*Names in bold indicate Presenter
The narratives that a group constructs depict a specific understanding of reality that illuminate the group’s perception of the existing state of affairs. Such narratives usually characterize a victim being harmed, a villain doing the harm, and often portray a heroic figure or group offering a solution to the problem (usually themselves). They contain explicit causes and speak to character intention and assign blame. But not all of the elements of a policy narrative are narrative elements in the traditional humanities sense. Policy narratives also provide evidence in an attempt to convince others of the efficacy of their proposed solution. Using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), we examine how three advocacy groups deploy an array of scientific studies, public opinion polls, legal precedents, anecdotes, statistics, and expert endorsements in their attempt to deploy convincing policy narratives in the gun control policy area. The empirical approach associated with the NPF allows this research to effectively quantify the differences in the types of evidence utilized by the groups and examine potential links between the type of evidence deployed and the manner in which the different advocacy groups portray the villains, heroes, and victims in the policy narratives.