example, gun permits or licenses, do tabulate 

by demographic indicators; most don't, either because they are 

understaffed or because by law they cannot either tabulate or reveal those 

numbers; most people on the business side of firearms (both 

manufacturers and local dealers) will go on record that there has been an 

increase in purchases, although most will not give reporters actual 

numbers, and, finally, there seems to be a greater willingness among 

women to go on record individually that they are gunowners, either 

directly to reporters or to polling groups. (That there are still a lot 

women—and men—that won't go on record on such a personal question, 

should surprise no one.)

The major factor that confuses the issue is the questioning itself. "Is there 

a firearm in your home?" can be answered in the affirmative by women (or 

men) even if the person saying "yes" is not a gunowner. If the question is 

changed to, "Do you own a firearm?" the numbers change again, as they 

do when specific types of firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns) are 

inserted into the question.

Obviously, the more specific the question, the better. But just as 

obviously, the more specific the question, the less likely it is to be 

answered.

So what is the number of women gunowners? I don't know, and neither 

does anyone else. All of the evidence, however, seems to credibly point to: 

more than are members of the NRA, more than are subscribers to Women 

& Guns, and more than just a few. 

The authors point to the General Social Surveys (GSS), conducted by the 

National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, as the most 

conclusive study. It reveals that 11.6% of all women own a gun, and that 

7.4% of women own a handgun. The authors say, and I do not dispute, 

that the typical media claim of ownership is 17-20%. In other words, at 

the low end, the media has inflated the number by 5.4%, and at the high 

end by 8.4%. This doesn't seem to me to be the worst example of 

exaggerating I've ever heard, especialy since you would have to accept the 

GSS numbers as gospel and not allow any variance based on where a 

particular reporter came up with her number, or allow that there is a 

difference at all between a scientific survey and a "report," which, 

especially in the case of newspaper articles, is often tied to a specific 

location.

Perhaps all of us can agree, howver, that there are a lot of women 

gunowners.

We can dispute the "trending" data, and even dismiss a lot of it. I am 

always quick to point out, for example, that there have always been 

women gunowners in this country. "You've heard of Annie Oakley, I 

guess," I often say, after mentioning that women who pioneered this 

country alongside men would have been foolish not to also be conversant 

with firearms.

My own personal view is that there were always a lot of women 

gunowners, and that it's perfectly possible that statistically that number 

hasn't grown a lot (although it has expanded with the growth of the 

population—if it was 11.6% in both 1980 and in 1994, the whole number 

would still have grown, because the population did), there is a greater 

openness about the subject, and a greater willingness on the part of 

women (who despite the steady percentage who do own guns had been 

largely ignored by the media and scholars until the late '80s) to discuss the 

subject with reporters.

However many of us there are, the bottom line on any report is that it is a 

significant, large number of the general population; one that deserves 

recognition by the media, and one that shouldn't be ignored by anyone.

Housekeeping

You may have noticed a slight change in what is technically called the 

"banner"—that is, the words Women & Guns on the cover, and elsewhere 

in this issue. This marks the third time the banner has evolved since our 

inception. This time, it's in response to a suggestion that, given the way 

magazines are displayed on newsstand these days, we need a little 

"gutsier" banner to catch the eye of the passing consumer. This seemed 

reasonable to me (space on the magazine racks is at a premium, and more 

often than not, issues are overlapped quite a bit, so that only the title is 

visible.) I hope you all approve of the change, and please note, we kept 

our beloved ampersand the same.

Also new is an E-mail address for correspondence to us. It is: 

waguns@broadviewnet.net

Feel free to use it; it is primarily for letters to the 

editor, and brief commentary. If you want your E-mail address published 

on your letter, please let us know. We'd still like to know your name and 

address, but, as always, these will be omitted from printed letters on 

request.



Peggy Tartaro,

Executive Editor