An Examination of the Dividing Synecdoche in the Hostile Gun Debate
For as long as I can remember, my family gatherings have consisted of food, laughter, tears, and bashing the Democratic party. “The Democrats are ruining this country…” For a long time, I regurgitated what my family taught me about politics until I was in high school and started to notice what I considered to be hypocrisies in what I was being force fed. After I started college, I met and interacted with people that I would not have if I had stayed in the small town of Kernersville, North Carolina. This experience widened my world view and caused my political beliefs to completely differ from that of my family. I research this topic because my family has always had very strong opinions about gun control or the lack thereof. My views are different from my family’s, and I would like to better understand how they talk about gun control as well as challenge my own beliefs and possibly better my understanding of the issue and how we discuss it.
For this rhetorical analysis I study how those for and against gun control voice their opinions on the issue on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. I look at the argument itself from those for and against gun control to discover why reactions seem to be hostile rather than civil and informative. From my research I have noticed that synecdoche plays a very large role in the gun control debate. Those against gun control will travel down a very slippery slope connecting “gun control” to a “total gun ban,” or “the confiscation of all firearms.” Those for gun control blame the stubborn “gun-toting rednecks” for the issue. Synecdoche is found in the gun debate when terms like “the right,” or “all Democrats…” are used to describe people as a whole. Their beliefs or one small portion thereof, is used to describe them as a whole. This causes negative effects on people and the debate because though some have strong opinions about gun rights, it does not necessarily mean that they agree with the entire Republican agenda. By studying how people discuss their opinions online, how each side talks about the opposing side, and the language that is used, the assumptions made, etc., we will be able to communicate more effectively and with less hostility.
A Review of the Gun Debate and Why We Can’t Talk About it
The works of other scholars on the rhetoric of the gun debate contain many different reoccurring themes. The themes I found are as follows: masculinity and gun ownership, the negative connotation of the terms used, framing the debate in a “win or lose,” format, sensationalism in the media, and lastly, the emotionalization of the issue by political leaders.
Americans are told that owning a gun is a God given right. They look at the reasoning behind the Second Amendment and believe that owning a gun is the most effective way to protect themselves against criminals, an overreaching government, and/or other dangers. The NRA has been publishing a column entitled, “The Armed Citizen” for a very long time. This column is basically stories of armed citizens defending themselves against intruders or armed criminals. O’Neill notes in his rhetorical analysis of this column that the stories are comprised of a “victim, perpetrator, and a hero” (O’Neill, 462). The hero, usually a male, kills or subdues the criminal until law enforcement can arrive. The overarching theme with this is that the hero defends himself or his family without help from law enforcement or the government. In a different article, Brett Lunceford discusses the “ego function” of the Second Amendment through the lens of open carry laws. In one portion he concludes, “Open carry activists suggest that they are performing a public service by exercising their right to bear arms, a right that must constantly be exercised lest government regulation strip them of all of their rights” (Lunceford, 341). These gun carrying individuals see themselves as heroes for simply owning a firearm. They do not have to use it, they carry them and keep them handy to make themselves feel powerful and to look tough in front of others. They claim to own guns for protection but in reality, it is about boosting an ever-growing ego. It is about feeling masculine, independent, and in control.
Another theme I found was framing the debate like “win or lose.” Hogan and Rood talk about public policy and the gun debate in their article and find that the debate is often framed as a “matter of individual rights versus public safety” (Hogan, 360). This aggressive and competitive mentality affects the discourse negatively because it turns the debate into a competition rather than a learning and growing opportunity. Hogan and Rood also talk about a “culture of journalistic malpractice,” (Hogan, 359) referring to journalists or news stations that only report what they agree with. The blame for the “uncivil” discourse can also be placed on politicians who blindly take money from special interest groups and do not take responsibility for the rhetoric they use. This reading is important because it allows us to see why the gun debate is so heated. Another article that mentions this “win or lose” framing of the argument, actually tries to make notice of the positive aspects of differing opinions and offers options of compromise. Barry Kroll notes that when college students were asked to find solutions to gun violence in a way that would appease both sides, they tried to avoid “gun control” altogether. They noted that, “both camps were concerned about safety and security, even though they disagreed about whether guns afforded protection or posed a menace” (Kroll, 115). They go on to find less expensive alternatives to gun ownership like alarm systems, guard dogs, and “high powered pepper spray” (Kroll, 115). While this article offers a positive spin on the debate, it still shows the competitive nature of the debate when the students concede that the two sides still disagree on whether guns are a reliable option for protection or simply a menace to public safety.
Samyuktha Mahadevan compares the rhetoric used in legislature about firearms to that used in the media about firearms from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The largest difference in media and legislative rhetoric after a mass shooting is that the United States seems to have no answer to the problem. She notes, “The rhetoric in the United States is much more complex than in either Canada or the United Kingdom, with frames covering a much larger range of issues than simply gun laws” (Mahadevan, 1). This immediately relates back to the belief by some Americans that gun ownership is a right even if it isn’t necessary for protection or hunting purposes and any kind of “control” or “regulation” of this right is a direct attack on their way of life.
From political leaders to people like you and I, Americans are masters at emotionalizing issues. Whether it be abortion, illegal immigration, or gun control, emotions always arise when these topics are being discussed. This affects the debate negatively because instead of two opposing sides speaking to each other, they talk at each other and once emotions are involved, there is no way to constructively communicate about a specific issue. Craig Rood discusses this by rhetorically analyzing Barack Obama’s speech after the Sandy Hook shooting. He notes that Obama actually sheds a tear during this speech and calls on America and the rest of the government to push for change. It is interesting that Obama actually never uses the phrase “gun control.” Barack Obama emotionalizes the speech by using the “warrant of the dead.” This is the belief that “the dead place a demand on the living” (Rood, 47).
The connotation of a word refers to the feelings it conjures when heard. These feelings are a direct result of the listeners world view, life experiences, and beliefs. James D. Wright talks about the connotation of the words we use when discussing gun control in his article. He argues that the phrase “gun control” can have many different meanings such as regulating the “manufacture, sale, or possession of certain types of firearms” (Wright, 26). This can be seen again when examining the source in the aforementioned article. Former President Barack Obama left the term, “gun control” out of his speech after the Sandy Hook massacre most likely for this reason. I believe many of those who have strong gun rights attitudes hear the term “gun control” and immediately think that means a gun ban or the confiscation of all firearms. This, however, is not the case. This immediate rejection of the idea can be brought back to the idea that any kind of gun control is an attack on a person’s right or way of life.
A large problem with discourse in the United States about gun control is how incredibly divided Americans are on subjects like this one. People are able to filter information that they see every day. If I want to get updates from just Fox News or just CNN, I can do that, but I have to realize that I am potentially avoiding information that I do not necessarily agree with just because I filtered by news sources. In his honors thesis, Randal Curtis Smith analyzes a publication from the NRA entitled, “The American Rifleman.” This publication defends gun rights beliefs and shuts down opposing sources in order to prove to their audience that gun control is not the answer. Smith’s analyzation of this social science shows that different news stations or organizations twist and contort data to fit their own agendas. This is exactly what is done in “The American Rifleman.” Smith notes that while almost all of the information is cited in the text or in the footnotes at the bottom of the page, there is one addition where a statistic was never cited, and the original author never found. This statistic turned out to be exaggerated data and is a perfect example of how the media capitalizes on sensationalism to push their own agendas (Smith, 17). Whether it be by leaving out certain information, making assumptions, or simply exaggerating specific data, truthfulness in the media is almost impossible to ensure and this sensationalism adds to the hostility not only of the gun debate but all other national debates as well.
In the end, the debate about gun control becomes hostile because of sensationalism by news outlets, the negative connotation of words we use, the emotionalization of the issue and toxic masculinity that causes some gun owners to believe they have to own a gun in order to feel powerful.
Social Media and the Voice it Gives to the Gun Debate
Before I begin my rhetorical analysis, I offer some historical, as well as current social, and political contexts that will make my rhetorical analysis easier to understand. Historically speaking, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and gave citizens of the United States the right to bear arms (Brooks). Over 200 years ago, this would mean a single shot musket that was incredibly inaccurate and would take about 20 seconds to reload. That is 20 seconds between the firing of bullets (Harrington). The attitude in the United States 200 years ago was slightly different as well. The United States of America declared independence from British rule in order to pursue religious freedom. Once a new government was put into place the second amendment was created in order to protect the citizens from a “tyrannical” government or a government that would abuse its power (Brooks). This amendment is either out-of-date or lawmakers did not anticipate how quickly weapon technology would advance.
In the past 10 years, there have been 222 mass shootings in the United States (Everytown). With the spread and advancement of technology, parents and other loved ones of those killed in these shootings have reached out to large audiences about the dangers of guns. This has also worked in the opposition’s favor simply because the spread of opinion and ideas are so prevalent through social media. With the high number of mass shootings and the speed of social media, events occur and are talked about almost instantaneously. To add to this horrifying statistic, one of the larger mass shootings that occurred in the past decade, happened in Las Vegas, Nevada. A man shot into a crowd using an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. “In a little more than 10 minutes he shot and killed 58 people” (Everytown). This statistic shows how dangerous assault weapons and high capacity magazines are compared to the inaccurate single-shot muskets from over 200 years ago.
Another important context that needs to be discussed when studying this rhetoric is the hostile political climate that has arisen in the past 2, almost 3, years. It seems as if the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump has caused this escalation of hostility- his language and lack of empathy and understanding of normal domestic and nondomestic issues has caused people to become agitated. Thus, discussing issues like gun control in a constructive manner tends to be nearly impossible.
The method by which I will analyzing my sources will be through uses of synecdoche. Kenneth Burke is quoted as saying, “For synecdoche we could substitute representation.” (Burke, 503) When discussing synecdoche, Burke claims that instead of using “represent, we could substitute, ‘be identified with.’” (Burke, 508) This correlates perfectly to my analyzation of how society identifies people by their beliefs even if it is just a single stance on a single subject. The definition of synecdoche is a comparison or representation using something that is a part for the whole. For example, using the term “greybeard” to describe a senior male. An old man might have a grey beard but that is just one of his many features and/or characteristics. Another more relevant example would be someone that supports gun rights but otherwise has very democratic views. When those that support gun control describe those that don’t using terms like “the right,” they are using one part or characteristic of the person to describe them as a whole even though they may have differing views. This assumption is just one part of what is wrong in today’s discourse about gun violence or gun control.
What I have found through analyzing these online posts is that this toxic synecdoche is present in almost every aspect of our lives, whether it be conversational or online, (I actually found one in an exam question), both sides of the gun debate and any other debate, tend to group people by their beliefs even if one belief differs from their own. The use of synecdoche in tweets is so abundant I had trouble choosing the perfect examples. This is a very large part of why the United States is so politically divided and explains why people engaging in these discussions become so hostile and defensive. The following posts are from public twitter accounts.
This tweet from Ida Skibenes is a perfect example of synecdoche: “Republicans: Gun control just doesn’t work! It’s a fact!” She then goes on to form a list of different country’s flags using emojis and portrays them responding to what the Republicans said. The Swedish flag says, “Actually, it does” the Australian flag says, “It’s true, it does” and so on and so forth until the very end where the British flag replies, “It’s true, stop being so fucking stupid.” Skibenes is using countries that have implemented gun control legislature to prove her point that gun control does, in fact, work. The synecdoche in this tweet, however, is in the very beginning when she states, “Republicans.” This groups all people that disagree with gun control laws into a single political party even though there are many people that consider themselves democrats but are still against gun control. Her use of foul language in the very end of her tweet also adds to the hostility. That aggressive language and grouping all anti-gun control activists into one political party ignores the fact that people do not necessarily support every policy suggested by their respective political party. The insult also takes away from her argument because it is in no way constructive and accomplishes nothing except angering the opposition that reads it.
To show that both sides of the gun debate use this damaging synecdoche, a tweet from Chris V states” …Every democrat is against guns because they want control. It’s disgusting.” He goes on to say, “We need to keep Second Amendment secure or else, what happens when the government tries to take control of everything? You know it’s gonna happen.” This tweet encapsulates the synecdoche in the gun debate and its negative effects. He starts with this belief that once gun control is implemented, the government won’t stop controlling our lives. The synecdoche is also very relevant because he says, “every democrat.” Again, this groups the entire population of pro-gun control citizens into a political party when they may or may not agree with every policy set forth by the Democratic party.
The use of synecdoche when discussing gun control as well as other social issues is very widespread in our society today, especially on social media where everyone has the opportunity to share their thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Synecdoche is damaging to the relationship between people of differing ideas and ultimately causes poor relations between opposing political parties. This, in turn, affects how we communicate about social issues and deepens the political divide that is so prevalent in our country today. The reason this synecdoche has such profound effects on the debate and debaters is because we have become so hostile that when someone begins a debate with an idea that we do not agree with, we immediately stop listening. Instead of listening and trying to constructively work out an issue, we sling insults and unheard opinions back and forth until both parties tire and give up on the subject, in the end, nothing is resolved, and we are even more divided.
Bibliography
“Arguing about Public Issues: What Can We Learn from Practical Ethics?” Rhetoric Review 16.1 (1997): 105–119. Web.
Brooks, Chad. “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms.” LiveScience, Purch, 27 June 2017, https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives: and; A Rhetoric of Motives. Meridian Books, 1962.
Harrington, Hugh T. “The Inaccuracy of Muskets.” Journal of the American Revolution, 28 Aug. 2016, https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/.
Hogan, J Michael, and Craig Rood. Rhetorical Studies and the Gun Debate: A Public Policy Perspective.
LUNCEFORD, BRETT. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, Summer 2015, pp. 333–345. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.
O'Neill, Kevin L. Armed Citizens and the Stories They Tell. Clarivate Analytics, http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy006.nclive.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=4ec8b3da-466d-4bcf-9e0a-490ebf2a9a2b@sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#AN=000244907900003&db=edswss.
Mahadevan, Samyuktha, "A Comparative Analysis of Media and Legislative Rhetoric on Gun Control" (2019). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 1288. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/1288
Rood, Craig. "Our Tears Are Not Enough:" The Warrant of the Dead in the Rhetoric of Gun Control...
Skibenes, Ida (ida_skibenes). “Republicans: Gun control just doesn’t work! It’s a fact! [emoji]: Actually, it does [emoji]: It’s true, it does [emoji]: We agree, it works [emoji]: Same [emoji]: Yup [emoji]: Ja [emoji]: It works. [emoji]: It’s true, stop being so fucking stupid.” 25 November 2019 3:22 PM Tweet.
Smith, Randal C. 5. Social Science and the Rhetoric of Gun Control. A Case Study in Gun Control and Arguments from Social Science. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/23199/31295014859309.pdf?sequence=1.
Wright, James D. Second Thoughts About Gun Control. http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Second-thoughts-about-gun-control.pdf.
“Ten Years of Mass Shootings in the United States.” EverytownResearch.org, 20 Nov. 2019, https://everytownresearch.org/massshootingsreports/mass-shootings-in-america-2009-2019/.
V, Chris (ChrisV_73). “But here’s my reply. And it’s a simple thing. Guns. We need to keep the Second Amendment secure or else, what happens when the government tries to take control of everything? You know it’s gonna happen. Every democrat is against guns because they want control. It’s disgusting.” 21 November 2019, 3:40 AM Tweet.
