• Selina E. M. Kerr


This concluding chapter will bring together all the arguments discussed so far and draw inferences from these. Ways to frame the issue of gun violence to persuade members of the public and legislators to support tighter gun laws are firstly detailed. The results of the 2016 presidential election, resulting in the Trump administration, are compared to what a Clinton victory could have meant for the gun violence prevention movement. The resources, goals and activities of interest groups in a post Sandy Hook context are thereafter critiqued. Combining all that has been discussed thus far allows for future projections to be made about the gun violence prevention movement, particularly after the recent incidence of the worst mass shooting in the US history.


Social movement Framing Gun violence prevention Clinton Trump Interest group 


  1. Aaroe, Lene. 2011. Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames. Political Communication 28 (2): 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckett, Lois. 2017. NRA Cheers Nomination of Neil Gorsuch, Seen as Gun Rights Defender. The Guardian, February 1. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.
  3. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckman. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Allenlane.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, Heath. 2008. Interest Groups, the White House and the Administration. In New Directions in Interest Group Politics, ed. Matt Grossmann, 118–153. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Callaghan, Karen. 2005. Conclusion: Controversies and New Direction in Framing Research. In Framing American Politics, ed. Karen Callaghan and Frauke Schnell, 179–189. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaghan, Karen, and Frauke Schnell. 2005. Introduction: Framing Political Issues in American Politics. In Framing American Politics, ed. Karen Callaghan and Frauke Schnell, 1–17. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing Theory. Annual Review Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Valle, Lauren. 2017. Massachusetts Becomes First State to Ban Bump Stocks Since Vegas Massacre. CNN, November 9. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  9. Diaz, Daniella. 2017. A Month After Las Vegas Shooting, There’s Still No Bump Stock Regulation. CNN, November 2. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  10. Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, Philip, Haley Sweetland, and Charlotte Alter. 2017. After the Massacre. TIME, October 16.Google Scholar
  12. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, Anthony K. 2012. Gun Policy in the United States and Canada: The Impact of Mass Murders and Assassinations on Gun Control. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  16. Fleming, Anthony K., Paul E. Rutledge, Gregory C. Dixon, and Salvador Peralta. 2016. When the Smoke Clears: Focusing Events, Issue Definition, Strategic Framing and the Politics of Gun Control. Social Science Quarterly 97 (5): 1144–1156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallup. 2016. Guns: Gallup Historical Trends. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.
  18. Gardner, Dan. 2008. Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. London: Virgin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Goss, Kristin A. 2006. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton/New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gross, Kimberley. 2008. Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emotional Response and Policy Opinion. Political Psychology 29 (2): 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holyoke, Thomas T. 2014. Interest Groups and Lobbying: pursuing Political Interests. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hrebenar, Ronald J., and Ruth K. Scott. 1982. Interest Group Politics in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, Michael A., and George W. Stone. 2015. The U.S. Gun Control Paradox: Gun Buyer Response to Congressional Gun Control Initiatives. Journal of Business and Economics 13 (4): 167–174.Google Scholar
  25. Kingdon, John W. 1984/2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Klocke, Brian, and Glenn W. Muschert. 2010. A Hybrid Model of Moral Panics: Synthesizing the Theory and Practice of Moral Panic Research. Sociology Compass 4 (5): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kupchik, Aaron, John J. Brent, and Thomas J. Mowen. 2015. The Aftermath of Newtown: More of the Same. British Journal of Criminology Advance Access 55: 1115–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukes, Steven. 1974/2005. Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, Michael. 2013. America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA), March 13. Michael Moore Personal Webpage. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.
  30. Noel, Hans. 2008. Political Parties and Ideology: Interest Groups in Context. In New Directions in Interest Group Politics, ed. Matt Grossmann, 196–229. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Peelo, Moira. 2006. Framing Homicide Narratives in Newspapers: Mediated Witness and the Construction of Virtual Victimhood. Crime, Media, Culture 2 (2): 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pew Research Center. 2016. Opinion on Gun Policy and the 2016 Campaign, August 26. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
  33. Philo, Greg. 2007. Can Discourse Analysis Successfully Explain the Content of Media and Journalistic Practice? Journalism Studies 8 (2): 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shen, Fuyuan. 2004. Effects of News Frames and Schemas on Individuals’ Issue Interpretations and Attitudes. J& MC Quarterly 81 (2): 400–416.Google Scholar
  35. Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 1990. Policy: A New Field of Anthropology. In Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power, ed. Cris Shore and Susan Wright, 3–39. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spies, Mike, and Ashley Balcerzak. 2016. The NRA Placed Big Bets on the 2016 Election, and Won Almost All of Them., November 9. Accessed 27 Feb 2017.
  38. Stroebe, Wolfgang. 2015. Firearm Availability and Violent Death: The Need for a Culture Change in Attitudes towards Guns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 16 (1): 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone, Peter. 2016. NRA to Spend $15m on Ads to Defeat Hillary Clinton in Key States. The Guardian, September 16. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.
  40. Stroud, Angela. 2015. Good Guys with Guns: The Appeal and Consequences of Concealed Carry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  41. Summers-Effler, Erika. 2002. The Micro Potential for Social Change: Emotion, Consciousness and Social Movement Formation. Sociological Theory 20 (1): 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The New York Times. 2017. N.R.A. Supports New Rules on Bump Stock Devices, October 5. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  43. van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Vitali, Ali. 2018. Trump Says He’ll Ban Bump Stocks Through Executive Order. NBC News, March 1. Accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  45. Vizzard, William J. 2015. The Current and Future State of Gun Policy in the United States. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 104 (5): 880–903.Google Scholar
  46. Woodly, Deva R. 2015. The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selina E. M. Kerr
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ResearcherGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations