Individual Claimsmaking after the Parkland Shooting*

Deana A. Rohlinger, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology State University

Caitria DeLucchi Graduate Student in Sociology Florida State University

Warren Allen, Ph.D. Teaching Faculty Rutgers University

*We thank Sourabh Singh for his feedback on this paper. The lead author thanks her early morning “writing with randos” group for their support, including Beth Popp Berman, Danna Agmon, Christina Ho, Sarah Woulfin, Derek Gottlieb, Dahlia Remler, Dale Winling, Meredith Broussard, Adam Slez, Didem Turkoglu, Jason Windawi, Elizabeth Mazzolini, Jennifer Sessions, Louise Seamster, Daniel Hirschman.

1 On February 14, 2018, a former student killed 17 people and injured 17 others at Marjory

Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Some of the student survivors mobilized in protest of loose gun laws, and state legislatures across the country began passing bills to restrict gun access. This was true even in Florida, which is a testing-ground for National Rifle

Association (NRA) legislation and whose Republican-dominated legislature often rejects modest restrictions on gun access. In less than a month, the legislature passed “the Marjory Stoneman

Douglas High School Public Safety Act” (SB 7026), which raised the minimum age requirement for purchasing a firearm from 18 to 21, required a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a gun, prohibited the purchase and selling of bump stocks, expanded mental health services in the state, allocated monies to help harden schools, and funded a “marshal” program that allowed the arming of teachers and staff.

Arguably, there are a number of reasons that the legislature opted for quick action.

Governor who indicated that he was going to run against , a popular

Democratic incumbent for U.S. Senate, needed to erode some of Nelson’s support to win this competitive seat. It’s likely that his Republican colleagues in the state were amendable to helping

Scott in his unchallenged election bid. The Trump administration also signaled support for regulation. In February, Trump signed a memorandum instructing the attorney general to regulate the use of bump stocks and voiced support for raising the minimum age to buy/own a gun to 21-years old. Floridians also expressed a great deal of support for gun regulation. A

Quinnipiac poll found that 63% of Floridians agreed that it was too easy to buy a gun in the state and 50% of voters believed that the NRA supported policies that were "bad for Florida."1

1 The poll is available at https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2524. 2 We examine the two-week period in which SB 7026 was debated, passed, and signed into law by Scott in order to analyze the ideas championed by citizens, and, more specifically, identify factors that may help explain when individual claimsmaking converges around a common set of messages on forums across a complex media system. Better understanding the relationship between the contemporary media system and individual claimsmaking is important for two reasons. First, better understanding when individual claimsmaking converge around a common set of ideas across the media system can illuminate what ideas politicians attend to and act on – or at least the messages that politicians may find difficult to ignore. Politicians use information gleaned from individual claims online to inform their decision-making (Kreiss,

Lawrence, & McGregor, 2018; McGregor, 2020). McGregor (2020) found that campaign professionals use numerical data, such as the number of likes a comment gets, and the content of a comment to “take the temperature of the room” on candidates and issues, and, then, adjust their campaign strategies accordingly.

Second, studying individual claimsmaking can shed light on factors that seem to influence discourse across a media system, and warrant further empirical investigation. This exploratory work is particularly important given the variety of ways in which individuals can express their opinions virtually and the varying limitations and norms associated with different platforms. For instance, due, in part, to character limitations users employ more abbreviations, fewer definite articles and convey their ideas more tersely (Gligoric, Anderson, &

West, 2018). Compare this to email where individuals are not constrained by character limitations, and can elaborate on their ideas at length directly to politicians more politely (Bunz

& Campbell, 2004). In short, identifying factors that appear to affect claimsmaking across

3 different kinds of forums can help scholars pinpoint variables that influence online political expression.

We take a first step at analyzing individual claimsmaking across different mediums, and assess the extent to which two factors identified in the literature as relevant to individual expression – elite frames and movement mobilization – seem to influence claimsmaking in three mediated forums - Twitter, Letters to the Editor and op-eds that appear in mainstream news outlets, and emails sent to Rick Scott about the legislation during the two-week period in which

SB 7026 was debated, passed, and signed into law. We find that movement mobilization, in particular, seems to have influenced individual claimsmaking across the forums. Additionally, we find that there is more coalescence in claimsmaking around the movement than the gun rights movement, and that movement coordination may help explain these differences.

INDIVIDUAL CLAIMSMAKING IN A HYBRID MEDIA SYSTEM

Andrew Chadwick’s (2013) concept of a “hybrid media system” provides a useful starting point for understanding the communication environment as a dynamic, networked space, where individuals are exposed to – and help amplify - a variety of political ideas. Briefly,

Chadwick argues that different kinds of media do not simply coexist, but form a system that evolves as “newer” and “older” media logics, or “bundles of technologies, genres, norms, behaviors and organizational forms” (2013: 4), interact with one another. He foregrounds hybridity to draw attention to the complex relationship between politics and society, and to explain power dynamics within and across different kinds of systems. Among other things, understanding the communication environment as a reflection of a hybrid media system illuminates how actors “create, tap, or steer information flows in ways that suit their goals and in

4 ways that modify, enable, or disable others’ agency, across and between a range of older and newer media settings” (Chadwick, 2013: 4).

There are two aspects of Chadwick’s conceptualization of the hybrid media system that are relevant to understanding individual claimsmaking in the digital age. First, like other systems or fields, the hybrid media system is a relatively coherent social space that is comprised of a network of relationships among actors who determine their actions relative to one another

(Bourdieu, 1998b; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This means that the hybrid media system is structured, and that this structure creates relatively stable interactions among actors as well as

(re)produce hierarchies of power within the system (Bourdieu, 2005; J. W. Meyer & Rowan,

1977; Rao, Morrill, & Zald, 2000). This structure advantages some voices and disadvantages others, and this can affect individual claimsmaking.

In a hybrid media system, the information economy is in the hands of a small number of companies (Mansell, 2004; McChesney, 2013), giving corporate sponsors and established news outlets an advantage when it comes to framing political debates. News media proffer interpretive constructs for understanding political problems, their causes and their solutions (Iyengar &

Simon, 1993; Valkenburg, Semetko, & De Vreese, 1999 ), and individuals integrate the frames received via news into their conversations (Boyle et al., 2006; Gamson, 1992; Kwak, Williams,

Wang, & Lee, 2005) and their digital claimsmaking (Author Cite). Moreover, “legitimate” sources such as politicians and government officials typically dominate news coverage (Entman,

2006; Gans, 2003; Tuchman, 1973) and use mainstream outlets to champion their positions and policy ideas (Edelman, 1964). Since individuals see the same news stories in the same outlets on- and off-line (Flaxman, Goel, & Rao, 2016; Nechushtai & Lewis, 2019) and elite actors typically

5 dominate coverage, it is possible that individuals will use the frames proffered by politicians in their own claimsmaking in forums across the media system.

Second, like other systems and fields, the structure of relations within the hybrid media system are not monolithic (Bourdieu, 1998a; Chadwick, 2013). This means that actors with less power can sometimes leverage different mediums and platforms for their own purposes in ways that affect claimsmaking. Social movements, which may be more or less structured in the digital age (Bruns, Moon, Paul, & Münch, 2016; Earl & Kimport, 2011; Flanagin, Stohl, & Bimber,

2006), are particularly relevant in this regard. A hybrid media system is interconnected with the political system, and activists look for “opportunities” in both to mobilize support and change public debate around political issues (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012; McCarthy & Zald, 1977; D.

Meyer, 2004). For example, activists can use digital media to quickly activate supporters, coordinate their campaign efforts with likeminded groups, and use social media to connect with journalists – all of which can increase the coverage of their ideas and influence the way issues are framed for mainstream audiences (Barnard, 2018; Freelon, McIlwain, & Clark, 2016).

Likewise, activists can use hashtags to form “ad hoc” communities on social media that capitalize on trending topics to mobilize supporters around an issue (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012;

Bruns et al., 2016). In other words, social movements may also affect public debate by offering alternative frames for understanding political problems and their solutions. And, individuals may use these alternative frames in their claimsmaking across the media system.

DATA AND METHODS

As a first step in exploring whether elite frames and movement mobilization seem to affect individual claimsmaking, we analyzed discourse on three forums – mainstream news outlets, email, and Twitter - between February 23, 2018 (when SB 7026 was being considered

6 by Senate) and March 9, 2018 (the date the bill was signed into law). We included newspapers because, as discussed above, it allows us to analyze elite discourse and assess the extent to which movement ideas were part of mainstream debate. Twitter comments and email are included because, given the differences between the forums, they provide an excellent opportunity to assess the extent to which individual claimsmaking converged/diverged during the two week period. We briefly discuss each of these data in turn.

First, we analyzed news coverage, op-eds, and letters to the editor about the Parkland shooting and SB 7026. Using Newsbank, we identified news stories, op-eds and letters to the editor published in Florida newspapers, metro city newspapers across the country, including The

New York Times, and stories that aired on broadcast news during the relevant two-week period.

Duplicate stories were removed, leaving us with a sample of 754 stories/op-eds. We used a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis to examine the data (Charmaz, 2014;

Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Using existing research on media coverage of school shootings, we generated a list of broad themes common to coverage such as the focus on causes of shootings, the characteristics of the shooter, and the political response to the incident (Maguire, Weatherby,

& Mathers, 2002; Schildkraut, Elsass, & Meredith, 2018; Silva & Capellan, 2019). Then, using

NVivo 12, the lead researcher used inductive coding to identify frames related to these themes.2

This process generated 44 frames in total with some focused specifically on Parkland and the proposed legislation and others on gun control or gun rights more generally. Additionally, in order to better assess the content of the frames, the lead researcher coded whether the source (or author of the op-ed/Letter to the Editor) indicated support for or opposition to (or simply mentioned) a particular frame. A second researcher coded 10% of the sample. Reliability scores

2 To be considered a frame, a code had to appear five times in the data set. 7 showed that there was substantial agreement among the coders in terms of how to code media content relative to these categories (κ = .93).

Second, we analyzed 4,962 emails sent to then Governor Rick Scott regarding the

Parkland shooting and CS/SB 7026. These communications are publicly available through

Florida Statute Chapter 119.01, which is also known as the “Sunshine Law.” We imported the emails into NVivo 12 and coded whether an email supported gun control/SB 7026, opposed to gun control/SB 7026, or both (e.g., supportive of some gun control but expressed gun rights support as well), and assessed whether emails consisted of “original” content or were part of a citizen and/or social movement campaign.3 We then used deductive and inductive coding to identify themes in the emails. We began with the same broad themes used for mass media (e.g., causes of the shooting). Then, since emails tend to either praise a politician’s course of action or try to persuade them to act differently (Author Cites), we coded the emails for ideas regarding what action Scott should take on the bill (e.g., sign or veto), the potential positive and negative consequences of the bill, and ideas related to gun control and gun rights more generally. This process generated a list of 43 frames in total. A second researcher coded 10% of the sample.

Reliability scores showed that there was substantial agreement among the coders in terms of how to code media content relative to these categories (κ = .89).

Finally, we used Twython (McGrath 2019) – a Python library for querying the Twitter application programming interface (API) – to capture/save tweets to a database the day following the Parkland Shooting through March 9, 2018 using 14 keywords associated with the incident, the gun control and the gun rights debate.4 19,723 tweets and retweets were posted during the two weeks of interest. Based on the hashtags and keywords used to find tweets relevant to

3 If a subject line or more than two sentences of the written text was the same for at least three emails, the lead researcher searched for the text online to see if it is associated with some sort of collective effort. 4 We monitored key words instead of hashtags so that we would capture all the tweets using the key terms. 8 Parkland and the gun debate, 13,632 seem to favor gun control, 5,682 seem to advocate for gun rights, and 409 mention guns but do not seem to clearly note support for/opposition to gun control. We randomly sampled 500 tweets associated with gun control and 500 tweets associated with gun rights. We threw out tweets if they were irrelevant or could not be coded because the user account has been suspended, and replaced them with another randomly chosen tweet. Using this strategy, we sampled 764 tweets to get 500 relevant gun control tweets and sample 601 tweets to get 500 relevant gun rights tweets.5 More irrelevant tweets were captured relative to the gun control keywords because #neveragain was frequently used in reference to poor personal choices (e.g., drinking too much) or in reference to World War II and the Holocaust. Likewise, some gun rights advocates used gun control hashtags and keywords in order to be included in the debate over the shooting.

We used a combination of deductive and inductive coding to analyze the tweets. We imported the sample of 1,000 tweets into NVivo 12 and deductively coded for the presence of themes that emerged in news stories, op-eds, Letters to the Editor, and emails. The lead researcher, then, inductively coded the tweets again to capture additional themes relevant to gun control (e.g., gun rights is about racism) and gun rights (e.g., promotional materials for guns).

This process generated a total of 75 frames. Tweets were coded for up to three frames in order of appearance, excluding hashtags/keywords, which we considered separately. We coded the text of the tweet first, and, if available, we viewed the original tweet and coded additional frames (e.g., frames relative to retweeted content or attached images with text). A second researcher coded

10% of the sample. Reliability scores showed that there was substantial agreement among the coders in terms of how to code media content relative to these categories (κ = .85). 5 To date, we have coded over 6,500 tweets in the sample. Since we coded the 5,682 tweets using gun rights keywords/hashtags, we were able to compare our coding from the random sample to larger data set. They are remarkably similar, which is why we deemed 500 relevant tweets an appropriate sample. The table is included in the supplementary materials. 9 PARKLAND IN THE MAINSTREAM

Table 1 summarizes the frames mentioned in news coverage and editorial content during the two-week period of interest. We use Pearson Chi-Square to assess whether there are significant differences in the distribution of the frames between news coverage and the claims made by individuals in Letters to the Editor/op-eds. Table 1 notes the number of times a frame was present in the sample, the frequency of each frame, and whether there are significant differences in the distribution of the frames by content type. Of the 754 stories and opinion pieces coded, 58.1% of stories were op-eds and Letters to the Editor and 41.9% were news pieces. The bulk of the content appeared in Florida outlets (80.1%).

Table 1 indicates that there are significant differences between the frames covered in news stories and the frames included in Letters to the Editor and op-eds by individuals.

Consistent with coverage of other school shootings, news content largely focused on elite discourse and, more specifically, the legislation up for debate, the victims and perpetrator of the shooting, and the causes of violence (Chyi & McCombs, 2004; Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2001;

Lawrence & Birkland, 2004). Politicians on both sides of the aisle were quick to try and define the cause of the shooting as well as its policy solution. Florida democrats, who had already filed bills banning the sale and possession of assault-style weapons and large-capacity ammunition in the House and Senate in 2019, argued that the solution to gun violence was to abolish the weapons and accessories that made school shootings possible – namely the AR-15 and bump stocks.

While republicans conceded that legislation was needed, they argued that prohibiting assault-style guns would cede too much authority to government. Instead, republicans posited that schools should be hardened and that students and faculty should undergo active shooter

10 training, and championed an idea similar to one offered by days before: arm teachers (Table 1, school frame, 78.9% and favors marshal program, 63.6%). The “marshal program” proposed by the Florida House would “deputize” trained employees and allow them to carry a gun on school property (Sarkissian & Dixon, 2018). Democrats and educators opposed the measure (Rohrer, 2018).

[TABLE 1 HERE]

Governor Rick Scott announced his own plan to address gun violence; one that did not include a marshal program. Scott’s “action plan” allocated $50 million to boost mental health programs and school safety measures, raised the legal minimum age to purchase a firearm, and banned the purchase/sale of bump stocks (Unknown, 2018). The NRA and some republicans took issue with, among other things, the measure raising the minimum age requirement to own a firearm. Marion Hammer, former NRA president and long-time NRA lobbyist in the state (Spies,

2018), told reporters that she thought Scott’s plan to increase the age requirement for gun ownership discriminated against young people (Legislating discrimination 77.4%), and constituted an attack on the Second Amendment (Collins, Carloni, & Stanglin, 2018).

Legislators, she argued, should address school security and arm teachers.

While individuals engaged elite frames, they were more likely to mention the gun control movement and its ideas in their op-eds/Letters to the Editor (Table 1). Individuals were significantly more likely to favor gun control (71.5%), positively mention the movement (68%), and criticize the NRA (72%), Republicans (77.3%) and Trump (76.3%). In other words, even as the news cycle focused on the legislative process, elite actors and gun rights advocates, individuals focused on the Parkland students, their understandings of gun violence, and their efforts to effect change.

11 The visibility of movement ideas can be explained, in part, by Parkland students’ focus on media as a way to shift gun politics. Three students, , , and Sofie

Whitney, met up after a candlelight vigil, determined to stem school shootings. They started a

Facebook page for the Never Again movement, which gained more than 35,000 followers in three days. The founders invited other students, including Emma González and , to join the movement at a gun rally in Fort Lauderdale, and, within days, had announced a nationwide “” on March 24, 2018. The march quickly received financial and organizational backing from progressive groups, including

(Everytown) and ThinkProgress, as well as several celebrities. The students capitalized on the momentum and expanded their public outreach efforts, vowing to speak out against politicians accepting NRA money and working against common sense gun control (Lowery, 2018; Witt,

2018).

Individuals amplified students’ argument that the NRA and Republicans were obstacles to gun control (Table 1). An editorial in the South Lake Press (2/28/28), for instance, roundly criticized the state legislature and called Florida’s lack of action on gun control “political foot- dragging — incrementalism at its worst.” The editorial pointed out that Republicans and the

NRA are so resistant to gun control that they “have even blocked the federal government from studying the causes of gun violence.” Many other editorials and Letters to the Editor, however, made the link between the NRA and Republicans more directly and more passionately, calling

Republicans “cowardly” and accusing them of “bowing down” at the feet of the NRA. One letter to the editor (The Bradenton Herald, 2/28/18) blamed politicians for the tragedy noting, the shooter “did not act alone in the Parkland shootings. Complicit in the school slaughter were

Trump, Rubio, Ryan, Buchanan, the NRA and the 71 cowardly Florida legislators who voted

12 down consideration of a ban on assault weapons. These ‘representatives’ of the American people seem to prefer the sight of NRA money to the sight of massacred students’ blood.”

EMAILS SENT TO SCOTT

Scott received 4,962 regarding SB 7026. Of these, 4,093 emails urged Scott to sign the bill into law and 869 urged him to veto the bill outright. Table 2, which summarizes the sources of the emails, indicates that movements seem to have had a substantial, although uneven, influence on individual claimsmaking. The vast majority of the emails supporting SB 7026

(88.7%) were associated with an email campaign sponsored by the coalition Everytown, which focuses on bringing “gun sense” to local communities (https://everytown.org/who-we-are/). The coalition, a key backer of the Never Again movement, alerted Florida members that the legislature had passed a bill that could reduce gun violence in the state, and urged supporters to

“Tell Gov. Scott to protect Florida by signing this bill.” The email, which was sent by 3,631 different accounts read:

Dear Governor Scott —

As a Florida resident concerned with gun violence in our state, I urge you to sign SB

7026, a gun reform bill, into law. The provisions in the bill that include Risk Protection

Orders and raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 could have stopped the

Parkland high school shooter…. And it includes common sense gun violence prevention

policies like a prohibition on selling and possessing bump stocks…. Please take action

immediately and sign this bill to better protect Florida's public safety and reduce gun

violence.

In short, most of the emails adopted movement language, which championed the bill without reservation.

13 Not all gun control advocates supported the bill wholeheartedly. 11.3% of the emails included criticism of the legislation. Nearly all of these emails urged Scott to veto the marshal plan. They argued Scott should focus solely on “hardening” schools. Janet,6 for example, wrote:

We need bulletproof glass, metal detectors and school resource officers. We need more

social workers and counselors. We do NOT need more guns. We do NOT need guns in

classrooms. We do NOT need librarians and cafeteria workers carrying guns.

[TABLE 2 HERE]

The 869 emails sent to Rick Scott opposing the bill were more varied in their content.

This is, in part, because only 49% of the emails opposing the bill were associated with campaigns spearheaded by gun rights groups. The three most prominent campaigns were organized by Marion Hammer, the chief gun rights lobbyist in the state of Florida. As the Florida

House and Senate debated legislation, Hammer urged gun rights supporters to contact their representatives and ask them to vote against the bills because they denied “civil rights” to some gun owners and “criminalized” ownership. The email, which was sent to Scott 97 times, argued, “These bills will do nothing to make Floridians safer and will make felons out of otherwise law abiding productive citizens…. Do not cave to the emotional response, use logic and reason to see that these bills are bad for citizens, do not make us safer, and are bad for

Florida.”

Once SB 7026 passed, Hammer called on supporters to urge Scott to veto the bill. She launched two email campaigns simultaneously. First, she made a direct appeal through the sympathetic media outlet Ammoland, which bills itself as “the web's leading Shooting Sports

News Service for the Ammunition, Firearms, Shooting, Hunting and Conservation community”

(www.Ammoland.com). She informed supporters that the Florida House voted 67 to 50 to pass

6 All names have been replaced with pseudonyms. 14 “an unconstitutional bill that violates Second Amendment rights and punishes law-citizens for the actions of a mentally ill teenager who murdered 17 people after Florida officials repeatedly refused to get him the help he needed.” She urged supporters to contact Scott and tell him to:

Do The Right Thing: VETO SB-7026 and make the Legislature stop the bullying, the

emotionalism and the political posturing and draft a bill that focuses on making our schools safe.

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: VETO SB-7026 – Do The Right Thing (Hammer 2018,

Emphasis in original).

This subject line appeared in 166 of the 869 emails, and dozens of individuals simply copied either the subject line or Hammer’s suggested text into the body of the email.

Hammer also called on gun rights leaders to spread the word about the bill, and ask their supporters to call/email Scott. For example, in a post James Yearger, who runs a tactical training center a gun shop in Tennessee and a YouTube channel with 95.4K subscribers, shared Hammer’s call to action and urged supporters to ask Scott to “Please veto SB-7026 so the

Legislature can pass it without the unconstitutional anti-gun provisions.”

123 emails included this language.

The NRA also organized an email campaign. The email, which was sent to Scott 25 times, asked him to veto the bill because “taking away gun rights from law abiding citizens and

18-20 year old people is not the answer.” The email warned that “Bad people, criminals and people who are mentally ill will always do whatever it takes to commit their crimes and no amount of legislation will stop that.” Campaigns spearheaded by the groups Florida Gun Rights

(sent 10 times) and Firearms Policy Coalition (sent 5 times) focused on the prohibition of bump stocks in Florida, echoing one of Hammer’s messages that the new law would create “hundreds if not thousands of felons overnight.” Likewise, a petition posted on Change.org, which was

15 signed by 250 individuals, asked Scott to line-item veto the text in the bill outlawing bump stocks.

Even though individuals did not use the precise language of gun rights groups, they did draw on many of the same ideas.7 Individuals agreed that the proposed legislation was an attack on the Constitution, criminalized lawful gun owners, and discriminated against 18-20 year olds.

Unlike the groups, individuals focused on the factors they believed were to blame for the shooting: primarily the failure of law enforcement to act on information provided to them about the shooter’s mental instability as well as the shooter and his family. These frames are the same as those discussed by politicians in news coverage (Table 1). John, for instance, advocated for arming teachers and staff, noting that law enforcement was “not capable” of preventing school shootings. He wrote:

This unfortunate event was caused by a mentally-disturbed, highly-medicated person who

had been reported as such to the local police and the FBI multiple times. They ignored all

of the warning signs being put out and then failed miserably when the time came to

protect the children of Parkland. SB 7026 is simply a politician's solution that solves

nothing. The lesson to be learned from Parkland, Sandy Hook and Columbine is that

school officials and local law enforcement or the FBI are simply not capable of

preventing these events from happening -- nor will depriving law-abiding citizens of their

2nd amendment rights solve the problem.

Individuals made several novel arguments in their emails. They argued that the legislative processes that produced SB 7026 were flawed because, as Jeff put it, Senate leadership had bullied “Second Amendment supporters to get them to vote for the gun control package” (in

16.0% of individual emails). Likewise, individuals reminded Scott that they were Florida gun

7 A table is provided in the supplementary materials. 16 owners (10.6%), who would vote against him in the future if he didn’t veto the bill (66.8%).

Finally, individuals opined that there were many things that were more deadly than guns.

Jennifer wrote, “If this bill is signed then we should be banning cars, trucks, knives and any other weapon that people could possibly use in their mentally unstable state.”

PARKLAND AND TWITTER

Table 3 summarizes the categories of hashtags that were referenced in the tweets and were relevant to the case.8 Here, we only counted hashtags that were referenced at least five times in the sample.9 If the context of a hashtag was unclear, we searched for it in the sample, determined its relevance to the debate and categorized it accordingly. Tweets could, and often did, contain more than one hashtag. Table 3 indicates that, like emails, individuals expressed support for the gun control movement and its positions in their claimsmaking. Calls for common sense gun control (1,606 of the 3,972 hashtags) and immediate legislation (1,291 of the 3,972 hashtags) were among the most mentioned hashtags. Individuals also expressed a fair amount of support for the Never Again movement and hostility toward the NRA.

These trends are confirmed in Table 4, which summarizes the most mentioned frames in

500 randomly sampled tweets. Individuals discussed Parkland in 34.2% of the tweets, and many of these expressed support for the Parkland students and teachers (20%) and called for common sense gun regulation (13.8%). Parkland students Emma González and David Hogg, in particular, received praise on Twitter. González (tagged in 6.6% of tweets) and Hogg (tagged in 4.3% of tweets) were thanked for “speaking out,” especially given the “haters” online. Individuals encouraged them to “Keep moving forward with all your might! You are the future today!”

Likewise, users urged others to take action to support gun control (13.6%). Users most

8 We excluded hashtags that were not case relevant. See supplementary material for additional results. 9 This was necessary given the large number of hashtags. Gun control tweets included a total of 1,057 different hashtags and gun rights tweets included 1,780 different hashtags. 17 commonly called on others to “follow these brave #neveragain kids and amplify their call for change,” primarily by participating in a local March for Our Lives event, and to “vote out”

Republicans.

[TABLES 3 AND 4 HERE]

Gun control proponents directed a fair amount of ire at the NRA in their tweets (16%).

The NRA was tagged in 8.1% of the tweets and roundly criticized for being “pathetic,” “a terrorist organization,” and an “American CANCER that needs to be cut out.” One user tweeting about the NRA noted “Its [sic] about time you were run out on a rail!” Others, attacked the

NRA’s leadership. NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch was called, among other things, a “loser,” a

“Nazi,” a “cockroach,” an “idiot,” and a “soulless shill.” Hammer also received negative mentions with one user calling her a “despicable, bloodthirsty ghoul.” Although there was no shortage of tweets that insulted the intelligence and priorities of gun rights proponents more generally (11.6% of tweets), the focus on the NRA was, in part, fueled by online campaigns to undercut the organization’s support. In this case, ThinkProgress, one of the groups supporting the

Parkland students, circulated a list of corporations that provided NRA members discounts on their services, and called on the companies to either sever their ties with the group or risk a boycott (Hsu, 2018). Companies including Delta, United, Enterprise, Avis, Almo, Hertz and

Budget all quickly, and publicly, cancelled their programs. Additionally, Dick’s Sporting Goods,

Walmart, LL Bean and all raised the age requirement to purchase a gun to 21 years-old.

Dick’s also quit selling assault-style rifles, such as the AR-15 used in the school shooting, altogether. Individuals mentioned Dick’s in tweets (8.8%), promising that the “brave move” had gained the store “loyal shoppers.”

18 The GOP was sharply criticized by individuals with users linking Republican politicians’ lack of action to the NRA (9.0% of tweets). Individuals posted that the Republican party was

“useless” and “responsible” for the “slaughter” of Americans by gun violence because its politicians took money from the NRA. Likewise, (R-FL), the Florida Republican

Party, and Rick Scott were called names and criticized for taking money from the NRA, or, as one individual put it, “valuing $$$ over people.”

Gun rights advocates rarely mentioned the shooting, the Never Again movement,

Parkland students, or the legislation. There were only 65 mentions of hashtags related to

Parkland (Table 3). This is striking given the sheer number of hashtags that seem related to gun rights. While it is beyond the scope of this paper, it appears that those advocating for and against gun rights used hashtags differently. It is possible that gun rights proponents used hashtags to reach (and connect) conservatives across issues. This might help explain the relatively large number of hashtags referencing gun rights and conspiracy theories regarding the “deep state”

(1,623 mentions).

Table 5, which summarizes the frames mentioned by gun rights supporters in 500 randomly chosen tweets, also indicates that individuals rarely discussed the incident. Individuals occasionally made negative comments about Hogg and González (1.8%) and called for the ousting of Sheriff Israel due to his “botched” response to the shooting (1.4%). Most of the tweets simply shared news stories with hashtags (29.6%) or promoted products that might appeal to gun rights supporters such as clothing, accessories, YouTube videos and group newsletters (26.4%).

When individuals did discuss gun rights, movements were at the center of the conversation.

Proponents focused on the “deranged liberal effort” to undercut support for the NRA.

[TABLE 5 HERE]

19 Some of this was fueled by the NRA. On February 24th, the organization issued a press release criticizing the companies who had severed their relationship with the NRA in “an effort to punish our members who are doctors, farmers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nurses, shop owners and school teachers that live in every American community.”10 Dana Loesch and

NRA president Wayne Pierre amplified the message online, calling on members to show their solidarity with the group by renewing their memberships and sharing their action with others.

Additionally, the group called on its members to publicly thank the companies that hadn’t “caved to liberals” “for standing with the @NRA and the millions of Americans who support #2a rights.” A fair number of individuals responded to these calls to action (Pro-gun action 12.4%), sharing pictures of NRA membership cards, circulating the NRA’s note of thanks, and criticizing

Dick’s decision to quit selling AR-15s. Individuals pledged to take their business elsewhere, and, like emailers, sarcastically wondered if the next step would be to define “knives and golf clubs” as “assault weapons” and ban them too.

CONCLUSION

This paper explores individual claimsmaking across different mediums and takes a first step at assessing whether two factors identified in the literature as relevant to individual expression – elite frames and movement mobilization – seem to influence individual claimsmaking. We find that while elite frames seem to affect individual claimsmaking in op-eds and Letters to the Editor and, to a lesser extent, email, movements appear to influence discourse across mediums. In Letters to the Editor and op-eds, individuals commented on the Florida legislation, but were more likely to support the Never Again movement and criticize the cozy

10 The press release can be viewed here: https://twitter.com/thisweekabc/status/967517805741596673 20 relationship between republicans and the NRA. In their emails to Scott, individuals occasionally referred to elite frames in their criticism of the legislation, but often relied on the messaging of movements. Twitter users criticized their opponents and their actions in general terms, but rarely discussed Florida’s legislation or politicians.

We also find that the gun control and gun rights movements seem to influence individual claimsmaking differently. While broader public support for gun control likely made some individuals more amenable to integrating movement frames into their claims, the coordination among groups advocating for gun control measures may have also helped. Coordination enables movement organizations to better target their strategies and resources, which makes them more likely to affect change (Rochon & Meyer, 1997; Van Dyke & McCammon, 2010). Here, the more established Everytown and ThinkProgress worked with the emerging Never Again movement and activated their supporters in an effort to push forward gun control legislation and diminish support for the NRA. If nothing else, this support allowed the student-based movement to focus its resources on building support for its upcoming march and attacking politicians taking money from the NRA.

Coordination was not as clear among gun rights supporters. While it is possible that

Hammer and the NRA agreed to focus their campaigns on different segments of the gun rights movement (e.g., Florida locals and national membership), NRA’s stance was more defensive.

The NRA seemed more focused on protecting its image than advocating against gun control legislation. Additionally, other groups were publicly opposing Hammer, calling her an obstacle to “true” gun rights. After the Florida legislation passed, Florida Gun Rights published a scathing article about Hammer, criticizing her “cozy relationship with the political class” and accusing her

21 of “doing the bare minimum to block Governor Rick Scott’s gun control proposal.”11 In short, the differential focus of the groups, and conflict among, them created more variance in movement messages. This may help explain why gun rights supporters use both elite and movement frames in their claimsmaking across the three forums.

Taken together, this exploratory research suggests that both elite frames and movement mobilization are important variables for understanding individual claimsmaking in a hybrid media system. Interestingly, the findings suggest that individual claimsmaking can converge around a common set of messages on forums across a complex media system, despite differences among mediums; and point to coordination as a potentially critical variable for understanding message coalescence across forums. Future research should explore this relationship, and suss out the potential forms of coordination available to political actors and their relative effectiveness at influencing discourse across a media system.

More research is needed on individual claimsmaking. For instance, since we only study one case, it is unclear what kinds of political conditions might give movements an advantage in terms of both influencing individual claimsmaking and affecting change. It would be interesting to compare these results to emails, tweets, news coverage and op-eds in the wake of the Pulse shooting, which also occurred in Florida but did not result in legislative change. Adding a comparative case would allow a “deep analysis” of the different contextual variables to better assess their relevance across cases (Ragin, 1989). Likewise, it would be interesting to see how individual claimsmaking varies across social media platforms. and Facebook have character high character limits, which could affect how individuals discuss political issues and the frames the integrate into their claims. With more space to tease out their thoughts and an

11 The complete story may be found here: https://floridagunrights.org/latest-news/marion-hammers-waning- influence-in-tallahassee/ 22 “audience” of likeminded friends, individuals may engage a broader range of frames than they do on either Twitter or email. In short, there are multiple ways individuals can express their points in a hybrid media system, and each may offer a sliver of insight into what the electorate is thinking.

23 WORK CITED Barnard, S. (2018). Tweeting #Ferguson: Mediatized fields and the new activist journalist. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2252-2271. Bennett, L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. Bourdieu, P. (1998a). On Television (P. P. Ferguson, Trans.). New York: New Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998b). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action (R. Johnson, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field (pp. 29-47). Malden, MA: Polity. Boyle, M., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C., Cho, J., McCluskey, M., McLeod, D., & Shah, D. (2006). Expressive Responses to News Stories About Extremist Groups: A Framing Experiment. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 271-288. Bruns, A., Moon, B., Paul, A., & Münch, F. (2016). Towards a typology of hashtag publics: a large-scale comparative study of user engagement across trending topics. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 20-46. Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail. Communication Research Reports, 21(1), 11-25. Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York: Oxford University Press. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Chyi, H., & McCombs, M. (2004). Media Salience and the Process of Framing: Coverage of the Columbine School Shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22- 35. Collins, A., Carloni, B., & Stanglin, D. (2018, March 1, 2018). Parkland School Shooting - Massacre Survivors Come Back to Campus - Stoneman Douglas High Welcomes back 3,100 Naples Daily News. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Instutitonal Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Feilds. American Sociological Review, 48, 147- 160. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. New York: MIT Press. Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Entman, R. (2006). Punctuating the Homogeneity of Instutionalized News: Abusing Prisoners at Abu Ghraib Versus Killing Civilians at Fallujah. Political Communication, 23(2), 215- 224. Flanagin, A., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the Structure of Collective Action. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 29-54. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press.

24 Freelon, D., McIlwain, C., & Clark, M. (2016). Beyond the Jashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the Online Struggle for Offline Justice. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: Gamson, W. (1992). Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gans, H. (2003). Democracy and the News. New York: Oxford University Press. Gligoric, K., Anderson, A., & West, R. (2018). How Constrainsts Affect Content: The Case of Twitter's Switch from 140 to 280 Characters. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (arXiv:1804.02318). Haider-Markel, D., & Joslyn, M. (2001). Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520-543. Hsu, T. (2018). Big and Small, N.R.A. Boycott Efforts Come Together in Gun Debate. . Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public-Opinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing. Communication Research, 20(3), 365-383. Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R., & McGregor, S. (2018). In Their Own Words: Political Practitioner Accounts of Candidates, Audiences, Affordances, Genres, and Timing in Strategic Social Media Use. Political Communication, 35(1), 8-31. Kwak, N., Williams, A., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking Politics and Engaging Politics::An Examination of the Interactive Relationships Between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement. Communication Research, 32(1), 87-111. Lawrence, R., & Birkland, T. (2004). Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining the School- Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1193-1207. Lowery, W. (2018). Students Denounce Political Inaction after Florida Shooting. . Maguire, B., Weatherby, G., & Mathers, R. (2002). Network news coverage of school shootings. The Social Science Journal, 39(3), 465-470. Mansell, R. (2004). Political Economy, Power and New Media. New Media & Society, 6(1), 96- 105. McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241. McChesney, R. (2013). Digital Disconect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. New York: New Press. McGregor, S. (2020). “Taking the Temperature of the Room”: How Political Campaigns Use Social Media to Understand and Represent Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(S1), 236-256. Meyer, D. (2004). Protest and Political Opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125-145. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Nechushtai, E., & Lewis, S. (2019). What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 298-307. Ragin, C. (1989). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond the Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. (2000). Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237-281.

25 Rochon, T., & Meyer, D. (1997). Coaltions and Political Movements. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Rohrer, G. (February 24, 2018). Scott unveils gun reforms Governor, GOP lawmakers call for sweeping changes. The Orlando Sentinel. Sarkissian, A., & Dixon, M. (February 23, 2018). Scott, Florida GOP Lawmakers Don'tagree on Arming Teachers, Gun Waiting Periods. . Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H., & Meredith, K. (2018). Mass shootings and the media: why all events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(3), 223-243. Silva, J., & Capellan, J. (2019). The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in America: fifty years of newsworthiness. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(1), 77-97. Spies, M. (March 5, 2018). The NRA Lobbyist Behind Florida's Pro-Gun Policies. . Tuchman, G. (1973). Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 110-131. Unknown. (February 24, 2018). Gov. Scott's Action Plan. North Port Sun. Valkenburg, P., Semetko, H., & De Vreese, C. (1999 ). The Effects of News Frames on Readers' Thoughts and Recall. Communication Research, 26(5), 550-569. Van Dyke, N., & McCammon, H. (2010). Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. In. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Witt, E. (2018). How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement. New Yorker.

26 Table 1. Frames Mentioned in News Stories, Editorials and Letters to the Editor* # of Percentag Percentage Frames e Editorial General News Favors gun control*** 267 28.5% 71.5% Opposes gun control 50 48.0% 52.0% Mentions gun control*** 43 76.7% 23.3% Mentions gun rights*** 24 75.0% 25.0%

FL Legislation Mention FL bill*** 145 72.4% 27.6% Mixed support for FL bill*** 25 76.0% 24.0% Support for FL bill 18 55.6% 44.4% Opposition to FL bill 8 50.0% 50.0%

Discussion of Specific Measures Opposes arming teachers 99 50.5% 49.5% Schools (hardening/training)*** 71 78.9% 21.1% Legislating discrimination*** 31 77.4% 22.6% Public support 26 42.3% 57.7% Favors the marshal program* 22 63.6% 36.4%

Parkland Specific Never Again MSD (favorable)* 122 32.0% 68.0% Never Again MSD (mention)*** 71 74.6% 25.4% Victims*** 60 78.3% 21.7% Shooter*** 22 77.3% 22.7% Celebs supporting students*** 15 93.3% 6.7% Conspiracy theories 5 80.0% 20.0% Never Again MSD (negative) 3 33.3% 66.7%

Causes of School Shootings AR-15's and accessories 219 38.8% 61.2% Mental health*** 112 61.6% 38.4% Law enforcement*** 92 60.9% 39.1% Hollywood 33 38.1% 61.9% Break down of family** 13 0.0% 100.0% Corporate funding 13 15.4% 84.6% Loss of religious values 11 18.2% 81.8%

Gun Rights Arguments Constitutional rights 84 47.6% 52.4% Founding fathers** 20 20.0% 80.0%

27 Individuals have a right to protect themselves 17 52.9% 47.1% Things more deadly than guns 15 40.0% 60.0% Hunting** 5 100.0% 0.0% Gun control leads to fascism** 5 100.0% 0.0%

Politicians and Groups NRA is the obstacle to gun control*** 168 28.0% 72.0% Republicans are the obstacle to gun 141 control*** 22.7% 77.3% Rick Scott*** 127 72.4% 27.6% Trump is an obstacle to gun control* 38 23.7% 76.3% Democrats are obstacle to gun control 22 31.8% 68.2% NRA does good work 15 33.3% 66.7% *More than one frame could appear in content. Total number of stories/editorials = 754. Pearson Chi-Square test (two tailed) *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00. If there were less than 30 cases, a Fishers Exact test was used to check the results.

28 Table 2. Summary of Emails Sent to Scott # of Emails % of emails Gun Control 4,093 100% Associated with Everytown campaign 3,630 88.7% From individuals 463 11.3%

Gun Rights 869 100% Associated with Hammer campaigns 386 44.4% Associated with other groups 40 4.6% From individuals 443 51.0%

29 Table 3. Summary of Gun Control and Gun Rights Hashtags* Hashtag Categories Total Number of Mentions Gun Control Gun Control 3,972 Movement 1,245 Anti-NRA 641 Parkland 96 Political Action 94

Gun Rights Gun Rights 6,772 Politics and Politicians 3,263 Conspiracy/QAnon 1,623 Guns 1,344 Pro-NRA 1,214 American Values 833 Political Opponents 301 Parkland 65 *13,632 tweets used gun control hashtags and 5,682 used gun rights hashtags.

30 Table 4. Most Mentioned Frames in Gun Control Tweets*

Gun Control Common sense regulation needed 13.8% Not all guns are protected 4.0% Gun violence is a social problem 1.8% Gun rights is about racism 1.6% Ban assault rifles 1.6%

Movement Take action 13.6% Support companies championing gun control 8.8%

Politics Anti-NRA 16.0% Anti-Republican 9.0% Anti-Trump 4.0% Pro-Democrats 2.2% Trump triggers gun owners 1.6%

Parkland Support for Parkland students 20.0% Another shooting 3.2%

Other Negative comments about gun rights supporters 11.6% News story shared 3.0% Neutral comment to another user 1.8% Gun owners are violent 1.2% *More than one frame could appear in a tweet. Total number of gun control tweets sampled is 500.

31 Table 5. Most Mentioned Frames in Gun Rights Tweets*

Parkland Related Negative comments about Parkland teens 1.8% Negative comments about Parkland response 1.4%

Reactions to Corporations Pro-gun action 12.4%

Reactions to Opponents Negative comments about liberals 2.0% Negative comments about gun control advocates 2.0% Negative comments about a democrats 2.0%

Reactions to Allies Anti-Trump Action 4.8% Pro-NRA 4.4% Pro-Trump 4.0%

Gun Rights Arguments Pro-gun rights 7.6% Attack on 2a = attack on the Constitution/Democracy 3.4%

Othe r Sharing news content 29.6% Promotional materials 26.4% *More than one frame could appear in a tweet. N = 500.

32 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

The supplementary materials include additional tables as well as expanded versions of tables that were not included in the paper.

Most Mentioned Frames in a Larger Sample of Gun Rights Tweets Parkland Related Negative comments about Parkland teens 1.7% Negative comments about Parkland response 1.1%

Reactions to Corporations Pro gun action 13.0%

Reactions to Opponents Negative comments about liberals 2.0% Negative comments about gun control advocates 1.7% Negative comment about democrats 1.2%

Reactions to Allies Pro-NRA 3.8% Anti-Trump Action 3.4% Pro-Trump 1.7%

Gun Rights Arguments Pro gun rights 6.9% Attack on 2a = attack on the Constitution/Democracy 3.6%

Othe r Promotional materials 34.1% Sharing news content 3.3% *More than one frame could appear in a tweet. Total number of gun rights tweets after irrelevant tweets were excluded is 5,030.

33 Most Mentioned Frames in Emails Sent to Governor Rick Scott Opposing Bill from Individuals Not Associated with a Movement Campaign* Causes of Parkland Failure of law enforcement 31.4% The shooter is to blame 14.9% Failure of school system 11.5%

Bill Specific Action Veto- outright 66.8% Draft a bill that makes sense 16.5% Other suggestions 16.0% Veto- unclear 5.6%

Critiques/Consequences of the Bill Will not prevent anything 40.2% Bill turns gun owners into felons 34.8% Bill punishes gun owners 33.6% If you pass this bill, I won't vote for you 16.3% Bill is proof that Senate is being bullied 16.0% Bill should arm teachers 5.0% Is fiscally irresponsible 3.2%

Gun Rights Gun control represents an attack on the Constitution 40.6% Gun Control is discrimination 20.1% Leave our gun rights alone 11.1% I am a gun owner 10.6% Pro Military/Law Enforcement 5.6% Things more deadly than guns 4.5% Guns protect families, children, communities 4.1% *An email could include multiple frames. The table only includes frames that received at least 10 mentions in the sample. The total number of emails included here is 443.

34 Most Mentioned Hashtags Relative to Gun Control Tweets*

Gun Control N = 3,972 gunsense 1606 guncontrolnow 1291 guncontrol 449 gunreformnow 301 enoughisenough 90

Movement N = 1,245 neveragain 586 Resist 227 marchforourlives 81 anonymous 60 optrump 50

NRA N = 641 NRA 262 boycottNRA 217 NRAbloodmoney 45 boycottFedex 29 NRAisaterroristorganization, boycottNRAsponsors, NRAkillskids 11-20 mentions

Parkland N = 96 Parkland 46 Parklandshooting 19 Parklandstudents 18 floridaschoolshooting, parklandschoolshooting 10 or fewer mentions

Politics N = 94 votethemout 46 I’m with her 15 votethemout2018, midterms2018, bluewave, notmypresident, strongertogether 10 or fewer mentions *A total of 13,632 tweets in the sample used gun control hashtags.

35 Most Mentioned Hashtags Relative to Gun Rights Tweets*

Gun Rights N = 6,772 2a 5186 secondamendment 209 2ndamendment 205 ccw 106 2amendment 93 Politics and Politicians N= 3,263 maga 558 gop 409 rnc 331 trump 296 trumptrain 269 Conspiracy/Qanon N = 1,623 tpp 367 obamagate 190 treason 188 releasethecure 187 releaseeverything 186 Guns N = 1,344 guns 333 tactical 106 pewpew 70 galco 66 gun 62 NRA N = 1,214 nra 1053 teaparty 85 jointhenra, iamthenra, walmart 11-20 mentions America/American Values N = 833 1a 325 wethepeople 207 freedom 71 patriot 63 constitution 32 Opponents N = 301 Dem, qcpoli, hrc, pnpcbc, onpoli 36 each Other N = 121 Parklan d N = 65 Parkland 20 Parklandshooting 16

36 hoggwash, resignsherrifisrael, exposecrisisactors, davidhogg 10 or fewer mentions *A total of 5,682 tweets in the sample used gun control hashtags.

37