AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 30, pages 93–104 (2004)

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns inAmerica, Great Britain, and Western AustraliaClaire Ann Cooke

University of Teesside, Cleveland, England

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Attitudes of young people in the United States of America (n=145), Great Britain (n=177) andWestern Australia (n=219), towards the possession and use of firearms were explored. These weremeasured on an Attitudes Toward Gun Scale [Branscombe et al., 1991 "A three factor scale of attitudestowards guns," Aggr. Behav. 17:261], with particular reference to its three underlying dimensions(rights, causes crime, and protects from crime). Findings on these three dimensions of the ATGSindicate American respondents to be in greatest favour of gun possession, scoring significantly higherthan Australian and British respondents in the belief that it is a citizen’s right to own a gun, and thatguns provide protection from crime. Australian and British respondents scored higher on items referringto the belief that guns stimulate crime. An additional item added to the scale by Cooke and Puddifoot[2000] concerning the right to carry concealed weapons gained little support from British, Australian,or American respondents. This, together with low mean scores by respondents from all nations onprotection, questions the introduction of ‘gun-carry’ laws in many states throughout the USA.Discussion centres upon the implications of such findings, and the usefulness for future research of ameasure designed to explore why people own guns, choose to carry weapons, and keep guns in thehome. Aggr. Behav. 30:93–104, 2004. r 2004, Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Key words: guns; firearms; protection; crime; rights; gun carry laws

INTRODUCTION

Numerous firearms incidents have brought attention to the gun control debate in the lastdecade, but response to such events has differed between nations. Incidents in Britain(Dunblane), Australia (Tasmania), and America (Columbine) are examples of such tragedies.In Australia there has been pressure towards greater gun control, and in Britain, where guncarrying has not been customary, a complete ban on the possession and ownership ofhandguns was introduced following the shooting of school children in Dunblane, Scotland.In America laws vary considerably across states. This study aims to explore young people’sattitudes towards citizen’s use of guns in Britain, America, and Western Australia.

While little is understood regarding the psychological effects of weapon carrying, weaponuse, and associated attitudes in Britain and Australia, some research has been conducted in

nCorrespondence to: Claire Ann Cooke, University of Leicester, Forensic Section, School of Psychology, 106 New

Walk, Leicester, England, LEI 7EA. E-mail: cac20@le.ac.uk

Received 18 April 2002; amended version accepted 17 July 2002

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20009

r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

the United States. In the American literature, there are recurring themes, referring to the levelof gun ownership [Kleck and Hogan, 1999; Lester, 1999], particularly in relation to homicide,suicide, and accidental death (for a good review of international comparisons see Killias,1993). However, interpretation of the existing data, and what the figures actually represent,can cause some disagreement, and is particularly difficult when comparisons are madebetween locations, for example between states [Kleck, 1991].

Despite the large number of independent and somewhat disconnected studies measuringvarious aspects of gun use and ownership, there does not appear to be any genericpsychological theory emanating from the research. It could be argued that such a theory wouldbe inappropriate given the importance of historical, cultural, and socio-economic factors whichinfluence gun-related attitudes and behaviours. Psychoanalytic theories are often associatedwith gun ownership, however such theories often refer to a very specific type of gun use.

Stemming from psychoanalytic theory, Diener and Kerber [1979], suggest that thepsychological motivation for the possession of guns can be attributed to feelings of insecurityand the need for power and control. ‘In a recreational context, hunting and shooting maysatisfy the need for power because of the control and precision involved, as well as the lifeand death power the hunter exercises over his prey’ [Diener and Kerber, 1979, p. 236].However, while it may be argued that these behaviours and personality traits may be evidentin some gun users, it is unlikely that all owners would be motivated by these same factors.

Rooted in the behaviourist tradition and frequently referred to in the literature is thephenomenon of the ‘weapons effect’. This suggests that the presence of a weapon encouragesa cycle of violence [Anderson et al., 1998; Kleck and DeLone, 1993]. The presence of a gunproduces the ‘weapons effect’ [Berkowitz, 1974] through ‘classically conditioned symbolicassociations with aggression and serves as a cue to elicit aggressive arousal in provocativesituations’ [Boyanowsky and Griffiths, 1982, p 399]. Findings from the research also suggestthe potential for aggression is increased when other factors disinhibit aggression, (such asalcohol, presence of others, and instructions to aggress) and the opportunity to retaliate existsfor example, the presence of a weapon.

However, many argue that how an individual interprets a given event or object governs hissubsequent behaviour [Berkowitz and Alioto, 1973]. Geen [1990] also argues that the effectweapons have upon behaviour will depend upon what associations in memory they trigger.For example, for those who have been socialised into a sporting and hunting subculture itwould be less likely for guns to be associated with interpersonal violence, and therefore itwould be unlikely that the ‘weapons effect’ would occur. For others, images of guns canproduce fear, rather than aggression, again it would be unlikely to result in the ‘weaponseffect.’ Wright et al. [1983] suggest that it is possible that the ‘weapons effect’ only occurs inpersons for whom guns are exclusively associated with violence.

It would therefore be reasonable to propose that residents of different locations wouldhave different cognitions concerning guns, based upon their actual exposure, theirsocialisation, values, laws, and cultural practices. This has been exemplified by studies ofdifferent regions of America [Toch and Lizzotte, 1992].

National differences would be expected based upon differential experience of gun use andgun laws. In Western Australian gun laws do not allow citizens to routinely carry firearms,but police officers are permitted to do so. It may be hypothesised that citizens wouldtherefore principally associate guns with crime fighting and crime control. In contrast, Britishcitizens rarely see firearms, as neither the public nor the police routinely carry guns, thereforeBritish citizens may associate guns with fear, disorder, and violence. In America both police

94 Cooke

and law abiding citizens in many states are allowed to legally possess, carry, and use firearms,therefore anticipated cognitions and responses to firearms would be far more complex anddiffer across states.

In contrast to Australia and Britain where the use of firearms is strongly dissuaded, citizengun use in America is relatively common, and supported by widely held values and beliefsabout their protective power. In fact one of the main arguments supporting gun use in theUSA, is that they provide protection from crime. Lott and Mustard [1997] argue that lawabiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons for this reason. They quote1,500 murders, 4,000 rapes, 11,000 robberies, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults per year inAmerica could be prevented by allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Kleck andGertz’s [1995] findings support Lott and Mustard, suggesting that guns are used for selfdefence approximately two and half million times a year, with 400,000 of these defendersbelieving that using a gun ‘almost certainly saved their life’.

Many argue that by allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons criminalswill not know who is, or is not, carrying a weapon, therefore they will not be able to tell if apotential victim is armed before they strike, thus raising the criminal’s expected costs forcommitting crime.

‘It was stories of individuals using guns to defend themselves that has resulted in 31 statesadopting the new laws requiring authorities to issue, without discretion, concealed weaponspermits to qualified applicants’ [Lott and Mustard, 1997, p 4].

Lott and Mustard also refer to ‘hot burglaries,’ where residents are at home when acriminal enters the house. They believe that almost half of burglaries in Britain and Canadaare ‘hot burglaries’, compared to 13% in USA. An American survey of convicted felonsrevealed that they were more worried about armed victims than they were about running intothe police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend moretime ‘casing’ a house to ensure that nobody is at home [Lott and Mustard, 1997].

Not surprisingly, then, perhaps many US citizens keep guns in the home for protection,however many studies suggest that guns appear to be a significant risk factor for familyhomicide, suicide, and accidental death. Azreal and Hemenway [2000] suggest that there islittle evidence to show that guns are actually used to thwart crimes by intruders, or thatweapons are used in the home for self-defence. Research suggests that this is more likely toresult in a member of the family being injured or killed than an intruder [Kellerman andReay, 1986].

In their study ‘In the safety of your own home’ Azrael and Hemenway [2000] found that ofthe 1,906 people they contacted, 13 reported having a gun displayed against them in thehome, 2 used guns in self-defence at home, and 24 reported using other weapons, such as aknife or baseball bat. This suggests that despite many American citizen’s belief that guns inthe home can protect them from crime, in practice other weapons are far more likely to beused. They also found that a gun in the home was more likely to be used against a member ofthe family than to protect the family, and also report that a gun in the home is more likely tobe used against a female member of the household to frighten or intimidate her.

It appears that for Australian and British citizens there is rarely any personal decision to bemade concerning gun ownership with respect to personal protection. However, for manyAmerican citizens a dilemma may exist as whether to keep a gun in the home, and/or to carrya concealed weapon. The significance of this decision is profound given the potentialconsequences. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution, and in the southernstates of America gun ownership appears to relate strongly to a particular cultural identity.

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns 95

In the UK many people associate gun ownership with deviance and undesirablecharacteristics. There is no equivalent to the enshrinement in law of the right to bear armsin Britain or Australia.

Differential national experiences would be anticipated to bear on attitudes towards guns ina number of general ways, i.e., the manner in which guns are perceived to cause, or to protectfrom crime, and the sense in which the ownership of a gun is considered to be a legitimatemeans of protection. It would be expected that American citizens would have a developedsense of the right to own and use guns for these reasons, and for recreational purposes.Branscombe et al. [1991] explored attitudes towards guns among American students, anddeveloped an instrument for tapping into these cognitions, (Attitude Towards Gun Scale).

Alongside the development of the ATGS, Branscombe et al. distributed a battery ofpersonality and social measures. Findings suggest that American women were more likely toperceive guns as stimulating crime, while American males were more likely to believe thatguns provide protection from crime, and to endorse the use of guns as a ‘right’ that Americancitizens should possess. The scale consisted of three underlying dimensions, Crime,Protection, and Rights. These will be discussed in more detail later.

The aim of the research reported here is to measure young people’s attitudes toward gunson Branscombe’s 1991 Attitude Toward Gun Scale (ATGS) in America, Great Britain, andWestern Australia. General patterns of response will be explored, differences betweennationality (America, Australia, and Britain), and gender, (One way ANOVA), and finallyinteraction effects between nationality and gender will be investigated (Two way ANOVA).

METHOD

Participants

The study involved a total of 542 volunteers from within and around university campusesin Perth, Western Australia (n=219, males=62, females=157), South Carolina, USA(n=145, males=41, females=104) and from the North East of England, UK (n=177,males=45, females=132). All participants were aged 17 to 25 years of age, mean=21.4. Itis worth noting here that the sample of males and females are not equal within thepopulations, however they do remain consistent between the three nations (72% females,28% males in USA and Australian sample, and 74% female and 26% male in UK sample).

Instrument

Each participant completed an Attitude Toward Gun Scale (ATGS), a short self-completion questionnaire. The ATGS originally comprised of a 17 item scale, which wasdeveloped and validated in the USA by Branscombe et al. [1991]. Cooke and Puddifoot[2000] added a new item to the scale ‘People should be allowed to carry guns on the street aslong as the weapon is concealed’ to update the scale with new legislation in the USA, bringingthe new scale to 18 items.

Branscombe’s Attitude Towards Gun Scale (ATGS) consisted of three underlyingdimensions. The three sub-scales were Rights (the belief that it is an individual’s right toown a gun), Protection (the belief that a gun can provide protection from crime), and Crime

(the belief that guns stimulate crime). As the ATGS was devised for use in the USA, minorword alterations were made on 5 of the items to allow for use in Britain and Australia.

96 Cooke

Originally Branscombe’s ATGS was scored on an eight-point scale, however, in this studya more traditional 5–point Likert style was adopted, 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree.

Branscombe performed a principal component analysis using varimax rotation to obtainthree underlying dimensions that form the Attitude Towards Gun Scale. The three factorsaccount for 60.5% of the variance. Branscombe’s reliability and ranges of factor loadingswere Rights alpha = .90, containing 7 items factor loadings ranging .73–.81; Protectionalpha = .78, containing 5 items, factor loadings .60–.78; and Crime alpha = .83, 5 itemsfactor loadings ranging .62–.87. For the total ATGS, alpha = .89, 17 items, factor loadingranging .60–.87.

RESULTS

ATGS: Comparison With Findings From Branscombe et al., 1991

In the present study, and for the whole sample, 61.4% of the variance was accounted for byBranscombe’s three factors. For the American respondents alone 62.1% of the variance wasexplained. Reliability estimates for the overall scale and three dimensions also closelymatched those Branscombe et al. [1991], cited earlier: In the present study, Rights contain-ing 8 items alpha = .93, factor loadings ranging .58–.84; Protection, containing 5 items,alpha = .80, factor loadings ranging from .57–.80; Crime containing 5 items, alpha = .77factor loadings ranging from .52–.78; overall ATGS, containing 18 items, alpha = .90,factor loadings ranging from .52–.84. Alpha reliability indicates high internal consistency forthe ATGS and all of its sub scales.

ATGS: General Patterns Between Nations

Overall mean scores (Table I) were similar for British and Australian respondents,generally scoring low on the Rights dimension (British mean=2.01, SD= .78; Australianmean=2.17, SD= .86), in the belief that it is not an individual’s right to own a gun. Britishand Australian participants also scored low on the Protection dimension, suggesting thatthese respondents do not believe that guns can provide protection from crime (Britishmean=1.84, SD= .71; Australian mean=1.86, SD= .60). Mean scores on the Crime

dimension for British and Australian respondents were higher, thus suggesting that theybelieved guns could stimulate crime (British mean=3.25, SD= .80; Australian mean=3.43,SD= .91). American respondents scored the highest on Rights (mean=3.59; SD= .77), andProtection dimensions (mean=2.37; SD= .81), and all of their individual items, supportingthe belief that a gun can provide protection from crime, and that it is an individual’s right toown a gun, and scored the lowest on the Crime dimension (mean=3.10; SD= .85).

To examine differences in responses between the respondents of the three nations, resultswere subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences were found on allthree dimensions: Rights, Protection, and Crime. Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was used tolocate the differences (Table II).

USA & UK

Significant differences were found on Rights (USA mean=3.6, UK mean=2.0,F(2,538)=179.90, po.01) and Protection (USA mean=2.4, UK mean=1.8,

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns 97

F(2,538)=29.58, po.01) dimensions, but not on Crime (USA mean=3.1, UK mean=3.3,F(2,538)=6.587, p= .27) dimension. There were significant differences on 17 of the 18items within the ATGS between British and American respondents, in all casesAmerican participants being in greater favour of gun use, both in terms of protection fromcrime, and as a right to own a gun. British respondents scored higher on most of thecrime items.

Australia & UK

There were no significant differences on any of the three sub-scales between Australian andBritish respondents. Rights (Australia mean=2.2, UK mean=2.0, F(2,538=179.90,p= .12), Protection (Australia mean=1.9, UK mean = 1.8, F(2,538)=29.6, p= .96), andCrime (Australia mean=3.4, UK mean=3.3, F(2,538)=6.587, p= .10). When exploringindividual scale items, significant differences were found on 4 items within the Rights sub-scale between Britain and Australia. In each case, Australian participants scored more

TABLE I. Mean Scores for American, Australian, and British Respondents for the Attitude Towards GunScale (ATGS)

Scale Item America Australia Britain

RIGHTS 3.6 2.2 2.0

People should be allowed to have handguns in their homes 3.9 2.3 1.7

Gun ownership is a basic American value 3.3 1.9 1.8

I should be able to get a handgun if I want one 3.8 2.3 2.0

People should be allowed to own guns because many people use them for

sporting purposes

3.6 2.6 2.4

Regardless of their potential for injury it is each persons right to chose to own

a gun or not

3.9 2.5 2.3

A ban on handguns would be a violation of the U.S. constitution 3.8 2.3 2.0

The right to bear arms is an important freedom for Americans to retain 3.6 2.1 2.5

People should be allowed to carry weapons on the street as long as the

weapon is concealed

2.7 1.4 1.3

PROTECTION 2.4 1.9 1.8

Owning a handgun decreases a persons chances of being a victim of crime 2.9 2.0 1.9

The only way you can ensure you will not be criminally victimized is by

owning a handgun yourself

2.1 1.5 1.6

Criminals do not attack people who own guns 2.0 1.5 1.6

Store owners who have handguns on the premises are less likely to be robbed

than those without weapons

2.7 2.4 2.3

When you have a handgun of your own, you can stop worrying about being

victimised

2.2 1.8 1.8

CRIME 3.1 3.4 3.3

Guns stimulate crime 3.0 3.5 3.4

People commit suicide often because handguns are too readily available 2.9 2.7 2.4

Easy access to handguns is likely to result in an increased crime rate 3.4 3.8 3.7

Gun availability makes killing too easy 3.2 3.8 3.5

Many murders would not take place if a handgun had not been available 3.0 3.4 3.2

98 Cooke

favourably (higher) towards the belief that it is an individual’s right to own a firearm thantheir British counterparts.

USA & Australia

There were significant differences between Australian and American respondents on all ofthe three dimensions, Rights (USA mean=3.6, Australia mean=2.2, F(2,538)=179.90,po.01), Protection (USA mean=2.4, Australia mean=1.9, F(2,538) =29.575, po.01),and Crime (USA mean=3.1, Australia mean=3.4, F(2,538) =6.587, po.01). Differencesbetween USA and Australian respondents were significant on 17 of the 18 item scale. AgainAmerican citizens scored significantly higher on all items within the Rights and Protection

sub-scales, while Australian respondents scored significantly higher on the Crime sub-scaleitems.

Sex Differences Within the Whole Sample

For the whole sample, including American, Australian, and British participants,males scored significantly higher on the Rights sub-scale, higher (but not significantly)on the Protection sub-scale, and females scored higher (but not significantly) on theCrime subscale. Rights (male mean=2.70, SD=1.19; female mean=2.43, SD= .98),F(1,538) =7.586, po.05); Protection (male mean=2.04, SD= .78, female mean=1.97,SD= .72), F(1, 538) =1.010, p= .32), and Crime (male mean=3.25, SD= .90, femalemean=3.29, SD= .86), F(1,538) = .235, p= .63). Therefore the only significant differencein attitudes towards firearms between males and females for the whole sample was onthe Rights subscale. However Branscombe et al.’s [1991] American study foundsignificant differences between male and female respondents on all three sub-scales. Toinvestigate these disparities between the present data and Branscombe’s, sex differences wereexplored further.

TABLE II. Significance Levels on ATGS Dimensions Between Nations

America Australia

America

Right o.01

Protection o.01

Crime o.01

Australia

Right o.01

Protection o.01

Crime o.01

Britain

Right o.01 .12

Protection o.01 .96

Crime .27 .10

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns 99

Sex Differences in American Sample

Results were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) within each nation, and resultsfrom American respondents do support Branscombe’s findings. Male and female Americanrespondent’s scores did show a significant difference on the Rights (o.001) and Crime (o.05)dimensions, but not Protection (p= .66). See Table III for mean scores.

Sex Differences in Australian Sample

Sex differences within the Australian sample showed a significant difference on the Rights(o.05) dimension only. There were no significant differences on the Crime (p= .69) andProtection (p= .76) sub-scales.

Sex Differences in British Sample

British respondents showed no significant difference between male and female respondentson any of the dimensions or any items within the ATGS. Rights (p= .82), Crime (p= .62),and Protection (p= .38).

Table III shows that overall American males were most strongly in favour of the use offirearms, scoring the highest mean score on both the Rights and Protection dimensions.British males scored the lowest on the Rights dimension, and British females scored lowest onthe Protection dimension. Australian males scored the highest on the Crime dimension, andAmerican males scoring the lowest.

Although significant differences were found between nations regarding the belief that gunsstimulate crime, this mainly highlights the strength of the belief, as mean scores show that allnations agreed that guns do stimulate crime.

Interaction between Nationality and Gender on ATG

Finally to explore any interaction effects between nationality and gender, results weresubjected to a two way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table IV shows the only significant interaction effect to be in the Rights dimension. TheRights sub-scale, and all of its items, also shows the main source of significant difference bothbetween nation and sex. Clearly nationality appears to be the strongest factor when exploringyoung people’s attitudes towards guns.

DISCUSSION

Patterns of response have been analysed according to nationality and gender. Americanrespondents scored the highest (most favourably) towards the use of guns, scoring the highestof the three nations on Rights, and Protection, and the lowest on Crime. Americanrespondents were the most likely to believe that it is an individual’s right to own a gun, that itmay protect an individual from crime, and least likely to believe that guns stimulate crime.However, while it is clear that American respondents scored the highest of the three nationson Protection, the mean score was still lower than might be anticipated, particularly in thecontext of mean scores for the other two factors. American respondents showed the highestscores on Rights (mean 3.6), followed by Crime (mean 3.1), and then Protection (mean 2.4),

100 Cooke

TABLE

III.MeanScoresforMale

andFem

ale

Respondents

within

NationsfortheAttitudeTowardsGunScale

(ATGS)

Scale

Item

American

Fem

ales

American

Males

Australian

Fem

ales

Australian

Males

British

Fem

ales

British

Males

RIG

HTS

3.44nn

3.98

2.09n

2.38

2.02

1.99

People

should

beallowed

tohavehandgunsin

theirhomes

3.78nn

4.24

2.2

n2.6

1.74

1.67

Gunownership

isabasicAmericanvalue

3.15n

3.76

1.93

2.05

1.87

1.87

Ishould

beable

toget

ahandgunifIwantone

3.71n

4.17

2.17n

2.55

2.03

1.8

People

should

beallowed

toowngunsbecause

manypeople

use

them

forsportingpurposes

3.52n

3.98

2.50

2.76

2.40

2.38

Regardless

oftheirpotentialforinjury

itiseach

personsrightto

chose

toownagunornot

3.64nn

4.39

2.35n

2.73

2.37

2.13

Abanonhandgunswould

beaviolationoftheU.S.constitution

3.67n

4.24

2.25

2.43

2.00

2.07

Therightto

beararm

sisanim

portantfreedom

forAmericansCitizens

3.46n

4.00

1.99n

2.40

2.45

2.56

People

should

beallowed

tocarryweaponsonthestreet

aslong

astheweaponisconcealed

2.57

2.90

1.38

1.48

1.29

1.40

PROTECTIO

N2.35

2.42

1.85

1.88

1.81

1.92

Owningahandgundecreasesapersonschancesofbeinga

victim

ofcrim

e

2.74n

3.15

2.01

1.92

1.93

1.96

When

only

wayyoucanensure

youwillnotbecrim

inallyvictimized

isbyowningahandgunyourself

2.15

2.07

1.53

1.55

1.57

1.51

Criminalsdonotattack

people

whoownguns

2.01

1.95

1.56

1.44

1.50

1.76

Store

ownerswhohavehandgunsonthepremises

are

less

likely

toberobbed

thanthose

withoutweapons

2.76

2.56

2.34

2.61

2.25

2.53

When

youhaveahandgunofyourown,youcanstopworrying

aboutbeingvictimised

2.11

2.37

1.83

1.87

1.80

1.84

CRIM

E3.19n

2.87

3.42

3.47

3.23

3.30

Gunsstim

ulate

crim

e3.13

2.80

3.49

3.59

3.40

3.36

People

commitsuicideoften

because

handgunsare

tooreadilyavailable

2.98

2.68

2.66

2.82

2.37

2.53

Easy

accessto

handgunsislikelyto

resultin

anincreasedcrim

erate

3.45

3.12

3.76

3.89

3.72

3.93

Gunavailabilitymakes

killingtooeasy

3.34n

2.73

3.80

3.74

3.55

3.47

Manymurderswould

nottakeplace

ifahandgunhadnotbeenavailable

3.06

3.02

3.44

3.32

3.20

3.22

Note:nin

thefemale

columnrepresents

asignificantdifference

betweenmale

andfemale

response

within

thegiven

nation.npo.05,nnpo.001.

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns 101

suggesting that American respondents believe that guns are more likely to stimulate crimethan to protect from crime.

There was a strong similarity between the scores for British and Australian respondents.Scores for these respondents were highest on Crime, followed by Rights, and finallyProtection, i.e. British and Australian respondents were most likely to believe that gunsstimulate crime. Surprisingly however, both British and Australian respondents scored higheron Rights, than they did Protection, suggesting that participants have stronger beliefs in anindividual’s Right to own a gun than a gun’s capability of protecting an individual fromcrime. In fact, all three nations scored lower on Protection than on any other factor. Thesefindings do not accord well with arguments sometimes mooted for keeping guns forprotection from crime.

Lott and Mustard [1997] proposed that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carryweapons for protection, but findings from the present study question the support given tothe new ‘gun-carry’ laws that have been introduced or proposed in many states throughoutAmerica. The findings from this study provide little support for the relaxation of gun controlin the USA, particularly with low scores from all three nations on the item ‘People should

TABLE IV. Significance Levels Between Nation, Sex, and Interaction Effects

Scale Item Nation Sex Interaction

RIGHTS o.001 o.001 o.05

People should be allowed to have handguns in their homes o.001 o.05 .096

Gun ownership is a basic American value o.001 o.05 o.05

I should be able to get a handgun if 1 want one o.001 o.05 o.05

People should be allowed to own guns because many people use them for

sporting purposes

o.001 o.05 .266

Regardless of their potential for injury it is each persons right to chose to

own a gun or not

o.001 o.05 o.05

A ban on handguns would be a violation of the U.S. constitution o.001 o.05 .188

The right to bear arms is an important freedom for Americans to retain o.001 o.001 .260

People should be allowed to carry weapons on the street as long as the

weapon is concealed

o.001 o.05 .494

PROTECTION o.001 .328 .885

Owning a handgun decreases a persons chances of being a victim of crime o.001 .279 .131

The only way you can ensure you will not be criminally victimized is by

owning a handgun yourself

o.001 .671 .838

Criminals do not attack people who own guns o.001 .756 .148

Store owners who have handguns on the premises are less likely to be

robbed than those without weapons

.114 .245 .108

When you have a handgun of your own, you can stop worrying about

being victimised

o.001 .211 .537

CRIME o.001 .444 .129

Guns stimulate crime o.001 .444 .328

People commit suicide often because handguns are too readily available o.05 .931 .214

Easy access to handguns is likely to result in an increased crime rate o.001 .702 .089

Gun availability makes killing too easy o.001 o.05 .112

Many murders would not take place if a handgun had not been available .054 .704 .880

102 Cooke

be allowed to carry weapons on the street as long as the weapon is concealed.’ However,while the findings of this study do not appear to offer support to Lott and Mustard’sclaims referring to the concealed weapon laws, they do extend to the belief that ‘peopleshould be allowed to keep guns in the home’, which was strongly supported by Americanrespondents.

Nationality appears to be the strongest factor influencing young people’s attitudes towardsguns. Patterns of difference could not be attributed to gender alone, as gender patterns differbetween the three nations. However attitudes towards guns were probably easier to predict inthe USA sample, where there were very clear, significant differences between male and femaleresponses. British and Australian respondent’s scores were more varied, not so predictable,and generally did not show consistent patterns of difference.

Overall American male respondents showed greatest support for gun use, but the mainsource of difference between American males and any other group was within the Rights

dimension. The Rights dimension was the only factor that included gun use for purposesoutside crime, the two other factors being directly related to crime (stimulates Crime, andProtection from crime). In these two dimensions no other issues are addressed outside ofcrime, while items in the Rights dimension not only explore beliefs concerning freedom,independence, the right to bear arms, and other political/abstract beliefs, but also refer tothe use of guns for hunting and sport. Given that the USA respondents were drawn fromSouth Carolina, where hunting is a popular pastime for many (particularly males), thisfinding suggests that guns carry more significance to American males than to any other groupstudied here.

‘The existence of a sporting subculture as evidenced by hunting, gun collecting, and sportshooting activities associated with the rural character of the south could be responsible forelevated levels of gun ownership’ [Lizzotte and Bordua, 1980].

The importance of the items within the Rights dimension for American male respondentswas so exclusive to them that it even differentiated them from American female respondents(the only nation to show this pattern). It may therefore be hypothesised that Americanfemales are not encouraged into the sporting and hunting subculture, leaving this apredominantly masculine domain.

Male and female response appears to differ depending upon use and exposure toguns within a given location. Where and how these attitudes originate, develop, and change(and may be influenced) according to location and exposure is of some interest. Moreresearch is required exploring issues regarding people’s attitudes towards guns outsidetheir association with criminal activity, particularly across different states in the USA. Thismay contribute to people’s understanding of what is ‘normal’ gun use, even potentiallyto predictively model those who may misuse firearms. The findings from this studysuggesting that people do not believe guns can protect potential victims from crime bearson the potential consequences of keeping a gun in the home, as discussed by Azrael andHemenway [2000].

In conclusion the use of the ATGS in this comparative study has assisted in exploringpeople’s attitude towards guns in three different nations. Unexpected findings from this studyare the lack of support for ‘concealed weapons/gun carry laws’ in the American sample, andthe low scoring across all three nations in the belief that guns provide protection from crime,suggesting that weapons/guns are kept for other purposes. Future research might focus ondifferences in gun-related attitudes and behaviours between specific regions within nations aswell as across international boundaries.

Young People’s Attitudes Towards Guns 103

REFERENCES

Anderson C, Benjamin AJ, Bartholow BD. 1998. Does

the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of

weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychol Sci

9:308–314.

Azrael D, Hemenway D. 2000. ‘‘In the safety of your

own home’’: Results from a national survey on gun

use at home. Soc Sci Med 50:285–291.

Berkowitz L. 1974. Some Determinants of Impulsive

Aggression: Role of mediated associations with

reinforcements for aggression. Psychol Rev 81:

165–176.

Berkowitz L, Alioto J. 1973. The meaning of an

observed event as a determinant of its aggressive

consequences. J Pers Soc Psychol 28:206–217.

Boyanowsky E, Griffiths C. 1982. Weapons and eye

contact as instigators or inhibitors of aggressive

arousal in police-citizen interaction. J Appl Soc

Psychol 12:398–407.

Branscombe NR, Weir JA, Crosby P. 1991. A three

factor scale of attitudes towards guns. Aggress Behav

17:261–273.

Cooke CA, Puddifoot JE. 2000. Gun Culture and

Symbolism Among U.K. and U.S. Women. J Soc

Psychol 140:423–433.

Diener E, Kerber KW. 1979. Personality charac-

teristics of American gun owners. J Soc Psychol

107:227–238

Geen RG. 1990. Human Aggression. Milton Keynes,

UK: Open University Press.

Kellerman AL, Reay DT. 1986. Protection or peril? An

analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. N Eng

J Med 314: 1557–1560

Killias M. 1993. International correlation’s between gun

ownership and rates of homicide and suicide. CMAJ

148:1721–1725

Kleck G. 1991. Point-Blank: Guns and Violence in

America. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kleck G, DeLone MA. 1993. Victim resistance and

offender weapon effects in robbery. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 9:55–81.

Kleck G, Gertz M. 1995. Armed resistance to crime: the

prevalence and nature of self defence with a gun.

J Crim Law Criminol 86:150–187.

Kleck G, Hogan M. 1999. Locational case-control study

of homicide offending and gun ownership. Soc Probl

46:275–293.

Lester D. 1999. Gun deaths in children and guns in the

home. Eur Psychiatry 13:157–159.

Lizzotte AJ, Bordua DJ. 1980. Firearms Ownership for

Sport and Protection: Two divergent models. Amer-

ican Sociology Review 45:229–244.

Lott JR, Mustard DB. 1997. Crime, Deterrence and the

Right to Carry Firearms. J Legal Stud 26:1–68.

Toch H, Lizotte A. 1992. Research policy: The case of

gun control. In: Svedfeld P, Tetlock P, editors.

Psychology and Social Advocacy. Washington, DC:

University Press of America.

Wright JD, Rossi PH, Daly K. 1983. Under the Gun:

Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

104 Cooke