Narrative Strategies in the Gun Policy Debate: Exploring Proximity and Social Construction

Abstract

While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem.

Advancing the Narrative Policy Framework? The Musings of a Potentially Unreliable Narrator

“…Spanning the micro‐ and meso levels of analyses, Merry () leverages the NPF using content analysis to examine policy narratives of the gun policy debate in the United States. Continuing her trend of applying the NPF in innovative ways to social media (e.g., Merry, ), she queries over 58,000 Facebook posts of 15 different gun policy organizations.…”

“…However, we also find studies being applied to other policy areas. In this issue, Merry () examines firearm policy, Smith‐Walter () analyzes health care policy narratives related to the ACA, McBeth and Lybecker () explore sanctuary cities, and McMorris et al () examine Measure 97, a ballot initiative. Outside of this issue, there is evidence that the NPF continues to broaden its policy area reach.…”

“…The research within this issue continues that trend. Most are mixed‐methods approaches including some aspect of qualitative research and what might be considered standard NPF types of quantitative analyses, including descriptive statistics; measures of association; and, of course, plenty of regression analyses (e.g., Gottlieb et al, ; McBeth & Lybecker, ; Merry, ; Shanahan, Raile, et al, ). However, as the NPF adapts to new research questions with more nuanced data concerns and, in some cases, modest narrative effects, we are seeing more variety and sophistication in the statistical techniques deployed.…”

“…Some of the data used in this issue show the NPF to be applicable far beyond public consumption documents (and the tendency to associate such analyses strictly with how they interact with public opinion), including in major governmental venues such as the United States Congress, Supreme Court, and the executive branch (McBeth & Lybecker, ; Smith‐Walter, ). The NPF also appears to be tapping some emerging data sources, including Merry's () use of Facebook posts and McBeth and Lybecker's () use of Google Trends. The call was made in 2017 (Shanahan et al, ) for more NPF researchers to query these emerging and likely powerful data sources.…”

Discussing Policy Theories, Policy Formation, and Analytical Methods

“…A noteworthy contribution of this article includes a discussion of important limitations to available data and the associated implications for gun control policy research, while offering innovative methods of measuring the stringency of gun control policy, an important variable in this research, along with suggesting creative ways of using various types of data from multiple data sources. This research builds upon previous PSJ published works addressing the gun policy debate (Merry, , ), as well as studies examining the nature of policy outcomes (McMorris, Zanocco, & Jones, ).…”