The American gun control debate: A discursive analysis

Simon Goodman, Bethany Perry

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    Abstract

    This chapter contains a discursive analysis of the gun control debate in the United States of America. This is a controversial debate that has implications for peace and conflict, as the debate relates to policies regarding weapons and the potential prevention of mass shootings. However, there has been a lack of detailed analysis of the ways in which the arguments in this debate are made. As the discursive approach can overcome these limitations, it is used to analyse texts produced by two key players in this debate, (then) President Barack Obama in support of tighter controls and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association (NRA) against. The results demonstrate two polarised dichotomies. The first of these sees both speakers present themselves as working to protect something important. Obama presents his measures as in the service of protecting lives where LaPierre presents his opposition to the same measures as designed to protect freedom. A second dichotomy can be seen where Obama constructs those who support gun control as ‘courageous’, whereas for LaPierre these same people are constructed as villains. The analysis is used to identify the ways in which both speakers attempt to present their arguments as legitimate. It is therefore shown how discursive psychology, when applied to the gun control debate, helps us understand how issues of peace and conflict are drawn upon and how such debates can influence policy regarding the continuation of armed violence.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationDiscourse, peace & conflict
    Subtitle of host publicationDiscursive Psychology Perspectives
    EditorsStephen Gibson
    PublisherSpringer
    Pages67-82
    Number of pages16
    Edition1
    ISBN (Electronic)978-3-319-99094-1
    ISBN (Print)978-3-319-99093-4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2018

    Fingerprint

    peace
    weapon
    opposition
    president
    psychology
    violence
    lack

    Cite this

    Goodman, S., & Perry , B. (2018). The American gun control debate: A discursive analysis. In S. Gibson (Ed.), Discourse, peace & conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives (1 ed., pp. 67-82). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1

    The American gun control debate : A discursive analysis. / Goodman, Simon; Perry , Bethany .

    Discourse, peace & conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives. ed. / Stephen Gibson. 1. ed. Springer, 2018. p. 67-82.

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    Goodman, S & Perry , B 2018, The American gun control debate: A discursive analysis. in S Gibson (ed.), Discourse, peace & conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives. 1 edn, Springer, pp. 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1
    Goodman S, Perry B. The American gun control debate: A discursive analysis. In Gibson S, editor, Discourse, peace & conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives. 1 ed. Springer. 2018. p. 67-82 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1
    Goodman, Simon ; Perry , Bethany . / The American gun control debate : A discursive analysis. Discourse, peace & conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives. editor / Stephen Gibson. 1. ed. Springer, 2018. pp. 67-82
    @inbook{144ee0b691dc497d9626e492457dbc3e,
    title = "The American gun control debate: A discursive analysis",
    abstract = "This chapter contains a discursive analysis of the gun control debate in the United States of America. This is a controversial debate that has implications for peace and conflict, as the debate relates to policies regarding weapons and the potential prevention of mass shootings. However, there has been a lack of detailed analysis of the ways in which the arguments in this debate are made. As the discursive approach can overcome these limitations, it is used to analyse texts produced by two key players in this debate, (then) President Barack Obama in support of tighter controls and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association (NRA) against. The results demonstrate two polarised dichotomies. The first of these sees both speakers present themselves as working to protect something important. Obama presents his measures as in the service of protecting lives where LaPierre presents his opposition to the same measures as designed to protect freedom. A second dichotomy can be seen where Obama constructs those who support gun control as ‘courageous’, whereas for LaPierre these same people are constructed as villains. The analysis is used to identify the ways in which both speakers attempt to present their arguments as legitimate. It is therefore shown how discursive psychology, when applied to the gun control debate, helps us understand how issues of peace and conflict are drawn upon and how such debates can influence policy regarding the continuation of armed violence.",
    author = "Simon Goodman and Bethany Perry",
    year = "2018",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1",
    language = "English",
    isbn = "978-3-319-99093-4",
    pages = "67--82",
    editor = "Gibson, {Stephen }",
    booktitle = "Discourse, peace & conflict",
    publisher = "Springer",
    edition = "1",

    }

    TY - CHAP

    T1 - The American gun control debate

    T2 - A discursive analysis

    AU - Goodman, Simon

    AU - Perry , Bethany

    PY - 2018

    Y1 - 2018

    N2 - This chapter contains a discursive analysis of the gun control debate in the United States of America. This is a controversial debate that has implications for peace and conflict, as the debate relates to policies regarding weapons and the potential prevention of mass shootings. However, there has been a lack of detailed analysis of the ways in which the arguments in this debate are made. As the discursive approach can overcome these limitations, it is used to analyse texts produced by two key players in this debate, (then) President Barack Obama in support of tighter controls and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association (NRA) against. The results demonstrate two polarised dichotomies. The first of these sees both speakers present themselves as working to protect something important. Obama presents his measures as in the service of protecting lives where LaPierre presents his opposition to the same measures as designed to protect freedom. A second dichotomy can be seen where Obama constructs those who support gun control as ‘courageous’, whereas for LaPierre these same people are constructed as villains. The analysis is used to identify the ways in which both speakers attempt to present their arguments as legitimate. It is therefore shown how discursive psychology, when applied to the gun control debate, helps us understand how issues of peace and conflict are drawn upon and how such debates can influence policy regarding the continuation of armed violence.

    AB - This chapter contains a discursive analysis of the gun control debate in the United States of America. This is a controversial debate that has implications for peace and conflict, as the debate relates to policies regarding weapons and the potential prevention of mass shootings. However, there has been a lack of detailed analysis of the ways in which the arguments in this debate are made. As the discursive approach can overcome these limitations, it is used to analyse texts produced by two key players in this debate, (then) President Barack Obama in support of tighter controls and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association (NRA) against. The results demonstrate two polarised dichotomies. The first of these sees both speakers present themselves as working to protect something important. Obama presents his measures as in the service of protecting lives where LaPierre presents his opposition to the same measures as designed to protect freedom. A second dichotomy can be seen where Obama constructs those who support gun control as ‘courageous’, whereas for LaPierre these same people are constructed as villains. The analysis is used to identify the ways in which both speakers attempt to present their arguments as legitimate. It is therefore shown how discursive psychology, when applied to the gun control debate, helps us understand how issues of peace and conflict are drawn upon and how such debates can influence policy regarding the continuation of armed violence.

    U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1

    DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1

    M3 - Chapter

    SN - 978-3-319-99093-4

    SP - 67

    EP - 82

    BT - Discourse, peace & conflict

    A2 - Gibson, Stephen

    PB - Springer

    ER -