Individualism, Self-Reliance, & Masculinity: A Metaphoric Analysis of Gun Control
Hugo Carrillo-Villaseñor | October 29, 2019
The United States was built upon ideologies with the long-term intention of the preservation of freedom by empowering its citizens; which has been embodied through gun ownership. To put this into perspective, according to the Small Arms Survey, “the United States, with five percent of the world’s population, has 46 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns” (Karp, 2018). This extreme number makes more sense when looking at the long-standing relationship that firearms and the U.S. have shared throughout their histories. Europeans most likely brought guns to the shores of the new world roughly around the early 1600s. They were used for protection, hunting, and to display their technological superiority (Weeks, 2013). From there on out, guns served many different purposes whether that be to expand the nation through the genocide and displacement of indigenous peoples or to help win the American Revolution. Moreover, events like this led to the writing of the second amendment in the United States Constitution which reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Cornell Law, 2018). In this way, many Americans believe that firearms, which have been woven into the fabric of the country, is the foundation of its identity. In the United States, firearms are a representation of an individual’s agency and the right to self-defense.
Nonetheless, in light of the many recent mass shootings across the United States, advocates in favor of gun control are concerned over the devastation in public spaces such as schools, cinemas, and concerts. This cause for concern is valid when considering the gun death rates in the United States. According to a March 2016 study, “gun homicide rates in the United States were 25.3 times higher and gun suicides were 8 times higher in 2010 than in other populous, high-income countries” (Grinshteyn, 2016). Given the troubling gun death rates and mounting violence, the death of innocent citizens is a concern for all Americans — however, conservatives and liberals have very different ideas about what to do about these issues. This contentious and often narrow, two-sided debate has caused an increase of discourse regarding gun rights that has led to the construction of dialogue on unique platforms advocating different perspectives. Bringing a unique angle to the two-sided debate of gun reform, Colion Noir’s conversation with rapper Michael Render, also known as Killer Mike, on NRATV adds another layer to an already complex issue. Using rhetorical critique to analyze this conversation through a metaphorical lens, I will reveal the complexities of being a person of color and being a gun owner, which sheds light on systemic issues in the United States that are often overlooked. Therefore, this paper is not about siding with liberal or conservative ideologies, nor is it to examine the merits of the arguments presented by both sides. Rather, this paper will add another layer to the discourse of gun reform, which will address a significant yet neglected perspective.
Literature Review
The political zeitgeist of the past decade has revolved around a few polarizing topics, yet, few have been as polarizing as gun control. The discourse around gun control has arguably never been as divisive as it currently is, but has risen to greater prominence with the increase in mass shootings that continue to occur. This discussion continues to reach a stalemate despite the fact that people continue to die from gun related deaths. The gun control debate is riddled with metaphors that reveal ideologies which help understand what the true underlying sentiments of this debate are truly about. Moreover, the perspectives of people of color, more specifically, of Black men are virtually dismissed. This in turn, insinuates that the experience of dealing with firearms in this country has not been the same for African American men and white Americans. Scholarly discourse within communication studies has yet to explore how the nuances within this dichotomy influence the national discourse on gun control. Thus, to get a better understanding it was important to take an interdisciplinary approach in the research that was conducted.
Communication studies scholars have examined the rhetorical elements within the arguments that have been presented by anti-gun control advocates. In doing so, scholars have found fallacies within their arguments that have gone on to quickly highlight themes of heroism, paranoia, and violence. For instance, (Duerringer & Justus, 2016) in finding these themes in the three most prominent arguments that are used scholars were able to quickly gather that these fallacious arguments stop the advancement of discourse that will help solve a persistent problem. However, due to the pragma-dialectic approach used, it failed to mention how these themes tied in ideologies of masculinity. Nonetheless, scholarly attention has been given to the relationship between masculinity and weapons through examining the language used in connection to weapons. The findings go on to suggest that masculinity is hegemonic in order to achieve the idea that masculinity is inherently violent and that weapons are the direct link to being a man (Myrttinen, 2004). Moreover, scholars suggest that it is important to note that this hegemony leaves models of non-violent masculinity go unnoticed.
Duerringer (2015) investigates the rhetoric of The War on Christmas written by John Gibson which claims marginalization and persecution to preserve white privilege. By analyzing this claim made by Gibson it went on to reveal the use of counterpublic to display his feelings of marginalization. Additionally, the claim of there being a “war on Christmas” has more to do with the separation of church and state to avoid an informal oligarch caste system. In other words, for Gibson, this is really a “war on Christianity” which is deeply rooted within traditional American ideologies. Furthermore, Duerringer (2015) finds that in framing any social controversy as war it incites the idea that there can only be one winner and the loser must be eliminated. Creating a dichotomy that insists that through the separation of church and state the hegemonic group is being persecuted.
Similarly, ideological criticisms of masculinity within consumerism have revealed the way companies like Dodge have used capitalism as a way to protect men from becoming “feminized” (Duerringer, 2015). Thus, addressing the “masculinity crisis” the contemporary man faces. Companies like Dodge advertise their products, in this case — the Dodge Charger as a way to stand against present-day capitalism and feminism. Furthermore, through the examination of the advertisement Man’s Last Stand, Duerringer (2015) argues the Charger is used to address the grievances of the unhappy men who have been besieged by society. Duerringer (2015) notes this was accomplished via a disassociation by which the charger is dissociated from the world of production. As a result, Duerringer (2015) contends this allowed for the decommodification of the Charger which was imperative in making the purchase, of a “Charger” the perfect response to the “assault” on hegemonic masculinity. This study is unique in that it gives insight to the role capitalism plays in the ability to reinforce the ideas of an impending threats on hegemonic masculinity.
Sociologists have gone on to explore the relationship between individualism, collectivism, and how this contributes towards the attitudes toward the contentious issue of gun control. Celinska (2007) by contends that individualism births the value of self-reliance that has been deeply embedded within American history, directly correlates to anti-gun control sentiments and potential gun ownership. Thus, limiting the responsibility toward the concept of collectivity. Moreover, using a unidimensional index Celinska (2007) finds a that great predicators of individualism are age and good socioeconomic standing. Which in turn, is supported through the finding that white racial status is the strongest predicator of individualism. Therefore, making the marginalized, disenfranchised, and people of lower socioeconomic standing more likely to be collectivistic. In analyzing the way individualism correlates to sentiments of gun control and gun ownership, Celinska (2007) finds that an even bigger indicator is race and socioeconomic status.
Additionally, Bobo (1997) investigates the relation between race, public opinion, and society. Despite the time elapsed between when this article was written and contemporary times — the articles findings still hold relevance in the issues we are dealing with today. Bobo (1997) argues that race is inherently problematic because it is a concept that stems from historical, cultural, and more importantly, a byproduct of human capacity to create “meaning.” In turn, constituting that these are social constructions that have predetermined insinuations of a group of people, in this case — African Americans. Moreover, Bobo (1997) emphasizes the role that media goes on to play in shaping the attitudes and beliefs about African Americans. Bobo (1997) contends, “Given the lack of an organized social basis for intergroup contact, ideas about members of other groups are derived vicariously, with the media in all its forms playing the central role” (p. 8). It becomes evident that despite this article being 22 years removed from when it was first written, African Americans continue to face many of the same challenges post the Civil Rights era.
Ultimately, classical rhetorical scholarship on the national discourse of gun control despite being limited, is imperative in progressing the conversation forward as it brings attention to fallacies within the discourse. Moreover, it is important to note sociology and communication studies have investigated how race, masculinity, and individualism share a relationship that is important in understanding the sentiments that are held in on both sides of this contentious conversation. However, there is a considerable gap in a more intersectional analysis within communication studies which draws attention to the dimension of race within this discourse. This metaphoric analysis, is an effort in filling that gap, by bringing attention to the marginalized perspective of African Americans within the national discourse of gun control and the role it plays in reshaping the conversation.
Description of Artifact
“Colion Noir and Killer Mike: The Full Interview” was released on March 22, 2017 which was two days before the March for Our Lives. The controversial 42–minute interview was first released on NRATV and later posted to Colion Noir’s YouTube channel. Colion Noir is an African American gun advocate who also happens to be a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). He started his YouTube channel in 2011, which primarily focused on firearm reviews and think pieces on how to navigate life as a gun enthusiast who legally carries a firearm on his person. Michael Render, also known as Killer Mike, is a Grammy Award-winning rapper, social activist, and entrepreneur. As a social activist, Render focuses on issues that include social equality, police brutality, systemic racism, and black gun ownership. This interview dives quickly into what it is like to be an African American gun advocate in the United States. They go on to explain the different points of views of African Americans and how gun reform would impact the lives of Black folk across the country. Starting with how, as African Americans, gun ownership has to be viewed through an intersectional perspective — first, as an American, then as an African American, and as a patriarch. This insight brings an intersectional texture to a debate that often neglects the important relationship between race and gun ownership.
Description of Method
According to Sonja Foss (2018), “A word is plucked from its original context and transplanted into anther domain. When we use metaphors, we understand and experience one kind of thing in terms of something else” (p. 285). In other words, metaphors can be highly influential in the way we, as a society, view particular issues. Thus, by examining the metaphors within a particular artifact one can discover the ideological assumptions and rhetorical perspectives that are being constructed about a particular topic. More importantly, according to Foss, “The metaphors you select to filter your perceptions and organize your experience are important because when you choose a metaphor you are also choosing its rules, along with the roles and scripts that those rules dictate” (p. 287). Therefore, in this essay, I will be using metaphoric criticism to analyze “Colion Noir and Killer Mike: The Full Interview” to better understand the relationship between race and gun ownership from the perspective of African American gun advocates to uncover how this perspective adds nuance to the discourse of gun reform.
Analysis
When analyzing the artifact as a whole, metaphors were riddled throughout the conversation, which helped communicate a different perspective to the typical discourse about guns, gun rights, and gun ownership. Both men begin the conversation by expressing how being an African American gun owner has to be approached in a way that takes into account the concept of double consciousness. Coined by W.E.B Du Bois, double consciousness touches on the idea of the psycho-social division within African Americans’ identity. This division, or inner duality, is a feeling of “twoness” that African Americans face — their race always compounds and complicates other aspects of their identity, including their American identity (Du Bois, 1903). In other words, it is having the self-awareness that being an African American means your identity is divided into several facets. In this case, it is that of an American and African American, which is not one and the same, and was distinguished early in U.S. history with laws that degraded Black people to property. In more contemporary times, Black folks are still not afforded a full U.S. American identity as the lack of equity they experience as members of the United States is continually perpetuated. For example, in the United States, 39 percent of African-American children and adolescents are living in poverty — more than double the 14 percent poverty rate for non-Latino, white, and Asian children and adolescents (“Children in Poverty,” 2014). High poverty rates, in turn, make African Americans more susceptible to becoming victims of the criminal justice system in which African American adults are five times more likely to be imprisoned than white Americans (Carson, 2016). Therefore, when African Americans choose to own a firearm they face a complex decision and hard realization — due to the marginalization, discrimination, and prejudice they experience in the United States — owning a firearm as an African American is different than owning a firearm as a white American.
The reality for African Americans who are legally able to carry a firearm is evident in the scenario in which they get pulled over; in that case, it is necessary for them to talk the officer through the stop in order to avoid being killed. Render goes on to say, “if that bit of uncomfortableness is all I have to endure in order to be a person that can make sure to protect my life, the life of my family and possibly resist tyranny one day, then I’ll deal with that discomfort” (4:13). What this statement suggests is that African Americans who are advocates of gun ownership are not blind to the racial realities of the United States. Rather, they must navigate the double consciousness they experience as an African American in a society in which white Americans are considered to be the only group in need of protection. However, white gun owners and Black gun owners notably meet in both group’s belief in individualism coupled with their distrust of law enforcement. In the quote above, Render says that he is willing to deal with the discomfort of tip toeing around law enforcement because the freedom of being able to own a firearm and, by extension, to protect his family, is far more important, which demonstrates his belief in individualism.
In addition, individualism ties in to concepts of hegemonic masculinity in which the man is protector of the house hold and needs to do anything in his power to protect his family. It’s important to highlight that when Render speaks about his willingness to experience the potentiality of getting shot by law enforcement, it comes from this idea of being the “protector.” Hegemonic masculinity mandates that a man earn his honor by developing and demonstrating prowess in the role of protector — no matter the cost. This is a crucial part of the belief system that many men internalize that ultimately turns them toward guns. By perceiving the world through the eyes of a protector, men adopt the ideology of hegemonic masculinity in which weapons may aid them in their role. However, despite hegemonic masculinity being the idealized cultural standard in the United States, African American men have limited ways of being able to define themselves in relation to these norms. Because of systemic racism, economic discrimination, and segregation, widespread marginalization continues to limit the ways in which African American men can fulfill these ideologized roles like that of “protector.”
Furthermore, the last thing Render mentions in the interview regarding his unwillingness to give up his firearms is “the possibility to resist tyranny.” When analyzing this statement, the concept of resisting tyranny is often mobilized by the right in order to insinuate that there is an imminent threat to <freedom>. Arguably, there is no value that Americans champion more as the national identity of the U.S. There are tangible manifestations that symbolize <freedom> such as the statue of liberty, the Liberty Bell, and the Freedom Tower across the United States that reinforce this ideology for so many Americans. Additionally, U.S. soldiers for so many serve as the “protectors” and “promoters” of <freedom> from foreign and domestic threats. What is important to note, is the American soldier is usually always depicted with a firearm, the “tool” that is seen as the most effective means in protecting America’s identity. Evidently, framing guns as the only tool to protect <freedom>, an ideograph that is so deeply rooted in traditional U.S. American ideologies, it incites a susceptible part of the U.S. population to live in a state of paranoia. Rhetorically constructing an impending threat is a strategic move on the part of Render because threats to <freedom> will always be effective since the term is a powerful nationalistic ideograph steeped in traditional U.S. American ideologies. In turn, this creates a polarizing perspective that stops a nuanced way of thinking about an issue that is far from black and white. Especially, considering that even though <freedom> is treasured — it has historically been something that not all Americans have experienced (Coe, 2007). Consequently, the intersectionality of being an African American, American, and a male is omnipresent throughout this discourse.
As the conversation continues, Render and Noir discuss more of the systemic issues that repeatedly affect African Americans. In addition, both go on to question who are really “allies” of African Americans if the Democratic Party has been consistently absent when they need their support. Render goes on to say, “when cops keep ‘accidently’ shooting the shit out of Black men I never see your allies saying let’s disarm cops, but our Republic isn’t neat, it isn’t clean, and the Bill of Rights and the constitution are not always in a tidy box, but I promise you as I travel the world it’s [still] the best thing going today” (11:07). Here, Render exposes how the Democratic Party are not in fact allies to the African American a despite their progressive ideals. By using terms like “your allies,” Render does two things. First, he dissociates himself from African Americans who identify with being democrats and have married themselves to the ideologies that the party represents. Second, the term “ally” is used when nation-states cooperate with each other to achieve a goal for mutual benefit. Thus, when Render speaks about the Democratic Party, he suggests that African American’s relationship with the democrats should be strictly transactional because in order for Democrats to succeed they need the Black vote. In addition, insinuating that the allegiance with the Democrats has not helped Black men as they continue to die at the hands of police officers is in contrast to how Render continues to display American exceptionalism by stating that he has been all over the world and has yet to encounter something better than the United States. Here, it becomes evident that being a U.S. American and an African American often leads to ideological clashes — should African Americans pledge allegiance to their community or to their country.
Finally, the metaphorical tenor of this conversation is agency and the vehicle used is firearms. By insinuating that guns are the embodiment of agency, the two men invoke the concept of self-reliance as the target domain and masculinity as the source domain. The more the interview went on, it became clear that guns for African American men were equated with agency, and, therefore, with self-reliance steeped in distrust of the government and of law enforcement. Noir, toward the end of the interview argues, “there’s something about a firearm that forces you to confront the idea of the power of self-reliance. When that happens, it starts to spill over into every other facet of your life.” The United States is a heteropatriarchal society, meaning that male values, such as self-reliance, individualism, and protection are held in high regard. Ultimately, this interview demonstrates that guns are often taken up metaphorically as the most powerful way to maintain hegemonic masculinity. Firearms, then, are a way in which men can continue to express their masculinity through a display of dominance. However, it is important to note that guns are also a metaphorical reference to African Americans being able to depend less on a justice system that has continued to fail them. For example, the concept of self-reliance was first used by the Black Panthers in the 1960s. The Panthers began to open carry firearms and learned their rights to combat police brutality in the Black communities where people were subject to poor living conditions and social inequality. The Black Panthers used the same ideology of self-reliance, which is rooted in individualism, by carrying firearms to police the police. Consequently, in 1967, Ronald Reagan passed California’s Mulford Act, a legislation the NRA supported, in direct response to the Black Panthers’ decision to open-carry and patrol African American communities (Bishop, 2018). Despite African Americans arguably being “quintessentially American” by enacting the individualistic ideals of self-reliance and masculinity to fight the tyranny occurring in their communities, they were still stripped of the <right> to bear arms. Ironically, it was this sort of gun control that led white conservatives to fear any restriction of their own gun rights.
By viewing the conversation of gun control rhetorically and metaphorically, critics are able to better understand the nuances and ideological underpinnings of the national conversation being had about gun control. Through critiquing the conversation of Michael Render and Colion Noir, a critic may highlight ideologies like individualism, masculinity, and self-reliance and uncover the ways in which these ideologies rhetorically shape the national conversation. These ideologies highlight the fact that the issue of gun control is usually discussed from a place of privilege. For progressives who take the pro-gun control perspective, they don’t fear for their lives and typically come from communities where owning a gun seems ridiculous due to the better socioeconomic standings of their respective communities. However, through rhetorically analyzing these ideologies through the perspective of people of color, the nuances that are lost due to lack of diversity in the national conversation are emphasized. The transcendence of hegemonic ideologies like individualism and masculinity have on marginalized groups is brought to the forefront. All while showing the complexities of being a person of color and navigating through the norms this hegemony creates while being the abnormality in this discourse.
Moreover, in applying a metaphorical lens to the entire conversation we begin to uncover two different categories of experience. The first one being a white American man and an African American man. If using guns is the vehicle, then the tenor is individualism in this conversation. In framing the conversation in this way, the first thing that becomes apparent is the intersectionality that people of color find themselves in. Due to the fact, that in this conversation, the perspectives that are being presented are being filtered through a metaphor that supports the traditional hegemonic ideologies the United States identifies with, which emphasizes ideals in the current constricted discourse that favors white American gun owners. This is because the tenor of individualism brings forth the concept of self-reliance which has worked for white Americans since they have been awarded equality and <rights>. This in turn, becomes a point of contention in the national discourse being had because the banning of guns would mean white Americans would not be able to protect their equality and <rights>, resulting in a direct threat to their <freedom>. This threat to <freedom> then becomes a direct threat to their American identity, which challenges how American men will fulfill traditional masculine roles.
Additionally, this analysis demonstrates the nuances that get lost in the national political discourse. For African American men, championing the right of gun ownership means that they are looking for the same <freedoms> and <rights> that are awarded to non-black communities. This in itself is an important factor that is often neglected in gun control rhetoric. However, there is another sentiment that Render expresses that is also absent from the national discourse: Render goes on to say, “when you’re telling me to disarm, I need you to understand the gravity of what you’re saying to me because I’m only 54 years into freedom, and that’s what most people never get when they try to have this conversation with an African American” (17:25). Here, Render rhetorically demonstrates the lingering distrust that he, and other African Americans, feel toward those asking for Americans to give up their <right> to bear arms. Moreover, this illustrates that Render believes firearms are an embodiment of <rights>, and therefore, freedom.
Conclusion
By recognizing that African American gun ownership is different from that of a white man’s reasoning for gun ownership, we can add another layer to the already complex yet overly simplified discussion of gun control. Although this discourse is usually represented as a two-sided debate because of the U.S’ two-party system, sometimes we forget how diverse gun issues in the country actually are. Moreover, gun ownership from the point of view of an African American does not come from a white nationalist perspective where gun ownership is part of the individual’s identity. Rather, it comes from recognizing that, as a Black person in America, the law does not protect you in the same way that it protects a white person. As a result, Michael Render and Colion Noir, through ideologies and metaphors, tell their audience that African Americans do not have to continue being victims, self-reliance and resilience can be achieved through carrying a firearm — the ultimate symbol of agency and masculinity.
Ultimately, in analyzing Michael Render’s and Colion Noir’s conversation not only do we understand the sentiments of pro-gun African American men, but it calls attention to how race impacts the experience in U.S. American society. Emphasizing how institutionalized racism and the marriage to the ideologies of a political party have impacted the ability of the African American community to progress at a faster rate. Additionally, providing alternative solutions to stopping gun-related deaths within the African American community without the confiscation of firearms. Claiming that African Americans have been able to do more to protect their freedom with firearms than without. Thus, in analyzing this artifact, it not only shows the implication the intersecting identities of African American men have on this discourse. It also goes on to highlight how women, another marginalized group, are not being represented within this discourse. Clearly, as Americans, we recognize that the horrific mass shootings should not become a normality in everyday life and we must find a solution. However, it is just as important to recognize the normalization of gun related violence in low-income Black communities, and the lasting effect it’s had on the socioeconomical growth within those communities.
References
American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethnic and racial minorities and socioeconomic
status. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities
Bishop, Tho. (2018). Mulford act and America’s racist history of gun control. Retrieved from
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-mulford-act-and-americas-racist-history-of-gun-control/242420/
Bobo, L. (1997). Race, public opinion, and the social sphere. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1), 1-
15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/2977854
Celinska, K. (2007). Individualism and collectivism in America: the case of gun ownership and
attitudes toward gun control. Sociological Perspectives, 50(2), 229–247. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2007.50.2.229
Coe, Kevin. (2017). The language of freedom in the American presidency, 1933–2006.
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37(3), 375–398. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20619328
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. New York Dover Publications. Retrieved from
http://scua.library.umass.edu/duboisopedia/doku.php?id=about:double_consciousness
Duerringer, Christopher. (2013). The “war on Christianity”: counterpublicity or hegemonic
containment?, Southern Communication Journal. 78:4, 311–325, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2013.792866
Duerringer, Christopher. (2015). Be a Man — Buy a car! Articulating masculinity with
consumerism in man’s last stand, Southern Communication Journal, 80:2, 137–152, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1017654
Duerringer, Christopher., Justus, Z.S., (2016) Tropes in the rhetoric of gun rights: a pragma-
dialectic analysis, argumentation, and advocacy, 52:3, 181–198. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821869
Foss, S. (2018). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
Griffith, D., Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Bruce, M., Tharpe, R., Metzl, J. (2015). The
interdependence of African American men’s definitions of manhood and health. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547385/
Grinshteyn, Erin. Hemenway, David. (2016) Violent death rates: the US compared with other
high-income OECD countries, 2010. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(3), 266–273. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293431501030X
Karp, Aaron. (2018) Estimating global civilian-held firearms numbers.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
Maxwell, C. & Solomon, D. (2018). Mass incarceration, stress, and black infant mortality.
Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/06/05/451647/mass-incarceration-stress-black-infant-mortality/
Myrttinen, H. (2004). ‘Pack your heat and work the streets’ — weapons and the active
construction of violent masculinities. Women & Language, 27(2), 29–34. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=16330334&site=ehost-live
Noir, Colion. (2018, March). Colion noir and killer mike: the full interview. Retrieved from
Parker, K., Horqwitz, J.M., Igielnik, R., Oliphant, J.B., Brown, A. (2017). America’s complex
relationship with guns. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
Primm, E., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J. (2009). Race, fear, and firearms: The roles of demographics and
guilt assuagement in the creation of a political partion. Journal of African American Studies, 13(1), 63–73. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/41819192
Schildkraut, Deborah. (2002). The more things change… American idea and mass and elite
responses to 9/11. Political Psychology, 23(3), 511–535. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/3792590
Weeks, Linton. (2013). The first gun in America. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/06/176132730/the-first-gun-in-america
