“Gun Control”: What Exactly Have We Been Saying?

It is interesting that such a hot topic for debate among modern politics, particularly the 2016 election, can actually offer such a misunderstood dimension of the common argument points. When we talk about the Second Amendment and the issue of “gun control”, do we even really understand how this rhetoric can transform our views and ultimately lead to real legislation?

Greg Hartman of from the Polizette describes the enormous gap in the way that politicians talk about, and we respond to, the debate of citizen gun rights. Amidst the sensitivity of the age-old Constitutional right to bear arms, experts have advised liberal candidates to stray from the term “gun control” as it paints a negative, anti-freedom picture of those who are actually pursuing “gun safety”. This idea has particularly obvious benefits in that, in essence, every person can acknowledge an ultimate belief in safety, when some may have a problem with “control”. Cornell University’s Jonathon Schuldt notes that “Those who are for tougher gun restrictions should favor the ‘gun safety’ frame, which may be especially powerful in the wake of the recent tragedies.”

What is also compelling about this argument is the level to which we discuss Trump and Clinton and their respective stances on the Second Amendment. We so frequently talk about their policy and strikingly different views about legislation should they win the Presidency. Now, it is as if we take ten steps backwards just to see how the framing of the words can in themselves, direct some perceptions about the issue.

What isn’t new is Hartman’s discussion about politicians and candidates alike raising points about the alarming number of mass shootings in the country in recent years. Though, he moves to describe how a definition problem could also be in play. When the Washington Post stated that there is a mass shooting in the United States every day, it caused a heavy turbulence of response. Now, Hartman describes the difference in definition of “mass shooting”. Both included in this word association are the incidents of guns involved with robberies and gang activity as well as those involving Islamic extremism. Though we can all acknowledge that an case of gun violence is certainly one necessary to address when it comes to gun rights, the true definition of a “mass shooting” could really skew the way that candidates campaign and also pursue legislation. This notion of a mass shooting “epidemic” creates an undeniably fear and somewhat false sense of where the issue could really originate.

Schuldt’s description of these implications of misunderstood and misused terminology promotes a slight stretch in suggesting that these liberal policymakers are just trying to completely disarm citizens with the use of more extreme terminology. Though, I think that his article raises very interesting points to consider when we both discuss and absorb the debates concerning the Second Amendment. This rhetorical analysis gets right to the core in even studying the true meaning and definitional accuracy behind these commonly used terms. It also beckons towards the possibility of other major hot words that could also need some understanding.