Gun Control Misinformation: Media, Rhetoric, and Policy

Introduction: A Contested Political Debate

Gun control has become an increasingly controversial topic within national politics. Both gun control and gun rights advocates have utilized different rhetoric to explain their platforms. Gun control legislation in the United States has evolved considerably over the past two decades — in some states restrictions have increased, while in others they have decreased. In either case, gun legislation has been challenged by special interest groups attempting to justify their various positions. The following analysis examines the specific strengths and weaknesses of gun policy and their impact upon society. After close scrutiny of the impacts of guns on society, it becomes evident that information on the dangers of gun abuse is frequently exaggerated within the media to manipulate gun legislation in favor of or against specific policies.

Exaggerated Claims on Both Sides

Information presented through special advocacy groups is frequently exaggerated. One of the keys to influencing legislation on gun control is to use information that dramatizes a cause. Both sides of the gun advocacy debate use misinformation to direct public sentiment. For instance, one of the chief arguments of gun control advocates is that gun violence kills thousands of people every year. In actuality, however, many of those deaths result from suicides rather than homicides. The Brady Campaign states as fact that almost 30,000 people are killed in gun-related incidents annually — yet almost 20% of those individuals die as a result of suicide.

Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University argues that gun control has very little to do with unavoidable deaths such as suicide. He uses international data to show that gun control will have little to no actual impact upon death rates as they relate to suicide. In effect, gun control groups use collections of data that are oftentimes misleading, and as a result they dramatize the actual impact of their proposed legislative actions.

This problem is not limited to gun control groups; gun rights organizations also use dramatization and misinformation to advance their campaign. One of the principal arguments of this group is that gun rights have been a foundation of American democracy, and that the use of firearms during the colonial and pre-Civil War era was crucial for the defense and expansion of the country. However, as historian Randolph Roth notes, gun ownership within the United States was very limited during the pre-Civil War era. Fewer than one in five men had access to a gun during this period, and the majority of those men were local militiamen. In reality, guns were a rather minor part of American social and cultural tradition until the modern era. The purported "historical" and "cultural" value of gun ownership are both highly exaggerated. It is evident that both sides of the conflict use hyperbole and dramatization as strategies for influencing public opinion.

The Gun-Crime Link and Statistical Manipulation

Another important tactic of gun control advocates is to establish a link between crime and gun ownership. Through grassroots organizing and national media outlets, gun control groups have promoted the understanding that gun ownership drives high crime rates. The Brady Campaign claims that, compared to other nations with stringent gun control policies, the United States has a much higher rate of crime and specifically murder. The problem with this claim, however, is that the statistics are manipulated through population size confusion and category conflation. The United States has a much larger population, and thus its overall crime figures are substantial in absolute terms. When compared on a per capita basis, gun-related violence becomes far more comparable with other nations.

John J. Donohue, who has conducted extensive research in this area, argues that guns have an almost negligible impact upon crime rates within the United States. The majority of crimes involving guns are violence-related offenses that, when compared statistically with other nations, are nearly identical in rate. The presence of guns in the United States simply means that other weapons are less likely to be used; Great Britain, for instance, has many more cases of violence committed with secondary weapons than the United States does. Crime rates do not drop with restrictions on gun ownership because crimes have been shown to be intent-driven rather than means-driven — those who intend to commit crimes will generally do so regardless of what tools are available. It is evident from this analysis that guns have little independent impact upon crime rates, yet gun control advocates use misinformation to present a contrary and alarming picture to the public.

Conclusion: Reorienting the Gun Debate

In the final analysis, both sides of the gun control debate have used misinformation to manipulate public sentiment. The direct result is that gun legislation is frequently both over-exposed in the media and either too lenient or too severe in practice. The reality is that the gun debate has little measurable influence on broader society other than from a jurisdictional perspective. Gun ownership within the United States is not nearly as high as the media portrays, nor is gun-related violence as dominant a feature of the criminal justice landscape as advocates on either side suggest. Guns have a relatively small influence on actual social norms, yet they command a disproportionate share of national attention.

The gap between guns' actual impact and their perceived influence can be attributed to the misinformation that both sides have perpetuated through media outlets and public advocacy campaigns. The practical result is that resources and public attention are diverted away from issues of greater consequence. It is incumbent upon media consumers and national audiences to look past biased statistics and deliberate manipulation in order to focus on the facts. Understanding the actual role of firearms within society will not marginalize the issue, but rather reorient public discourse toward a clearer and more honest assessment of the genuine pros and cons associated with gun ownership and gun policy.

References

Firearm Facts. BradyCampaign.org.

Beale, Sara Sun. "The News Media's Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness." Duke Law School Working Paper Series, 2007, Paper 85.

Roth, Randolph. "Counting Guns." Social Science History, vol. 26, no. 4, Winter 2002.

Mauser, Gary A., and Don B. Kates. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence." Bepress Legal Series, 2006, Paper 1564.

Donohue, John J., and Ian Ayres. "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis." Center for the Study of Law and Society, Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program, 2003, Paper 5.