Cheap Talk or Policy Priorities? Policy Responses to Mass Shootings

• In Event: Legislator Messaging and Communications

Abstract

In the wake of the May 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell began negotiations with Senate Democrats on potential policy solutions to the gun violence problems in the US. When speaking with reporters about the negotiations, McConnell told reporters he was trying ``to see if we can find a way forward consistent with the Second Amendment that targets the problem. And it seems to me there are two broad categories that underscore the problem, mental illness and school safety.'' He added, ``Hopefully, we can find a way to come together and make some progress on this horrendous problem, consistent with our Constitution and our values.” McConnell, of course, is not the only Republican leader who has attempted to frame gun violence problems in the US as a mental health concern. Indeed, in the wake of the mass shooting at Parkland High School in 2018, President Donald Trump claimed to be ``working closely with local authorities to investigate the shooting and learn everything we can. We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health.”

Democratic counterparts and the mass media often denounce these efforts to frame gun violence as a mental health problem as a ``dodge'' or ``excuse'' to avoid dealing with the core issue behind gun violence in the US, access to firearms. The root cause of gun violence in the US are likely complicated, but it has become increasingly clear that gun violence is a public policy problem that the public recognizes and to which the public hopes for solutions. According to recent Pew public opinion data, some 72% of Americans view gun violence as a ``very big'' or ``moderately big'' problem. Thus, we have a clear situation in which the public has recognized a problem, and two sets of actors competing over the policy frame and set of solutions to those problems. Republicans seem to be attempting to frame gun violence as a mental health issue, while Democrats center the issue on access to firearms.

While the public rhetoric in the wake of these shootings paints a picture of two sets of policy actors competing over policy frames, as scholars, we know very little about the actual follow through on those comments. Do Democrats and Republicans sustain attention to these competing frameworks in the weeks and months after shootings occur? Do they actually propose policy solutions and legislation to these problems in line with these competing frames? In this research, we address these questions.

We begin by examining the discussion of mental health and gun control issues by members of Congress in their newsletters to their districts in the wake of mass shootings. This allows us to ascertain whether the initial attention to these issue frameworks in the wake of shootings is merely a temporary phenomenon. We then turn to bill introductions to determine whether these public comments are simply cheap talk by political actors, or whether there is actual policy follow through on the proposed solutions offered by each party in the wake of mass shootings.

Authors

• Nathaniel A Birkhead, Kansas State University

• Justin Kirkland, University of Virginia