This year’s presidential election between Democratic nominee, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has only had a minor theme of gun control. Hillary Clinton in favor of background checks of gun purchasers, and Donald Trump with “unwavering support” for the Second Amendment. According to Martin Kaste from NPR, “The real battle over guns, though, has been waged at the state level this year—with a new emphasis on ballot initiatives”.

Because legislation to “require criminal background checks for most gun sales died in the state House of Representatives” three years ago, gun control activists have found a way around by having background checks on state ballots. And well—it’s working. Gun control groups themselves have had to utilize persuasive communication and a key rhetorical device of Identification for the state ballot questions over background checks. J.T. Stepleton, a researcher with the National Institute on Money in State Politics claimed, “While the NRA has shifted its money into lobbying and independent expenditures for specific candidates, the gun control groups are putting more emphasis on ballot questions”. Trying out an initiative process, petitioners have been on a mission to “place new firearm restrictions on their state’s ballot” this year. Supporters of the Second Amendment have found tremendous financial support on gun control ballot measures, and the differences in monetary support for pro-gun-control committees compared to gun-rights committees is a difference as great as $11.4 million raised to promote gun control and a mere $2 million raised by gun activists.

Pro-gun groups have put forth money into opposing ballot initiatives, but the financial support that has been fundraised by gun-control groups is almost not even comparable. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, explains, “They said we’re going to pivot, and go to the states and companies, and we’re going to get them to put laws and policies in place that point Congress and the Supreme Court in the direction that this nation is headed in—and that’s exactly what we’ve done”. This initiative from pro-gun-control groups has plenty of momentum, and it is only a matter of time until we either see laws greatly change—potentially saving countless lives—or backtracking into a non progressive carousel, while keeping laws and policies in the same place Congress and the Supreme Court have been for years.

In tonight’s final US presidential debate between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it first began addressing America’s gun control policy. It started off in reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller where Clinton defended her previous support of the Second Amendment, but voiced her opinions and support of gun control. The first question was aimed towards Clinton, “Secretary Clinton, you said last year, let me quote, “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” And now, in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the Judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?” Clinton’s rhetoric and persuasive communication in response to this question led to a concise and self-explanatory answer.

Saving 33,000 lives?

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee, Donald Trump had different approaches in rhetoric when answering this question. Hillary Clinton expressed her stance on gun control through a key rhetorical strategy of Identification—attempting to identify to the country as a whole. Her goal for her response was to not only identify with the Democratic Party with plans of expanding background checks of gun owners, but over and over again she explained that she in fact supports the Second Amendment. Clinton first begins in attempt to appeal to Second Amendment supporters by stating, “I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country.” Her response was appropriate and effective. She continued as she then voiced her opinions on “reasonable regulation” and her attempt to prevent the 33,000 lives taken each year by guns. Donald Trump approached his question on the Second Amendment by solely stating his own opinions and attacking his opponent’s response. FOX News states, “The candidates also sparred over gun rights, with the Republican nominee charging that the Second Amendment is “under absolute siege” and would be eroded if his opponent wins.” Although Donald Trump’s response was direct, I’m not quite sure it was effective. Hillary Clinton spoke to the country as a whole in reference to this Second Amendment Supreme Court issue, in an effective and presidential manner.

In the Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Katie McGinty, politics take an unexpected turn in the gun control debate. Persuasive communication comes into play resulting in intriguing results. Supporters of gun control could possibly help the GOP maintain their influence on the United States Senate. Gun control advocates may possibly be backing Toomey in this controversial race for Senate.

 

Toomey Can’t Please Everybody

Pat Toomey has done well in the Pennsylvania Senate race thus far. According to Erin Kelley from USA Today, “He won the endorsement of gun safety groups headed by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords of Arizona because of his unsuccessful quest to convince fellow Republicans to expand background checks of gun buyers”. Pat Toomey utilized key rhetorical strategies such as Identification to appeal to the opposite party on the topic of gun control to ultimately appeal to a broad spectrum of potential voters. However, this odd but effective approach at persuasion could not end up being that effective after all.

Republican candidate Toomey is taking a gamble in deciding to not endorse Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump. This decision along with Toomey’s crossing on the gun rights divide has led to skepticism from the Republican Party. Marc Levy from PBS NEWSHOUR reports, “Toomey, who also has separated himself from most of his GOP Senate colleagues by refusing to endorse Donald Trump, is facing questions from skeptical Republicans over his votes to expand background checks and prevent gun purchases by suspected terrorists as he campaigns in a state where Hillary Clinton leads Trump in polls by 10 points in the presidential race”. With polls exposing that this race is “virtually tied”, this newfound skepticism in the Republican vote in support of Pat Toomey could be detrimental. In this scenario, Toomey took a risk in using Identification as a rhetorical strategy to appeal towards the democratic vote, when consequently he only raised eyebrows in the potential voters of his own party.

Biting the Bullet at the Debate

Last night at the Vice Presidential Debate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and Indiana Governor Mike Pence, went head-to-head in what seemed to be one big giant interruption. The moderator, Elaine Quijano, asked a certain question that seemed to spark some intensified tension. “Do we ask too much of police officers in this country? And how would you specifically address the chief’s concerns? Senator Kaine?” Turning into a question of 2^nd Amendment Rights, the candidates’ responses were notably compelling in rhetoric.

Senator Kaine—The gun owner

Although many deemed Mike Pence winner of the 2016 Vice Presidential debate, Kaine utilized key rhetorical strategies such as Identification and leaned on the Narrative Standard to intensify and elicit specific emotions. Chris Megerian from the Los Angeles Times claims that Kaine’s position on gun control “have become more stringent over time” and “his support for tougher gun control meshes with Clinton’s platform”. This is obvious, however Tim Kaine’s opening statement of “I’m a gun owner. I’m a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but I got a lot of scar tissue” was a statement not so expected.

Persuasive Communication is key

The four principles of persuasive communication according to Westin’s The Political Brain are essential, however, Tim Kaine accentuated on one precisely. The first principle of Westin’s states, “Always try to elicit specific emotions”. Kaine verbally allotted himself a connection to gun owners and 2^nd Amendment supporters and viewers. Using specific words associated with the way a viewer and/or potential voter perceives the issue was the strategy Kaine used to tackle this gun control discussion. However he handled the discussion with a Narrative Standard. He spoke about his time in office as governor of Virginia when the massacre at Virginia Tech occurred. I found this an interesting way to put his views of gun control into perspective for those who do favor the 2^nd Amendment. A connection first with the opposition, and then a narrative standard to aid in persuasion of Clinton’s gun control platform. Persuasion is powerful.