Skip to main content

The tragic killings of children in Newtown, Connecticut seem to have set off a noisy political debate over gun laws, perhaps more than previous mass shootings such as those in Aurora, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona. However, many of the arguments are likely to fall along the same lines as always, which could lead to the usual gridlock and inaction. To break this gridlock, advocates for stronger gun laws might benefit from two frames long used by conservatives:

1. “Law and Order”

Conservatives (and the Republican Party that they dominate) have long tried to claim the mantle of the party of “law and order.” Then-candidate Richard M. Nixon successfully ran for and won the Presidentcy on a “law and order” platform in 1968, as America was being roiled by anti-Vietnam War protests and the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. The death toll from the mass shootings of recent years far exceeds that of the events of 1968, thus we have more of a “law and order” problem today.

Likewise, the flip side of “law and order” is the charge that Republicans leveled against Democrats for years, i.e., that they were “soft on crime.” Also, note that being for “law and order” precisely fits framing guru George Lakoff‘s “strict father” paradigm which dominates among conservatives and Republicans, and which includes adherence to the "rule of law." The "soft on crime" charge can be leveled against conservatives who fail to support reasonable steps to reduce gun crimes and maintain "law and order" in our streets and our schools.

Those who want to advocate for sensible gun laws (e.g., reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, closing the “gun show loophole,” and establishing an effective database to prevent persons who have been ruled mentally incompetent from purchasing guns) are usually thought of as liberal. The “law and order” approach can turn this stereotype on its head, and maybe even attract a few conservatives or independents to the cause.

2. “Right to Life”

The Declaration of Independence contains the famous phrase: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Similarly, the Constitution contains references to the right to life. Conservatives have glommed onto the “right to life” phrase to push for the outlawing of abortion. They strongly stand for the right to life — of fetuses. Once those fetuses are born, not so much.

However, advocates for sensible gun laws can argue for such laws based on the “right to life” of children and other would-be victims of mass shooters. This is especially apparent in a case like Newtown, where such a large portion of those killed were small children, gunned down in their classrooms. If you make the argument that these kids and their teachers and principals had a “right to life” or even a right to “freedom” — another favorite conservative word — from crazed gunmen with easy access to military-style assault weapons, the good Christians and other conservatives who advocate for the “right to life” of fetuses could have a hard time explaining why kids who were fetuses just a few years earlier don’t deserve the same protections.

Based on the lack of results on gun control over the past decade under the traditional approach, there’s no harm in giving these arguments a try and reporting back here as to what kind of reaction you receive.

[Originally posted at Messaging Matters]

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vayle

    and for using their own language against them.

  •  Nicely structured. (0+ / 0-)

    It puts gun control laws at the forefront of what needs to occur and avoids trying to go to the extremes of repealing the 2nd amendment (one recent diary), or 'banning all handguns' (another recent diary.

    If we on the left go all the way to the other extreme for gun control, and we are willing to remove and withdraw rights for others based on extremist views of gun control, then we lessen our own arguments against the extremism on the right (i.e. and against bad laws like the Patriot Act).

    These arguments structure control using the rights codified language against them, and point to law, order, right, and life. All points well considered against those who would demand we all give up specific rights in exchange for 'safety'.

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:31:07 AM PST

  •  The R's should be as fervent (0+ / 0-)

    about gun control as they are about abortion....

    Both should fit their version of "pro-life".

    Ergo both the D's and R's should agree on gun rights in the sense of pro-life, even as they disagree on abortion rights.

    Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

    by Da Rock on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:33:05 AM PST

  •  "Banning all handguns" is usually a straw man (0+ / 0-)

    There are relatively very few people, even among progressives, who talk about banning all handguns, repealing the 2nd Amendment, or the Lunatic Fringe's favorite, "Obama will take away your guns." Those are usually straw men put forth by gun advocates and/or the NRA.

    Most people who want to take action in this area simply want it to be more difficult for the next unhinged person to mow down many children or adults in a short period of time.

  •  I think the first point, especially, is a real (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MessagingMatters

    winner.  I was having a similar talk with the Mr. a few days ago to this effect.  Civilian possession of these kinds of weapons is a real threat to law enforcement and law enforcement officers.  How can we expect police to do their jobs properly when they're at a tactical disadvantage...lunatics armed to the teeth with weapons made for fighting wars.  I think we would be wise to frame this in terms of officers' lives being threatened and as a threat to offices being able to do their jobs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site